I agree that the ISI seemed to prefer to fund some of the more radical mujahedeen. But it's a big jump to take that fact and use it to argue that the US sponsored bin Laden (he had his own money, in fact it was his main contribution to the fight against the Russians), or the Taliban (who became significant in the 90s long after the Soviets had pulled out and our involvement had ended.
Tim, as I understand Kaplan on this point, and he is my only credible source, the money would have gone to groups bin Laden would most likely have been involved with. In that respect, it seems to me you can argue we "funded" him. Frankly, however, that argument doesn't interest me very much. The other one, the one that says the US frequently mistakes short term goals for long term policy aims, that one does interest me.
Moreover, if someone could pin some sort of 80s CIA funding to bin Laden, I would love to see that wind up against Casey. But my grievance there goes to Central America, not Afghanistan.
John |
