Thank you, Tristan Abbey, for your post. I was obviously a bit too telegraphic. Let me expand. I'm in fact making three arguments, each of which we might discuss separately. They are:

1) The policy of negotiating with the Taliban before defeating them is disastrous.

2) Turkey, as Michael correctly notes, is struggling to contain its own extremist Islamist elements; the last thing it needs is a Taliban contingent, endowed with international legitimacy, in Istanbul. 

3) It is unfair to intimate, as Michael does, that this initiative is evidence of Turkey's Islamist orientation and unreliability as a NATO ally if indeed we are quietly backing it.

I'll add, moreover, that this would seem to be part of a Western pattern of encouraging Turkey to treat itself as an Islamist garbage dump when it suits whatever idiotic idea of "Western interests" we're promoting at the moment--usually some malign, misguided venture to "promote moderate Islamism"--and then screaming to the heavens that Turkey is "going Islamist" when in fact we've been quietly pushing the policy. I'd offer the example of the British Foreign Office's funding Qaradawi's visit to Istanbul among many, many others. 

Michael has done important work on Turkey. I particularly admire this piece on Green Money and Islamist politics. But sometimes he makes assertions that require better sourcing or more context. I don't see how this helps anything: Surely there is enough to criticize in reality that he needn't muddy the water? When the water is thus muddied, it makes it too easy for Turks to dismiss his legitimate criticism, which is constructive and necessary. It all becomes, "Well, Michael just hates us." 

I'll come back to arguments one and two later today or tomorrow. By the way, I extend a warm invitation to Michael Rubin to come join us on Ricochet to talk about this--as I do to Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selçuk Ünal.  

The Taliban is not invited. There are people with whom you can disagree but respect and talk to profitably, and there are people you can't. 

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Tristan Abbey
Joined
Jan '11
Tristan Abbey

Thanks for responding, Claire. I certainly have no problem with your third point; as for the second, that's kind of up to Turkey, but I'd tend to agree with you on that as well. But your first point -- "The policy of negotiating with the Taliban before defeating them is disastrous" -- doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you negotiate with an enemy you've already defeated?

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

We seem to be alone on this thread, which alarms me. Isn't this a really serious, major national conversation we need to be having? 

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

I think you can, with reasonable certainty, blame Canada for the "negotiate with the Taliban" meme.

Shukria Barakzai, a Pashtun MP and a women’s rights campaigner, told the Guardian recently: “I changed my view [of the Taliban] three years ago when I realised Afghanistan is on its own. It’s not that the international community doesn’t support us. They just don’t understand us. The Taliban is part of our population. It has different ideas—but as democrats we have to accept that.”

Edited on Apr 14, 2011 at 8:13am

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In