Opium Harvest Boom in Afghanistan

[Heibges]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19431056/

I'm not sure at this point what the real story is.

I'm sure it's funding the Taliban, but the CIA also has a history of using drug money to fund operations to be unaccountable to Congress, so i wonder if they have any fingers in the pie?

[JetSnake]

The opium has been harvested for centuries there. Nothing too remarkable about it, nothing can be done to stem it.

[bradclark1]

The point (not having read the story:D ) is that the Taliban is paying farmers for a cash crop that lets the farmers make a living and plus get protection. The Taliban finances their war, the drug cartels have a steady supply at lower cost and the dopers are all happy.
It's all got to do with supply and demand. Oh, and we can't do a thing about it! Why would that be?:hmm:

[geetrue]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.

[Chock]

I was under the impression that when the Taliban were in control, they banned opium production, and its resugence came about when they were kicked back a bit.

:D Chock

[Heibges]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.

Sadly, much like agriculture in the rest of the world. :nope:

[Heibges]

I was under the impression that when the Taliban were in control, they banned opium production, and its resugence came about when they were kicked back a bit.

:D Chock

I was under the same impression. That's why I thought the story was strange. Of course, the Taliban might have gotten a whole lot more pragmatic, but it makes you wonder.

[Konovalov]

I was under the impression that when the Taliban were in control, they banned opium production, and its resugence came about when they were kicked back a bit.

:D Chock

I was under the same impression. That's why I thought the story was strange. Of course, the Taliban might have gotten a whole lot more pragmatic, but it makes you wonder.

The Taliban never banned opium production during their wicked reign in power. The Taliban quickly realized the vast tax revenue to be gained. In fact the taxes raised from opium exports became the number one source of income for the Taliban in what was effectively a war economy during the 1990's in Afghanistan.

[Jimbuna]

I was under the impression that when the Taliban were in control, they banned opium production, and its resugence came about when they were kicked back a bit.

:D Chock

I was under the same impression. That's why I thought the story was strange. Of course, the Taliban might have gotten a whole lot more pragmatic, but it makes you wonder.

The Taliban never banned opium production during their wicked reign in power. The Taliban quickly realized the vast tax revenue to be gained. In fact the taxes raised from opium exports became the number one source of income for the Taliban in what was effectively a war economy during the 1990's in Afghanistan.

Yep, that is precisely what happened. :yep:

[Skybird]

No news, no surprise. It is going since 2004, maybe even earlier. See:

"Trapped in the Afghan Maze":
http://freenet-homepage.de/Skybird/Afghanistan.pdf

page 12 - 18: "The two faces of Afghanistan's drug history"

[Tchocky]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.It leaves a little more spoon residue than I like, and costs slightly more, but my conscience is clearer now that I'm on Fairtrade skag.

[Chock]

LMAO!!

:D Chock

[robbo180265]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.It leaves a little more spoon residue than I like, and costs slightly more, but my conscience is clearer now that I'm on Fairtrade skag.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.It leaves a little more spoon residue than I like, and costs slightly more, but my conscience is clearer now that I'm on Fairtrade skag.

ROFLMAO :rotfl: :rotfl:

[geetrue]

Iraq could use some of that opium for the roadside, mosque, cafe bombers victims. :o

Thousands dead must mean more in the hospitals than I want to count.

[Heibges]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners.It leaves a little more spoon residue than I like, and costs slightly more, but my conscience is clearer now that I'm on Fairtrade skag.

ROFLMAO :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: That could have been right out of "Train Spotting".:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

I was under the impression that when the Taliban were in control, they banned opium production, and its resugence came about when they were kicked back a bit.

:D Chock

"Of particular worry is the Taliban's involvement in the drug trade. Drug profits now support elements of the Taliban and fund attacks on U.S. and NATO forces. While counter-narcotics efforts intensified last year, results to date are insufficient. More must be done."

http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2007-03-09-voa3.cfm

The talibans train of thought is they are death on their own using drugs, hash etc because it's against the koran, however it's okay to grow and sell poppies/extract because opium is used by infidels.:hmm:

[Heibges]

Do you guys remember that story about the Canadian Army trying to burn the marajuana fields in Afghanistan, and how the plants interferred with Thermal Imaging Systems?

[P_Funk]

I think that any attempts to stem the growth of opium in Afghanistan is going to be counter-productive to the fight against the Taliban. The reason that the Taliban is currently benefitting from the growth is because American anti-drug policy is alienating Afghans. If you look at the economy of the country if you tell them they can't grow poppies then you might as well be saying "go ahead and starve".

The Taliban is being pragmatic, but we aren't if we try and stop this. If anything we should be embracing it and trying to funnel this 'illegal' economy into legitimate pharmaceuticals. The reality is that you can either fight the Taliban or you can fight the drug trade, you can't fight both at the same time. If we keep trying to stop the growth of poppies then we'll just make it impossible to eliminate Taliban influence.

[Heibges]

They should form AOROL. Afghani Organization to Reform Opium Laws.:lol:

[Tchocky]

That's not a pretty picture, pFunk

[Reaves]

Even if drug production was stemmed in Afghanistan it would only pop up in one of the many other failing countries out there. Supply and demand.

[Heibges]

Even if drug production was stemmed in Afghanistan it would only pop up in one of the many other failing countries out there. Supply and demand.

I agree with you fully, but believe the issue is who is using the money from the sale of opium in Afghanistan.

If the Taliban is buying weapons with it, then we should stop it, but I don't see really how we can.

We can't stop the flow from South/Central America to the US with the whole Navy/Coast Guard/DEA/National Guard at our disposal, I see little hope for doing so on the other side of the world.

[P_Funk]

If the Taliban is buying weapons with it, then we should stop it, but I don't see really how we can. I know how. You stop trying to destroy the poppy fields. You make friends with the farmers and therefore stop giving the Taliban a desriable face as the only party to support their only economic option.

As long as you let the Taliban be the good guys to these farmers we'll be the bad guys. Its like prohibition in the US. It didn't work and it only made the mafia richer than they could ever have dreamed.

[Heibges]

If the Taliban is buying weapons with it, then we should stop it, but I don't see really how we can. I know how. You stop trying to destroy the poppy fields. You make friends with the farmers and therefore stop giving the Taliban a desriable face as the only party to support their only economic option.

As long as you let the Taliban be the good guys to these farmers we'll be the bad guys. Its like prohibition in the US. It didn't work and it only made the mafia richer than they could ever have dreamed.

I see. We buy it from them at a higher price than the Taliban is giving them. Rather like the "Guns for Toys" programs they have in many US cities around Christmas. That is a good idea.

I just wonder if the farmers would still be too scared of the Taliban to do business with us, regardless of the price.

[Reaves]

I agree with you fully, but believe the issue is who is using the money from the sale of opium in Afghanistan.

If the Taliban is buying weapons with it, then we should stop it, but I don't see really how we can.

We can't stop the flow from South/Central America to the US with the whole Navy/Coast Guard/DEA/National Guard at our disposal, I see little hope for doing so on the other side of the world.
Which is why focus should be on removing the Taliban or the weapon runners who supply them. The farmers are just trying to make a living with the cards they are dealt. Bring order to the chaos and farmers will start growing more legitimate produce.

The question is how do we bring that order and what is the cost?

[Tchocky]

It will be a big job to get Afghanistan off of heroin. you can't shut off something so lucrative and necessary without repercussions.

Still, cheap smack helps no one.

[Heibges]

I agree with you fully, but believe the issue is who is using the money from the sale of opium in Afghanistan.

If the Taliban is buying weapons with it, then we should stop it, but I don't see really how we can.

We can't stop the flow from South/Central America to the US with the whole Navy/Coast Guard/DEA/National Guard at our disposal, I see little hope for doing so on the other side of the world.
Which is why focus should be on removing the Taliban or the weapon runners who supply them. The farmers are just trying to make a living with the cards they are dealt. Bring order to the chaos and farmers will start growing more legitimate produce.

The question is how do we bring that order and what is the cost?

The problem is "lucrative" crops tend to not be lucrative for very long, and terrible for the soil. But this has been a problem even in the Western World for 300 years, so what can you do? The fact is, the Industrial Revolution really hammered the agricultural economy.

[geetrue]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners

I was right ... average income per farmer family is $3,000 to $4,000 a year

This article is five years old, but points out the problem: http://www.rawa.org/opium-again.htm


Revenue for each of the 200-250,000 families involved in poppy production is estimated
at around US$3,000-4,000 per year, Costa said.


From today's MSNBC article
2006 Opium production 6,100 metric tons
2005 Opium production 4,100 metric tons

From the above article
2002 Opium production 3,400 metric tons
2001 Opium production 185 metric tons

[Heibges]

I bet the farmers don't get very much compaired to the drug runners

I was right ... average income per farmer family is $3,000 to $4,000 a year

This article is five years old, but points out the problem: http://www.rawa.org/opium-again.htm


Revenue for each of the 200-250,000 families involved in poppy production is estimated
at around US$3,000-4,000 per year, Costa said.


From today's MSNBC article
2006 Opium production 6,100 metric tons
2005 Opium production 4,100 metric tons

From the above article
2002 Opium production 3,400 metric tons
2001 Opium production 185 metric tons

I'm sure the Drug Runners make much more than the farmers, but I would think $3000 USD in Afghanistan is still a boatload of money.

[The Avon Lady]

Even if drug production was stemmed in Afghanistan it would only pop up in one of the many other failing countries out there.
Like......................... Holland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464320&in_page_id=1770). :|\\

[Reaves]

Even if drug production was stemmed in Afghanistan it would only pop up in one of the many other failing countries out there. Like......................... Holland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464320&in_page_id=1770). :|\\

I like it how the photo description says "What cocaine does to a cornfield."

[Heibges]

Even if drug production was stemmed in Afghanistan it would only pop up in one of the many other failing countries out there. Like......................... Holland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464320&in_page_id=1770). :|\\

I like it how the photo description says "What cocaine does to a cornfield."

But the topic is opium from Afghanistan, and that dude would have been passed out on his couch if he had been doing heroin. :lol:

[Skybird]

Which is why focus should be on removing the Taliban or the weapon runners who supply them. The farmers are just trying to make a living with the cards they are dealt. Bring order to the chaos and farmers will start growing more legitimate produce.

Good luck. Only Westerners could argue like that (no attack meant).

That place and it's social functioning is so very, very different that people simply cannot imagine it easily.

[P_Funk]

That place and it's social functioning is so very, very different that people simply cannot imagine it easily. That seems to be the problem. It just seems to be assumed that the drug war needs to be brought to Afghanistan post haste. That opium might be seen differently there than it is here isn't really figured into the logic. We're basically trying to force a western ideal (anti-drug policies) that apply to Western society to a crippled war trodden nation that doesn't give a flying quran about how the drug problem in American cities is a potential election issue. It isn't just subsistence living, but its part of their tradition. Its like if they told the Prairies in Canada that they couldn't grow wheat cause it might be used to fund atrocities in China or something.

That kind of policy nakedly shows how uncommitted to Afghanistan's people many of the interested parties are. The strategic value of the location maybe but the people, no. Its even against the interests of the fight against the Taliban. More ignorant policies based in flawed assumptions and generalized realities.

[Heibges]

That place and it's social functioning is so very, very different that people simply cannot imagine it easily. That seems to be the problem. It just seems to be assumed that the drug war needs to be brought to Afghanistan post haste. That opium might be seen differently there than it is here isn't really figured into the logic. We're basically trying to force a western ideal (anti-drug policies) that apply to Western society to a crippled war trodden nation that doesn't give a flying quran about how the drug problem in American cities is a potential election issue. It isn't just subsistence living, but its part of their tradition. Its like if they told the Prairies in Canada that they couldn't grow wheat cause it might be used to fund atrocities in China or something.

That kind of policy nakedly shows how uncommitted to Afghanistan's people many of the interested parties are. The strategic value of the location maybe but the people, no. Its even against the interests of the fight against the Taliban. More ignorant policies based in flawed assumptions and generalized realities.

I agree with you. I anyone was really interested in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have abandoned them 5 seconds after the Soviets pulled out, and would never have had a problem with the Taliban in the first place.:nope:

[Skybird]

I agree with you. I anyone was really interested in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have abandoned them 5 seconds after the Soviets pulled out, and would never have had a problem with the Taliban in the first place.:nope:
Hardly. The Taliban - are Western-and-Pakistan made. Back then, Washington convinced Pakistan to recruit them from the Afghan refugees on pakistani soil, to use them as an army that fights the Soviets. To think of that as an option shows how little the CIA understood that place, and the mentality of the poeple there. Like it also did not understand the nature and motivation that drove Bin Laden back then.

They should have let the Afghans alone in fighting the Soviets. Stingers or not, they would have won anyway, I'm sure. without Stingers, it only would have costed some years more. Plus: the americans were not and are not aware how short-lasting and fast-changing alliances between Afghan factions and tribes have been in all history. It has not changed.

I again refer to my external essay for more detail about this.

What was it with that magic apprentice...

[bradclark1]

I agree with you. I anyone was really interested in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have abandoned them 5 seconds after the Soviets pulled out, and would never have had a problem with the Taliban in the first place.:nope:
Hardly. The Taliban - are Western-and-Pakistan made. Back then, Washington convinced Pakistan to recruit them from the Afghan refugees on pakistani soil, to use them as an army that fights the Soviets. To think of that as an option shows how little the CIA understood that place, and the mentality of the poeple there. Like it also did not understand the nature and motivation that drove Bin Laden back then.

They should have let the Afghans alone in fighting the Soviets. Stingers or not, they would have won anyway, I'm sure. without Stingers, it only would have costed some years more. Plus: the americans were not and are not aware how short-lasting and fast-changing alliances between Afghan factions and tribes have been in all history. It has not changed.

I again refer to my external essay for more detail about this.

What was it with that magic apprentice...
This tells it a little differently.
Who Are the Taliban?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

[Heibges]

I agree with you. I anyone was really interested in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have abandoned them 5 seconds after the Soviets pulled out, and would never have had a problem with the Taliban in the first place.:nope:
Hardly. The Taliban - are Western-and-Pakistan made. Back then, Washington convinced Pakistan to recruit them from the Afghan refugees on pakistani soil, to use them as an army that fights the Soviets. To think of that as an option shows how little the CIA understood that place, and the mentality of the poeple there. Like it also did not understand the nature and motivation that drove Bin Laden back then.

They should have let the Afghans alone in fighting the Soviets. Stingers or not, they would have won anyway, I'm sure. without Stingers, it only would have costed some years more. Plus: the americans were not and are not aware how short-lasting and fast-changing alliances between Afghan factions and tribes have been in all history. It has not changed.

I again refer to my external essay for more detail about this.

What was it with that magic apprentice...
This tells it a little differently.
Who Are the Taliban?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

It does sound like Skybird is lumping the Taliban in with the entire mujahideen movement. Also, I think there were some CIA agents on the ground there that understood the situation perfectly well.

For some reason the name Matt Barr keeps popping into my head. If I rememeber, I think he finally quit the CIA, over his dissatisfaction with his superiors.

I was wrong. His name was Robert Baer. And I don't think he was stationed in Afghanistan, but was stationed throughout the Middle East.

Democrat or Republican, 1965 or 2005, our Presidents have generally seen fit to ignore inconvenient intelligence.

I think this guy is spot on in regards to the Middle East from the American perspective, and in regards to American security.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/interviews/baer.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/07/ltm.12.html

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/4517

In your judgment, has the CIA fundamentally changed since 9/11?


Baer: Oh yeah, I think it’s a broken organization. It remains a broken organization. I talk to a lot of people coming out; they complain about-- you know the guy that headed Iraqi operations during this recent war, he said he had 38 people working for him who have never met an Arab overseas.

What kinds of recruitment challenges is the CIA facing?


Baer: They’ve got a lot of institutional problems. To get into the CIA you have to have no suspicious contacts. Let’s say you spent ten years in France and you had a French girlfriend, or a French wife even, and whose brother was in the French police or something -- that would exclude you from the CIA. Or if there’s a Saudi who has grown up in the United States and wants to go back, you can’t hire him to go be a case officer in Saudi Arabia and go sit in the mosques.


So essentially people are being ruled out who are needed the most because they know the culture the best?


Baer: Yes, and you also have a problem in that for a lot of Muslims, we look like we are at war with Islam. And if you’re a Muslim and you work for the CIA in the Middle East, it’s a traitorous act for them. So it’s even harder than it was before to recruit.


Is the situation pretty much the same across the intelligence services of all Western democracies? Do they all work similarly?


Baer: I’ve worked with a lot of intelligence services, including Russian… I don’t know how they work but it remained a profession, even after the Cold War, in Moscow…I think that intelligence was a much more highly prized profession in the Soviet Union and in Cuba than it ever was in the United States. So you tended to get better people in the KGB, simply because it was a way to rise in society. If you were educated, you could join the GRU or the KGB, or the FSB. In the United States, it was never considered a top-shelf profession. You go to Wall Street, you teach philosophy at Columbia, a lot of other things; so, generally, you didn’t get as good people inside the CIA.

[P_Funk]

This tells it a little differently.
Who Are the Taliban?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html From the link.
The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89) (http://www.infoplease.com/id/A0802662). and
In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. The first quote says they are in fact Mujahideen and the second confirms a connection to Pakistan. However that doesn't end the story on the details. Whenever we're dealing with the cold war and anything that the CIA even breaths on the official story is never accurate.

I also noticed that the page characterizes it as the "US" invasion of Afghanistan. Thats not entirely correct. Its the US led invasion with allied NATO forces. If they can make that little goof then the subtle details we want need corroborating sources.

But Skybird is right. The Mujahideen, the Taliban being one component of it, were supported by the CIA in an attempt to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But as with all one time allies, once the benefits were gone the West let go of the Taliban and others and let them do as they pleased. The US and its close consults either ignored or were completely ignorant of the kind of people they were supporting and what impact they would have on the rest of the region, once the Soviet variable was neutralized. Its an old mistake. The enemies we're fighting today most of them we created 20 or 30 years ago. Its the detritus of wreckless foreign policies.

[Skybird]

"Trapped in the Afghan Maze", p. 6:

In the war against the Russians, a certain Saudi named Osama Bin Laden was contacted and sup-ported by the CIA that became aware of him as a leading financial supporter of the resistance and even militia commander in the field. It is relatively un-known to the public that the CIA already was active in Afghanistan since longer time before the Soviet invasion began, an invasion that Moscow absolutely started hesitantly and was not enthusiastic about. and one can only speculate that at that time, in the late 70s, the CIA had it’s hand’s in drugs, like it had in other parts of the world as well: in order to raise financial funds that it needed for it’s hidden opera-tions somewhere else, and that it does not want the public to know about, so they better should not be listed in any balances checked by political control committees. According activities with regard to Middle America and the Contras are well-known by now (1) , and the drugs being smuggled into the US by the Contras to use the profits for buying weapons – all this with help and assistance by the CIA that even hindered law enforcement by federal authorities and made local police accepting drug distribution - cer-tainly were not the only source of incomes of this agency. Together with the Pakistani ISI, the CIA had started to form a so-called “green legion” of Mohammedan volunteers from all over the Mohammedan world that was trained, equipped and sent to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. Afghans did not trust these foreigners and never allowed them to stick their noses into Afghanistan’s internal businesses, and today, only some remains of the green legion’s social aid work still has survived in the country, while their fighters (many Afghans thought of them as mercenaries and strangers) left voluntarily soon after the Russians withdraw, or were kicked out of the country. Interestingly, like the green legion was never loved by Afghans, most tribes and village communi-ties never had heard of Al Quaeda or did not like and accept them at all, again seeing them as strangers that had no business in Afghanistan and were not welcomed. The CIA-ISI operation constituted the basis of those personnel structures and networks that later became known as “Al Quaeda”, and provided material/financial and intel support for Bin Laden’s group, misjudging the nature and essential motiva-tions of these people, and the long-term implications of their faith. On 11th September 2001 at the latest, this choice of allies turned out to have been a most stupid one. It already was not the first, but at least the third attack of Bin Laden on the United States.

Instead of supporting the forming of a governmental structure and helping to rebuilt essential sectors of civilian life in Afghanistan, after the Russian’s drive out the American interest quickly shifted away from the country’s well-being and the Mujaheddin and towards rich natural resources in Kazachstan, Uz-bekistan, and Azerbaijan, and to bring the flow of oil under American control, which meant to sign exclu-sive contracts with these countries as well as to redirect the oil traffic through pipelines under Rus-sian influence, and build a new giant pipeline to replace them. Many of the military assignments and much of the US base-building in the region more or less openly are strategically aiming at securing this oil transportation project. The new pipe was/is planned to lead from Turkmenistan and the Kaspian Sea to Harat, Kandahar and Belochistan and further to the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan was a territory of major importance for that project. The brilliant CIA-idea: let the ISI recruit and equip volunteers in the many Pashtun refugee camps (harbouring some 5 million Pashtuns) along the border between both countries, and from 1994 on sent them to Afghanistan to bring the country under control for the American corporations controlling the events from the hidden background. The militant faction known as the “Tali-ban” in today’s understanding was born. Their predecessors in fact had been raised and funded and trained by the Pakistani since the 70s, as a tactical option in their ongoing fight with the Indians for Kashmir. This history also explains the strong inter-nal ties between the Taliban and the ISI, which Musharaf today tries so hard – but in vain - to hide. What became of these Taliban is known by now. The American demands from the 90s very much took the existing predecessors of today’s Taliban as a funda-ment and encouraged the ISI to turn them into what they are today. American intentions and assessments may have changed since then – but the system still lives by the old rules - a classical case of the magi-cian-apprentice losing control of the ghosts that he conjured.

(1) For a good description of this see Gary Webb: “Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion”. - On Gary Webb in brief, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb Webb won the Pulitzer Award and got killed in mysterious circum-stances in 2004.

Brad is right, I mixed up my own knowledge when saying the Taliban already intervened in the war against the Soviets. I mixed it up with the green legion, for a moment.

I know that AL (again) will reject my story of Bin Laden and the CIA, but fact remains that the CIA directly supported an organization that was founded by Bin Laden, and Bin Laden being the head of it: the MAK (Maktab al-Khadamāt). Maybe this time we can save us from having a third or even fourth discussion about it, AL. ;) The only thing we could argue about is if MAK was founded by bin Laden himself, or his earlier entor, or by both together, as some source claim, nevertheless in major parts it was under his direct supervision with him being responsible for it. That the CIA financially supported the MAK and used them as a mediator for getting contacts to Mujaheddin groups is pretty much beyond doubt. MAK functioned as an organizer for financial support to the Mujaheddin, and recruiter of fighters for the Mujaheddin. Bin Laden himself brought his own money as well as heavy equipement, logistics, and even stuff like trucks and bulldozers with him when he went off to Afghanistan.

[P_Funk]

Good catch there Skybird.;) In my own research I noticed that the earliest reference I could find for the formation of the Taliban was 94.

I came accross declassified documents from the American Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. One in particular (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal30.pdf) gives a straight forward analysis of Western involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war.

-Political History of Afghanistan. During the Soviet-Afghan War the West preferred to maintain a policy of deniability and allowed Pakistan to handle the daily administration of the war, cash, and arms distribution. It was a task Pakistan carried out with great enthusiasm and they helped themselves to a generous portion of cash and arms. The Pakistan government also had a hidden agenda. Should the Soviets ever leave, they would have to contend with something the West did not have to deal with. It was still going to be in Pakistan, with all tides and currents of regional problems. Unlike the West, they were concerned with what would happen after the war to ensure influence over any government that came to power in Afghanistan after a Soviet withdrawal Pakistan decided to directly influence the outcome. Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be hard to control later, Pakistan preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent they would be wholly reliant on Pakistan for support.
The basic summary is that when the Soviets pulled out Pakistan created a few leaders to take control of the country and this was incipit to the civil war. While these were somewhat successful Pakistan lost control of them. After that Pakistan created a new group. The taliban. The documents also say that the Taliban became more independant as time wore on.

For a bit of fun heres the definition of the name.
They [Pakistan] created another force they hoped to have better control over than Hekmatyr's rabble. It was called Taliban, the Arabic name "Talib" being literally translated as "Asker" or "Seeker". Taliban meaning "The Seekers", signifying a student of divinity.
Thus far we can trace the origins of the Taliban as being in Pakistan where camps were built to train them. Their success in Afghanistan was also directly supported by Pakistan's military.

This document (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal5.pdf) is a summary of the reports by an informant about Pakistani military action in support of a Taliban attack on an outpost in Afghanistan.
To ----- the Taliban's september seizure of the Spin Boldak Amory was preceded by artillery shelling of the base -- From Pakistani Frontier Corps positions. The ensuing confusion had helped the Taliban to capture the well-defended outpost.
Good luck. Only Westerners could argue like that (no attack meant).

That place and it's social functioning is so very, very different that people simply cannot imagine it easily. Looking back to these words by Skybird I find other parts of the first linked document to support this claim.

Western policy strives to find a unity of order in Afghanistan; however, the prevailing trend is a unity of chaos. Used to order, Westerners see chaos as failure. It is an alternate system alien to Western thought, but does not mean it cannot work. and
There is a large divide between Western and Afghan perceptions, attitudes and methods. Understanding them matters.
There is a hell of a lot more in there but I figured let you guys read it so long as you have the links. It does underscore the importance of recognizing the severe cultural differences.

But the points that are supported by these documents are two. That the West and specifically the CIA are responsible both directly and indirectly for the rise of the Taliban and that secondly our efforts to make Afghanistan a peaceful place require a tact not exhibited by our stupid policies that are hurting us more than anything.

[Skybird]

Good catch there Skybird.;) In my own research I noticed that the earliest reference I could find for the formation of the Taliban was 94.

I came accross declassified documents from the American Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. One in particular (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal31.pdf) gives a straight forward analysis of Western involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war.


Compare to this:

The Taliban: Creation of the U.S. Intelligence Appara-tus
The Taliban are a creation of the CIA and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban government was set up in 1996 as an Anglo-American client state.
A fallacy is the premise that the Soviet invasion of Af-ghanistan was the antecedent of extremism and militarism in Afghanistan. In reality, the creation of extremism in Afghanistan was the joint collaboration of U.S. intelligence and the Pakistani ISI, in the largest CIA operation in his-tory. The construction of a war in Afghanistan was engineered by the United States, which gave birth to the Afghan Mujahideen and eventually the Taliban. According to Zbigniew Brezinski, the United States started operations to create a civil war in Afghanistan vis-à-vis Pakistani links before Soviet intervention on December 24, 1979.
Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezin-ski, during an interview with the Nouvel Observateur disclosed, that the official directive for the covert support of creating a civil war and opposition to the pro-Soviet Afghan government by the United States started on July 3, 1979.18 This was six months before Soviet troops even entered Afghanistan. There are indications that U.S. intelli-gence operations in Afghanistan in support of the Mujahideen and other groups predate 1979.


This is from page 25 of my external essay, I recommend the whole quoted text by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya that I have quoted in full length there with permission.

The world is a chess board. Nations do not act by values or ethics: interests alone decide.

[bradclark1]

Read this bit.
Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar (http://www.infoplease.com/id/A0826983) made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.
I'd say the CIA had as much affect on them as the CIA had on Bin Laden which is basically not much.

I also noticed that the page characterizes it as the "US" invasion of Afghanistan. Thats not entirely correct. Its the US led invasion with allied NATO forces. If they can make that little goof then the subtle details we want need corroborating sources.:D Oh, I don't know. I've alway characterized it as the "US" invasion. Not to put down or belittle our allies but because the bulk of the force was American.

[bradclark1]

P_Funk, do you have a link for those documents? You have a habit of selective quotes.;)

[Skybird]

I also noticed that the page characterizes it as the "US" invasion of Afghanistan. Thats not entirely correct. Its the US led invasion with allied NATO forces. If they can make that little goof then the subtle details we want need corroborating sources.:D Oh, I don't know. I've alway characterized it as the "US" invasion. Not to put down or belittle our allies but because the bulk of the force was American.

Technically speaking, NATO was not participating in the invasion of Afghnaistan. It - foolishly - accepted an according mandate not before several years later.

[Heibges]

Interesting. So the CIA, knowing that the Soviet's were already nervous about possible Muslim extremism in their own Republics, stirred up trouble in Afghanistan , to cause problems for the Soviets. That does seem very plausible.

Also, although I do not think OBL has any current relationship with the CIA, I have always though it odd that the CIA often has relationships with Construction Companies, and the Bin Laden's have the first or second largest Construction Company in Saudi Arabia.

[Skybird]

Also, although I do not think OBL has any current relationship with the CIA, I have always though it odd that the CIA often has relationships with Construction Companies, and the Bin Laden's have the first or second largest Construction Company in Saudi Arabia.

Probably there were no direct contacts CIA-Bin Laden under four eyes, but there was the assistance for the MAK of which Bin Laden was in control to very major degree. Impossible that the MAK cooparated with the CIA without Bin Laden knowing it, permitting or prohibiting it. And impossible to assuem that the CIA did not know of Bin Laden standing behind the MAK.

[P_Funk]

P_Funk, do you have a link for those documents? You have a habit of selective quotes.;)
Its all in the post. I just put them in the sentenses referring to them. So I say "This document" and the words are the link.

[bradclark1]

I must have an eye problem or something. I read nothing like that quote in your pdf document.

[P_Funk]

I'm sorry. I made a silly mistake. I linked the wrong doucment. :nope:

I've fixed the link.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal30.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal30.pdf)