| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghan Recovery |
| 2003-03-04 |
| Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the King of Afghanistan embarked on a serious program of liberalization for his ancient land. He substantially loosened the laws regarding burkas and other forms of social control. He initiated legal reforms to cut down on corruption. He allowed women to receive educations. He expanded the parliament, and intimated that he intended to convert the country to a Constitutional Monarchy, voluntarily giving up most of his enormous power. Kabul, in particular, developed a reputation for being a loose, hip, cosmopolitan sort of place, with the fleshpots of Babylon easily savored, and friendly relations with Westerners as well as the Soviet bloc. ...there's more! Unfortunately, as awful as it sounds, the move toward democracy was probably a terrible mistake. The Soviet Union had designs on Afghanistan. As they so often did, they infiltrated the democratically elected government, and helped to engineer a coup. The King was toppled. Afghan communists took over and more or less destroyed the parliament. However, they faced internal friction and resistance from non-communists. Within a couple of years, under the guise of bringing "stability," the Soviets rolled in with tanks and took over--coincidentally killing many of the communists who they had helped just a few years earlier. During the Soviet occupation, between 1.5 and 2 million Afghans were killed, out of a population of about 15 million. Millions more were dislocated. As always happened under communist rule, the economy was destroyed, and brutal repression reigned supreme. Political dissidents were routinely tortured and killed. The Soviets had all sorts of innovative methods for "pacifying" villages that were suspected of collaborating with rebels. One was to kidnap a woman, take her up a few hundred feet in a helicopter above her village, strip her naked, and push her out the door. The Soviets would also do things like leave toys laying around the countryside for children to find--said toys being wired to bombs that would dismember or kill any child foolish enough to try to pick them up. A standard method of "pacifying" a particularly troublesome village was to walk into town with tanks and troops, and start chucking grenades into people's homes. Then they'd shoot anyone--any age, any sex, armed or unarmed--who fled out the doors. Literally millions were killed, while the Soviets simply took all the oil and food and other goods they could from the country. The U.S. helped the resisters with weapons and money, and was instrumental to getting the Soviets to finally pull out. Then, unfortunately, we left the country alone to the remaining warlords, which allowed bin Laden and the Taliban to take power within a few years of the Soviet exit. You can argue that we should have stayed to help them rebuild after the communists were driven out. Then again, many would have called that "imperalism." In any case, it was the 1990s, the Cold War was over, and America spent a decade turning inward. I continue to be irritated when some wag who thinks he knows something talks about how we "helped bin Laden back in the 1980s," as if that means something. I still hear this stuff on a semi-regular basis, and it's very depressing. Bin Laden was one of many anti-Soviet resisters we worked with. We never knew what he was going to become. Although we knew some of the resisters we helped were thugs, we knew the Soviets were worse. It was right to help them. I also continue to be irritated when I hear people comparing America's current presence in Afghanistan with the Soviet occupation. It's not comparable. It's not even close. Not long ago, a teacher at my university tried this in class. I cringed and tried hard not to sound angry when I pointed out how misguided this comparison was. Afghanistan is a shattered nation. It is finally starting to get back to where it was before the communists destroyed it. Indeed, as this Washington Post article on development in Afghanistan shows, the people there are immeasurably better off today. It's starting to, finally, become a functioning society again. It's still got problems. There are still some rebel warlords in the badlands. It's still poverty-stricken and has a long, long way to go. But I wish more people would realize just how much good we've done for the people of that country, while simultaneously cleaning out a hotbed of murdering terrorist thugs. People who think of America as a bloodthirsty nation have a lot of growing up to do. |
| Posted by:Dean Esmay |
| #8 Well, gee. That last comment had me going until "his delusion that it is destiny yada yada yada" and from there it went downhill faster than crumpled tinfoil hat. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-05 00:04:28 |
| #7 Al-Qaeda was founded in 1989, as the Soviet participation was ending. It was founded on the Guevarist principle of "alternating foci" of jihad, hence, its attempts to establish itself in Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan and, finally, Pakistan. Its founding principle, as proclaimed in its literature, was dictated by bin Laden's mentor - Sheik Abdullah (slave-of-god) Azzam - as such: "Jihad must be continued until Allah alone is worshipped by mankind. Jihad and the rifle alone, no negotiations, no dialogue and no conferences." After America's missile interventions in Sudan and Afghanistan, bin Laden began interpreting specific Koranic narrative - the Khurasaan Prophecy - in terms of the "destruction of America" (and Israel). Bin Laden is intelligent enough to know of U.S. power, however, he knows that America is vulnerable to internal subversion. That is why in 1998, he created a strategic link with a Pakistan political party - Jamaat-i-Islami - that has connections all the way up to the American White House. President Bush, whose reasoning is clouded by his delusion that it is his destiny to unite the so-called common-children-of-Abraham, is facilitating a coverup of the fact that it was a senior JI executive who harbored Khalid Mohammed, the al-Qaeda genocidist who was captured a few days past. Every Muslim who supports restoration of the "successor" (khalifa rashdun)global government, based on the example (sunna) of Mohammed, is either an open member of al-Qaeda or an agent of influence. In absolute terms, Islami is terror, and in general terms, Muslims are terrorists. |
| Posted by: Anon 2003-03-04 17:55:24 |
| #6 Isn't part of the problem with the Pakistani ISI funding radicals in Afghanistan that the Saudi's were working hard to establish a Sunni/Wahabi counterweight to the rise of the Shi'a's in Iran? Didn't the Iranian mullahs hate the Saudi oligarchy, and threaten to export their true version of Islam into the Kingdom? |
| Posted by: Anarchus 2003-03-04 15:21:45 |
| #5 Great commentary and I could not agree more! The Pakistani ISI actually distributed the bulk of covert CIA aid to the Afghan resistance and, unfortunately, the ISI chose to give the aid to the extreme islamic factions, such as the one led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. It was this faction that destroyed much of the country and that was the impetus for the rise of the Taliban. So, the notion that it's the U.S. that is responsible for the rise of Bin Laden is ridiculous. |
| Posted by: Kamil Zogby 2003-03-04 12:29:55 |
| #4 it's funny because for most of the aghans that I would talk to and associated with when I was there, the muj war is a distant memory, a legend almost. something akin to our civil war. Although they know the stories, the emotional impact is a bit muted. Afghanistan is a country that on a whole, does not know their own history except for a few stories and legends. well, that was in Bamyan anyway. teh seperate cites and regions all have feeling all their own. however, most of what is though about afghanistan is false. A reporter cannot possibly understand what is going on there by spending a week or two in country and then reporting back to mr and mrs public about what's "going on". I spent 8 months there and I know that I barely got a chance to scratch the surface. I will say this, afghanistan is in a far better place than it was when this war started and then when the taliban were in power. if we did have as much of a hand in creating Bin Laden as some would like to think then it would also stand to reason that we have a responsibility to "un-make" him. -DS "the horns hold up the halo" |
| Posted by: DeviantSaint 2003-03-04 10:18:27 |
| #3 The US gave lots of money and equipment to the Afghan resistance, but didn't actually directly control any groups, or enforce loyalty to the US. So the Pakistan ISI and the Iranians both created groups directly loyal to them. This, combined with the US mostly ignoring the area later, allowed the Iranian and Pakistani backed groups to fight against each other and the rest of the resistance, creating a power struggle until one group won. All that makes for an argument for more intervention and imperialism in the situation, I guess. |
| Posted by: John Thacker 2003-03-04 09:47:15 |
| #2 According to the Bodansky(I think I spelled that right..) book on Bin Laden the US did not train any of the Afgani resistance directly. Just about everything done was through the Pakistani ISI. Which of course gave the ISI huge leverage in Afganistan-especially the ISI's Islamist elements. Anyway, as I understand it Bin Laden did not fight but functioned in a "combat support" role during the Soviet-Afgan war. People who think the US is so terrible are the same willfully ignorant jerks who think Mikey Moore-on is a documentary maker as opposed to a lying, slandering, propangandist. Their whole frame of reference about the world rests on "Amerika is eeeevil". It is simple and "pat" and saves them from having to deal with the fact that the world is not made up of "simple peasants" just waiting for the yoke of "greedy capitalism" to be lifted from their necks, but are folks who can and are just as greedy, malicious and corrupt as "whitey". Without that they'd be lost emotionally and probably have trouble functioning day to day. |
| Posted by: Rifle308 2003-03-04 08:42:42 |
| #1 Unfortunately, as awful as it sounds, the move toward democracy was probably a terrible mistake. Dean's World had designs on Rantburg. |
| Posted by: Anonymousadmonisher 2003-03-04 08:07:12 |