Best central asia history books according to redditors
We found 221 Reddit comments discussing the best central asia history books. We ranked the 80 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 221 Reddit comments discussing the best central asia history books. We ranked the 80 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Here's an extremely abbreviated version of what happened: the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we decided to punch them in the nuts, so we began arming and training large numbers of Afghan freedom fighters.
They began punching the Russians in the nuts. The Russians eventually were like, fuck this dude, we're out, and withdrew.
Natch, we were all "OMFG YES WE'RE THE BEST. Now on to other things" and totally moved on from the conflict.
By arming these freedom fighters we had created basically a system of well armed warlords. The power vacuum left by the Russians created intense fighting and strife. The Taliban expanded in this vacuum, offering relative peace.
Oh, and somewhere a congressman was fucking around so they made a movie about it.
For a real in depth, actual learning experience about this I strongly recommend Ghost Wars by Steven Coll: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
Not to mention that the idea of the Taliban running a perfect country is also laughable.
However, there are some more interesting complexities in this. From what I remember reading Ghost Wars (fucking brilliant book by the way), the Taliban were influenced by radical interpretations of Islam as was bin Laden's al-Qaeda, and both received money through Pakistan's ISI (their version of the CIA) and wealthy Saudi donors, as well as direct support from ISI in terms of logistics, supplies, and so on. Another layer of complexity, however, was that the Taliban evidently did not give a hoot about the US and bin Laden's conception of the US as the enemy to be toppled--they were just concerned about gaining power in Afghanistan and keeping to themselves, which makes sense considering that many of the Taliban were basically school-teachers and goat-herders turned Islamic radicals. Their Supreme Commander Mohammad Omar is said to have never have even been on an airplane or outside of his province of Kandahar, and thought the US a foreign irrelevance.
This latter fact (again, I think I recall these tidbits correctly) is probably a good explanation for why the Taliban and al-Qaeda are at odds. Imagine just minding your own business, trying to do your own take-over-the-country thing and not minding the superpowers of the world, and suddenly the actions of some dude the Taliban thought were chill and all suddenly invited the biggest superpower in the world to invade the country and completely destroy the power and 'legitimacy' of the Taliban.
Yeah, I'd be pissed at al-Qaeda too. Haha.
This is a common misconception. They banned poppy cultivation for 12 month periods to increase the global price for opium paste. Even before the US invasion they had a "minister of drugs" who would openly talk about how growing poppy is halal because only westerners like it but growing weed for hash was haram because the Afghans like dat ganja.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Terror-Drugs-Reshaping-Afghan/dp/0312429630
>What you're expecting is Pakistan to stand when we want them to and sit when we tell them to. Thats not how International relations work.
It's your fucking mess. Seriously.
The Pakistani ISI built the fucking Taliban to take proxy control of Afghanistan. The vast majority of the Taliban having been indoctrinated in Pakistani Madrasas for Afghan Refugees, the program was directed by a political ally of Bhutto. Mushareff sent 20,000 regular Frontier Corps and Army troops to help them complete the takeover after the Northern Alliance kicked the Talibans ass. Without the Pakistani military intervening, the Taliban would not have become as powerful as they did, and instead of planning to drop buildings in New York, Osama would have been more concerned with trying to stay alive and thus his support of KSM would have been limited..
In fact of the 45,000 or so "Afghani Taliban" attacking the Northern Alliance, only 14,000 were Afghani. The vast majority were Pakistani, regular military as pointed out, along with some Arabs and others supplied by Osama. The breeding ground for the 9/11 attacks were built directly with Pakistani Military support.
Iraq, totally our mess. Afghanistan, Your fucking mess.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/17.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1340244/Afghanistan-resistance-leader-feared-dead-in-blast.html
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
http://www.amazon.com/Massoud-Intimate-Portrait-Legendary-Afghan/dp/0982161506
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/inside-the-taliban-3274/Overview
> Founded originally by Islamic schoolboys from refugee communities, the Taliban assembled recruits by promising to end the banditry and looting of the Mujihadeen commanders after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. They quickly secured extensive Pakistani funding as Pakistan's ISI believed they could unblock the bandit-infested roads on the border and would be a pliable partner.
The Taliban were (and probably remain) entirely funded, organized and even run by the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
To understand why, one needs to understand the purpose and logistics.
The Pakistani establishment is pursuing the policy of destabilising neighbouring countries for own interests almost as long as there is Pakistan. Correspondingly, the ISI's job is to organise, run and deploy such proxy groups - like the Taliban - for related purposes. That's what they've been doing in India-controlled-Kashmir at least since 1965, and that's what they've been doing in Afghanistan since at least 1978. Everything else - including such explanations like Islam, end of banditry and looting etc. - are simply PR-tools.
After the Soviet invasion of 1979, the ISI - through its Afghan Bureau - began supporting seven major Islamist parties ('Mujahidden'). No matter who provided how much, all the funding and all the aid supplied from abroad (primarily by the USA and KSA) was channeled exclusively through the ISI's Afghan Bureau - exclusively at discretion of the chief of that bureau and of course in accordance with the politics dictated from above, i.e. the then Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq (which is why the widespread belief that 'USA sponsored al-Qaeda' is as wrong).
In 1992, the Mujahidden destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and took Kabul, but then a major battle erupted between them, completely ruining the Pakistani designs (foremost related to Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami Party).
Therefore, the ISI 'returned to Rule No. 1' - and created a new proxy: the Taliban.
The entire Taliban 'war machinery' - ranging from all the bribing of diverse warlords that joined them in period 1994-1995 (thus enabling them to bring two thirds of the country under their control), to the leadership of every single of their military branches, down to the entire logistics system supporting their military and state - was run by the ISI. Which in turn is also explaining why they so quickly collapsed in October-November 2001. After 9/11, Bush Jr. confronted Musharaf with a choice: pull out all of your Pakistani 'military advisers' or face a military onslaught.
The latter did the obvious, though this never meant the ISI ceased supporting the Taliban - even after Bush Jr declared Pakistan for 'the most important non-NATO ally', in 2001-2002: it does so until this very day, which is 'how it can happen' that the troops of the ANA are regularly happy whenever shelling Pakistan, for example.
Recommended read (actually a 'must read'): Afghanistan, the Bear Trap.
Also George Crile's "Charlie Wilson's War" and Robert Baer's "Sleeping with the Devil", one of three books that formed the basis for Syriana.
Osama Bin Laden's relationship with the US is the primary reason behind September 11 conspiracy theories. The official record shows that no money ever flowed directly out of US coffers to Osama bin Laden, which might be true.
It'd be pretty fuckin' weird, though.
UBL was best buddies with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who we funded heavily. He's a cousin by marriage to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who held an essentially cabinet-level post in the Reagan White House. He was a favorite son of the Bin Laden group, which is Saudi Arabia's Halliburton. And his primary activities in Afghanistan were recruitment videos and multimedia for Saudi Arabia in order to encourage young Arabs to join the jihad.
Considering who we were giving money to in Afghanistan, not giving money to Osama Bin Laden back in the '80s would have been a colossal oversight.
This is how conspiracy theories happen: hide a little, let public misperceptions fill in the blanks. It's a lot better for the CIA to have you believe in "loose change" than to have our heavy investments in Islamic fundamentalism join the public discourse.
Hey Cog_Sci_90, you might enjoy reading "Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes" by Tamim Ansary. Really good book, highly recommended.
From the description:
> We in the west share a common narrative of world history—that runs from the Nile Valley and Mesopotomia, through Greece and Rome and the French Revolution, to the rise of the secular state and the triumph of democracy. But our story largely omits a whole civilization that until quite recently saw itself at the center of world history, and whose citizens shared an entirely different narrative for a thousand years. In Destiny Disrupted, Tamim Ansary tells the rich story of world history as the Islamic world saw it, from the time of Mohammed to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and beyond. He clarifies why our civilizations grew up oblivious to each other, what happened when they intersected, and how the Islamic world was affected by its slow recognition that Europe—a place it long perceived as primitive and disorganized—had somehow hijacked destiny. Entertaining and enlightening, Destiny Disrupted also offers a vital perspective on current conflicts.
Joseon era:
I prefer the 'Review' more, but it might come across as a little dry. I feel that it does a fair job of discussing a number of topics related to the creation and running of the Joseon Dynasty, breaking the dynasty up into smaller components and then focusing on some areas (arts, military, cultural practices) within those smaller time frames. 'Sources' for me came across as more academic than 'Review' but you might enjoy it more. 'Sources' includes translations of primary sources, which is helpful, while 'Review' includes images such as paintings and maps.
General:
A comic book that goes into the 'making' of Korea and Korean culture. I have some reservations about this one but if you don't take it too seriously it can be a fun and easy way to get introduced to a number of topics related to Korea.
'Modern' Korea:
Lankov's book is a collection of newspaper articles he wrote entertaining subjects like the story of Korea's first automobiles, the introduction of the first telephones, etc. Easy to digest and they offer a glimpse of what society was like at each point in time; not a 'serious' book on Korean history, though. Neff's book was a chore to get through and it felt like no editing had gone into the book before publishing. If I'm not mistaken this also started out as a series of articles for one of the local newspapers; the transition from article to book did not go quite as well.
It's probably been 10 years since I read the books from Breen, Oberdorfer and Cummings, which makes it a little difficult to write a lot about them. Cummings I know gets criticized for being pro-North Korea in his writing, so that's something to keep in mind, while Oberdorfer I think was a correspondent living in Korea so may have a more 'eyewitness' approach to some of the events. Bird's book is a description of her travels in Korea during the Joseon period and I remember it being an interesting read. Not a balanced historical account by any means - and it obviously suffers from being written from an outside perspective at a time when ethnocentrism was more prevalent - but it may be an alternative to consider. You should be able to find a .pdf copy of that one online.
Haven't read this one, but I've seen others mention it in the past. It's another first-person account from Korea at the cusp of the 20th century, this time from the perspective of a medical missionary. Again, not an objective history book, but if you prefer first-person narratives it may at least be worth a look. A .pdf copy has been published online, this one by the University of Oregon.
Edit: One I forgot to mention, but which I've also heard is used in some English-language classes on Korean history/studies:
http://www.amazon.de/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_cp_eb_0
In Steve Coll's Ghost Wars he discusses how between 2000 and 2500 stinger missiles were given to the mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and that after the Soviet withdrawal the US set about attempting to recover these munitions. He alleged that:
>the total cash spent by the CIA on Stinger repurchaes during the mid-1990's rivaled the total cash donations by other sections of the U.S. government for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan during those years. The Stinger repurchases may have improved aviation security, but they also delivered boxes of money to the warlords who were destroying Afghanistan's cities and towns.
...
>The going rate per missile ranged between $80,000 and $150,000. Pakistan's intelligence service handled most of the purchases on a subcontract basis for the CIA, earning an authorized commission for each missile collected.
Targetting minorities and intellectuals to begin with. With death count of 300,000 ~ 3 million. How is this not genocide? Just because of cold war politics the West chose to ignore this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/23/unholy-alliances-3
There are tapes of US counse in Bangladesh describing genocide to Nixon, who choose to ignore it. And abuse India for helping Bangladeshi Insurgents. More than 10 million refugees had fled to India during the war.
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Genocide/dp/0307744620
Shame Pakistan it seems? It has blood of millions of Bengalis and you are talking about shame?
Charlie Wilson's War. The book is good. Haven't seen the movie.
If this kind of analysis interests you, check out [The Bear Went Over the Mountain] (https://www.amazon.com/Bear-Went-Over-Mountain-Afghanistan/dp/1304069451) by Grau, and its sequel [The Other Side of the Mountain] (https://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Mountain-Mujahideen-Soviet-Afghan/dp/1907521054/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=P1171X9CC3THF6FVCD30).
They are first-hand accounts of small-unit fights in the Soviet-Afghan war. When the US invaded AFG in 2001, the price went to hundreds of dollars per copy, because every LT and up wanted to know how his enemy fought, what worked, and what didn't.
I believe they can be downloaded FOC from the US DoD.
>were those from Central Asia or the Baltics conscripted or did they volunteer for service?
Both. Any conscript could volunteer to Afghanistan by submitting a letter expressing desire to serve in Afghanistan - not all were accepted. I'd estimate that <1% of 40A were volunteers and they were from all over USSR.
Conscripts from Baltics were often utilized as snipers or mechanics. Middle-Asian conscripts military quality (communication skills+technical education+elan) was low, with some very notable exceptions (SpetsNaz 'Muslim battalion' etc.). But Middle-Asians (~ -stan) outnumbered all other ethnic groups combined, with Slavic conscripts being close second and from Caucasus as third.
> did they serve in infantry roles or did Russian troops/officers tend to give them the dirty work?
They all served in every branch and service type, but Middle-Asians were often given menial jobs due to there low level of training and desire to stay away from fighting. Uzbeks were great cooks and often preferred kitchen to any other assignment. Tajiks and Turkmenis were more warlike.
>I believe I read that troops served 2 year tours; how was that like exactly?
Half-year basic training at Tashkent (usually, but not always), then 1.5 year deployment to Afghanistan. R&R (1-2 weeks) once or twice (rare) per deployment were usual, but not everyone got it.
>did they have any encounters with the locals or was that forbidden?
You cannot effectively 'forbid' any contacts with locals during war, esp. guerilla war. Formally, any interaction with locals must be sanctioned by officers and vetted by NDPA (i.e. Afghan regime) representatives.
>Outside of US intervention, could the Soviet troops have won the war?
Possible. Until ~1983, it was going that way. Then Charlie Wilson and Gulf states started to pump in money and weapons.
So the next big question would be whether Gulf state support would be enough for opposition to win or not. And without both US and Gulf state intervention - highly likely for DRA to succeed (even with hostile Pakistan and even without USSR troops).
Note that troops alone never win this kind of war. Once USSR found acceptable political solution (aka 'national reconciliation policy') - and it happened not to soon, in 1985, it was likely to succeed once hard-liners were removed from opposition - and they weren't - instead, kept receiving financial and materiel support.
EDIT:
Sources
I am dumping raw data here - ask me for detailed explanations. These are just fast-plucked samples, there were many more asians and baltics awarded.
Conscripts from Central Asia:
right off the bat -
1 ряд. Аббасов Акмал Акбарович механик-водитель в/ч п/51884. 1964г. Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N299 15.6.1990г.
2 ряд. Абдракманов Элчибек Шаршанбаевич водитель в/ч п/п 13354. 1968г. Кир.ССР Тонский р-он,с.Ворошилова. Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N10198-XI 7.3.1989г.
4 ряд. Абдувалиев Адхан Мухамедганиевич ст. мех. водитель п/п 82869 1967г. Андижанская обл,г. Пахтаабад, ул. пахтакор,205. Орден Красной Звезды N299 15.06.1990г.
5 мл. с-т Абдужалилов Озодбек Абдурашидович зам. ком-ра взвода, ком-р отд. минометного взвода в/ч п/п 65753.84397. 1969г. Андижанская обл.Кургантепинский р-он,к-з Навои,21. Медаль "За отвагу" N10265-XI 4.4.1989г.
6 ряд. Абдулаев Ахрход Абибуллаевич пулеметчик мтс роты мтс б-на. в/ч п/п 54676 1969г. Чимкентская обл. г.Туркестан Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N9512-XI 7.9.1988г.
7 ряд. Абдулаев Рашид Садыков мех.-вод. в/ч пп 44585 1967г. Уз.ССР Фергенская обл. Ферганский р-н Садвин с/з ул.Механизаторов д.12 Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N8886-ХI 05.05.1988г.
and till the end - dense list of Central Asian birthplaces and names:
2050 ряд. Худайбердиев Аннам Джараевич разв. 66 ОМСБ 40ОА 1965 746030 Марийская обл. Байрам-Амитский р-н п.Захнет Медаль "За отвагу" 19.12.91. NУП-3061
2051 ряд. Худайберенов Довлетмамед стрелок в/ч пп 34631 1963 Медаль "За боевые заслуги" 19.12.91. NУП-3061
2052 ряд. Худайкулов Ахар Асатович пулеметчик мотостр. роты в/ч пп 54676 1967 Бухарская обл. Алтайский р-н к-з Ленина Медаль "За отвагу" 07.09.88. N9512-ХI
2053 ряд. Худайкулов Гафур Саттарович наводчик в/ч пп 71176 1963 Медаль "За отвагу" 25.07.89. N268-I
2054 ряд. Худайназаров Абдураззак Абдурахманович мех.-вод. в/ч пп 85615 1967 Уз.ССР Новаинская обл. г.Заравшан 4 мкр. 1 общ. кв.134 Медаль "За боевые заслуги" 07.09.88. N9512-ХI
2056 ряд. Хуснутдинов Мирзаанвар Хайруллаевич водитель в/ч пп 93981 1961 г. Ташкент медаль "За отвагу" УП-2909 28.11.1991 г.
Conscripts from Baltics:
87 ряд. Кеиселис Гунар Зигисмундович разведчик-пулеметчик дес.-штурм. взв. развед. десант. роты в/ч пп 53336 в/ч пп 84397 1969г. Латвийская ССР, Алукенский р-он, Яуналуксенский с/с, х. Лучия Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N10491-XI 24.5.1989г.
96 с-т Ашмонтас Зигмас Йонович водитель в/ч пп 21231 1966г. Лит. ССР, д. Гримзду Шилальского р-на Медаль "За отвагу" N10265-XI 4.4.1989г.
97 мл. с-т Ашмонтас Роландас Йонович ком. отд. авт. взвода в/ч пп 38021 1968г. Лит.ССР, Шиляльский р-н, д.Гражюрис Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N569-I 4.10.1989г.
251 ряд. Викси Индрек Эннович оператор ПТУР птв мсб в/ч пп 24785/84397 1968г. Эстонская ССР, Тартусский р-н, ул. Лия, д.4, кв.34 Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N10491-XI 24.05.1989г.
626 ряд. Йонушас Эдмундас Винцович снайпер мср
в/ч пп 86997 1967г Литовская ССР, Плунгенский р-н, д. Сталгос Медаль "За отвагу" N8886-XI 5.5 1988 г.
627 ряд. Каблис Жидрунас Антанавич сапер в/ч пп 58082 1969г. Литовская ССР, Родвишинский он, д. Вайнюны Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N10265-XI 4.4.89
849 ряд. Кудейка Янис Хенрикович ст. наводчик МСР МСБ в/ч пп 51883 1968г. Латвииская ССР, Даугавпилский р-он, п. Вице, ул. Комсомольская, д.11 Медаль "За отвагу" N 268-I 25.7.1989г.
920 мл. с-т Лаупа Эдуард Лембитович наводчик-оператор разведоват. роты в/ч пп 24785, в/ч пп 84397 1968г. Эстонская ССР, ул. Герцена, д.28 кв.20 Медаль "За боевые заслуги" N10089-XI 1.2.1989г.
2059 ряд. Цилишаускас Саулюс Альгевич водит. взв. обесп. мсб в/ч пп 51932-в/ч пп 51854 1968 Литовская ССР, Юрбарский р-он, ул. Новая д. 27 Орден Красной Звезды УКN 10089-XI 1.02.89
Die DDR war, wenn es um Ausbildungsmissionen ging, deutlich aktiver als die BRD. Hier findet man eine kurze Einleitung dazu. Zum Thema UdSSR in Afghanistan allgemein empfiehlt sich das Buch Afgantsy.
Warum die NVA ungern von den Soviets in Kriegs- oder Krisengebieten genutzt wurde war halt recht simpel: Deutsche Soldaten in der Offensive wären sehr schlechte Presse gewesen.
> German trained officers were largely replaced
Den Satz brauch ich im Zusammenhang, so liest es sich für mich als seien die von Deutschen ausgebildeten Offiziere ersetzt worden. Angabe des Grundes fehlt.
Pakistan,a hard country by Anatol Lieven.?
Pakistan, A hard country
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Hard-Country-Anatol-Lieven/dp/1610391454
I was reading the Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 and it talked about how the American government was promoting a jihad against communism in Central Asia and paid to have Qurans translated into Uzbek and giving arms to radicals in the hope of triggering an anti-Soviet jihadi movement in the region. It's mentioned in this article as well:
>It did not have to be this way. Western intelligence during the Cold War always saw the region as poised for revolt, a potential dagger aimed at the heart of the "evil empire." During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA had copies of the Koran translated into Uzbek and smuggled across the border in the hopes of starting an anti-Soviet jihad among the USSR's Muslims.
I'm going to be lazy and simply repost a post of mine from a year ago. :)
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A combination of history, science and biography and so very well written.
A few of my favourite biographies include the magisterial, and also Pulitzer Prize winning, Peter the Great by Robert Massie. He also wrote the wonderful Dreadnaught on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany just prior to WWI (a lot more interesting than it sounds!). Christopher Hibbert was one of the UK's much loved historians and biographers and amongst his many works his biography Queen Victoria - A Personal History is one of his best. Finally, perhaps my favourite biography of all is Everitt's Cicero - The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. This man was at the centre of the Fall of the Roman Republic; and indeed fell along with it.
Speaking of which, Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic is a recent and deserved best-seller on this fascinating period. Holland writes well and gives a great overview of the events, men (and women!) and unavoidable wars that accompanied the fall of the Republic, or the rise of the Empire (depending upon your perspective). :) Holland's Persian Fire on the Greco-Persian Wars (think Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes! Think of the Movie 300, if you must) is equally gripping.
Perhaps my favourite history book, or series, of all is Shelby Foote's magisterial trilogy on the American Civil War The Civil War - A Narrative. Quite simply one of the best books I've ever read.
If, like me, you're interested in teh history of Africa, start at the very beginning with The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman (both famous paleoanthropologists). Whilst not the very latest in recent studies (nothing on Homo floresiensis for example), it is still perhaps the best introduction to human evolution available. Certainly the best I've come across. Then check out Africa - Biography of a Continent. Finish with the two masterpieces The Scramble for Africa on how European colonialism planted the seeds of the "dark continents" woes ever since, and The Washing of the Spears, a gripping history of the Anglo-Zulu wars of the 1870's. If you ever saw the movie Rorke's Drift or Zulu!, you will love this book.
Hopkirk's The Great Game - The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I should imagine that's enough to keep you going for the moment. I have plenty more suggestions if you want. :)
Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.
I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.
If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).
Surveys, Background, and Introduction
The Succession and the so-called "Rashidun" Era
The Imams and Early Shi'is in the Ummayid and `Abbasid Eras
The Buyid, Seljuq, and Mongol Eras
The Safavid Era and the Scholars of Jabal Amil
The Iranian Interregnum Era
The Qajar Era
The Contemporary Era / Miscellaneous
I would recommend Rene Groussets The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, its quite dated but overall still the go to source for a complete history of the Steppes various Khanates etc. There are several chapters about the Gokturks alone.
https://www.amazon.de/Empire-Steppes-History-Central-Asia/dp/0813513049
>(someone pls recommend me some good books)
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Enlightenment-Central-Conquest-Tamerlane/dp/0691165858/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0/144-0242630-4897537?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1refRID=KKYE6CNQEBQAGXX727XD
Comparing Genghis Khan, Timur and Nader Shah is pretty fun.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nFx3OlrBMpQC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=de#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false
http://www.fusosha.co.jp/Books/detail/9784594074760
https://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Guide-Greatest-Emperor-Timeless/dp/1501138774/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=VXGE1BG6WGDA6CJ8K9T2
https://www.amazon.com/Shi-Min-Founding-theTang-Dynasty/dp/0875869785/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=VXGE1BG6WGDA6CJ8K9T2
https://www.amazon.com/Poetics-Sovereignty-Harvard-Yenching-Institute-Monograph/dp/0674056086
https://books.google.com/books?id=VW2HJL689wgC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=baburnama&amp;hl=de&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNjrCE_b_TAhXIOBQKHaDyCCEQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=baburnama&amp;f=false
https://www.amazon.com/Xi-Jinping-Governance-English-Language/dp/160220408X
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guerrilla-Warfare-Mao-Tse-Tung/dp/956310014X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai:_The_Last_Perfect_Revolutionary
https://www.amazon.com/Ho-Chi-Minh-William-Duiker-ebook/dp/B0095V89ZI
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Togo-Nelson-Jonathan-Clements/dp/1906598622
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Tse-tung
http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/node_2825.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Keiretsu-Inside-Hidden-Japanese-Conglomerates/dp/007042859X
The history of Austronesian Madagascar is interesting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also recommend Aleksandr Dugin's books and "The Intelligent Investor" by B. Graham.
Sources of Korean Tradition is a good place to start, but it is a hefty 2 volume work.
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Korean-Tradition-Vol-Civilizations/dp/0231105673/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376104890&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=sources+of+korean+tradition
Early Korean Literature by David McCann is a slimmer volume, and more accessible.
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Korean-Literature-David-McCann/dp/023111947X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376105046&amp;sr=8-2-fkmr0&amp;keywords=david+mccann+traditional+korean
These do not have anything on urban myths/paranormal. I'll PM if I find anything.
Upvoted. The Great Game is a page-turning winner's version whirlwind tour of the geopolitics of the 1800s. It's also my number 1.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312336926&amp;sr=1-1
Reay Tannahill's "Food in History" is completely different but also very very good. She's cobbled together a lively survey of diets through the ages. When you've finished this book, you'll have accidentally learned what happened, who did it and in what order - while you were distracted by recipes, bad and weird.
http://www.amazon.com/Food-History-Reay-Tannahill/dp/0517884046
For historic, hilarious and educational fiction, go for "Flashman and the Redskins" to begin with. (If you like it, I'd go for "Flashman at The Charge" next and then his version of the "Great Game".)
http://www.amazon.com/Flashman-Redskins-George-MacDonald-Fraser/dp/0452264871/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312337084&amp;sr=1-1
Currently: The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran
After this I will probably read
The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan
On War
Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State
On Grand Strategy
A fellow on the combined defense discord layed out his recommendations for books on nukes, so I'll list them here.
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy by Matthew Kroenig
Paper Tigers: china's Nuclear Posture by Jeffery Lewis
Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling
Try this one http://www.amazon.com/The-Blood-Telegram-Gary-Bass/dp/0307744620
> only the afghan mujahideen were supported by the U.S. the 'afghan arabs' never got a dime from the U.S.
You need to read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars and perhaps get some perspective on what a meaningless assertion that is.
For one, The U.S. did quite a bit of operating through proxies in the region, who were very indiscriminate regarding who they sold to. Aid took the form not only of direct cash disbursements, but discounts on arms. Trying to claim bookkeeping technicalities is like saying you didn't spend your grocery money on the lottery ticket because you actually spent your laundry money.
Second, the leadership in the U.S. most certainly did prefer any sort of Islam over Soviet communism. William Casey, director of the CIA at the time, sold U.S. involvement in Afghanistan on the premise that Christians owed support to fellow "religions of the Book" over atheists.
Very weak article. If you're interested in this part of the world it would be criminal for you to not read, The Great Game, by Peter Hopkirk.
I wrote this part last, but I'm going to put it at the top so that you will read it. I feel like I wrote much more than I needed to on this, and it's a bit late when I did write this, so I hope I didn't overlook anything too important or stay on one topic for too long. Let me know if you have any questions or if you'd like me to condense this.
I'm afraid I really only sound like I know more than I do on the subject, but most of what I have learned comes from Husain Haqqani's "Magnificent Delusions" and I could be wrong on things.
I think a good thing to start on is the creation of the national identity of Pakistan. As we all know, Pakistan was created to be a state for the Muslims of the former British territory. Before the partition in 1947, there had never been a Pakistan. There are few things that hold this young nation together. What defines Pakistan's national identity is their devotion to Islam and their fear of India.
You probably know the territorial dispute over Kashmir, it's existed since the partition and is the biggest strain on rapprochement between Pakistan and India. Kashmir is majority Muslim, but is a part of India. Pakistanis believe that it belongs it is Pakistani because of this majority, and have fought several wars with India and supported many insurgencies in the region. I don't have a source for this, and neither does Haqqani's book, but it is believed that India possibly wanted to include Kashmir to prove India was a secular state, and not the Hindi imperials that Pakistan sees them as today. Kashmir is one of the issues that has always united Pakistanis and distracted the population from the states underlying problems, be it it's stagnant economy or its overly bloated military.
To deal with these insecurities, Pakistan's elite believed they needed a strong army to combat India, and saw the United States as the perfect friend to this start-up nation. Pakistan attempted to pitch itself and its proximity to the Soviets as a freedom-loving, pious Muslims who could fight the godless communist menace and halt their influence in the South Asian region. Early on, the United States was open to relations with Pakistan, but was not too interested in arming them with an absurdly large grocery list of military equipment (100 M-47/48 tanks, 4 submarines, 12 B-57s, 25 F-5s, 1000 trucks, and artillery and communications equipment and much much more). America had fulfilled some of their requests along with wheat aid, and this was the beginning of a long, awkward relationship of which neither party shared the same goals.
Throughout the Cold War, the the United States felt that Pakistan did not do enough to combat communism in the region while Pakistan did not think the United States was supportive enough of Pakistan and too close with India. I may be overlooking some of Pakistan's contributions, but the most they had done during the Cold War before was lease a listening post that the US had used to intercept Soviet communications, and they were also important in opening up relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, at least until the Afghan-Soviet War.
At this time, the US had thought the Paks were seeking nuclear proliferation and were close to their goal, but General Zia, the dictator at that time, had told President Reagan that he had no knowledge of a nuclear program, and Reagan took his word on it, but we see how that turned out in 1990. Reagan did not want to believe that the Paks were building a bomb because of the great proxy war that was, for the most part, the responsibility of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency. A lot of people get the misconception that the United States had created Al Qaeda from this war, and every time I hear that, it drives me mad. The ISI was given almost complete autonomy over this operation, and their role was the training of the Muj and the distribution of weapons and money to the militants fighting the Soviets. The United States had an agreement that whatever Saudi Arabia would spend, America would equal that. America's role was for the most part, supplying money and weapons for the ISI to distribute. I don't want this to sound like I'm trying to shift the blame to anyone, but Pakistan had played a phenomenal role in that war, and this was probably their greatest contribution to the Cold War.
We also printed Qu'rans in a multitude of languages to help inspire the mujahideen of the region. Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars is a great look at American covert action in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Amazon link
Return of a King, William Dalrymple
https://www.amazon.com/Return-King-Battle-Afghanistan-1839-42/dp/0307948536
I read it before my latest deployment, still 100% relevant to the situation there today. Also just a riveting story.
I had a post regarding my recommended books on the rise of Islam. I'll post it here again for your benefit:
> Here's the best ones: Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History and Robert Hoyland's In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire
> Edit: I have read the two books aforementioned, but I'd also recommend this book, which I haven't read: Hugh Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. All these books fit your criteria. I also have Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire, but I think this is the least recommendable because of the controversy swirling around it and the documentary it spawned. But it is interesting nevertheless.
I hope this will help!
EDIT: I'll add more recommendations, in regards to the Golden Age of Islam:
Here are my recommendations for readings on Korean history. The list is somewhat heavy on Chosŏn (1392-1910) history mainly because it is my main research interest. If you are interested on more readings on Chosŏn history, feel free to shoot me a message.
Textbook Histories
Academic Monographs
Primary Sources
I'm firmly in the first camp, I think the influence of the US government is generally a net negative; not just in terms of a fiscal perspective, but in terms of basic humanitarian perspective.
For example, I was just reading reviews of The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Forgotten Genocide (2014) in The New York Times and The Economist, that blasts the Nixon Administration for willfully supporting Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and the ensuing genocide.
And this is just one example of the immense bloodshed, violence, and cynicism that has time and time again defined the way the US government approaches its geopolitical and foreign policy goals, and how it chooses and cultivates its allies. This has been the case whether you're looking at the systemic policies of indiscriminate, mass violence that defined policy in Vietnam, to the various forms of criminal militarism that defined the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I've heard good things! I just finished my copy of The Great Gamble and am working my way through The Bear Went Over the Mountain.
If you like that book, I highly recommend Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game. A page-turner history of that spy-vs-spy era.
Hang on, if we're talking history here then Afghanistan was already a training ground for jihaddists by the time the Taliban came to power. The Taliban were one faction to have been trained and battle hardened in the mujahideen resistance to the Soviet invasion.
As far as the law and order thing goes, they were welcomed at first by poorer Afghans who thought that because they were imposing theocratic rule that this would result in less corruption in public life. Of course this gradually turned to dissatisfaction once they were consolidated in government and started outlawing haircuts and the like.
The human rights abuses were horrible but to put it in perspective those practices were the same under the Northern Alliance, Karzai and whichever warlords are locally in power. I would venture so far as to say that if you want to improve people's human rights then government by warlord is not the way to go.
As unpalatable as just standing by is the alternative strategies of intervention firstly covert during the 70's and 80's and secondly by invasion in the 2000's have done little or nothing to improve Afghan's human rights.
There is a book called Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden by an American journalist called Steve Coll which traces the whole mess back to the time of the Soviet Invasion.
If you're up for reading translations of source material, seminal readings on the topics, and commentary by the authors, I highly recommend Sources of East Asian Tradition by Wm. Theodore de Bary (comes in 2 volumes). It's condensed version of anthologies that focus specifically on [Chinese] (http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Chinese-Tradition-Vol-1/dp/0231109393), Japanese, and Korean traditions, history, and philosophy.
Am re-reading Steve Coll's, Ghost Wars The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001,....started 3 days ago, 400 pages down. ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING, like I am spellbound when I read it, forgetting the present entirely. Read it when it came out which was around 2005, was diggin through my library and picked this up. Forgot how awesome it is.
Ordered Private Empire, ExxonMobil & American Power by the same author, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. By Lawrence Wright are both pending delivery, so you can guess which I am moving onto next. After an Indian history binge last month, this month am into all things Mujahideen and AQ.
The "Great Game" period between the Russian and British Empires vying for supremacy in 19th century Central Asia. Really fascinating historical period complete with stories of amateur explorers, pathological fear of Russian encroachment on India, military incursions, domestic, colonial, and foreign politics, eccentric belief in "Empire", chance encounters on the road, psychopath kings and khans, etc. Surprising connections to events today and hammers home the dangers of engaging in Afghan affairs!
Here's the wikipedia for some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
My favorite book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223
For a great example of Congress running foreign policy, see
Charlie Wilson's War(book), or
Charlie Wilson's War(movie)
Anyways, thanks for the links. If the Senate one passes (and it looks like it's been incorporated into the first House one already) it will be interesting to see what comes out of the increase in numbers of reporters in that area.
Read the Qu'ran, then get familiar with the Hadith. The former is, well Muslims believe it is the actual received word of God. The latter is commentary on what the Prophet Muhammad said and did, passed down through witnesses. It's from the hadith that most of the craziness stems from, much like a lot of the craziness of Christianity stems from the writings of Paul.
Book wise, I recommend Karen Armstrongs' "Islam: A Short History" and Tamim Ansary's "Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes". Both great, and Armstong's book has the bonus of being kinda short.
And yes, at the end of the day, extremists from any religion ruin it for everyone else.
You should wonder why.
Afterall, we have a lot in common and shared values: Democracy, rule of law, separation of state and religion, constitutional values, etc.
BUT, the US has got this nasty habit of cohabiting with Pakistan, and turning a blind eye to Pakistan's Jihad with India. Also, ARMING the crazy Pakistanis with sophisticated weaponry, from F16 to Radars.
We don't hate USA, but we are wary of its machinations. The only bad thing is: average americans who are all for fair play have no idea of what your Govt. does.
Search for the 'Blood telegraphs'.
also, this: Pakistan-US:BFF
The Bear Went Over the Mountain?
'Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan' by Lester Grau
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008F06UIS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Depends on what you're looking for.
If you're looking for modern aerial warfare, the First Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq are excellent. You can learn about the excellent performance of the A-10 and the risky introduction of the F-15E Strike Eagle in the First Gulf War. Lots of interesting stories of the Wild Weasels (Surface-to-Air Missile System Hunters) F-16s. Vietnam War has excellent infantry perspectives.
However, overall, my favorite conflict is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. It really demonstrated how conventional warfare cannot be used to eradicate an insurgency. Plus, all the shady shit the CIA did to help the Mujahideen against the Russians (TL;DR: They gave them Stinger missiles that allowed them to cripple Russian helicopters, which were the most important tool the Russians had on their side). To get started, I'd recommend reading :
I was gonna say Lost City of Z. There's The Great Game: On Secret Service in High Asia, which is supposed to be really good. Here's the first page, it definitely got my interest.
Exploding Mangoes was the first book I read about Pakistan. Here's a list:
A little dry for my taste but I couldn't recommend this more. This book charts the social consequences of state policies and economic factors over the whole time period from '47 to now.
Very important book if you want to avoid the conspiracy theories floating about Taliban and our role in their rise.
Interested in Pakistan army's relationship with mullahs over the years? This is a must-read.
Title is self explanatory.
A very informative and interesting two part series on what joins the non-Arab muslims of the world, with a large portion about Pakistan. Written by Nobel Laureate for Literature Naipaul, behnoi of Maj. Gen. Ameer Faisal Alvi who was assassinated in 2008 in Islamabad.
A good overview of what makes Pakistan run the way it does.
Haven't read it but have heard good things about it.
Haven't read it yet.
Koran Kalashnikov and Laptop: The Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan 2002-2007 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199326355/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Pw6rzbGW39TW2
War, Politics and Society in Afghanistan, 1978-1992 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0878407588/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_lx6rzb509WDTW
Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89 https://www.amazon.com/dp/019983265X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_dz6rzbDMP6KG2
No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GVRVAXM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_VB6rzbJ0EBR87
The Afghan Campaign: A Novel https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767922387/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WC6rzbEDZ3B3Z
Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History (Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691154414/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_jD6rzb6MQ4J2N
I mean it depends on how much you want to read about it. As for opium production, there are a series of books, any one of which would prove eye opening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Terror-Drugs-Reshaping-Afghan/dp/0312429630
There's quite a bit of information backlogged on CSpan, which is where my information comes from on the subject.
The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Lester Grau was mandatory reading at officer basic. It gives insight into tactics used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, what worked, what did not.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008F06UIS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&amp;btkr=1
theres a book done by an american historian called the blood telegram
pretty dope book
> Those governments and insurgents were supplied and trained by US as a part of the Great Game as the USSR supplied and trained their own groups and governments to advance their interests.
Yeah... I'm interested in the British Empire, especially in India, and read Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game, which is mostly about the UK-Russia's proxy war in Afghanistan. It's kind of amazing how little has changed in the area after a century.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Terror-Drugs-Reshaping-Afghan/dp/0312429630
This is the book the interview came out of. Very enlightening when you weigh it against the media idea that "the taliban banned opium production for Allah".
If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it. Prepare to be outraged.
With regards to the military history of Afghanistan, I don't know if it was required reading but many of the guys I know (and myself) read The Bear Went Over the Mountain as well as its companion piece The Other Side of the Mountain.
The Army does a pretty good job of making the cultural history of the area you're deploying to available and you'll take classes on it. Hell, some of the units in the brigade were in bases next to outposts that Alexander the Great built over 2 thousand years ago.
I don't think we ever should have gone in to Afghanistan the same way we did in Iraq. The main difference I saw in my time in the two countries is that the people of Iraq feel like they are Iraqi, while the people of Afghanistan do not feel a national connection/pride.
For example, if we told a town in Iraq about how Al Qaeda was putting bombs in front of schools and blowing up little kids somewhere else in Iraq, that would resonate with them. They would be mad that Iraqi kids were being killed and worry about it happening to their own kids, they would then start reporting the suspicious activity or outsiders coming into their community.
In Afghanistan, if you went up into the valleys of a mountain range and told the village there that another village 3 mountain ranges away had been killed by the Taliban, they wouldn't care. It seemed, to me, that beyond their own village or maybe local collection of villages, they didn't identify with each other the same way with each other as say a person in New York feels for a shooting victim in California. I felt that Afghanistan was much too tribal for the COIN piece and "hearts and mind" campaign to work effectively. There's no real trickle down effect, you literally have to do a good work for every person to get them to come over.
So, a thing to keep in mind is that PFC Bowe Bergdahl volunteered for the Army, the infantry, and airborne school. All of this while the country had been at war for many years already, and had no sign of slowing down. It seems that he went into the situation with the wrong mindset, and there were plenty of times along the way where he could have stopped his progress down the path.
I've read it, and I don't know how much stock to put into the perspective of an imbedded reporter. I've been in platoons or supported platoons where a reporter was with them, and they seem to act differently. I think, to a certain extent, that the soldiers play to the camera so to speak.
The constant "sacking and replacing" is out of the norm for down range, thats why units go to JRTC or NTC prior to a deployment. Not so much to see how the individual soldiers will do at their tasks, but to see how the leadership will handle a combat situation. That's where I saw officers get fired. You could have an ineffective leader in garrison, but the platoon sergeant, first sergeant, xo, other pls can pick up the slack. But when the big boss sees an lt that can't run a mission, or a co that can't in a field environment, they most likely get replaced on the spot.
What I will say about deployments is that people still get promoted down range, and sometimes a new officer is brought in or the old officer moves on. There's no fixing that. The military would be a worse place if your career advancement got put on hold during a deployment.
Lack of clear over-all mission. My mission was to do whatever I could within my abilities to get every troop home safely and sound. When you deploy all that democracy and apple pie stuff goes out the window. Its about making sure the guy next to you gets home to his wife and kids or his mom and dad hale and hearty, and they're doing the same for you. Maybe that's why what PFC Bowe Bergdahl rubs so many veterans the wrong way. He clearly didn't give a shit about his comrades from that perspective, because he abandoned them.
Hope this answers your question.
>Yeah, so? Iran was undergoing a violent revolution to free itself from Americon tyranny. What's your point?
Since when were we talking about Iran. Were talking about Pakistan here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_U.S._embassy_burning_in_Islamabad
>[citation needed]. To think that the CIA had no operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the cold war is just beyond retarded! Really retarded. You-have-gotta-be-an- Americon retarded
That's not what I said. I said that the only way Pakistan would allow the CIA to fund the rebels fighting the soviets was if they were allowed to choose whom the money and weapons went too. If you'd like a source I'd suggest you go read this book. CIA agents were not allowed into Afghanistan or even near the border during the Soviet invasion due to fear that they would be caught by the Soviets.
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
Or any book on the subject for that mater, it's pretty obvious you don't really know the history.
You realize that by calling me an "Americon retard" you're being a racist by your own definition? Oh the irony.
>Hint: Bigotry against ethnic and national groups is also considered racism according to the UN, dipshit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/y7web/tunisian_olympians_targeted_by_islamist_radicals/c5u62mj
>Patently false considering we know the CIA was intimately and directly involved on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the radicalization programme.
Yes and they also had Korans funneled into areas of the Soviet Union to do exactly that. That does not mean that they physically had people on the ground handing out books... Seems odd that someone like your self would be for religious oppression.
>Also what makes you think there weren't CIA double agents inside the ISI?
[citation needed]
>Thanks for conceding on that point.
I'm most certainly not conceding to your point. If you can't even use respectful language your not even worth responding too.
if you are looking for detailed answer, I'd highly recommend reading Pakistan: A hard country
It isn't necessarily a book but a colelction of stories but The Other Side of the Mountain: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War is a compilation of after action reviews from Mujahideen commanders of their various engagements with the Soviet Army. Many of the stories are similar as ambush tactics were the most widely used strategy but I think this will be a nice addition to a compiled story you might find.
Pakistan: A Hard Country by Anatol Lieven
Orientalism by Edward Said
The second one is not South Asia specific but rather how we are viewed in occidental intellectual traditions.
It's fairly well researched. If you want a general, well written, overview of Muslim history I'd recommend Ansary's Destiny Disrupted. His extensive bibliography should point you in the right direction on specific topics.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1586486063
Peter Hopkirk wrote a superb book about this, called The Great Game. I highly recommend it.
It will make you very, very angry at US policy in Afghanistan and central Asia.
My recommendation is The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty. It's about the last Mughal Emperor of India and the rise of the British Raj. Even though not written by an India, Dalrymple's research heavily relied on previously undiscovered documents in the Indian Archives. Also it has pictures!
You should also check out William Dalrymple's [other books] (http://www.amazon.com/William-Dalrymple/e/B000API5E8/ref=la_B000API5E8_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_82%3AB000API5E8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1397287440). His last book, [Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan, 1839-42] (http://www.amazon.com/Return-King-Afghanistan-1839-42-Vintage/dp/0307948536/ref=la_B000API5E8_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1397287446&amp;sr=1-1), deals with the British East India Company's first foray into Afghanistan.
Edited for formatting
> Hillary Clinton has already admitted to the US helping create Al Qaeda.
Why is this important? Al-Qaeda's origin has been openly traced back to the U.S. training Afghans to fight the Soviets in the late 70's/80's, and certainly isn't some "secret" that was revealed by Clinton.
Look into Operation Cyclone or Charlie Wilson's War for more info.
Angry Walter is also woefully ignorant of history.
Edit- if anyone is actually interested in learning about the Taliban and the history of Afghanistan so as to avoid gross oversimplifications like this meme, I suggest reading this and maybe this.
The newest books on the Soviets and Afghanistan are the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Afgantsy-Afghanistan-1979-1989-Rodric-Braithwaite/dp/019983265X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1323233585&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Goodbye-Soviet-Withdrawal-Afghanistan/dp/0674058666/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1323233585&amp;sr=8-4
You should read Ghost Wars by Steven Coll. It's a historical account of that ends on Sept 10, 2001, so doesn't directly fit your request. That said, it is the most comprehensive overview of the events that led up to 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. Pulitzer Prize winner: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
This is a classic for sure, but it's a bit expensive bought new: http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Steppes-History-Central-Asia/dp/0813513049/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_5?ie=UTF8&amp;dpID=51knWPD2HSL&amp;dpSrc=sims&amp;preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&amp;refRID=04WY3HDVNEBNV6HBWVVK
In addition to a chapter on Timur and the Timurids, there's a huge amount of other information on the related peoples.
What do you think the objectives of a terrorist organization are? How would you counter said terrorist organization? How would you convince your fellow representatives to follow your initiative? How would you work against an Islamic power of Iran due to the collapse of Irans religious/local rivals due to american military presence in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Might I suggest reading How to Win a Cosmic War, Thinking Like a terrorist, Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, and Imperial Hubris to get some background on why the United States has/is losing the greater war on terror.
The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk.
The Great Game - Peter Hopkirk
Anything else by Hopkirk is also worth reading, but The Great Game focuses on the rivalry between Russia and Britain in Central Asia. It's a long book, but very readable. I read it before the current conflicts and went back and reread it. Amazing how little some things change.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Blood-Telegram-Gary-Bass/dp/0307744620
http://www.amazon.com/Kissingers-Shadow-Americas-Controversial-Statesman/dp/1627794492
Chinese textbook claim Tibet is always part of China, this is not correct.
India textbook claim China has nothing to do with Tibet until 1950 invasion, that is not correct either.
Nationalism blind people's mind, and it has nothing to do with Communism or Democrats. Both side brainwash their people for political reason.
do yourself a favor to borrow a book called great game.
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223
At least learn some history of Tibet first.
for such a complicated issue, there is not black white answer.
> Chinese textbook claim Tibet is always part of China, this is not correct. India textbook claim China has nothing to do with Tibet until 1950 invasion, that is not correct either.
>
This is incredibly basic understanding of academia. This is literally entry-level thought. Even at Wikipedia they've always disallowed sources based on criteria just like this. This is not something you should be trumpeting as giving your opinion authority, this is something you should assume everybody already knows.
Because they do.
> do yourself a favor to borrow a book called great game. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223 At least learn some history of Tibet first.
I appreciate the offer, but I am already pretty well versed in this topic. Apart from anything else, your reccomendation lacks accuracy - the Great Game was between the British and Russian Empires, with Central Asia merely the staging ground. Moreso, that staging ground focused on the Hindu Kush, Afghanistan and the push to India, not the Himalayas. Tibet would be a passing reference in such a text.
Try these written by ex- Pakistan's Ambassador to United States, Hussain Haqqani
And perhaps The Blood Telegram, a memoir of Archer Blood who was an American Diplomat in East Pakistan.
Seems like Ghost Wars called into question some of the stories about Wilson's higher level contributions to the war.
Hahaha this book, if anyone bothers to read it, will tell you what a colossal failure that was.
https://www.amazon.com/Return-King-Battle-Afghanistan-1839-42/dp/0307948536
Whilst you're right the Taliban and Mujahidden are separate entities, one coming after the other, to say that 'The US had nothing to do with this organization or their takeover of power in 1996.' is disingenuous at best.
The Taliban very much came from the ashes and socially-politically tilled land the US prepared. They actively fostered a climate of radicalisation and militancy, they even translated the Qu'ran into Russian satellite languages, with their own militant interpretations, and canvassed the Soviet satellites with it. They actively armed, taught, funded, harboured and trained militant behaviour. It's a bit of a stretch that the US had no hand in the rise of the Taliban. They very much prepared the way. That's the sort of ball that doesn't just stop rolling when the Soviets pull out of the country.
The Taliban and the Mujahidden, whilst different, go hand in hand with one another. In many cases the Taliban forces they're fighting very much are connected to the Mujahidden and the Cold War operations:
The Taliban is not Mujahidden, that much is true.
"The US had nothing to do with this organization or their takeover of power in 1996" - is most definitely not true. The Taliban are the bastard child of the Frankenstein monster the CIA, MI6, ISI and Saudi Arabia cobbled together in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
For much more reading with numerous CIA and MI6 testimony, from mid-level all the way up to a director of the CIA, and industry acknowledged (Pulitzer): http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
If you're into primary sources, reading NSC-68 is a pretty great experience (although almost exclusively relevant to the American perspective).
For something less "boring," you could look into Charlie Wilson's War - they made a movie with Tom Hanks, also, but I found it predictably less informative. I like reading about the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and my favorite book on the topic is Girardet's "Afghanistan: The Soviet War".
>Al Qaeda was founded by a Saudi royal
Umm...what? Bin Laden was not a member of the Saudi royal family.
Also, the Bin Laden family is huge. There are members of Osama bin Laden's family that are fashion models in Europe (See: Wafah Dufour bin Laden).
Saud Family
As per the source: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076
Lots of people saw it backfiring, but Rep Charlie Wilson had lots of clout in the CIA and Reagan White House and overrode those concerns ("I'm elected and you're not"). Source: My dad (deceased) who provided Reagan's daily defense intelligence briefings and corroborated in accounts in http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Wilsons-War-Extraordinary-Congress/dp/0802143415
A few that came to mind:
The Great Influenza
Autism's False Prophets
1776
The Greatest Show On Earth
Ghost Wars
The Demon-Haunted World
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223 A book I'm reading that is really awesome and that I was looking up reviews for.
my bad, i thought you were referring to the victims. The Punjabi Prince already exists
"What happened next is a warning of how bad things could yet become: a full-scale rebellion against the British broke out in Kabul, and the two most senior British envoys were murdered, making the British occupation impossible to sustain. On the disastrous retreat that followed, as many as 18,000 East India Company troops and maybe half again as many Indian camp followers (estimates vary), were slaughtered by Afghan marksmen waiting in ambush amid the snow drifts and high passes, shot down as they trudged through the icy depths of the Afghan winter.
The last 50 or so survivors made their final stand at Gandamak. As late as the 1970s, fragments of Victorian weaponry could be found lying in the screes..."
NYT article
Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan, 1839-42...great book about the British learning their lesson about fighting in Afghanistan.
I can't think of any modern army that's ever conquered Afghanistan.
There are a couple from the great game period, where Russia and Britain were rivaling each other in the central asia. You'll likely find plenty original intelligence officers as authors in the references of Hopkirk's "The Great Game".
This book is what shaped my thinking on the Bangladeshi independence war: https://amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Genocide/dp/0307744620. One of the things it points out is that the groups you mentioned were killing and raping in Bangladesh first. This does NOT excuse the Mukti Bahini for doing the same; it is inhuman and wrong, and they should have figured out another way to establish deterrence. There is blood on both sides. But, it /is/ on both sides -- it wasn't one side attacking the other unprovoked, as your comment might suggest at first glance.
Basically what it boils down to is a lack of compatibility with democracy, as I already noted. Throughout Afghan history, there has been no concept of a greater state except in times of foreign intervention. Democracy relies on the concept of a nation-state to bind its people together. The US and NATO at large tends to rely on western-educated leadership that they utilize as puppets -- which is their downfall. Here's a good wikipedia article and book to read about what happens to puppets in Afghanistan:
https://www.amazon.com/Return-King-Battle-Afghanistan-1839-42/dp/0307948536
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul
Afghan forces essentially had enough of the puppet in Kabul at the time and deposed him.
Afghanistan requires -- in my opinion -- three major attributes in a leadership.
1.) A heavy hand
Strongmen are the only forms of leadership that have shown any sort of possibility of maintaining a stable and effective level of governance in Afghanistan since the modern state's founding in 1747. Great examples of such strongmen are Abdur Rahman Khan (r.1880-1901) and Atta Mohammad Nur (r. Balkh Province, 2003-present). Studies on security in Afghanistan have shown that the most secure provinces are those who are considered "warlords" by the west. Those who are western educated or longtime Afghan ex-pats who returned in 2001 are generally far more in effective, which brings me to my next point.
2.) Strong internal connections
Provincial governors -- and national governors before them -- that have had strong internal family and tribal connections have had the most success in security and stability within their provinces. Two good examples: Dost Mohammad Khan (r. 1826-1863) and Gul Agha Sherzai (Governor of Nangarhar under Karzai).
Dost Mohammad Khan and his son Wazir Akhbar Khan were able to outmaneuver the British-backed Shah Shuja (who had been in India for some 10 years after the rise of the Dost) due to their deep, deep patronage networks. These internal networks are still alive and well today and are part of the reason Karzai was so effective in the early years of his reign.
Gul Agha Sherzai is what one could call an "outsider" governor in Nangarhar in that he was a Kandahari that was placed in his post by Karzai to avoid tribal warfare between the Sherzai and the Karzai. Sherzai immediately worked to create his own deep-reaching networks in Nangarhar to stabilize the province, and did so quite effectively.
3.) An above-average understanding of foreign politics without being beholden to a foreign power
As a kind of alluded to at the beginning, it is necessary that Afghan leadership understand the world stage without being beholden to a foreign power (see: Zahir Shah). Without the former, a government will be unstable because world actors will see them as unpredictable. In the mid 1970s, Daud Khan (cousin of Zahir Shah) attempted to really push the Pashtunistan issue with Pakistan in an effort to get them to turn over Pashtunistan to Afghanistan. This resulted in the ISI's clandestine funding of Islamist groups in Afghanistan such as Jamiat-e-Islami and Hezb-i-Islami (Gulbuddhin Hekmatyar's group) that culminated in an attempted revolt in 1975 that did weaken Daud's hold on power.
If a government is beholden to foreigners, it becomes easy for hostile internal actors to make the argument that they are puppets of a colonial power, such as the Dost did to Shah Shuja in the 1840s, or the Mujahideen to Najibullah and Babrak Kamal in the 1980s, or Ashraf Ghani today.
So I suppose my point is that the US wants a democratic government run by pro-US leadership that is going to do their bidding, but that just isn't going to work longterm, and democracy is not compatible in Afghanistan.
Now, will strongmen by the answer for a forever peaceful Afghanistan without internal strife? I don't know, frankly, but it seems that on a small scale it works -- but it all requires one charismatic guy to bring the entire country to heel. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens in the next elections in AFG -- if they happen at all.
This is behind a paywall but this is the source for the study on strongmen: http://as.ucpress.edu/content/55/2/299
Here is the mobile version of your link
you started well with things that can be proven to help. exercise, nature, psychotherapy if you're really lost. But the reason why you pay a psychotherapist to listen is that they're a professional and most people don't know how to help you with your complaints. So all you're doing is straining relationships by treating them like therapy sessions where you vent about the inequities of the world. Also, check the link I posted in the previous post showing that venting to relieve stress only hardwires your brain for more stress and more venting.
And feminism is jealousy. Its the belief that you don't have what men have and you want it. That's plain and simple jealousy. Nobody has it the same as anyone else. But feminism is the fight to prioritize your life unfairness above everyone else by suggesting you're selflessly doing it for other women and acting the most distressed. If you ever worked retail when you were a teen, customers often would try to receive priority or get special treatment by being the most visibly upset. It's not that different. There are lots of movements like feminism and they all end up fighting each other, as well as fracturing and fighting within because it's not only about which group gets priority, within each group its about which person gets priority too.
There's also no evidence activism changes things for the better. Counter culturalism, which feminism sprouted from in the 60's altered our culture and gave rise to activism.(no I don't care about 1st wave since there are 300 years between 1st and 2nd with no physical connection between them except with books and in the name that the second wave gave the first. the people involved from 2nd-4th are the same people using the same methods and are within the same hippie culture), Previously, civil rights were handled by lawyers an lawmakers. The end result did not only be civil rights lawyers shirked of getting any mention of the efforts they were making in court but the men and women leading mobs, clashing with police and society and getting people killed were hailed as heroes because they garnered media attention and headlines that boring courtrooms do not. Harvey Milk drove his friend to suicide to push his not-so-selfless agenda All for a pointless cause since there were many lawyers sleeplessly working for gay rights already. The system was already working, but no activist wants to believe that because it makes their control of the media spotlight look tyrannical.
In the 60's Students on campus at UC Berkeley fought for the right to talk about politics and take control of the university. they rescinded the power from the faculty and gave it to the students through mob rule, a format that's been adopted by almost every university in the world. feminism was a breakoff protest of that 60's Berkeley student movement because some women didn't feel they had enough power and a voice in the protests and protested the men. (documentary: Berkeley in the sixties) The movement also empowered psychedelic drug use, funded gun purchases for the black panthers, and irrevocably changed youth culture around the world to what it is today: jaded and believe the system is rigged against them even though they took control of it almost sixty years ago.
now we're seeing a rollback of free speech. we're seeing students actually believing fascism is better than liberty because its the best way to force society to prioritize their needs above everyone else. Evergreen college in Oregon is the most recent example of that where the student actually tried to racially segregate the campus in the name of equality. Or elsewhere in the world. People forget that Afghanistan by the 50's was progressive with many women, not in burkas, attending university. Men wore blue jeans and listened to rock and roll. Until the early 70's groups of students using the Berkeley model rallied students against western culture raided a US embassy, killed several Americans inside and lead their country to the disaster it became less than a decade later. (first chapter of the book "ghost wars" by Steve Coll)
rules and laws are only fair if they apply to everyone equally. If you're not a lawyer, learn the law. If you are a lawyer you don't go to protests, you make your arguments in court and guess what, if you're angry you get kicked out of the courtroom.
Be proactive. Be sensitive to your friend's feelings, including men (which you responded to pathologically with 'haha' earlier). Realize what your guy friend was saying is exactly what he would've said to his guy friends too so there's no possibility is trying to silence you or treating you differently for being a girl. In fact, he probably said it nicer than he normally does because sometimes dudes just need to hear "stfu."
Hope this helps. If it doesn't do some soul searching and try to figure it out on your own. But if you come at me or your friend like we're being an asshole when we're giving you the same advice we'd give anyone we're trying to help, guess who might be the real asshole.
Please do read a bit more - Kashmir is just a proxy, root cause is religious. After Kashmir it'll be Punjab, then other states. Pakistan is a terrorist nation and has been involved in terrorism since it's inception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts
"We will wage 1000 wars against India" - Bhutto
https://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Delusions-Pakistan-History-Misunderstanding/dp/1610393171
https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-Pakistan-Armys-Way/dp/0199892709
&#x200B;
No shit, you selling ocean front property in Arizona by any chance?
And your assertion isnt conclusive. Russia had been seeking warm water ports or access to them for centuries.
If you're going to so snidely try to correct someone, make sure you know what you're talking about:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81b00401r000600120003-3
https://sofrep.com/news/russias-ever-elusive-warm-water-quest/
Here's a book you can read, I dont know if it has pictures:
https://www.amazon.com/Afgantsy-Russians-Afghanistan-Rodric-Braithwaite/dp/019983265X
blah blah blah. There is no conspiracy. The CIA simply fucked up and stopped paying to all the hydra heads that were branching off of their creations in Afghanistan.
They systematically kept trying to go after Bin Laden right until the end of the Clinton adminstration.
It was Bush who dropped the ball, and imo through sheer negligence.
read a book
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1221425263&amp;sr=8-1
or two
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802141242/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk
Would you rather have lost the Cold War, or supported the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan? You can thank Charlie Wilson for this one...