This is an intriguing quote from TPC members of the Taliban.

What had me curious was that the TPC has largely been consistent in their public messaging and generally abstained from making comments that would be so detrimental to the movement, even in anonymous capacity. https://twitter.com/Mr_Bahiss/status/1339468542241071106

While the above quote is open to interpretation, I & many twitter users (as seen in comments/rts) took this to imply the military commission and TPC are not synchronised or worst still, the military commission is inadvertently or otherwise undermining the political process.

I spoke with some researchers who had diverse opinions on this. Despite efforts, independent researchers were unable to get TPC members to confirm this statement. Some claimed the statements were unfounded.

Of course, even if some TPC members deny, it doesn’t mean others didn’t say this. But unless we can speak with the original unnamed sources, perhaps we will never know.

When researchers/ media use unnamed sources (especially from secretive organisations), it becomes almost impossible to verify such claims.

Verification is only possible if we speak with original claimant that made the statement.

Journalists unlikely to share source info.

I wish Reuters had dedicated more space to this claim, fleshing it out and clarifying to dispel misinterpretation.

Perhaps a followup piece?

Generally speaking, methodology of anonymous sources works fine if they are discussing personal level issues or expressing sentiments that are widespread.

In the latter case, you can triangulate and verify claims even if you don’t have access to that particular source.

It becomes much trickier when sources speak regarding high level internal deliberations of organisation or express claims that can’t be triangulated through independent research.

That is not to say, that one can never gain access to such sources or that claims by such sources are intrinsically unusable.

E.g. in relatively transparent organisations (such as governments), it can be relatively easier to gain access to sources that are close to decision makers or privy to internal deliberations.

But for organisations that rely on secrecy for survival, access to such claims becomes much more difficult. Most researchers can gain access to mid level fighters who can provide crucial insights into on the members’ psychology or how they perceive certain policies or actions.

This is a crucial aspect of research and enables researchers to keep their hand on the ‘pulse’ of the organisation and relatively accurately predict certain trajectories.

But mid level members rarely have access to top decision makers and even little ability to glean the internal deliberations at the top echelons of power.

Claims by any such sources on top level decision making need to be taken with a grain of salt and attempts should always be made to triangulate claims of facts by independent verification.

The problem is that because the Taliban has remained
a) a secretive organisation not accessible to outsiders, and b) they have been the ‘enemy’;
many researchers have found that they can make outlandish claims and there is little possibility to verify the claims.

Worst still, these claims are often taken at face value if they serve political ends of various actors without challenging the rigidity of research.

A factor that exacerbates this is that the relationship between researchers, sources and fixers isn’t always as straightforward as we would like to believe. Quite often, researchers need sources to provide them with unique and/or controversial insights to be worthy of research.

Thus sources feel intense pressure to create proverbial dragons to justify their utility to researchers and hang onto income.

Other times the ‘source’ views researchers as a vehicle to publicise certain views and policies to alter public or intra-organisational discourse.

Fixers can also play a crucial role in colouring or sometimes altering the response to serve some end.

This lax research environment results in contradictory claims where serious and coherent research is sacrificed at the altar of sensational and conspiratorial news that often informs flawed policies and decisions.

The result: failed policy after failed policy.

On the pernicious impact of narrative-driven reporting or unethical use of sources, I always find this talk inspiring.



https://www.ted.com/talks/bette_dam_why_western_media_promotes_war

As a researcher, I always want to be reminded how little I (or anyone else) actually know about the internal deliberations of these insurgents and their inner workings.

I find this inspirational https://twitter.com/CrisisGroup/status/1333327996371996672?s=20