May be we need to read this to rethink on the facts.. Mush, I believe has a point and is not inventing facts..
Not so sure we need a major rethink Iqbal.. (no offense)..
I've have the opportunity to interact with some folks who were involved in the anti-soviet effort in Afghanistan and who would be in a position to know. They were just as disappointed as many critics that the US lost interest in attempting to reform the Mujahidin that had been trained. The US govt agencies involved felt it was just too difficult a task, especially since ISI had been heavily infiltrated by Islamist fundamentalists and were against any effort to democratize Afghanistan. And with the political falling out that occurred between the US and Pakistan over Pakistan's nuclear weapons testing, the US just lost any real influence with Pakistan, let alone the ISI.
Now the article you posted made this assertion:
In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests.
Can you really believe that the ISI would permit the CIA to control them? I say.. not a chance!! And while it's nice to see you cite Coll's article, when I read Steve Coll's book, "Ghost Wars", my distinct impression was that the CIA was very frustrated that they were not being permitted access to the Afghan warlords to whom they were shipping weapons. The CIA station staff were expected to just write checks, train ISI personnel (who would then train the Muj's), provided the requested weapons, and generally stay out of the way. No CIA agents were officially permitted within Afghanistan unless accompanied by ISI personnel. And my sense was that the ISI's plan was not to do anything that would provoke a cross-border invasion by the Soviets. As I recall, the goal was to keep the war at a "simmer" without permitting it to boil over.
Maybe my perspective is wrong, but I have a hard time considering that I'm in control of something when I'm being told to "butt out" on the operational aspects, but fund the logistics.. The ISI and CIA both had a vested interest in confronting and opposing the Soviets. The ISI needed money, weapons, and expertise.. The US wanted "official" anonymity, or at least deniability. But it's pretty clear the ISI was involved in setting the "momentum" of any operations, if only for fear of provoking the Soviets.
As for the Taliban, I still say that Mush is being disingenuous about how much influence the ISI had over them, especially in light of the problems between the US and Pakistan during the '90s. I can certainly understand his unwillingness to admit this, but it's probably better that he just not discuss the topic rather than appear to be avoiding culpability, or claiming that he was threatened into having to act against some kind of monster that asserts was the primary creation of the CIA.
(From Coll's article:)
In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first -- and for many years the only -- presidential "finding" on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.
The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in "harassment" of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.
The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.
Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China's role has been one of the secret war's most closely guarded secrets.
This is not to say the US/CIA isn't partially responsible given we were the financiers. But if we hadn't provided that money, Pakistan would have obtained it from the Saudis and the nature of the struggle would have still resulted in an Islamist tint to the overall struggle. Because, as we both know, there are few greater motivators than zealous religiosity.
After the Soviets stepped out, so did the US.. So someone has to step and take the blame for having created the Taliban, and that rests squarely upon the shoulders of the ISI, IMO.
Hawk |
