The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Inside the Taliban Shuffle

By Joshua Foust, March 2, 2011 Share

Not many women can say that Nawaz Sharif,Pakistan's troubled former prime minister, tried to set her up on a date with aPakistani man. Kim Barker, the author of TheTaliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan, can do thatone better: she can say Sharif tried to set her up with Asif Ali Zardari, the presidentof Pakistan.

Barker, appropriately, declined Sharif's kindinvitation; she also had to decline, sometime later, Sharif's invitation to behis latest mistress. Her surreal book is chock full of such ridiculousexperiences, whether the grabby, eve-teasing crowds ofPakistani men in Peshawar or the uncomfortably flirtatious former Afghanattorney general, Abdul Jabar Sabit. Barker, a former Chicago Tribune correspondent now with ProPublica, recounts nearlya decade of soul-wrenching zaniness, perpetrated in equal parts by the Afghans,Pakistanis, and the white people moving amongst them both, with a good sense ofhumor. This is funny stuff, it's true. But it's also very sad.

In chunks of her book, for example, Barker usesAfghans not as vessels to explain and humanize the war but as props to furtherher own decadence. Even now, as she uses catharsis to cleanse her soul, thetragedy of their lives is given little more than a throwaway line at the end ofa chapter or two. That time a British journalist kissed her while she wastrying to use the bathroom at a whites-only guesthouse in Kabul? Four pages.Beyond the cliché-ridden prose and a meekly attempted sardonic shake of thehead, her book denies Afghans agency, personhood, and choice. She attempts toexplain how she fell into deep burnout sometime in 2009; how the weight of allthe bad policy finally dragged her down; how the unending corruption ofAfghanistan and the casual brutality of Pakistan wore her out. But even herbest friends there seem to be little more than ciphers representing the sumtotal of their respective country's people.

Then there are the constant clichés. A decadeafter U.S. troops first assaulted Afghanistan, it is difficult to discuss thewar without resorting to clichés. They permeate everything written about thecountry, whether the people (tribal, venal, obsessed with sex and animals andporn and drugs and politics), the landscape (a "moonscape," to be more precise,as if America lacks deserts or mountains), or the fighting (bloody, Taliban,IEDs, ambush, airstrike). In a way, writing a book written entirely in clichémakes sense, if seen as a meta-commentary on the slipshod disservice thejournalistic community has done the American public in not properly covering theplace.

Alas, that is not what Barker has done. In Taliban Shuffle, she recounts all ofthose journalistic clichés, but she doesn't seem aware of what they are. Shecomplains bitterly at the "criminal negligence" of Afghanistan by theInternational Community from 2002 to 2006, but she can barely give more than afill-in-the-blanks description of what happened right in front of her nose. Ina real way, she is repeating and amplifying the journalistic sins that havebeset Afghanistan almost as much as the West's military and political misstepsthere, but rather than purging her guilt for participating in it, she seemsonly interested in explaining why her life was so difficult being a seniorreporter for a major, though bankrupt, newspaper.

That's not to complain of Barker's attempts tohumanize herself. Having been a very brief witness to the expat scene in Kabul-- a kaleidoscopic bacchanalia of excess and debauchery -- the need forcatharsis from being a participant for so long is obvious. It is only at theend of her tale, when Pakistan's frightening power politics has frightened hermore than the Taliban's IEDs ever did, when her unemployment finally promptedher to reconsider her choices and her options, and her own self awareness pokesthrough the haze of nihilism so many foreign correspondents develop, thatBarker seeks solace in reality.

But that's probably the point anyway. Barker isnot writing about Afghanistan, but about the disconnected, decadent,exploitative foreigners who write about Afghanistan. In this, her book is aprobing -- and uncomfortably hilarious -- glimpse inside the universe so manyof our foreign correspondents inhabit. It is a universe where Afghanistan islittle more than Kabul with occasional field trips elsewhere; where Pakistan isboring Islamabad punctuated by bombs in other cities; where it's normal to livein hotels and attend fabulous parties at mansions where all the locals speakEnglish and drink wine. For exposing this world for the hollow fraud it is,Barker deserves enormous praise.

One anecdote in particular summarizes so much ofwhat's gone wrong in the coverage of the war. It is right at the very beginning,when Barker is in Gardez City in 2002. She is about to interview Pacha KhanZadran, a warlord who probably best symbolizes everything that went wrong withthe government's attempt to integrate the warlords that had choked the countryfor almost a decade. Installed as the governor of Paktia in 2001, Pacha Khanwas then removed when local tribes essentially rebelled against hisleadership. During the ensuing clashes, Pacha Khan's forces shelled Gardez, killingupwards of 50 civilians -- and polarized the entire area into pro- andanti-Pachan Khan factions. By September of 2002 the U.S. military -- under thecommand of future ISAF commander Dan McNeill -- ended their relationship withPacha Khan's forces, creating a power vacuum. Pacha Khan became locked in adeadly rivalry with another tribal elder, Hakim Taniwal, over who gets controland influence of Khost's politics (Taniwal later mysteriously diedin a suicide car bombing; the culprits were never identified). It was a totalmess.

Barker walks into this situation and describesPacha Khan's murder of civilians as throwing a temper tantrum "apparentlybecause no one was paying enough attention to him." She imagines herself beingat the mercy of his Pashtunwali, as his son had just been killed.  She is fascinated by his interiordecorator. Barker describes herself as ignorant, and this is true (thoughalmost everyone was at this point in the war). But what's so troubling is, overthe next six years Barker develops a sense of how palace politics work inKabul, how disconnected the U.S. military is from the streets of Kabul, even ofthe tragedy of the Taliban's unanswered campaign to execute all thepro-government elders in Kandahar. But she never seems to develop an understandingof Afghanistan itself, and her time in Pakistan seems limited to coveringsuicide bombs and flirting with Nawaz Sharif.

These things matter in both countries. No onecould deny that. But they are also only a part of the story. Events in Kabulwill not dictate the country's future. Events in the countryside, where peoplemake decisions to support or reject the many different sides to the war -- that'swhat will dictate Afghanistan's future. Pakistan's future, too, is out in thetribal areas, in the endless brown-green hills of Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa, and not,ultimately, in Rawalpindi. Barker is not unique in focusing on the easiestparts of either country in her reporting -- and in fact, I'd place her near thetop of foreign correspondents who've covered both. But the system she reportedfor, the much-hated SamZell-ification of her paper the ChicagoTribune only among the most explicitly distasteful, simply never botheredto understand Afghanistan as a place filled with people, rather than a warfilled with combat.

In a way, that is the real tragedy Barkerexplains in Taliban Shuffle, thoughshe's not nearly that specific. Despite her friendships with well-to-do,educated, English-speaking Kabulis, her one trip to the Arghandab didn't reallyteach her much about how Kandahar works. Her brief interview with Pacha Khandidn't help her understand Gardez's nasty politics. Living in a mansion inIslamabad only helps you understand so much of what drives Pakistan'shorrifying slow-motion implosion. If nothing else, Barker's book is a perfectencapsulation of the many flaws of international reporters -- their obsessions,neuroses, failures to understand the stories sitting right in front of them -- whereinterviewing captured impoverished Taliban in a prison substitutes for actuallyunderstanding what motivates people to plant bombs and fire mortars into acity. Read as a summary of how and why the U.S. got so many things wrong aboutthe war, Taliban Shuffle is justabout perfect.

Joshua Foust isa fellow at the American Security Project and the author of AfghanistanJournal: Selections from Registan.net. Heblogs about Central Asia at www.registan.net.

DMITRY KOSTYUKOV/AFP/Getty Images

 

MARTY MARTEL

11:10 AM ET

March 2, 2011

U. S. responsible for this continuing Afghan tragedy

The roots of the ‘real current Afghan tragedy’ are less in Afghan countryside and more in Washington where Bush administration decided to allow Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan (now relocated to Karachi by Pakistani ISI to protect them from possible US drone attacks) and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

Adm Mullen had following to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again it, [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LET (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”

And previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money, diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

However US has been deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

With an ally like Pakistan, US misery and Afghan tragedy were bound to continue and will continue until……

 

SHADCAL

12:19 PM ET

March 2, 2011

Chutzba

Mr. Foust:

For someone who claims to have "spent the vast majority of his adult life doing defense and intelligence consulting" and very little time in Afghanistan (compared to Barker's 6+ years), it shocking to read such a pretentious and critical review.

While you harangue journalists who are based in Kabul and, shock, have a good time on the weekend, I'm assuming you're posting this from your comfortable office at the American Security Project in DC. Do you ever go out with your friends and have a good time? Or do you consider that enjoying a "kaleidoscopic bacchanalia of excess and debauchery" (BTW - who writes like this?)

Mr. Foust, I find your review immature, insecure and naive of what it takes to be a good journalist, such as Barker. There are plenty of other excellent journalists (who I'm sure you know) like Coughlin, Gall, Partlow, Wood, Rosenberg, North, Chivers, Rubin, and several others have who put themselves in harms way constantly, yet are/were based in Kabul. Do you really think you could base yourself out of Kandahar? Or Jalalabad? In fact, why aren't you based there, Josh?

It's ironic, you write about Barker's use of cliches, but you ARE a cliche. You're a typical snotty wanna-be intellectual, stuck behind his desk in DC, vicariously living through all those journalists I just mentioned.

Good luck with that.

 

BRITJOURNALIST

11:13 PM ET

March 5, 2011

DC Afghan Experts clearly know best.

Dear Sir,

I read your rambling review of Kim Barker's book in some confusion. Your criticisms of her lack of understanding of the real Afghanistan, and lack of empathy with real Afghans, just didn't seem to chime with reality. Kim Barker's countless articles for the Chicago Tribune were notable for giving voice to Afghans, and for going beyond the stereotypes of bearded-Taliban and bombs. I also know that Kim spent years in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and travelled throughout both countries, often at great personal risk, to interview Afghans who would otherwise not have their side of the story heard. I gather from your own account, as a "brief witness to the Kabul" scene, that you have spent somewhat less time in Afghanistan.

But then I also understand you are a columnist, blogger, fellow and all-round expert on Intelligence and all things Afghanistan. So I bow to your superior knowledge and insight into Afghanistan. After all, what do I know? I am just a journalist who's worked in Afghanistan since 1999, often spending five months a year on each trip. I've travelled all over Afghanistan, and made five documentaries about the country and its people. I made the first ever documentary about the Taliban regime back in 2001 for the BBC, (Tea with the Taliban), and made the first documentary about the present Taliban insurgency, (Meeting the Taliban.) And I also spent 3 months as a hostage in Bajaur, after being kidnapped by the Taliban.....
and you know what? Oddly enough, in all that time I never came across you in Afghanistan. And yet I met Kim on countless occassions, in remote places and not just in her bathroom where we kissed! (Only four pages? It was worth a chapter in itself.)
I also based my award-winning film, Afghan Ladies Driving School, on an article of Kim's....and oddly enough, I've never found the reason to turn to your expertise on Afghanistan for research purposes. But again, maybe I should climb up to your ivory tower in DC to get a better view of the ground reality in Afghanistan. Then I wouldn't need to travel there and spend months on the ground to make my films. Infact, maybe all the journalists who've devoted their time, energies - and in many cases Mr Foust - their lives, to understanding Afghanistan and giving voice to the people....should just follow your lead and move to DC. Maybe then we could be called experts, and start blogging and commenting and get fellowships. But then I guess there are enough Afghan experts in DC, and clearly - they all know what they're talking about.
yours sincerely,
and drinks in L'Atmosphere are on me!

 

CEOUNICOM

12:12 AM ET

March 10, 2011

Hot Damn...

....Mr. Foust, you are getting "pwned", as the kids say.