Almost twenty years later,

September 22, 2001 12:29 PM

Almost twenty years later, William T. Vollmann returns to Afghanistan (where he once tried to fight alongside the mujahideen) and shares his perspective and observations of life under the Taliban.
posted by Big Fat Tycoon (13 comments total)

I thought Vollmann was dead.
posted by jpoulos at 12:38 PM on September 22, 2001

He went back? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me...must have had cheap rates for food and lodging.
posted by Postroad at 12:42 PM on September 22, 2001

He's alive, and apparently knows HTML: his homepage
posted by mathowie at 12:43 PM on September 22, 2001

He's not the author.

From the "Mission" page:

I started this web page in early February of 1996 with one goal in mind: The further exposure and promotion of the author William T. Vollmann. I believe William T. Vollmann to be one of the greatest authors of our century. Not surprisingly he is also one of the most under-appreciated. Hopefully this web page will help to change that.

As always I welcome contributions from you.

Chris Sweet
posted by tpoh.org at 12:57 PM on September 22, 2001

I thought that was fascinating! What an amazing world of sadness and zelotry and contradictions and pain and religion. I hope what he says about the weakness of the Taliban is true.
It is clear that America needs to increase its' PR in Islamic communities. If we are successful in ridding them of the Taliban, America should then not give Afghanistan money (as that just goes to a select few) but pay for Afghan workers to build roads and electricity plants and gardens and factories and schools. Show them the good part of America and show them that we don't have a problem with Islam, but with extremism. What a great story. Thanks!
posted by aacheson at 1:21 PM on September 22, 2001

The United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic relations with Afghanistan today - which leaves two states who recognize them. That would be Pakistan(shaky)and Iraq(firm).
The fact that Taliban-led Afghanistan is not considered legitimate by over 99% of all countries in the world surely shows that the U.S. is not exactly alone.
On the other hand, I fervently hope the U.S. and people in general don't confuse the country - its proud history and people, who have endured hell for decades - with the government.
agree with all the commentators so far - aacheson reminds me of the great Dean Acheson after a few whiskies - that PR is of the essence. But how can the U.S. do PR if all the usual PR channels(movies, Coke, Miles Davis records, a tendency towards free elections)are completely blocked?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:42 PM on September 22, 2001

I read that it is Saudi Arabia and not Iraq, that still recognizes the Taliban alongside Pakistan.
posted by machaus at 2:09 PM on September 22, 2001

Quite right, machaus. Thanks.
But the numbers are still the same.
BTW, anyone know why Iraq doesn't recognize the Taliban? Are they too secular and unislamic?
Just shows how things are always more complicated that we can ever know.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:20 PM on September 22, 2001

Vollman says:
he refused to let me take his picture, because the Taliban had decreed that doing so broke the rules of Islam.

If that's the case then how does bin Laden explain away his training videotapes? I mean, sure, hypocrisy is nothing new to religious fanatics but that just struck me as a bit weird.
posted by xochi at 2:44 PM on September 22, 2001

Is Saudi Arabia being overlooked? It is probably not entirely innocent... And more and more fingers point in its direction. The cover story of this week's The Spectator is definitely worth reading and makes a lot of sense. It might even make us reconsider certain easy preconceptions.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:48 PM on September 22, 2001

Sorry, hit post instead of preview. I wanted to include the last paragraph in Stephen Schwarz's article:

From what we now know, it appears not a single one of the suicide pilots in New York and Washington was Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf states, Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the sons of the former second secretary of the Saudi embassy in Washington. They were planted in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada; in fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle East peace process was in full, if short, bloom. Anti-terror experts and politicians in the West must now consider the Saudi connection.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:52 PM on September 22, 2001

It wouldn't have been the Saudi government per se. But even the Royal Family is split within and there is always scheming, especially since the crown passes not by primogeniture but from brother to brother -- and there are 90 sons of Saud (almost all them retirement age or older). Practically all the ministerial and governor slots are filled by these brothers and their sons, with little access even for other powerful families. It's really an atrociously corrupt and coup-risky way to run a monarchy (few of the Gulf states are notably better).

The monarchy is hated for its lazy corruption and flouting of Islamic law (e.g. drinking wine, number of wives, gambling in Europe). The presence of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina breeds religious devotion, while the Westernized cities complete with glassy galleria malls leads many to despise the government for allowing the West in and indulging itself in contrast to their responsibility in safeguarding the heart of Islam. Saudis made up the largest contingent of volunteers in Afghanistan, not the least because of the attraction of the ascetic life.
posted by dhartung at 5:22 PM on September 22, 2001

Regarding the apparent inconsistency in being photographed -- by Xochi -- many cultures distinguish the "headshot" portrait(comparable to TV's talking-head layout) which is regarded as self-indulgent vanity; from photographs presenting a whole-body in natural surroundings, which is thought to NOT convey one's uniqueness and therefore specialness. It's not surprising that more fundamentalist elements of just about ANY religion are more likely to lean toward this perspective.

The trend in western media tends to drift in the opposite direction -- so it's not surprising that our TV and movies set off widespread Islamic anger, and rage among the fundamentalists.

When I was a kid in the midwest in the 50's, the jokes by many folks were about the California scene -- rapid change toward openness and experimentation. A RARE FEW people did not kid about this -- they were indignant about That California Stuff!! Well, if a small difference within our nation could set off a few indignant types, the current difference between Afghanistan and the United States should make for plenty of people who are worthy terrorist material. I'd guess that Islamic fundamentalism's concern with satellite access to our media is far worse to them, than is our nation's concern with our access to imported hard drugs. Our noble 'drug' activities have included at least TALK about our War On Drugs, implemented by PAYING the drug-source countries to fight their drug lords.

Now, I most certainly do NOT excuse the horrendous activity of September 11th -- but the mindset of the terrorists is NOT an abnormal extreme from what I first explained about the 1950's "California" case -- both then and now, what occurs is *unreasonable* assessment that extends to hatred, among a VERY FEW individuals among a large population.
posted by Highpockets at 7:49 PM on September 22, 2001