No I don't exclude anyone from responsibility in Afghanistan.
But you certainly didn't INCLUDE any other influences other than the US.
Mighty convenient, I would opine.
It reflects the obvious bias you have against US policy, or some mishapen belief that the US actually rules to the world (it doesn't).
You've convinced me. And I will never again say the US sponsored the Taliban directly.
The question should be WHY I had to convince you in the first place? Why didn't you obtain the facts, or at least open your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it was absolutely illogical to believe the US would fund and support an entity that would vow to destroy us?
The whole crux of your argument was ridiculous from the beginning.. And don't feel bad, you're not alone in possessing this bias. It comes from watching to much TV and believing everything you see on the internet.
We need a shorthand term to describe that kind of non-"sponsorship".
It's called short-sighted expedience. We had a foreign policy goal, the humiliation and ousting of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and Pakistan and its mujadhedin were the convenient proxies by which this task was accomplished.
You must recall that US-Pakistani relations were not in good shape due to their pursuit of nuclear weapons. This was also the case AFTER the soviets pulled out and the US determined that China was selling nuclear technology to the Pakis. This caused the US to halt all military assistance to them, as well as canceling the delivery of 28 F-16s the Pakis had already paid for... And it CERTAINLY didn't get any better when Pakistan attempted to detonate 5 nuclear bomb tests simutaneously in 1998.
Given such a situation, it's hardly credible to believe that the US was playing any significant role in supporting either the Taliban or Bin Laden..
But if you're truly curious, why not ask the Saudis? They were VERY busy in providing direct support to the Taliban and Bin Laden during the 1990's.
I actually think the socialist government that the soviets were propping up was much better than what came before and after it.
It depends... It was under seige from the various warlords in the country from the beginning. All the Pakis and Americans did was empower them to have a sustainable fight.
But saying the Afghan communists were better the Taliban is kind of like saying that Saddam was better than the Islamist militants. It stands to reason that these are just two non-democratic factions vying to dominate, exploit, and oppress the people..
And yes, I've been worried about such groups as the Moslem Brotherhood since the late 80's, particularly in Egypt. And many other people thought they would be bad, should they manage to come to power.
But few thought they had the means to accomplish until 2001. But now we're seeing the demographic distortions and economic stagnation increasing the odds of their success and a growing inability of any kind of totalitarian, or secular regime to oppose them.
Which is why the military solution is only one facet of any successful stategy in defeating them. We must be willing to aim for much more than restoring previous stability, and seek to create economic and political change in that region.
Basically, we have to do what the international community has been avoiding doing for the past 80 years.. Bring the middle east TRULY into the global economic and political community.
Hawk
Hawk |
