“Good” and “bad” armed groups

These days, the topic of comparing the Taliban and Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has become a hot topic in the media outlets and social networks. The head of HTS recently said that Syria will not turn into another Afghanistan, because both countries have different social and cultural situations and Afghanistan has tribal structures.

His words have provoked different reactions from Afghan social media users – some have confirmed these statements of Jolani, but some have opposed them. However, the words of the leader of the HTS delegation that Syria will not become another Afghanistan and his gentle and flexible approach to the people have attracted the attention of many.

Jolani has now become the next leader of Syria from the leadership of an old “terrorist” group, and both countries, including Russia, which supported Bashar Assad’s regime, also want political interaction with him. Although it is too early to believe all the words of Jolani, it is clear that he has so far introduced himself as a practical and moderate figure.

He has been able to gain the attention of the Syrian people and the media and be ahead of other Islamists. On the other side of the story, we are dealing with the Taliban, the group that in the last three years has only secretly invited people to follow them with the language of force and violence, including threats, beatings, arrests, torture, and murders. The Taliban came to reform the people they believed in, not to listen to the people’s demands through moderation and to respect the internationally accepted principles.

If we analyze the current situation of Syria and Afghanistan from the point of view of political realism, then we are faced with two different attitudes: one representative is the Tahrir al-Sham group led by Ahmed al-Shara and the other representative is the Taliban group led by Mullah Hibatullah.

“Bad” or “worse” “terrorists”, a common scourge of realism in today’s politics.

Both groups are hardline Islamic groups and have extensive backgrounds in “terrorism”, but their attitudes differ from each other. The first group tries to conform to the demands of the people and the world, while the second group stubbornly wants the people and the world to submit to their demands.

The first group wants to interact with the people and the world, but the second group insists that they will not interact.

HTS’s leader (L) and the Taliban Prime Minister (R)

The main fear of the Taliban and other ideological groups, whether they are right-wing or left-wing, is death. Based on this reason, in order to preserve their old beliefs and sacred values, which have become old since time and are no longer hurting the society in the process of change, they are willing to commit any kind of crime.

Some groups, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, when they realize the failure of their long-term efforts to achieve their imaginary and ambitious goals, they come to the conclusion that without accepting flexibility and leaving aside reality for political stability, which is always changing, he has no other choice.

These groups, however outwardly, are trying to change, but all these efforts continue until their power bases are threatened.

For another example, if we compare Hayat Tahrir al-Sham with the Taliban, considering what we have seen in Syria in this short period of time, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is considered a “good” armed group by the countries of the world – known as, while the Taliban have proved that they are “evil” in their three years of actions. “Good” armed groups like Jolani go along with the world and give up ideology, even if only temporarily.

He is a pragmatist and knows that the world is not going his way, and that he must submit to the ruling order of the world. Therefore, “good” armed groups are better than “bad” armed groups who never want to give up their ideological selfishness and be ready for compromise and reconciliation.

The existence of the worst, such as ISIS, makes the others ‘better’.