Display:
You sure about that? That the US directly armed the mujahedeen is widely known, but I have read several reports that they indirectly armed the Taliban, and supported their ascendancy through various intermediaries, particularly the Pakistani ISI, in the '90s. I'll try and dig up those references.

And the world will live as one
by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 01:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the contexxt of what you wrote, it was the Mujahedeen who turned Afghanistan from something more liberal to something rather conservative, and the Taliban only enhanced this.

In my memory, the Taliban was primarily a creation of the Pakistanis -- first supported by Bhenazir Bhutto against the then ISI-preferred Mujahedeen factions, then ISI supported them too -- with the US coming with some support now and then in opportunistic fashion (betting on the winning faction, hope of pipeline deal).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 02:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Many of those factions took on lives of their own and created havoc in Pakistan (in particular the NWFP and Baluchistan), I'm thinking of a particular scumbag named Hekmatyar whose faction took to kidnapping many local notables (including the brother of a friend of mine) in the Peshawar/Mardan area.

Then there was/is a Paktoonistan political movement which would seek to break the NWFP (where the Tribal areas are, where Osama bin Laden is likely hiding out today) and merge with the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan (if not the whole of the country) which Islamabad is not terribly taken by but of course many factions in Afghanistan were.) When I was at U Peshawar (1987-88, making me quite old I know), they shut the place down due to student demonstrations for this. They take this sort of stuff very seriously.

Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan needs to be taken as a whole, in this context. It may seem crazy of them to support the Taliban, but in reality it was more a best of many bad choices deal, with the added benefit of having a very weak Afghanistan which, with hostile India on the other side, has very important advantages of its own...

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 02:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ahmed Rashid's Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (2000) provides the best study of the rise of the Taliban and the American role in it. According to that book, it was all about oil - the US was trying to break Russia's control over Caspian oil and saw the Taliban, financed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as the best option for control of Afghanistan. Unocal was proposing a pipeline through Afghanistan to get oil from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea in Pakistan (and Hamid Karzai's background is in Unocal). The CIA, who had long-standing links with both the Saudis and the ISI, helped funnel money to the Taliban in the service of this goal.

Rashid quotes the US State Department as saying in February 1997 "the Taliban will probably develop like Saudi Arabia. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." (Taliban, 179)

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 02:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I sort of don't believe this story. Afghanistan has been wrecked by instability and civil war for nearing thirty years, and was two-decades into this horrible instability when the Taliban came to power. And they never had control of the whole country, notably the areas bordering the former Soviet Union were not under their control. So it's sort of hard to figure major western Capital would move into a risky project like this - pipelines are quite vulnerable to instability, as the FARC in Colombia and the Iraqi resistance are showing on a near daily basis.

I do not, however, think it impossible that someone from the Clinton state department would say such a thing - competence was not their thing either.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 03:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may not have been a sensible move from the US' perspective, and after '98 the Clinton folks appear to have moved away from whatever flirtation they did have with the Taliban.

But the interest was there, and Rashid isn't the only one to have made claims about a CIA role in the creation of the Taliban. Most agree that the Pakistani ISI played the crucial role, but that the CIA was there with money, some weapons, and a supportive posture.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 05:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think that what Rashid was saying is that the CIA had an important role in the creation of the Taliban. More in its strengthening. (In fact I probably got the first-Bhutto-then-ISI version from another Rashid book.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 at 04:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Redstar, this is not a matter of believe or not. Representatives of the Taliban even visited Texas in 1997 to discuss the matter with Unocal -- and also Governor Dubya (which was taped, Michael Moore included it in Fahrenheit 9/11). The Clinton admin not only pursued the thing, but they and Unocal received strong feminist protests in reaction. Unocal then gave up at the end of 1998.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 at 04:22:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the stories about Afghanistan being about oil are absurd - see one of my early diaries on dKos: why the afghanistan pipeline will not be built.

Turkmenistan has no oil, only gas.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 03:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Switch "natural gas" for "oil" then. I agree with your point that the politics of post-2001 Afghanistan are about FAR more than pipelines. But there are credible reports to suggest that in the 1990s US policy toward Afghanistan was based on energy and on keeping the Russians out, and that the CIA and some in the State Department saw the Taliban as a potentially stabilizing force that the US could live with. After 1998 that view dissipated, but it was there long enough to help direct actual aid to the Taliban, especially as they neared Kabul in '97.

And the world will live as one
by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 at 05:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series