Northern Alliance. Friend or future foe?

The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, when asked by the US to not enter Kunduz until the American forces arrived so a balanced temporary government could be created, told the Americans that they did not have to do anything the Americans asked. They entered Kunduz.

These are people depending on the US might to clear the way for their little revolution that has been stalled until the US bombers started tearing up Taliban butt. They are supposed to be our friends.

How long do you think it will be before the Northern Alliance turns against America?

Which is why we gotta get some US, British or UN soldiers in there quick - to show them who’s boss.

I believe you mean Kabul. They seem to have behaved themselves remarkably well. They know they need the rest of the world’s support in whatever they do. They have called for a govt of all the ethnic regions in Afghanistan. They went into Kabul as a police force. And have done a very good job of it. We will just have to wait and see.

Kabul. Right, my error.
I thought the UN called for a government of all ethnic regions. I recall the Castro Lesson, where he depended on our assistance for his revolt and once in power, turned his back on the US. Considering the fact that the Muslim world is getting upset because we will be kicking butt on their Holy day and apparently ignoring historic wars where in battles were fought on the holy days of other religions along with the eccentricities of the Muslims anyhow, I expect an about face once they feel that they are secure.

Most of the wars in the last 20 years have been fought in Muslim nations. We have been betrayed before by helping a disposed Muslim Religious Leader regain his office, only to have him start a hate war against us as soon as he was secure. We could not finish off Sadaam because the Muslims would have been offended had infidels chased him into his mainly Muslim nation and killed him. Osama Bib Ladin was offended when we had military bases within a few miles of Holy Muslim sites, which started his obsession, but there are other Muslims who feel the same.

The Arabic oil conglomerates are mainly Muslim and happily reap our benefits while screwing us with oil prices and nearly wrecked our economy in the 70s. That little bit of betrayal by them still affects us today in a trend they started based on oil prices.

The Muslims have a history of betrayal, not only of us, but of each other.
When this war is over, whether or not Bin Ladin is caught there, the Northern Alliance will no doubt take most, if not all, of the credit for the revolution and, feeling like impervious champions, decide to shun American influences.

Castro cooperated with the US desires also, at first, until he had gained full power. So did the Iotolla Kohlmainy (bad spelling!).

So, what do you think?

Wow. Sorry for the hijack, but you wouldn’t happen to have any cites for that assertion, would you?
Actually, the Ayatollah ran on a anti-US hysteria platform (being that his enemy, The Shah, was very friendly with the US).

As to the OP, I don’t think the NA will be what the US and UN have to deal with exclusively for long. This is only the first few steps of the “after the Taliban get lost” portion of the efforts. Once the former king makes his announcement (supposedly to take place on the eve of Ramadan), I think the NA will not weild much political clout.
And as an aside, if you were in the NA, and you just witnessed what the US forces did, would you be willing to play tough guy with them?
I’m slightly more apt to dismiss the recent rebuffs by NA regarding US requests to stay out of Kabul as little more than PR. Remember, we’re not sure how “emphatically” the US urged them to do anything.
I think it was Collounsbury who pointed out in another thread that this recent rebuff could actually add to the NA’s “street cred” by showing them as not being US puppets.

I think the Northern Alliance is a ‘future foe’.

They are only behaving themselves because we are watching.

I hope I am wrong.

Could go either way. On the other hand, the N. Alliance doesn’t have the power it needs right now. The Pashtuns and the other groups can possibly balance the power.

If they do go for elections that will make them one of the USA’s strongest aliies, I bet. We’ll get access to rescources, drugs go down (sure some of the NA basically wants to sell drugs, BUT if they have legitimate business anyway…) and there could be a model of how to go about living in the Mideast. These Afgani people have endured real Hell there, so they might be willing to give another form of government other than despotism.

(a) Elections. Americans fucking love elections. Westerners in general have fucking hard ons for elections and just-add-water “democracy”.

Wrong start. Elections in a country of massive illiteracy, no infrastructure to speak of, no tradition of western style organized parlaimentary democracy are not going to be a bright idea. Neo-traditional shoura and consultative councils are the only real way to go for a long range view. Practices with real roots in society. Not institutions that please us.

(As for the poppy growing, well it ain’t illegal as far as I know in Afghanistan to grow poppy. If westerners want opiates of various kinds its NOT Afghanistan’s fault. The business is legit. Our beef is with opiates is our problem.)

(b) NA: no they are not a future enemy as they’re just a name for an ethnic coalition of people who (i) didn’t like the Taleban or (ii) plain warlords who didn’t get a cut. Something bad might emerge from the government down the road but not likely in the short term. Depending on the sophistication of US on the ground policy, whether we understand that we’re working a system of tribal politics, not our familiar cultural structure. If we do that, I think all will work well. If not, well Somalia comes to mind.

Also to keep in mind, set up mewling sycophants is the best way for the government to lose its credibility with the people. Don’t expect every fucking foreign gov to be our butt-boy.

© What the fuck are Arab oil conglomerates? (i) OPEC is not an Arab or even a Muslim organization, its most hawkish member is actually Latin (ii) There are state oil companies. They sell their oil to the international majors, in general, somewhere along the stream. (iii) OPEC does not have a monopoly, they are residual demand providers with if I recall 30-40% of the market. A share which if they actually cooperated could be show market power as an oligopoly, but as their last meeting shows, they cheat like cheap bitchs. Meanwhile non-OPEC production runs flat out at max capacity (allowing for repairs). Oil prices are at historic lows and Russia just gave them a big fuck-you. They still might get prices up if Mexico and Norway kick in with big cuts since they have an interest in avoiding a price collapse. So does Russia but who the fuck knows what their political decision making is now.

As for their “betrayal” in the 1970s, econometric analyses virtually all agree that there were only 2 short actual oil-withholding episodes short of demand, the real damage was actually self-inflicted through (a) command economy responses such as price and import controls (b) panic buying and stock hoarding. Given the degree to which the old seven sister’s consortium had operated a real cartel, cutting them out of the loop, the 1970s reaction is hardly a surprise nor really betrayal at all. OECD idiocy did more damage than real actions (as opposed to bluster from OPEC).

So Arab Control of Oil is a big motherfucking myth. Now, anytime you get a significant % of world’s proven reserves in one place --Middle East-- there’s some market power built into that, but its pretty fucking weak.

(d) Ramadan is not a holy day. It’s a bloody holy month. The concept of having non-Muslims bombing muslims doesn’t sit well with a lot of folks. Good or bad, hypocritical or not, that’s the way it is. However I think this is a dead issue. The strategic bombing was the real problem, that’s over unless something goes badly wrong.

(e) the Ayatollah Khomieni was never on a pro-US platform. The US blindly and stupidly backed the Shah Pahlavi, Khomieni’s foe. Get your basic facts straight.

Some suggested reading on the NA from a British journalist with a great deal of expertise in this area:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1114-01.htm

Wow.

I haven’t seen this much ignorance and stupidity packed into a sentence since … well, since the last Wildest Bill tirade, I suppose. Suffice it to say that this assertion (and your other Middle-East-bashing assertions) is so off-base that you really should learn about the issue before talking about it. I’ll bet you think everyone in Saudi is a miniature bazillionare who spends all day sitting around the palace eating dates, too.

And for the record, a lot of those militant Islamic fundamentalists who are opposed to US foreign policy think that it’s been us who have been screwing them over cheap Saudi Arabian oil. IIRC, Osama bin Laden insists that the US underpaid Saudi Arabia by about $300 billion for the oil we’ve gotten…

Sorry for the hijack, but if we really want an end to terrorism, part of it is going to involve eradicating bone-headed ignorance like this.

Don’t forget that the main reason the US backed the Shaw was because the democratically-elected Iranian leader had plans to nationalize Iran’s oil reserves – and therefore stop selling cheap oil to us. Since America’s oil industries wanted to keep the flow of cheap oil moving, the CIA bumped him off and stuck the Shaw up as a figurehead.

Sorta completely contradicts Alister75’s assertion that the “Arabs” just want to “screw us” over oil, eh?

And when did the U.S. provide assistance to Castro and his little revolution? Our government was quite firmly behind Batista in that dispute, although Castro (like many other revolutionaries) did some fundraising in the States.

Ah, it really is like having ol’ WB back with us. Welcome to the Boards, Alister!