Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No way that would have happened. Reagan was a proud supporter of the mujaheddin, who later became the Taliban. Foreign intruders have never fared well in Afghanistan. It draws them into unwinnable quagmires, but they never learn. There's really nothing in that dusty hellhole other than camel turds and hostile residents. The Russians made no difference and neither did we. It's still the same old dump it's always been. A thousand years from now, it'll be the same.
So much misunderstanding here. I was just waiting for this thread to evolve once again into the obligatory "oh it's all the evil US's fault" that all historical topics usually result in.
It's an oversimplification to say the U.S. supported the Taliban. The US indirectly supported the Afghan mujahideen in it's battle against the Soviet and Soviet-backed Afghan government (as did Iran, Pakistan, and even the Peoples Republic of China). This is NOT the same as the Taliban. At first the mujahideen were a collection of Afighan warlords and later mixed in foreign Islamic fighters, some of who would later evolve into the Taliban. But that was one of many groups fighting the soviets.
So the soviets were chased out, all well and good, but the Mujahideen could not establish a unified government and started to fight amongst themselves. Amongst this chaos their was one faction - the Taliban. They weren't even Afghan. However, they had their sh#t together, thanks to backing from, not the US, but Pakistan. They assumed power in this vacuum, but this was years after the Soviet's left.
In a sense, we came in after 911 to give power back to the mujihideen, the local Afghans, and chase out these foreign Islamic fighters. The Taliban and Al Queda ironically are also foreign intruders.
So much misunderstanding here. I was just waiting for this thread to evolve once again into the obligatory "oh it's all the evil US's fault" that all historical topics usually result in.
It's an oversimplification to say the U.S. supported the Taliban. The US indirectly supported the Afghan mujahideen in it's battle against the Soviet and Soviet-backed Afghan government (as did Iran, Pakistan, and even the Peoples Republic of China). This is NOT the same as the Taliban. At first the mujahideen were a collection of Afighan warlords and later mixed in foreign Islamic fighters, some of who would later evolve into the Taliban. But that was one of many groups fighting the soviets.
So the soviets were chased out, all well and good, but the Mujahideen could not establish a unified government and started to fight amongst themselves. Amongst this chaos their was one faction - the Taliban. They weren't even Afghan. However, they had their sh#t together, thanks to backing from, not the US, but Pakistan. They assumed power in this vacuum, but this was years after the Soviet's left.
In a sense, we came in after 911 to give power back to the mujihideen, the local Afghans, and chase out these foreign Islamic fighters. The Taliban and Al Queda ironically are also foreign intruders.
"Mujahideen (Arabic: المجاهدين) is the plural form of mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد), the term for one engaged in Jihad. "
You need to think TWICE before *adjusting* the original meaning of the word to your own liking, such as "In English usage, it mostly referred to the guerrilla type military outfits led by the Muslim Afghan warriors in the Soviet war in Afghanistan " "
"Mujahideen (Arabic: المجاهدين) is the plural form of mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد), the term for one engaged in Jihad. "
You need to think TWICE before *adjusting* the original meaning of the word to your own liking, such as "In English usage, it mostly referred to the guerrilla type military outfits led by the Muslim Afghan warriors in the Soviet war in Afghanistan " "
Adjusting meaning of what word? What case are you closing, what case was opened? Did you mean to quote me or someone else, because nothing you posted is really relevant to my point.
So much misunderstanding here. I was just waiting for this thread to evolve once again into the obligatory "oh it's all the evil US's fault" that all historical topics usually result in.
It's an oversimplification to say the U.S. supported the Taliban. The US indirectly supported the Afghan mujahideen in it's battle against the Soviet and Soviet-backed Afghan government (as did Iran, Pakistan, and even the Peoples Republic of China). This is NOT the same as the Taliban. At first the mujahideen were a collection of Afighan warlords and later mixed in foreign Islamic fighters, some of who would later evolve into the Taliban. But that was one of many groups fighting the soviets.
So the soviets were chased out, all well and good, but the Mujahideen could not establish a unified government and started to fight amongst themselves. Amongst this chaos their was one faction - the Taliban. They weren't even Afghan. However, they had their sh#t together, thanks to backing from, not the US, but Pakistan. They assumed power in this vacuum, but this was years after the Soviet's left.
In a sense, we came in after 911 to give power back to the mujihideen, the local Afghans, and chase out these foreign Islamic fighters. The Taliban and Al Queda ironically are also foreign intruders.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing any one that today's Taliban weren't part of the 80s mujahideen. And, in any case, Afghanistan is still what is was a thousand years ago and what it'll be a thousand years from now: a dusty craphole that no one will ever modernize unless the surly ever-squabbling inhabitants decide at some point to emerge from the dark ages. And there are no indications of that.
Adjusting meaning of what word? What case are you closing, what case was opened? Did you mean to quote me or someone else, because nothing you posted is really relevant to my point.
No, I was quoting you
Quote:
"In a sense, we came in after 911 to give power back to the mujihideen, the local Afghans, and chase out these foreign Islamic fighters. The Taliban and Al Queda ironically are also foreign intruders."
You need to understand what the meaning of this word REALLY is, as much as why Osama Bin Laden was involved in Afghanistan being touted as a "moderate rebel," when the US was backing up the *mujaheddin.*
Even if hypothetically speaking the "Taliban" was not there precisely in that moment, the *mujaheddin* paved the road for it.
Start paying attention at what happened in Iraq, once the Baathist ( Socialist) party has been removed from power - who/what has overtaken the country, "filling the vacuum."
You need to understand what the meaning of this word REALLY is, as much as why Osama Bin Laden was involved in Afghanistan being touted as a "moderate rebel," when the US was backing up the *mujaheddin.*
Even if hypothetically speaking the "Taliban" was not there precisely in that moment, the *mujaheddin* paved the road for it.
Start paying attention at what happened in Iraq, once the Baathist ( Socialist) party has been removed from power - who/what has overtaken the country, "filling the vacuum."
OK I can see how that is misunderstood. The point I was trying to make is that you had these foreign Islamic fighter , these "arab afghans" I think they called them at the time that started mixing in with the native fighters. But they had always been around, they simply re-wrote the PLO playbook and changed the cause from Arab nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism. Religion worked much better as a cause worth dying for.
Indeed, for these Arab Afghans, they saw it a global holy war. But they didn't really number that much in the Soviet war. Osama was there, got his jihad street cred, but he wasn't a major player until after the war.
Now contrast that with these native afghan warlords. Yeah they saw it as a holy war as well but there interest was local, not global. They didn't care about sending mujadeddin fighters to Bosnia or Somalia. They simply wanted there fiefdom's back in there little patch of Afhiganistan so they can tax the population, grow the poppy seeds that the west liked, and live with 20 wives and grow rich and fat. They didn't like the Arab Afgan's, but like I said they didn't have it together. Like the previous poster said however, Afghanistan with our without the Soviets, with or without the AMericans, or on it's own, would still be a barbaric place.
We can blame the US, sure US weapons I am sure got into Bin Laden's hands and these Arab Afghans, and we helped lay the seed for a destabilized Afghanistan, but if you really want to point a finger perhaps it's Pakistan as they sent in a well trained and funded Taliban AFTER the Soviets left as an attempt to extend there hegomoney. THis was during the Afhgan civil war phase, at this point I think the US had stopped funding sides.
OK I can see how that is misunderstood. The point I was trying to make is that you had these foreign Islamic fighter , these "arab afghans" I think they called them at the time that started mixing in with the native fighters. But they had always been around, they simply re-wrote the PLO playbook and changed the cause from Arab nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism. Religion worked much better as a cause worth dying for.
Indeed, for these Arab Afghans, they saw it a global holy war. But they didn't really number that much in the Soviet war. Osama was there, got his jihad street cred, but he wasn't a major player until after the war.
Now contrast that with these native afghan warlords. Yeah they saw it as a holy war as well but there interest was local, not global. They didn't care about sending mujadeddin fighters to Bosnia or Somalia. They simply wanted there fiefdom's back in there little patch of Afhiganistan so they can tax the population, grow the poppy seeds that the west liked, and live with 20 wives and grow rich and fat. They didn't like the Arab Afgan's, but like I said they didn't have it together. Like the previous poster said however, Afghanistan with our without the Soviets, with or without the AMericans, or on it's own, would still be a barbaric place.
We can blame the US, sure US weapons I am sure got into Bin Laden's hands and these Arab Afghans, and we helped lay the seed for a destabilized Afghanistan, but if you really want to point a finger perhaps it's Pakistan as they sent in a well trained and funded Taliban AFTER the Soviets left as an attempt to extend there hegomoney. THis was during the Afhgan civil war phase, at this point I think the US had stopped funding sides.
Sorry, but from what I see, you don't understand apparently how things work in Islamic world.
The "people with local interest" that you describe here, might not be interested ( originally) in "sending mujaheddin fighters to Bosnia or Somalia," but with Islamic laws that they want to govern their place, they are already very receptive to the arrival of the "global jihaddist" from elsewhere, that have their own goals in mind and that have money. So they come to their "bros in Mohammed" ( in Afghanistan in this case) and strike a deal with them; "we'll help you to achieve what YOU want, and you in turn, will help US with time to achieve our goals."
This is how it works over there, and Russians are well-aware of these dynamics.
That's why they didn't want the establishment of the radical Islamic state on their border, when they had THEIR OWN Islamic population right across it. I am talking about Tajikistan in this case ( which currently became the major rout of drug supply to Russia from Afghanistan,) but I would not skip Chechnya, which, with all their claims for creation of "independent Islamic state" immediately hosted Arabs and with it, was already breeding the "global warriors" that later went to stage attacks in different countries.
It wouldn't have made any difference. The Russians would eventually leave, just like we're doing. Everyone leaves Afghanistan except for the Afghans, and they make it what it is.
Yah, except that there is no Afghanistan, & there are no Afghans. The country is notional - lines on a map, & instead of Afghans there are Pushtun, Tajik, Kurds, & on & on. A lot of the Middle East & Islamic Asia is like that - an amalgamation of different ethnicities, with different religions, languages, customs, histories, & varying politics - sometimes tribal, often not very concerned with what their official capital has to say.
Ok, we do not support the Afghans; the USSR will still fall apart and Soviet troops will leave the country, creating essentially the same result as what did happen. The USSR was not on course to wipe out the Islamic radicals and the mixed bag of anti-anything except themselves ideology, the Pakistan border if anything would remain unsecured, and Pakistan would have offered as much assistance as possible to anyone anti-Soviet.
...
No, that wasn't the Pakistani/ISI criterion. They were gearing up for their next losing war with India - & were looking for territory for defense in depth - in other words, fallback positions that they could take up in Afghanistan. & so, when US & Saudi Arabia & UAE & anybody else who ponied up money, arms, materiel subcontracted ISI to distribute the goodies, we (CIA & Western spooks) kept our distance & lost track of who was getting the aid. ISI sent field officers out into Afghan, & recruited warlords & groups they figured they could manipulate (with arms & money & support, if nothing else) & would reliably stay loyal to their ISI handlers. Being anti-Soviet had very little to do with who got aid - it was all future pliability in favor of ISI/Pakistan. ISI skimmed off a lot of money & materiel, & that's how Pakistan managed to bootstrap & build centrifuges to purify uranium to weapons grade. Plus design & test actual nukes, & probably re-engineer the missiles they got from N. Korea. & the irony - ISI was politicking with our money - & anybody else's - I doubt Pakistan/ISI put in any real money of their own - because their economy/government hardly produces enough to keep their generals (& military & nukes & etc.) in the style to which they've become accustomed.
When US finally went into Afghanistan after Taliban & Al Qaeda, we (& Afghan allies) captured a lot of ISI liaison officers as Taliban lines & positions collapsed - ISI had never seen full US tactical deployment. We should have shot them all out of hand, or @ least interrogated them for everything they knew. Instead, I believe we repatriated the survivors (our Afghan allies of the moment were overenthusiastic, it seems), with maybe a note of apology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The map is not the territory
