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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12141)	11/30/2001 3:30:15 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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

To: TimF who wrote (12141)	11/30/2001 3:35:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that the ISI seemed to prefer to fund some of the more radical mujahedeen. No doubt about it. And one can imagine why they did so. Pakistan has been in conflict with India for 50 years over the fate of Kashmir. (not taking sides here... just explaining mindsets) And since what was "needed" in the mind of the ISI, was a guerilla group that could take the battle to India without necessarily invoking an outbreak of full hostilities, it probably made perfect sense to them. As well as making sure that Afghanistan was under their control, and not someone else's (like the Russian affiliated N. Alliance). And I'm sure the ISI felt they could "control" the Taliban and OBL, using them as tools to their own advantage. Or maybe they were just as intimidated by the monster they had created that they couldn't kill it, without creating civil war within their own country. Obviously, the creation and nurturing of Al-Qaida and the Taliban involve complex issues and interests. But that's what's so nice about war. We can take complexity and mask it behind simplicity. It makes it easier to say... "I don't care who's responsible for their creation, I'm going to be responsible for their destruction". Similar to... forget who created the problem... just solve it, or eliminate it. Of course, those simple solutions generally lead to future complexities... But we can leave those for our heirs to deal with..... :0) Hawk