Mr. Rohde's situation in this video is a lot like the one he faced when held captive. The picture he painted of that experience was a dark and undecipherable as you can imagine. His insight that our view of the Taliban as some static organization is wholly inaccurate was chilling. It seems to be an ever-changing mass, coming together almost transactionally, and then spinning itself into its next iteration. This kind of inherent confusion was buttressed by the realization that the man who kidnapped Rohde was the man he was supposed to interview, a fact he didn't come into possession of until well into his captivity.
I don't know what a shit storm looks like, but the more I read about Afghanistan/Pakistan and the marauding hordes that rule its nether regions, I am definitely getting an image.
@TheSometimesWhy: It frustrates me when Rohde gives the impression that everyone thinks of the Taliban as a strict hierarchy. I know that when I was in Afghanistan, none of the people I worked with thought of it that way, and we all worked to get a better understanding of the various networks and the differing operational methods between each. For Rohde to come back and say how foolish we all are, and please, let him tell us how it really is, is incredibly irritating. #davidrohde
@Adah: I appreciate your frustration, but what if what he is reporting is accurate in the sense that our perceptions are inherently flawed because the thing we are trying to perceive defies static perception? That it is morphing every day into something that defies categorization, let alone a coherent policy for engaging militarily.
I, for one, wouldn't want Mr. Rohde's job, not so much for the obvious danger posed but because the act of communicating what he is learning as the result of being embedded as he is has to be beyond comprehension to most people. #davidrohde
@TheSometimesWhy: Well, of course the insurgency is constantly changing. But from reading Mr. Rohde's five part series from a few weeks ago, I'm not sure his understanding of it is as great as he thinks it is. He was kept in various rooms for seven months, and his main source of information appears to come from the low level men guarding him. The appearances of high level leaders in Rohde's narrative were remarkable because, by his own admission, they were fairly rare. Now, who knows, maybe when his book inevitably comes out, I'll be proven wrong and Rohde will reveal some remarkable details from these conversations with high level leaders. But he certainly didn't have anything terribly revealing in his Times piece that hasn't been said better and with a greater understanding in many other books. #davidrohde
@Adah: I don't see how you can take issue with Mr. Rohde for the lack of high-level leaders being conspicuously absent from his narrative. I dare say he was playing the cards he was dealt, so to speak. I think you're losing sight of the fact that his core mission was to interview the man who ultimately kidnapped him as part of an on-going series of reports. A reporter in the field functioning as Mr. Rohde did is per force sending back a mosaic of what he sees. Over-arching analysis isn't the immediate by-product of the kind of reportage he was responsible for. He is essentially a scout, hopefully a very insightful, well-informed one, but given the environmental obstacles to performing that task, i.e., staying alive, I think he did yeoman's work. What his pieces as they appeared in the NYTs revealed was the insanity of our presence there as currently constituted.
I would hope that people like yourself would wait for Mr. Rohde to have the luxury of some time to distill the sheer viscerality of that experience, and then see what analysis he puts forth. Given what he has been through, it not only seems fair but necessary if we are going to learn anything beyond what he has already imparted. #davidrohde
@TheSometimesWhy: I think it's unlikely that he got the larger picture of how the insurgency functions from talking to some guards. I understand he goes in for a mosaic piece, but you seem to think this will contribute to ground-breaking changes in how we view the Taliban and the Haqqani Network. I disagree. Rohde went in with an outdated and inaccurate impression of Afghan culture and local Taliban politics. That's what got him kidnapped - that and his threat assessment appeared to be limited to asking the advice of one French reporter who'd interviewed the same Taliban leader a few years ago. Rohde failed to update his own understanding of how the Taliban works. I'm not sure that reflects on the U.S. government's or even better informed citizens and reporters' impression of the Taliban.
I would recommend Seth Jones's book In the Graveyard of Empires for a much better understanding of our situation in Afghanistan right now, and how our actions along with local Pashtun culture and history have contributed to the rise of the insurgency in the last few years.
@Adah: Bollocks. Most Afghanis aren't kosher with the Taliban's world view. The Taliban are a foreign influence on Afghanistan from the tribal regions. In the 1970s Afghanistan was a place where hippies used to go to listen to live music and smoke hash. Afghans don't burn down girls schools, the influence of outside Islamist forces (and first-world foreign occupiers) have led to that.
@gawkimo: In the cities, sure. But the country has always been more traditional and rural, even predating the Soviet invasion. The Afghan monarchy basically controlled the large cities and left huge areas of the population for the local tribes to control. When the Soviets invaded, and during the war that followed, those middle and creative classes left the country en masse, most never to return. Those cities are all a lot less hippie-ish today. About one million fled to Iran, about three million to Pakistan. The Taliban emerged out of those Pakistani refugee camps along the border, from Peshawer down to Balochistan. In that instance, I suppose you're right, but the Taliban was always a Pashtun power, and in some ways that's more important than what side of the border it originated on. Most Pashtuns consider the Pashtun area of Pakistan to practically be part of Afghanistan anyway. In addition, many of these insurgents were already radicalized in the 1970s. It's not al Al Qaeda coming in and changing the poor defenseless Pashtun people. See Gulbuddin Hekmatyr in the 1970s and 1980s.
I didn't mean to imply that all Afghans are Taliban sympathizers. In this you are correct. But they're a lot more scared of the Taliban than they are of us. If the Taliban (and I'm using Taliban as shorthand for the various insurgent networks active in Afghanistan) tells them to never breathe a word when Americans are around or they'll kill their family, you can bet they're not going to be overly helpful. On top of this, the rural areas are still much more conservative and more likely to be sympathetic to the Taliban than they are to us. Our COIN strategy, if we choose to keep following it, has us supposedly withdrawing from these areas as they are so hard to control. These are the areas where you get your battles of Wanat or battle at COP Keating. #davidrohde
@Adah: Even in the traditional, rural countryside: they don't like the Taliban any more than the foreign occupiers. These are tribal folks who will side with anyone (Muslim or otherwise) who a.) Leave them alone and b.) pay them more. These folks don't sympathize with the Taliban for being "more conservative" -- they sympathize with anyone who adheres to a.) and b.). #davidrohde
@Adah: I would also point out that the Mughal Empire basically began in Afghanistan (well, Samarkand, but mostly in what we call Afghanistan today) and those Muslims drank alcohol and depicted Muhammad in paintings. Afghanistan is not the Whahabbist Kingdom we portray it to be. They are moderates when it come to religion -- they are radicals when it come to foreign intervention -- we can thank the Russians for that. #davidrohde
It's her mother for her crying out loud! She can do anything. Screw the critics. Let them experience an assassination in the family and let's see what they can come up with.
@EdnaAcrisius: I think the point--which may, of course, be argued--is whether Gawker readers care about/are aware of what's going on in Gaza/Israel/Palestine. I see that a few do.
@gawkimo Let me shove some rinky dink rockets up your ass after we're done with Hanukah tonight, dear.
Golda Meir said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children as much as they hate the Jews. There will not be peace when one side wants the kids to go to Michigan and some of the other side ( not all) want their kids to become martyrs.
@sweetcaroline: Perhaps not turning Gaza into a ghetto would help too, dear. Also: Arabs don't give much of a crap about all this "Third Temple" bullshit -- all they know is land was taken for some Europeans after the West -- so guilty about allowing and empowering the slaughter of Jews -- decided to carve out a state for the survivors. For the record; I support Israel's right to exist, even if they act like assholes, and I think the Palestinians are insane. So shove that up your ass instead.
@gawkimo: By the way. If a kid throws a brick through your window, that doesn't give you moral high ground to beat up his family. Israel makes this mistake over and over again. Some militants kidnap two soldiers, so Israel rains illegal cluster bomblets (sold to them by the US in flagrant violation of world consensus on banned weapons that specifically target civilians) over half of Lebanon? I hate to sound like Dr. Phil, but "Hey Israel, how's that workin' out for ya?"
Ok, for the inbreds out there, here's an essay question: Let's say the rockets and bombs and kidnappings stop completely. In 50 words or less explain why Israel would continue to defend itself.
@wonky-tonk: I agree with Uncle Billy. Israel's only solution is a Final One for those people who claim Israeli land. That would suit Livni fine. She's insane.
I see a blogger/"journalist" trying to be an authority about topics a historian really should be talking about.
But anyway. Mainstream news media has lost all credibility in my eyes. I avoid watching it altogether. It makes me so pissed off. Why? To try to sum it up in one sentence; Because they misinform and sensationalize.
@SamCity: speaking as one with a PhD in history, don't call the historians in. That never settles anything. And, as a bonus, we'll have Pope John Peeps getting his mitre in a bunch about people choosing sides.
@SamThornton: The Pppe can blow me. That mutherfucker's* killed more Africans preaching against contraception than anyone has killed anyone in Israel and the occupied lands.
* By "that motherfucker" I mean the figurative Pope -- this ex-Nazi one and all the others that would prefer Africans die from AIDS as punishment for pre-marital sex than bring Catholicism into the 21st centruy by promoting the use of contraception as the greater good. But now we digress. . .
Nice. A news story that Owen admits isn't really news, a grotesque picture of a dead Hamas security agent (i've seen it elsewhere), just another tit for tat in the "Holy" Land during the Christmas season. Palestinians had been peppering Israel with rockets for a while in return for some previous Israeli offense, Israel makes threats, and then makes good. Next Hamas will shot someone or something, or maybe torch a school bus full of kids, because what the hell, it's Christmas. Just another crank of the bullshit grinder that is the Middle East.
Can we please get back to nasty people doing tacky things? This serious news shit is really bringing me down, and frankly, i don't need the help.
Tit = Launching little rinky-dink missiles with 10-mile ranges into homes in places like Sderot that damage homes but whose residents have been amply warned and protected by an Israeli state that actually cares about its citizens (as opposed to the Hamas government, which doesn't give a shit about its civilians and is little more than a two-bit gang of corrupt Arab big men assholes backed by pan-Arabist dictators with heads up their asses hoping to exploite the Palestinian cause so as to keep their own populaces form hacking their heads off).
Tat = Massive Israeli air assault (with weapons the US practically gives to them) with only general efforts to avoid killing too many civilian non-combatants: 200 dead, 700 wounded (so far). But by creating so much meat, Israel also creates more people that want it to be destroyed. Anything that kills non-combatants as collective punishment against strong men that have iron grips on these people and treat them like shit is bound to end up being a bad thing to do.
Answer: Happy New Year! Have another drink! I know I will. Chin chin! Thank God, Allah AND YHVH that I 'm not over there!
@gawkimo: Although your post is as insensitive as Hydroceph's. One murder doesn't really mean less than 50 even though it may seem to. And Israel's response is no less stupidly crude than the Palestinian provocation. Both sides thrive on blood.
@gawkimo: I take it you've never been to Sderot. Not a fun place to visit. I also wouldn't want to live there. Obviously the situation is not even close to as serious as it is in Gaza, but when your kids are walking home from school and you hear those bomb sirens go off, trust me, you're not rationalizing in your head going, "Well, those little rinky dink rockets really aren't that accurate, I'm not concerned." And considering what Israel is capable of, I'd argue that they have shown a little bit of restraint. Since when is war supposed to be fair?
That being said, the one thing I've ever enjoyed that Keith Gessen wrote was when he called the Israelis assholes and the Palestinians idiots. Idiots should learn not to provoke assholes. My major problem with Israel is it's failure to reward Gaza for the truce. True, it wasn't the most maintained truce, but if they give you six months of relative peace, you need to concede something, to show them it was worth it.
Oh and also, Owen, this was a remarkably stupid post. Were you trying to give us some big picture insight a la "Even though it's the holidays, people in the world are still mean and don't care!" Brilliant observation.
@Pope John Peeps II: Actually, one murder is indeed "less" than 50. One murder is the elimination of one human being. Fifty is the elimination of 50. You really don't want to go into he warped logic that one death equals the death of everyone. I recommend you weigh meat. Insensitive? Perhaps. On the other hand, saying killing 49 other people is morally equivalent to killing just one is kinda of insensitive to 49 other people who might disagree.
I've never been to anyplace in Gaza, either, but I suspect that mommies are concerned about their babies walking home from Palestinian schools, too.
And statistically speaking, those mommies should be more concerned, since their babies have a grater chance of dying. Mommies, babies. We're always appealing to those mommy/baby things aren't we? What about grown men? Don't they count? Ir is it like Bill Hicks says: "once you turn 18 you're off my love list."
@Pope John Peeps II: Insensitive? No, just tired of it. There are no easy answers, despite attempts to pull some out of the collective middle-eastern ass. What is to be gained by posting this story on this website? This isn't news, it isn't really fodder for the snark that goes on around here, and it doesn't lend itself to any kind of just solution.
Big bad Israelis launching well-armed military incursions, or the only democracy in the area trying to preserve its right to exist in the face of myriad and explicit attempts to wipe it off the map? Terrorists and dupes of regional powers who really don't want these people (Palestinians) on their soil targeting civilians in Israel, or a guerrilla response on the part of an elected government in the face of vastly superior fire power?
It's just another iteration of the circle-jerks of blood and violence in the region. I agree with you this far, yes, both sides have come to depend on the blood and violence. Without them, they have no raison d'etre. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic, and this conflict is well into the realm of the statistical.
@Hydroceph: I'm just saying it's obvious you have a side chosen. And that one side is not somehow "good" just because you happen to sympathize with them.
@gawkimo: I'm just saying that a purposeful act of murder by one side is as bad an act as a larger military action by the other. Both have the intention of murder, regardless of the outcome. It's just that one has larger means and ability than the other.
@Pope John Peeps II: "hold water hard, oarsman!" screamed the plucky little cox'n.
I'm not sure you can say it's "obvious" i've "chosen" one side over the other. What is this, grade-school PE? "Coach, coach! I want the Israelis on my team, everyone knows how athletic Jews are!"
Big bad Israelis launching well-armed military incursions, or the only democracy in the area trying to preserve its right to exist in the face of myriad and explicit attempts to wipe it off the map? Terrorists and dupes of regional powers who really don't want these people (Palestinians) on their soil targeting civilians in Israel, or a guerrilla response on the part of an elected government in the face of vastly superior fire power?
That's choosing a side? Huh.
Insofar as it's pertinent, yes, i sympathize with the Israelis. Terrorists and suicide bombers do nothing for me but want to call in an air-strike to burn them out root and branch. That said, and thinking here too of American actions in Iraq, were i in the position of burying my young son because of this, i'd be hurling Molotov cocktails and strapping TNT to my chest, too.
As i said, there are no easy answers, and every individual death is a tragedy. All of them together on both side are still tragic, and the entire situation approaches an ancient Greek drama in the scale of the tragedy. Unfortunately, we have no deus ex machina to solve it. Hillary Clinton will have no more luck than Kindalousy Rice.
@Pope John Peeps II: "a purposeful act of murder by one side is as bad an act as a larger military action by the other."
Palestinian militants kidnapping soldiers does not equal the response of raining cluster bombs over half of Lebanon.
Some may believe that military response that kills civilian non-combatants is OK if those uppity civilians don't do something about the terrorists in their midst.
Some may also beleive that they have a right to target civilians on land they say was stolen from them.
Some beleive the land didn't belone to anyone, therefore it was there for the taking.
That's what the British said when they started taking land in North Ameirca. The Native Americans didn't claim the land the way Western mentalities claim land, with flags and nations, but they nevertheless lived on it and farmed and otherwise had ownership of it until a superior military force pushed them off of it, labeled rebels as terrorists, and target them and their families for annihilation each time they rose up and fought, sometimes doing bad things themselves (like scalping settlers).
And when the Indians fought back, sometimes killing inncent civilians, they were labeled terrorists and massacres by a superior military force. Eventually they were relegated to reservations to live in poverty until they submit by being culturally broken to integrating with the dominant society.
11/13/09
I don't know what a shit storm looks like, but the more I read about Afghanistan/Pakistan and the marauding hordes that rule its nether regions, I am definitely getting an image.
And it is not pretty. #davidrohde
11/13/09
11/13/09
I, for one, wouldn't want Mr. Rohde's job, not so much for the obvious danger posed but because the act of communicating what he is learning as the result of being embedded as he is has to be beyond comprehension to most people. #davidrohde
11/13/09
11/13/09
I would hope that people like yourself would wait for Mr. Rohde to have the luxury of some time to distill the sheer viscerality of that experience, and then see what analysis he puts forth. Given what he has been through, it not only seems fair but necessary if we are going to learn anything beyond what he has already imparted. #davidrohde
11/13/09
I would recommend Seth Jones's book In the Graveyard of Empires for a much better understanding of our situation in Afghanistan right now, and how our actions along with local Pashtun culture and history have contributed to the rise of the insurgency in the last few years.
[www.amazon.com] #davidrohde
11/13/09
11/13/09
I didn't mean to imply that all Afghans are Taliban sympathizers. In this you are correct. But they're a lot more scared of the Taliban than they are of us. If the Taliban (and I'm using Taliban as shorthand for the various insurgent networks active in Afghanistan) tells them to never breathe a word when Americans are around or they'll kill their family, you can bet they're not going to be overly helpful. On top of this, the rural areas are still much more conservative and more likely to be sympathetic to the Taliban than they are to us. Our COIN strategy, if we choose to keep following it, has us supposedly withdrawing from these areas as they are so hard to control. These are the areas where you get your battles of Wanat or battle at COP Keating. #davidrohde
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
01/07/09
01/07/09
01/07/09
01/07/09
01/07/09
12/29/08
Vapid.
12/29/08
12/28/08
12/27/08
Golda Meir said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children as much as they hate the Jews.
There will not be peace when one side wants the kids to go to Michigan and some of the other side ( not all) want their kids to become martyrs.
12/28/08
12/28/08
12/28/08
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/28/08
12/27/08
But anyway. Mainstream news media has lost all credibility in my eyes. I avoid watching it altogether. It makes me so pissed off. Why? To try to sum it up in one sentence; Because they misinform and sensationalize.
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/27/08
* By "that motherfucker" I mean the figurative Pope -- this ex-Nazi one and all the others that would prefer Africans die from AIDS as punishment for pre-marital sex than bring Catholicism into the 21st centruy by promoting the use of contraception as the greater good. But now we digress. . .
12/27/08
Can we please get back to nasty people doing tacky things? This serious news shit is really bringing me down, and frankly, i don't need the help.
12/27/08
12/27/08
Tit = Launching little rinky-dink missiles with 10-mile ranges into homes in places like Sderot that damage homes but whose residents have been amply warned and protected by an Israeli state that actually cares about its citizens (as opposed to the Hamas government, which doesn't give a shit about its civilians and is little more than a two-bit gang of corrupt Arab big men assholes backed by pan-Arabist dictators with heads up their asses hoping to exploite the Palestinian cause so as to keep their own populaces form hacking their heads off).
Tat = Massive Israeli air assault (with weapons the US practically gives to them) with only general efforts to avoid killing too many civilian non-combatants: 200 dead, 700 wounded (so far). But by creating so much meat, Israel also creates more people that want it to be destroyed. Anything that kills non-combatants as collective punishment against strong men that have iron grips on these people and treat them like shit is bound to end up being a bad thing to do.
Answer: Happy New Year! Have another drink! I know I will. Chin chin! Thank God, Allah AND YHVH that I 'm not over there!
12/27/08
12/27/08
That being said, the one thing I've ever enjoyed that Keith Gessen wrote was when he called the Israelis assholes and the Palestinians idiots. Idiots should learn not to provoke assholes. My major problem with Israel is it's failure to reward Gaza for the truce. True, it wasn't the most maintained truce, but if they give you six months of relative peace, you need to concede something, to show them it was worth it.
Oh and also, Owen, this was a remarkably stupid post. Were you trying to give us some big picture insight a la "Even though it's the holidays, people in the world are still mean and don't care!" Brilliant observation.
12/27/08
12/27/08
I've never been to anyplace in Gaza, either, but I suspect that mommies are concerned about their babies walking home from Palestinian schools, too.
And statistically speaking, those mommies should be more concerned, since their babies have a grater chance of dying. Mommies, babies. We're always appealing to those mommy/baby things aren't we? What about grown men? Don't they count? Ir is it like Bill Hicks says: "once you turn 18 you're off my love list."
12/27/08
12/27/08
Big bad Israelis launching well-armed military incursions, or the only democracy in the area trying to preserve its right to exist in the face of myriad and explicit attempts to wipe it off the map? Terrorists and dupes of regional powers who really don't want these people (Palestinians) on their soil targeting civilians in Israel, or a guerrilla response on the part of an elected government in the face of vastly superior fire power?
It's just another iteration of the circle-jerks of blood and violence in the region. I agree with you this far, yes, both sides have come to depend on the blood and violence. Without them, they have no raison d'etre. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic, and this conflict is well into the realm of the statistical.
12/27/08
@gawkimo: I'm just saying that a purposeful act of murder by one side is as bad an act as a larger military action by the other. Both have the intention of murder, regardless of the outcome. It's just that one has larger means and ability than the other.
12/27/08
I'm not sure you can say it's "obvious" i've "chosen" one side over the other. What is this, grade-school PE? "Coach, coach! I want the Israelis on my team, everyone knows how athletic Jews are!"
Big bad Israelis launching well-armed military incursions, or the only democracy in the area trying to preserve its right to exist in the face of myriad and explicit attempts to wipe it off the map? Terrorists and dupes of regional powers who really don't want these people (Palestinians) on their soil targeting civilians in Israel, or a guerrilla response on the part of an elected government in the face of vastly superior fire power?
That's choosing a side? Huh.
Insofar as it's pertinent, yes, i sympathize with the Israelis. Terrorists and suicide bombers do nothing for me but want to call in an air-strike to burn them out root and branch. That said, and thinking here too of American actions in Iraq, were i in the position of burying my young son because of this, i'd be hurling Molotov cocktails and strapping TNT to my chest, too.
As i said, there are no easy answers, and every individual death is a tragedy. All of them together on both side are still tragic, and the entire situation approaches an ancient Greek drama in the scale of the tragedy. Unfortunately, we have no deus ex machina to solve it. Hillary Clinton will have no more luck than Kindalousy Rice.
12/28/08
Palestinian militants kidnapping soldiers does not equal the response of raining cluster bombs over half of Lebanon.
Some may believe that military response that kills civilian non-combatants is OK if those uppity civilians don't do something about the terrorists in their midst.
Some may also beleive that they have a right to target civilians on land they say was stolen from them.
Some beleive the land didn't belone to anyone, therefore it was there for the taking.
That's what the British said when they started taking land in North Ameirca. The Native Americans didn't claim the land the way Western mentalities claim land, with flags and nations, but they nevertheless lived on it and farmed and otherwise had ownership of it until a superior military force pushed them off of it, labeled rebels as terrorists, and target them and their families for annihilation each time they rose up and fought, sometimes doing bad things themselves (like scalping settlers).
And when the Indians fought back, sometimes killing inncent civilians, they were labeled terrorists and massacres by a superior military force. Eventually they were relegated to reservations to live in poverty until they submit by being culturally broken to integrating with the dominant society.
Such is history!