Who was prez-Nixon? when there was major disaster in Nicaragua-an earthquake back in the 70s? When Roberto Clemente was killed in a plane crash traveling there to deliver aid? Well, our country sent tons of money to the country to help-and Somoza pocketed it. Nice guy, eh?
Seeing how the US supported and funded the Taleban rise to power, it would probably be difficult for them to turn the tables on them more than they already have.
When you personally install the wrong dictator, there’s not that much you can do untill he destroys himself. Maybe they should have just stuck with the commies instead, they’d have fallen much quicker 
— G. Raven
Damn it, Morrison, you haven’t been paying attention. Now repeat after me: The US did NOT support the Taliban, the US did NOT fund the Taliban, the US did NOT help install the Taliban.
I know all those foreigners seems alike to you, but we supported OTHER Afghan groups. The Taliban was actually funded and supported by Pakistan, and they had nothing to do with ousting the Soviets. The Taliban only moved back into Afghanistan AFTER the Soviets had packed up and left. While the various warlord factions that the US actually HAD supported were squabbling, the Taliban took over the country.
Hell, you’re probably one of those people who think Saddam Hussein was a US client, when of course he was a Soviet client. Think about it, all the tanks we blew up during the Gulf War were surplus Russian-made T-74s, not surplus NATO equipment.
And besides, your main point is incorrect. The US would have an easier time removing our own cronies, since their power depends on US aid and assistance. The US withdraws the aid, the crony crumbles. Simple.
Why can’t the US use its might (of course, after paying her bills !) at the UN to get a unilateral world consensus to condemn and isolate the government of Afghanistan? No flights in or out of Afghanistan. Complete trade barricade. No imports to Afghanistan, no export from Afghanistan. Also get Pakistan at the UN to sign up to a complete surveillance by the UN and our satellites, so that the whole world can see any moves by Pakistan that violates their pact should they dare to secretly trade with Afghanistan.
I’d say let’s even cut the “humanitarian” aid to Afghanistan right now. If the only way to get rid of the Taliban is through the sacrifice and revolt of the Afghan people themselves (including some death by starvation), why not accelerate that process by tightening the rope around the neck of the Taliban? Why not let things get worse, so that the revolt becomes imminently and quickly.
After all, those poor Afghanis are right now dying a slow death anyway. Why not engineer the events so that they revolt, say in 6 month from now, against their government, rather than suffering a slow death through years of Talibans rule.
I just happen to be one of those “foreigners that look alike”, and I just happen to not care that you believe CIA dogma over international scholarly works in the field of political science.
I also want a beer right now…
— G. Raven
Yeah. It’s called “life”.
Look, I know that you guys like to get all gung-ho every time you see injustices in the world and I’ve also experienced the American wish to control every piece of land on the planet. But internationally, the values and mores of a sovereign country are its own business. I can just imagine the Taleban equivalent of this discussion: “Those Westerners make their women go to school after the age of eight! They cause everlasting death for their people by not following the precepts of Islam! We must immediately cease relations with them!” And so forth.
In my opinion certainly their attitude sucks all kinds of donkey dick. But I don’t see it as my right to tell them how they should lead their lives. If they actually start wholesale slaughter of groups of people that might be another matter. AFAIK, however, that isn’t happening here. Sure, the marking of Hidus is a very alarming step but it doesn’t yet equate to actual genocide. You can’t just impose your cultural values willy-nilly on those who don’t want to absorb them. At least not by my moral compass. YMMV of course.
pan
As far as I know (and has already been covered in this thread) there is no signifigant international trade outside of Afganistan, except perhaps in Opium poppies. That is why we are so powerless: they don’t need us. (and by “us” I mean the rest of the world).
Couple things: One, revolts don’t happen when things get so bad that people can’t stand them anymore. When you are actually starving, as in dizzy-all-the-time bleeding-gums starving you don’t have the resources to orginize anything. Revolts tend to happen as things improve, because people suddenly have just enough surplus energy to think about tomorrow and next year nad not just the next few hours. So when you talk about “deaths by starvation” realize that the Taliban leadership might be more than wiliing to let the whole damn country starve to death before they break down and accept forign aid. It would be a hard thing to watch. I have no idea what the answer is, except to hope that one day the rest of the world could find something that the Afgani’s want.
(Actualy, I just had an idea. I know that the rest of the Islamic world has roundly denounced the Taliban. What if an international group of Islamic scholors were to recomend that Afganis be blocked from Mecca until some of the gross abuses are corrected? Has control of Mecca been used before to regulate the behavior of Islamic governments? I know that various governments in the medieval and early modern periods took the job of “protector of Mecca and Medina” quite seriously. I do believe that international influencees on Afganistan will have to come from the traditionally Islamic countries–we are too far away and too suspect to have any chance at diplomatic influence)
Why do you feel you don’t have a right to tell people of other cultures how to lead their lives when it comes to being horribly oppressive and thinking up insane rules for how everyone should lead their lives (“Music is banned! No kite flying! The keeping of pet pigeons is prohibited!”) and treating women like dirt, but you do have the right to tell people of other cultures how to lead their lives when it comes to the wholesale slaughter of groups of people? What if genocide is just part of their Way of Life?
Look, the sober recognition of the unpleasant reality that there isn’t Jack-All we can do about the situation in Afghanistan is one thing. But I really don’t buy this cultural relativism line. I certainly have no problem with telling the Taliban how to live their lives (or rather, how not to live everyone else’s life–if the wise scholars of the Taliban want to let their beards grow and refrain from flying kites, and their wives and sisters and daughters choose to wear clothing that makes Iranian chadors look racy, go right ahead, I just object to this business of making everyone in the whole country do exactly likewise). It’s just that I don’t know how to make them listen. Mando JO’s idea about cutting them off from Mecca is kind of intriguing, though–sort of the Islamic equivalent of putting the country under the Interdict.
I just had a thought.
If I were living in Afghanistan and was hassled by the “religious police” division on a daily basis, I would do anything in my power to identify myself as a non-muslim. That way I could even go on believing in Islam on my own terms if I wanted to.
While it’s clearly motivated by less than honorable motives, I believe this move to mark those not wishing to be subjected to the Taleban idea of Islam, will actually help the people on the street on a day to day basis. The Hindus can avoid being forced into prayer, and rebellious Muslims could dress up as Hindus to better avoid the authorities.
Just a thought.
— G. Raven
Buckner - if you look closely, you will see that I said that it might be another matter. I chose that word carefully - originally I’d used the word “would”.
I have to admit that by my sense of values, once actual murder is involved I see a step-up in the situation. This overrides my desire to let people govern their own affairs. Hence I would favour intervention at that point.
I could understand the counterargument for the sake of consistency, but for me the conflict in my ideals at that point leads to a desire to step in.
Look, maybe I can best illustrate my point with an example:
Many of us non-US citizens view the death penalty as a human rights abuse. It is, for example, on Amnesty Internationals do-not-do list. The UN cite it as one reason for the US losing its seat on the human rights council. As far as I am concerned, the US is murdering its own people. An outrage.
How would you feel about the argument that an international army should intervene? Should we attempt to invade or invoke sanctions because of this outrage*? How would you view that as a citizen of the country being actioned against?
I bet that you’d be pretty bloody pissed off.
pan
*obviously leaving aside the practical issues of our inability to do this. We’re talking principals here, dammit!
And here I was wondering where people get their idea that Americans are insular and shallow.
Beautifully put, msmith.
Morrison:
WHAT international scholarly works? I understand that many of the anti-Soviet fighters we supported were Islamic fundamentalists. But they were not the Taliban. The Taliban is a specific group of Islamic fundamentalists DIFFERENT than the Islamic fundamentalists we supported, just like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority is different than Pat Robertson’s 700 Club.
If you have some evidence contrary, I’d love to hear it since I’ve never seen anything contrary. I think you must have misunderstood what you read.
Lemur866, Morrison’s Lament: I have to largely ( though not completely ) back Lemur on this. The Taliban were a relatively late development in the Afghanistan situation. Here’s one article:
http://www.afgha.com/EN/Articles/taliban/dixit0897.html
The CIA was actively backing and building up leaders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb-e-Islami, which was seen at the time as a muslim fundamentalist militia. In fact there was a whole slew of “Society of Islam”, “Party of Islam”, “Islamic Alliance”, etc. fundamentalist groups that were supported by the Pakistani’s, the CIA, Saudi’s, or ( most often ) all three. Hekmatyar’s group was just the biggest ( though not necessarily the most effective ). I’ve seen these groups described as “fundamentalist” vs. the “ultra-fundamentalist” Taliban.
But the Taliban seems to have mostly been a Saudi and Pakistani baby. Now given the extent of the CIA’s penetration of Pakistan’s ISI, I have no doubt that the was some CIA cognizance of the group. Also, I’m sure some small amout of the billions of dollars funneled into that area by CIA operatives made into Taliban coffers. I believe they initially functioned as a subset of one of those earlier ( and less regarded in terms of foreign financing ) fundamentalist groups. But by the time the Taliban began their rise, CIA interest was diminishing rapidly due to the removal of the Soviet presense, which is really all the U.S cared about. I doubt they CIA had any serious active involvement in organizing the Taliban.
Now, you could try to make the case that the earlier CIA funding and backing of Islamic fundamentalist groups in general may have a led to an atmosphere where it was easier for something like the Taliban to arise. I probably wouldn’t argue that point. And with the Taliban conquest/absorption of other rebel groups ( they grew quite a bit on defections from other militias ), they have of course benefitted from all the equipment and training that was poured into the area. Also I can recall when the Taliban first started making an impact, the Western press was moderately enthusiatic about this “student” militia taking control from the brawling rabble that had been running things. I believe this stemmed from a very basic misunderstanding of just what sort of “students” ( Talib ) we were talking about 
.
But, all in all, although their origins are probably complex, the Taliban weren’t a CIA wet dream.
- Tamerlane
Save that this is a program started by Clinton. It’s merely being continued by Bush, and sends it’s support, or as much as possible, directly to the end-recipients, with only the necessary minimum required to get their approval being siphoned off to the Taliban bastards.
As posted by manhatten in the Pit:
For those not interested in following links, some excerpts:
We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance here. Pay attention to the details, please.
After re-reading some old books and essays on the subject, I feel Tamerlane probably has the best summary of how the situation came about. I’d draw a few different conclusions here and there, and link a few people and ideas more closely together, but you’re basically spot on.
The influence was far more indirect than I remembered, but I still doubt the Taliban could have risen to power without the CIA meddling in the area. Similar chains of events took place in the Laos/Vietnam/Cambodia war.
— G. Raven
Nah, it’d have risen anyway, albeit likely not so quickly. Having the support of the closest strong player, Pakistan, would have been enough, even without US influence. The US involvement is most apparent in the moderately well-equipped and -trained militia absorbed by the Taliban. Then again, there are the moderately well-trained and -equipped milita supported by Saudi Arabia and other nations, also. I think you over-estimate the influence of Uncle Sam in the region. This doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t bear some blame, but I think in this case that you’re pointing a finger at a minor player. Of course, you’re really missing the central point: There’d have been no Taliban without the Soviet invasion. All major misfortunes (save for drought) in Afanistan for the last 20 or so years can traced to that event.
If I buy you a gun and a plane ticket, will you go over there?
“The man who eats meat is on the same moral level as the butcher.” Robert A. Heinlein
Enough?
You were talking about the repression of the Afghani people and the need to save them. Now the rhetoric is how we should go and slaughter those same people. Damn right I’ve had enough.
If the Taleban is found to be a terrorist organisation then they need removing. That has nothing to do with the argument in this thread however.
pan