Article

2003-03-04 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dean Esmay 2003-03-04 07:56 am|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2003-03-04 08:07:12|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-04 08:42:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-04 09:47:15|| Front Page Top

#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|| [www.livejournal.com/~deviantsaint] 2003-03-04 10:18:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| [zogby.blogspot.com] 2003-03-04 12:29:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-04 15:21:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-04 17:55:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-05 00:04:28|| Front Page Top

17:09 NightSurfer
08:33 raptor
08:02 raptor
07:59 raptor
07:45 raptor
00:17 Jeremy
00:05 Steve White
00:04 Anonymous
23:59 Steve White
23:57 Anonymous
22:50 JAB
22:29 Fred
22:07 tu3031
22:06 john
22:01 Patrick Phillips
21:58 john
21:57 tu3031
21:56 seafarious
21:45 tu3031
21:40 john
21:22 john
21:16 badanov
21:09 john
21:06 Frank G