Ah not quite! Although the Taliban were "founded" after Reagan, they were not born in 1994. It so happens that I spent many nights in in Khyber Hotel in Peshawar during the 80s, way before the existence of "Taliban" as you know them. Khyber Hotel was the center of anti-Russian groups and the CIA semi-covertly through UNHCR and through Pakistani intelligence was supporting these same people who later became the Taliban.
For those who do not know, the official name of Pakistan is The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Way before there was an Islamic fundamentalism as we know it, Pakistan put religion ahead as the foundation of political movement. But through one coup d'eta or another, or through support of one faction against another, United States has always managed to keep a friendly government in Pakistan. Pakistan thus became the main arm of US operations in the conflict. But that doesn't mean they forgot about their ideology.
Why is this important? Well, as a simplification you can think of Afghanistan population as 3 kinds of people. The Pashtun (the ones whose women wear the borga) have strong ties with Pakistan and they cover the southern parts of Afghanistan. Then there are those with great cultural links with Iran (and speak the same language) they cover the western and central parts of Afghanistan. And finally those with links to Georgia and central Asia, who are dominant in the north.
The Taliban were Pashtun and given their ethnic and ideological links to Pakistan, it should come as no surprise to you that they were the ones that got all the US aid through Pakistan. Whether or not they called themselves Taliban from the start is irrelevant. You can think of it as rose by any other name.
It is not so much that US did not interfere in Afghanistan. It is more like we support the one group whom we short sightedly liked against all other factions, instead of insisting that all parties be included and a coalition be made. Furthermore, after the Russians left, it is not that we did not know what was going on in Afghanistan. It is just that the same group that we (through) Pakistan supported was killing everyone else and since the victims had cultural ties with Iran and former soviet republics, they were considered less of a human being and we did not care. So your argument that this was "non-interference" does not hold.
Either we should have stayed clear of Afghanistan because as you pointed out it is a messy thing. Or else, once we decided to intervene we should have done it decently and allowed all the Afghan voices to be heard rather than supporting the Pashtun/Taliban against the rest of the population.
Now for your other points:
> the Contras - they were more of a joke than a real threat.
I doubt the people they killed would agree with you. Besides, what is your point? Should we or should we not have supported them?
> And then there is the Shah of Iran - a strong man put in power to keep the USSR at bay in the Middle East - which he did with a brutal secular approach that offended the population. And then, to our credit, we moved him out rather than face a possible bloodbath.
So, given that CIA put him in place, should we share the blame for his deeds? Besides, I never bought all that cold war BS. If a bunch of mafia goons can get together and agree on codes of conduct, I don't see why US and USSR could not have done the same. Shah was by no means the "Strong man" that you'd like him to be. Total number of political executions in Iran during his entire reign was under 200. Hardly a democracy but a far cry from the image often presented. And orders of magnitude better than everyone else in the region, during or since.
Furthermore, there is no "credit" in removing him as you proudly declare. The right to remove him belonged to the Iranian people and not to America. Since we removed him, you tell me what is our share of the bloodshed that our action caused?
Thirdly, intent is a key element for moral judgment. America did not remove Shah for the good of Iranians. It was for selfish and misguided wants. Jimmy Carter observed that corruption and unpopularity of US puppet regimes pushes all their dissidents towards communism. Perhaps due to his own religious bias he decided that Islamic fundamentalism rather than another corrupt cronie-capitalist regime was the best barrier against Soviet Union in the middle east. The goal was to establish a strongly Islamist regime in Iran who would then mobilize the religious population in Afghanistan and Iraq and this Islamic wave would eventually bring a rebellion in the Muslim southern republics of soviet union. In other words, God was the best barrier against the godless commies. It was the continuation of this strategy which brought about a demented backwards fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan. So again, there is no moral credit given here, since it was again meddling in other people's affairs for selfish interests.
Fourth everyone should be held to the consequences of their actions. As you have pointed out the world is a messy and dynamic place. If we do not have the wisdom and foresight to see this, at least we can act in a moral way and not support a brutal minority against everyone else just because it looks like a good idea at the time. I doubt that the Afghans who suffered under the Taliban are as forgiving of these power plays as you are.
Now do you really want me to go over Philippines, East Timor, Chile, etc? In each case examine how these people came to power and what did they do with the support they got from US. Then perhaps you will feel some responsibility and start to think may be just may be there ought to be a better approach to world politics than just shrugging your shoulders and saying nobody else does it better either.
The point I am making is this: The world is a dynamic and messy place. You cannot just bring one guy to power because he looks good to you now and then try to take him down when he doesn't. This is a short term policy that has not worked and cannot work. Instead, you should allow other nations to decide their own internal affairs even if that seems not as profitable at the time. Then you engage them via fair trade practices. Not touching crap is the best way to keep your hands clean. In the rare cases that we must interfere (like Afghanistan but not Chile) then we should interfere in a moral manner. This means that we should see to it that the interests of most of the population is met. Rather than shortsightedly supporting the minority who for a brief period may look favorable.
Sun Tzu |
