As Long As We've Decided To Post Articles From Vanity Fair

I came across this piece a couple of days ago. It's a feature-length piece on the security situation in Pakistan, with particular reference to the Taliban in NWFP, Balochistan, and FATA, not to mention major urban areas like Karachi. Though it is a touch outlandish and over-the-top at times, I highly encourage you read it. In particular, watch out for parts like this, where the writer's driver muses who could be behind the wave of militant violence in the country:

He, like many people here, is not sure where the endless suicide bombings are coming from, but he is sure they are coming from somewhere we least expect: “It’s too easy to say it’s the jihadis. The Secret Service, the government, the C.I.A.—who knows?”

What? No, really...what? Alternatively, you could check out this part, where the writer interviews a man whose son has been badly injured in a bombing:

Elsewhere, Syed Zamir Hasan stands near his 22-year-old son, Syed Ashad, who has shrapnel wounds in his chest from another bombing in a different part of the tribal belt. The father has no idea who was responsible. He moves his son’s arm and makes him expose the bloody wound. The son grimaces in pain.

“People give shelter to the Taliban. That’s all they do,” the father explains. “Because they are afraid. Because of that, they get bombed.” But who is behind the attacks, the military or the jihadists? The man smiles, confused.

You know what confuses me? The source of all this confusion. Seriously. Why are they confused? Why do they shrug their shoulders and say "who knows?" when asked about which organization - the Taliban or the CIA - is carrying out bombings in Pakistan's tribal areas, settled districts, and urban centers?

The contributors of this blog have often poked fun at conspiracy theories and those who hold them dear, but this is getting ridiculous. We are getting to the point where conspiracy theories are actually harming the national security of the state. Why? Because all insurgent organizations - which is what the Taliban is currently functioning as - need the support of the local population to survive and thrive. Mao likened insurgents to fish, and the local population the sea, leading anti-insurgent commanders around the world to conclude that if you can't catch the fish, you have to drain the sea (a thought process that can lead to things like a few hundred thousand Guatemalans dying).

Macabre metaphors notwithstanding, the point remains that the Taliban simply could not be successful if they did not receive the support of the local population - either through positive inducements ("carrots") like quick justice when law and order breaks down, or through fear and intimidation ("sticks"), such as when they threaten truck drivers or kill "spies" in public for "cooperating with the infidels and apostates". An important point, though, is that it is significantly easier for the Taliban to maintain relative popularity if the victims of their violence don't even identify them as the perpetrators.

People like the driver quoted above are perpetuating Taliban power in two important ways, then: first, they are echoing the narrative of the Taliban, which is that they (the Taliban) are not too blame for the violence prevalent in the country, and that responsibility exclusively lies elsewhere, in the form of AAA: the Americans, the Army, and the agencies. Second, and more instrumentally, the people like the driver perpetuate Taliban power by not identifying, let alone condemning, violence from the Taliban, and thus allowing them more local support than they would have under alternate circumstances.

On that happy note, bon weekend.