the US tilt towards the taliban is pretty well outlined in ahmed rashid's "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia"... not that surprising, though...not only did Saudi and Pakistan support them, but Iran hated them (so they couldn't be all bad), and by the way, they did stamp out poppy cultivation, doing more for the war on drugs than any other government on earth...and yeah, Unocal had a big battle against Bridas (argentines) for the pipeline deal, the point of which is that an Afghan pipeline seemed like the only way to get the central asian oil out without going through Iran...and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of other horses to back, right? I mean, Masoud had his shot, he blew it, alienated everyone else when he ran Kabul; Hekmatyar blew it too; Dostum's an obvious creep...and in fact, backed by massive amounts of saudi oil and trucks and pakistani weapons and fighters, the taliban did an amazing job of taking nearly the whole country over ...what exactly were the good options for us policy circa, say, 1996-7?
Even if our choices were limited, and we made the best of a bad situation back then, why not just say that now? As it's being handled it comes off looking like the US decision makers are hiding something. One day the Taliban and Bin Laden are brave freedom fighters, and the next they are unquestioned evil doers in serious need of having 5,000 lb bombs dropped on their heads. Something is not right. Either back then, now, or at both points.
Probably you are correct (if this is what you're saying) that this is just the result of the very complicated real world in which sometimes you have to choose, say, the lesser of two bad choices. Fine. But I wish we could be a little more upfront about it. A little less haughty. I think it would help our national character to engage in a little more self criticism. Or to just speak something a little closer to the truth. One result I'd hope for (if we could admit that things aren't so clearly divided into "good" and "evil") is that it would be harder to work up the head of steam required to lay complete waste to another country.
But I guess that's exactly the reason why we spin the story the way we do.
a dose of realpolitik on the tree? why are you trying to cloud my opinions with facts? lets see? where to begin?
hmmm. how about an easy one? poppies? are you kidding me? is that really a big concern of yours even if it were true?
heres an overview of the various options for gas and oil pipelines out of central asia. the afghan option is the best option for us corporations because it was the shortest cheapest corridor (if you subtract the billions we are spending to "secure" the country) and because we believe we can exert the most influence there (for now). but it certainly isnt necessary, its just desired.
as for which dog to place our bets on in the 90's, i will plead a certain degree of ignorance. but certainly we were looking for someone to further our interests and were not overly concerned with afghanistan or the plight of its people. i would be interested to know where were our concerns in '89 after we helped topple the soviet backed regime. if afghanistan was so important to halt the spread of communism dont you think we would have put more effort into securing it then? only once the iron curtain fell and afghanistan became a useful conduit did we take an interest and it seems what we were interested in was security (for our assets) above all else. this might be ok with you but it does not set well with me.
i know you have spent time in the region so perhaps you could tell me where my conjecture is implausible.
|
- big jimmy 1-15-2002 5:23 am
Even if our choices were limited, and we made the best of a bad situation back then, why not just say that now? As it's being handled it comes off looking like the US decision makers are hiding something. One day the Taliban and Bin Laden are brave freedom fighters, and the next they are unquestioned evil doers in serious need of having 5,000 lb bombs dropped on their heads. Something is not right. Either back then, now, or at both points.
Probably you are correct (if this is what you're saying) that this is just the result of the very complicated real world in which sometimes you have to choose, say, the lesser of two bad choices. Fine. But I wish we could be a little more upfront about it. A little less haughty. I think it would help our national character to engage in a little more self criticism. Or to just speak something a little closer to the truth. One result I'd hope for (if we could admit that things aren't so clearly divided into "good" and "evil") is that it would be harder to work up the head of steam required to lay complete waste to another country.
But I guess that's exactly the reason why we spin the story the way we do.
- jim 1-15-2002 5:24 pm [add a comment]
a dose of realpolitik on the tree? why are you trying to cloud my opinions with facts? lets see? where to begin?
hmmm. how about an easy one? poppies? are you kidding me? is that really a big concern of yours even if it were true?
heres an overview of the various options for gas and oil pipelines out of central asia. the afghan option is the best option for us corporations because it was the shortest cheapest corridor (if you subtract the billions we are spending to "secure" the country) and because we believe we can exert the most influence there (for now). but it certainly isnt necessary, its just desired.
as for which dog to place our bets on in the 90's, i will plead a certain degree of ignorance. but certainly we were looking for someone to further our interests and were not overly concerned with afghanistan or the plight of its people. i would be interested to know where were our concerns in '89 after we helped topple the soviet backed regime. if afghanistan was so important to halt the spread of communism dont you think we would have put more effort into securing it then? only once the iron curtain fell and afghanistan became a useful conduit did we take an interest and it seems what we were interested in was security (for our assets) above all else. this might be ok with you but it does not set well with me.
i know you have spent time in the region so perhaps you could tell me where my conjecture is implausible.
- dave 1-15-2002 6:15 pm [add a comment]