Media outlets are already referring to vaguely attributed “reports of X” from some unidentified city or region to describe what the Taliban is up to. We get a glimpse of video from a cellphone, if we are lucky. There is a great deal of guess work and almost no ability to convey perspective and proportionality that are essential for truly knowing what is going on.
In this case, no one can really blame journalists. They are losing their eyes and ears inside a vast, complicated and dangerous country. Members of the Western media are departing. Our “boots on the ground” have retreated to the airport. Hundreds if not thousands of Afghans who previously shared intelligence are either in hiding (and afraid for their lives) or have cut a deal with the Taliban.
The White House, military and intelligence community talk about “over the horizon” capability to address terrorism in Afghanistan. They assure reporters that they have all sorts of ways of spotting whether terrorists are setting up camps, amassing weapons and plotting overseas strikes. Skepticism is not unwarranted. But what truly strains credulity is the assumption that the United States will be able to accurately assess from afar — after our troops are gone and Western media even more scarce — whether the Taliban, for example, is beating people on street corners (only sporadically or consistently?), executing Afghans summarily and systematically forcing women and girls back to the Dark Ages.
Administration officials repeatedly say they will assess the Taliban by its deeds, not its words. That becomes difficult once the last troops are on a plane out of the country. Certainly, cellphones (so long as they continue to work) can record events. Brave reporters — both Afghan and foreign — will risk their lives to tell us what happens on a given day. So long as they are not in immediate peril, nongovernmental organizations will remain in Afghanistan and report on what they see. But let’s not kid ourselves. Communication will be reduced, accurate information will be hard to come by and perspective will be nearly impossible to obtain when we do not have our own people in the country.
As the New York Times reports: “It remains to be seen whether the pragmatic needs of a nation of 38 million will continue to temper the ideological fanaticism that defined the [Taliban’s] rule from 1996 to 2001. But the country the Taliban now control is vastly changed from two decades ago.” The report continues: “The progress of women — women in critical roles in civil society and millions of girls in school — is the most visible example. But years of Western investment in the country also helped rebuild a nation that was in a state of ruin when the Taliban first emerged.” Some protests on the streets suggest Afghans may not passively accept Taliban rule. How severely the Taliban will crack down on them once the United States is gone is pure conjecture.
The information gap matters a great deal. Much hinges on the world’s perception of the Taliban — whether the new regime gets international recognition or access to overseas funds. The glaring problem in making assessments as to whether this is the “old” Taliban or the “new” Taliban is that nondemocratic societies restrict information and produce compelling propaganda.
Promises of continued humanitarian, diplomatic and economic “engagement” in Afghanistan should be curtailed. Everything depends on how the Taliban conducts itself. Moreover, any help and diplomatic recognition must be conditioned on our ability to ascertain the real state of the country. If we cannot verify, we dare not trust the Taliban.
"do it" - Google News
August 19, 2021 at 09:31PM
https://ift.tt/2UwrVhk
Opinion | The question is not merely what the Taliban will do. It's how we will know about it. - The Washington Post
"do it" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2zLpFrJ
https://ift.tt/3feNbO7
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion | The question is not merely what the Taliban will do. It's how we will know about it. - The Washington Post"
Post a Comment