A Deadly Triangle

In a new essay, A Deadly Triangle: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, William Dalrymple provides a breezy yet insightful overview of the conflict in the region and presents scenarios, including hopeful ones, for the region after the Americans leave Afghanistan. Thoughts?

The hostility between India and Pakistan lies at the heart of the current war in Afghanistan. Most observers in the West view the Afghanistan conflict as a battle between the U.S. and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on one hand, and al-Qaida and the Taliban on the other. In reality this has long since ceased to be the case. Instead our troops are now caught up in a complex war shaped by two pre-existing and overlapping conflicts: one local and internal, the other regional.

Within Afghanistan, the war is viewed primarily as a Pashtun rebellion against President Hamid Karzai’s regime, which has empowered three other ethnic groups—the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the north—to a degree that the Pashtuns resent. For example, the Tajiks, who constitute only 27% of the Afghan population, still make up 70% of the officers in the Afghan army.

More here.

Comments

[Nivedita]

William Darlymple is wrong. The conflict in Afghanistan was fuelled and is perpetuated mostly by Pakistan’s policies that have nothing to do with India. These do a good job refuting the Brookings report:

http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2013/06/a-deadly-line/
http://www.firstpost.com/world/why-us-shouldnt-accept-dalrymples-reading-of-afghan-history-906085.html

[Namit]

Nivedita,

There are many ways to look at this complex conflict, each of which may identify a different set of — and/or assign different relative weights to — contributing factors. For e.g., I think that Dalrymple really downplays the U.S.-Saudi role during the Cold War and its poisonous legacy in the current AfPak mess (which may well be what the folks at Brookings want to hear). A friend noted, fairly I think, that Dalrymple diminishes the role of Afghanistan's non-recognition of the Durand line. One can reasonably argue that he is partly wrong. That said, I think he is also right about a lot of stuff. Here is an analysis of the Dalrymple piece that somewhat counters the ones you posted above. It comes from a "foreign Affairs and Security editor at Centre Right India", so the writer is not exactly Dalrymple's ideological brother either.

http://jaideepprabhu.org/2013/06/26/beware-the-stories-your-friends-tell/