Bush / Taliban Redux
As I understand it, the only even half-way credible opposition to the Taliban in country is Shah Mashood (sp?) up in the North, he a Russian supported client who's forces stopped the Taliban's final advances last year in his own backyard. (Whereas the Taliban is propped up by Pakistan practically alone among nations now... even Iran having pulled their support from their former "compatriots" in Afghanistan).
Note that the former Soviets were in recent history the major arms suppliers to Pakistan's enemy India....
Pakistan's military is heavily implicated in the building and training at the rebel camps which spawned the Taliban, and from which they successfully took over 90+ of the landmass of the nation of Afghanistan, and in propping up the current regime. It is difficult to believe that the Taliban could have succeeded at all without Pakistani military support and training. (Pakistan itself is supported by China as a counter-weight to Indian and Russian influence... despite the fact that China faces a homegrown Islamic insurgency itself).
No, in this tortured and violent part of the world (but like the Afghans, with long and proud histories), there are few - if any - players who we "Westerners" would find acceptable... but the Taliban are the worst among the bad, to my way of thinking. Theocracies are ALWAYS the worst, and I don't care if you are looking at present-day Taliban, or the Spain of the Inquisition. Theocracies are always the worst. The day a religion takes over government is the day that Freedoms' remaining days are numbered.
Democracy and Theocracy are diametrically opposed. So if you are asking me if I think it was a bad and stupid thing for Bush to give the Taliban $43 million back in May of this year, then yes I do. There are forces which are SYSTEMETRICALLY more dangerous to personal freedoms and the very concept of democracy then any run-of-the-mill money grubbing bad guy or tin pot dictator.
Communism and Theocracy are such concepts... they are both more dangerous then the usual negative historic forces because they have the potential to exert their influence, and destroy lives and societies, over entire CENTURIES. The RANGE of their DEVASTATION is potentially vaster than that which could be achieved by any individual (look to the initial Hunic invasions of Europe... which breached the defenses and then collapsed upon the death of their leader for an example of this).
America has, after all, never been know for having a particularly successful or cohesive foreign strategy... frequently one hand of the US Government gives while another hand takes away. Sometimes the very confusion of America's aims has brought us some measure of success. (We are famously known as unpredictable by many in the rest of the World, and "unpredictable" can be a tactical strength), but when pitted against enemies who are determined and have a long view of history, it is cohesion and 'real politic' which have the best chances of winning.
However, where has the "cohesion" and rationality been in US foreign policy in recent years? In May of 2001, Bush Jr. gives the Taliban millions (and, yes, I opposed it at the time, so did many others, just check the news clippings), and in October of the same year he must attack them... yet the Taliban hasn't changed any during the interim. They are doing the same things now that they were doing then.
When Reagan / Bush I sold missiles and military airplane parts to the New Iranian Revolutionary Republic, the world's most recent Theocracy at that time, was that part of a cohesive strategy? (Set aside for now considering the numerous reports that they actually sponsored negotiations with Khomeni's representatives about our American hostages, perhaps delaying their releases - while Reagan and Bush were still private citizens running for election in what would have been a clear violation of Federal laws, if true)...
Alternatively when the US encouraged Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, was that part of a viable strategy? And when - using our supplies, particularly the jet parts - the Iranians began winning the long bloody war... pushing deep into Saddam Hussein's Iraq, we went further and began supplying the Iraqis, was that part of a good, well thought out strategy?
How about when Saddam started acting on his long-held dreams of a "greater Babylon" and attacked Kuwait (supposedly after Bush I's ambassador gave him a non-committal, wishy-washy answer about what our reaction would be, and he interpreted it as possibly condoning the invasion... after all, we had been helping his military...) What did we think those weapons would be used for when he finished with the Iranians?
Or when we were forced into attacking Iraq to protect Western oil supplies, and Operation Desert Storm was rolling towards Baghdad... only to be stopped two days shy of achieving the logical military and political goal of overthrowing the dictator when the Saudis (who were paying for most of the war) convinced Bush the First to stand down... Was that part of a cohesive long-term strategy? Or hasn't history taught the lesson that a wounded dictator is still dangerous?
Or just look at what was perhaps the most disgraceful and lowest point in all American foreign policy: When President Bush the First stood before the TV cameras of the World and called on the Kurdish people to rise up in rebellion against the dictator Saddam (a dictator we had helped to prop up after his near collapse during the Iran/Iraq bloodbath)... Bush the First promising that America would support the rebels. I felt shamed as the Kurds who rose up at our call were slaughtered by Saddam, and Americans were nowhere to be seen.
Is it any wonder that our foreign policies so often turn around on us, when we can't seem to hew to a logical and cohesive line? I submit that giving millions of dollars to the Taliban Theocracy is only the latest in this long trail of Middle Eastern foreign policy idiocies?. To go back a few more decades - or to other parts of the world such as Central and South America - would be to find many more.
For such a great country, we sure don't learn much from history sometimes, and perhaps that's why we are constantly so "surprised" by events, God bless us all. |
