Why exactly Afghanistan

If that was the case mate...then North Korea would have been dealt with by now too.

 

If I were he I would be leaving now - your friendly Afghans treatment of President Najibullah, deserted by the Soviets.

 

Seems about right...Scipio....Apparantly he's making some enquiries about a KFC franchise in Texas.

 

Because someone is needed to operate the 7-11's.

KTK

 

Jesus Christ! Is the man in front laughing about desperate state of a man hung on the ropes behind? That »Karazi« should consider buying an one way ticket with these millions he got from OBama.

 

This is a great business idea: Halal* Kentucky Fried Chicken for the Texan Muslims!

* Halal = Kosher in Arab language

 

:lol: Yeah!

 

Then why don't you give us a source (hopefully a link) for it? It would be nice to see the context. Of course it's still only one mans word and the fact that he's talking about it pretty clearly indicates that his word isn't worth all that much.

 

Here is a link, but I have something better: an article involving this interview but put in a broader context. Please find in the attachment an article by David N. Gibbs, Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect (International Politics 37: 233 - 246, June 2000). Enjoy it - it's a great article.

Meanwhile I've been reading, and more importantly, searched indeed relevant sources. I am now very close to the hart of this subject.

PS: Please, also note that this extremely revealing interview hasn't got deserved attention in the English speaking world. Interestingly, however, A movie "Charlie Wilson's War (2007)" literally re-iterates Brzezinski’s statement: "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."

PSPS:

I have always maintained that you're a serious man. So please, don't tell me that the Zbigniew Brzezinski is a one-man-band and not trustworthy. Please.




View attachment 18937

 

That's the point, the state Afghanistan is in is due to acts in the dying stages of the Cold War and not some evil plan cooked up by US industrialists and their lackies in the CIA to get at some unspecified, yet invaluable commodity as you seem to be implying.

At the time of the Soviet "invasion" Afghanistan was firmly in the Soviet block, but the Russian's thought their client's "Corrupt and ineffective". (my how times change ). They already had forces in country "advising" the Afghan army (deja vu all over again), which paved the way for the occupation force and took out the existing Afghan leadership to be replaced with a more compliant one approved by Moscow.

As far as I can tell the first covert American money the CIA sent was authorized by Jimmy Carter, a Democratic President. By later standards a pittance which had little or no effect. The intent being to drive a wedge between Moscow, their Afghan puppets and the Afghan people. The KGB was doing the very same thing to our client states worldwide.

When Ronald Reagan replaced Carter as an Republican President the program (as well as others) continued. Bzrezinski was a key advisor to Reagan and he held the opinion the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of collapse economically and with the right push would shatter. If you recall your Charlie Wilson's War even after the full Soviet occupation and despite Bzezinski's advise CIA aid was fairly minimal, certainly not enough to effect a defeat on the SU. Remember Reagan/Brzezinski was fighting "Communism" on a global basis, not just some remote flyspeck like Afghanistan. There was great doubt that these sheepherders and opium growers could effectively fight a modern military.

Charlie Wilson, an otherwise obscure US member of Congress who happened to be at the right place at the right time, got the funding authorized though Congress. Our only goal was to give the Soviet Union a bloody nose in a way that cost America no lives and was deniable politically. Most importantly not lead to a direct confrontation between the US and the USSR.

Without question the American leadership reveled in the irony that this was a near mirror image for what happened to the US in Vietnam. But then I already stated this before.

If no one ever heard of Afghanistan after this point, Washington would not lose any sleep over it and certainly any State Department or CIA operative would have looked at a deployment there as a setback and not an opportunity to make their name. We (America) did not factor in the people we armed and trained who took over the country and their further agenda's. The Afghan's wanted a devout and strict Islamic state that would be seen by most other Islamic countries as something of a threat to their rule. (Can't let the peons get to many ideas)

America could live with this.

The Foreign fighters who flocked to the Holy War against the Lesser Satan (Russia), suffused with victory looked about for a new enemy to punish for being an infidel. I think you can guess who they chose.

Let me be absolutely clear.

America without question helped make both the Taliban and AL Qaeda a reality. It was not intentional, but an after effect of waging the Cold War against the Soviet Union. If you look across the globe you will see similar, though thankfully less costly, examples of CIA/KGB spy vs. spy games.

They themselves were not the masterplan for some global domination plan, just pawns that became irritants to their unwitting creators.

 

Have a look at Bob Woodwards the veil...For money and goods exchanging hands. It will also introduce a certain Saudi that later became ambassador to America at time of Gulf war 2. A murderous bar steward of the first order. And our friend and Ally...Want something doing in the Middle east..want someone taking out without it coming back...he's yer man. Under house arrest in Saudi at moment..he made the wrong enemies of his Saudi family. The Ollie North section and the Afghan and Saudi arms bazzar in fascinating stuff.

 

Even before I got back to this thread I realized that you did an excellent job of frameing this in a very misleading if not fallacious maner. It also illustrates why context is so important.

As has been mentioned above Afghanistan was a Soviet client state prior to the Soviet invasion. What's more it was one in serious trouble. Did the US sponsor Muslim extremist? That can easily dissolve into semantics. Islam is fundamentally opposed to Communism as one of the tennents of the latter is that god does not exist. So when the US supported resistence to the Soviets in Afghanistan naturally there was a religious component. Were they extremist? Especially in the current sense of the word? Some undoubtedly were but many indeed most probably were not. So, lacking documents that specfically state it, it's not at all clear that US policy was to support Islamic extremist. There motivation was likely irrelevant at least for the most part. Would US citizens have been surprised to here that the US was supporting opposition to a Soviet puppet regime of the time? No and most would likely not have objected. You say this is under reported in the West perhaps but thinking back on it I think it was reported at the time and just not considered particularly important. I'm still not convinced that it was or is. It was simplay part of the Cold War. Now as others have said the Taliban and Al Qaeda at least as they exist today would probably not have formed without the US although I'm not sure that they wouldn't have formed any way. Without the initial US aid it would simply have take a bit longer for the Afghan puppet regime to get into serious trouble and the Soviet response would likely have been the same. Without the US aid there is still Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well as the other oil states and Iran for that matter to back the Afghan resistance.

 

@lwd

The truth is usually simple whilst lies need elaborate explanations and, of course: context.

Let me use LJAd's words in reply to your previous post:

 

IMO "moderate insurgents" is a contraddiction of terms. The only sort of opposition that could have any effect in a Soviet regime was armed opposition, and that's not something moderates do.

US policy worldwide was to support any group that could make trouble for the USSR, and to do so ensuring "plausible deniability" which practically guarantees you will have very little control on the groups you support, it was basically "playing with matches" and that can turn out bad.

Back to the Afghanistan sideshow, and it was a sideshow in cold war terms, without US money things may well have turned differently, the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan leadership had a good understanding of the risks Islamic fundamentalists posed to their rule, Iran would be a different kettle of fish, but they had enough troubles with Saddam to go looking for more.

 

The truth can be simple or complex. If you are talking politics it's usually not simple. Truth also needs context and to understand explanations are often necessary. To your response I will quote an adage.
To every complex problem (or question) there is a simple solution (or answer) ... that doesn't work (i.e. is wrong).
You have decided what you want to see and that's what you see. I find this unfortunate but not unusual.

 

Within the context of this discussion "moderate" has been used as short hand for "moderate religious motivations". So not a contraditcion in terms. It's not at all clear just how much relition influneced the initial resistance to the Soviets. Certainly it was a factor but was it the main one for the majority of those who resisted the Soviet puppet regime or the Soviets themselves? I'm inclined not to think so.

I'm not sure if it was support "any group" but certainly they didn't look to closely at said groups. Nor did the Soviets do much to vet theirs. As long as the Cold War was running there weren't many times that supporting said groups caused the supporting country many problems as long as the support was covert.

Possibly but according to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/miredinmount.htm

And of course Pakistan acted as the middle man. Indeed the ISI is probably the single non-Afghan entity most responsible for the creation of both the Taliban and Al Quada. Your comment about Iran implies that the religious government there was/is rational. That's not at all clear.

Here's another good source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXrwKA8GkU8C&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=mujahideen+afghanistan+financial+support+saudi+arabia&source=bl&ots=z1rgFbRoSd&sig=ONV5kWKaXvfWO1JQ5ziOoasQX3s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=88y4UfrKKLWq4APbhIGYBw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=mujahideen%20afghanistan%20financial%20support%20saudi%20arabia&f=false

 

Solution is really simple: the NATO forces, along with all their secret organizations should immediately leave that poor country which they have destroyed and let humanitarian organizations to do their job.

 

I don't think we are ever leaving...Combat troops maybe...and if you listen to the Spive of a Prime Minister we have here...thats all he talks of...Combat troops. We will be involved in Afghanistan on the ground for as long as we are able to keep a puppet there. Once the puppet is either ejected or runs away we will still be hitting them by remote control etc.

 

Thanks mate for additional explanation. That was very helpful. To me, it seems that Afghanistan is, so to speak, a part of some kind of the Lebensraum.

PS: while starting this tread I wasn't aware of the importance of this subject. The research of the reasons for Afghanistan has sharpened my view considerably. Now, I see more clearly the causal connections between the present day events and the events in the middle of the past century, perhaps even earlier too.
PS2:

 

If that weren't so sad it would be funny. NATO didn't come close to destroying Afghanistan. If anything they gave the Afghans a chance to make it work. By the way the "humanitarian" organizations really don't want to see NATO leave. Don't believe me? Read some of the following:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/20130530.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20130601.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20130212.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/20130226.aspx

...
February 14, 2013: American aid auditors are asking that $20 billion in aid for Afghanistan be held back until the Afghan government actually does something about the rampant and often blatant corruption. Too much of the money never reaches the projects it was meant for. Instead the cash is stolen and usually shipped out of the country. Many American foreign aid specialists suggest that the U.S. more closely supervise the aid money, but Afghan officials strongly oppose this, calling it an insult and an attack on Afghan sovereignty
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/20121224.aspx

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/20130117.aspx