IS404 Video Project Research
Theoretical Analysis
- Why the US and USSR failed to control Afghanistan?
- Theoretical Perspectives on Game Theory of Strategic Realism: finite player (US) vs Infinite player (Taliban) 1
- Taliban were fighting for survival
- While US was fighting for pride, proving it did not fail a 20 year war, less committed, without end goal in mind
- Theoretical Perspectives on Game Theory of Strategic Realism: finite player (US) vs Infinite player (Taliban) 1
Apply theories from lessons in the case: why actors do certain things (Resan)
-
What Taliban wants in the short term:
- recognition of legitimacy as real government
- lift of sanction & freezing of assets
- full control of Afghanistan without external interference
- Taliban was in negotiation with the US and international community and is amending its image to fit better 3
- ISIS is opposite it, so what is it’s strategy exactly? is Taliban’s position changable?
-
What Taliban wants in the long term
- spread of Sharia law all over the world (incompatible & cannot co-exist with the world’s ideology)
- Taliban, Islamic State in Syria & Iraq are hostile to US, and US is regarded as a principle obstacle to establishing Sharia rule across the world through conquest 4
-
dealing with extremist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda: 5
- Doesn’t have motivation of obtaining specific, tangible, negotiable objectives, how are they extremist?
- They can be explained using Identity’s Social Catagorization 6
- Taliban catagorize their enemies with the inadoption of their religion and Sharia law (In-group > Out-group)
- Morale can be enhanced by unquestionable loyalty to group, cause, and willing to the call for sacrifice (similar to nationalism 6
- They can be explained using Identity’s Social Catagorization 6
- But now the Taliban is the only influential power in Afghanistan
- Conflict Management Strategy of Standing Firm: to signal the commitment to block an excessive and unreasonable demand. (Against extremist groups…) 7
- Taliban has stood firm and US also stood firm: 1992 Taliban rule, it projected incompatible goals that cannot co-exist with the international community
- Taliban is making an effort to project its less-extremist ideology to the international community to gain recognition of legitimacy.
- They have more bargaining power and leverage now without outside interference
- Conflict Management Strategy of Standing Firm: to signal the commitment to block an excessive and unreasonable demand. (Against extremist groups…) 7
- But want broad, ideological doctrines which seek the total destruction of an enemy society in long term
- Taliban cannot put their restless commanders and fighters, who only knew a life of continuous violence and fighting 4
- Fighters cannot be made into quiet, peaceful citizens
- Taliban cannot put their restless commanders and fighters, who only knew a life of continuous violence and fighting 4
💡 This was what Taliban’s rule in 1992 was. Extremist, isolating, incompatible goals, a threat to the international community.
- Doesn’t have motivation of obtaining specific, tangible, negotiable objectives, how are they extremist?
-
Taliban now have short term interests: relieving sanctions, unfreezing assets
- Now they must negotiate, give concessions (less strict on women’s rights and press)
- Leverage: most countries will only lift sanctions if clear and transparent actions are taken for human rights…
- Negotiation happens when both parties wants to change the status quo
- International community wants progress in womens rights and free press
- Taliban wants access to its assets and free flow market
- Some parties does not want any involvement with the Taliban at all due to their values being so polarizing such as Italy and France 2
-
Failed state or no?
-
What comes nexts for international community and US, to transform conflict in Afghanistan.