Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (19459)	7/26/2001 1:04:29 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 82486

The Taleban did not emerge into prominence until the Soviets had already fallen... True, and I didn't mean to imply that the US aided them - I believe they were more Sunni fundamentalist-backed... but there were actions that could/should have been taken. For example, the US might have realised that factions within its allies (Pakistan, Saudi) were aiding them and put pressure on to curb such aid. Also, the US itself should still have been choosy about the groups it did aid - since 1970, it's surely been clear that backing a would-be dictator is not wise (Africa and SE Asia have given plenty of proof). Lastly, as I said, as well as aiding military resistance, have a plan to put in a government acceptable to locals as well as the West... and find someone with firm principles and local respect to lead it. This would have worked well in Kosovo, also, if the moderates had been more strongly backed before the KLA really took hold. All three might have prevented the Taleban from readily winning support and power. The warlords backed were, until too late, seen as equally bad or worse by many Afghans (and some most probably were). Not easy, and it's late now... but IMO it's not enough just to oppose, but to have a realistic (not idealistic) plan for what follows - and the 'enemy of my enemy' is not enough.