I came across one article that was written on Foreign Affairs, presenting Prof. John Mueller of Political Science Ohio State University. With the eye-catching title as : "How Dangerous Are the Taliban?"
Basically Prof. Mueller underlined of what he has emphasized on his summary as The Taliban and al Qaeda may not pose enough of a threat to the United States to make a long war in Afghanistan worth the costs. Further more he says:
His arguments fell on the remarks that clearly justified as :
But labeling "highly un-likely" to host provocative terrorist groups is untrue. The Taliban is excessively corroborated with any terrorist groups merely because they are posing a positive effect on backing up Taliban-utopia. Any terrorist group are perceived by the Taliban to erect martyrdom to uphold Sharia-Law and as well to give the Taliban more world's attention toward them.
I would say, that it was poor journalism and ludicrous thought of Prof. Mueller to the fact that he has emphasized Taliban as "several hundreds men running around Af-Pak region", thus threat significance are minimal to United States.
Clearly, it does alarmingly understate the dangers posed by Talibans as well its linkage to al Qaeda and many Drug-lords as Kingpin.
This Narco-dollar is the only ticket played by Taliban to supply their columns with modern weaponry. With the help of syndicated of well-connected intelligences in Pakistan, they might acquire best weaponry in black market including its training. Furthermore, nuclear non-Proliferation is extremely important, so the enemy has no chance in acquiring nuclear (dirty-bomb) within U.S border.
EPILOG
Prof. Mueller makes several assumptions without providing any sufficient backups. As well he uses selective sampling by quoting failing support for Al-Qaeda from Muslim world. He fails to provide any proof for this assertions although Pew conducts global survey's on this very topic. Also, if Al Qaeda was as despised as the author infers then why haven't locals turned Osama in? What explains the ample supply of Al-Qaeda's propaganda available for purchase in any bazaar in Quetta or Peshawar?
This will rise a question on how dangerous are un-informed experts to pose as "a supplier" of facts that it can be cited upon by others to backup their thoughts as well? Having his opinion being posted on such celebrated tabloid of journalism as Foreign Affairs.
Basically Prof. Mueller underlined of what he has emphasized on his summary as The Taliban and al Qaeda may not pose enough of a threat to the United States to make a long war in Afghanistan worth the costs. Further more he says:
President Barack Obama insists that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is about "making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies" or "project violence against" American citizens. The reasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the president puts it, *1(NYT,03-27-09) Afghanistan would "again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." This argument is constantly repeated but rarely examined; given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region, it is time such statements be given the scrutiny they deserve.
Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks -- which the Taliban had nothing to do with -- led to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the "AfPak" region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.
His arguments fell on the remarks that clearly justified as :
Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the “AfPak” region, if it came to power again now, it would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention.Which in my opinion is somewhat true. Taliban seems to be home-grown around "AfPak" region. In other words, they do not have any positive interaction with any terrorist groups outside their region.
But labeling "highly un-likely" to host provocative terrorist groups is untrue. The Taliban is excessively corroborated with any terrorist groups merely because they are posing a positive effect on backing up Taliban-utopia. Any terrorist group are perceived by the Taliban to erect martyrdom to uphold Sharia-Law and as well to give the Taliban more world's attention toward them.
I would say, that it was poor journalism and ludicrous thought of Prof. Mueller to the fact that he has emphasized Taliban as "several hundreds men running around Af-Pak region", thus threat significance are minimal to United States.
Clearly, it does alarmingly understate the dangers posed by Talibans as well its linkage to al Qaeda and many Drug-lords as Kingpin.
This Narco-dollar is the only ticket played by Taliban to supply their columns with modern weaponry. With the help of syndicated of well-connected intelligences in Pakistan, they might acquire best weaponry in black market including its training. Furthermore, nuclear non-Proliferation is extremely important, so the enemy has no chance in acquiring nuclear (dirty-bomb) within U.S border.
EPILOG
Prof. Mueller makes several assumptions without providing any sufficient backups. As well he uses selective sampling by quoting failing support for Al-Qaeda from Muslim world. He fails to provide any proof for this assertions although Pew conducts global survey's on this very topic. Also, if Al Qaeda was as despised as the author infers then why haven't locals turned Osama in? What explains the ample supply of Al-Qaeda's propaganda available for purchase in any bazaar in Quetta or Peshawar?
This will rise a question on how dangerous are un-informed experts to pose as "a supplier" of facts that it can be cited upon by others to backup their thoughts as well? Having his opinion being posted on such celebrated tabloid of journalism as Foreign Affairs.
