What's new

Afghan Taliban: We will win the war

sohailbutt

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
653
Reaction score
0
(CNN) -- He won't look me in the eye, won't engage in any small talk, and looks more ill at ease than I feel.

The man in front of me is Zabiullah Mujahid -- one of two spokesmen for the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

He is around 30, maybe a little younger, bearded, but not heavily so. He is slight but not weak and close to my height -- a little over six foot -- and meeting him is a big deal.

I've never taken meetings with Taliban officials lightly, but the stakes are getting higher these days. They kidnap reporters and worse, and just before our interview they had announced a new offensive against U.S. and NATO troops.

Frankly just getting into this room had put my heart rate up a good few beats.
On top of that, Mujahid almost never gives TV interviews. He has answers to questions every journalist covering this conflict wants to know. He is also a wanted man.

I'd been waiting for him for about 15 minutes. We'd agreed to meet at this safe house on the condition I did not report its location. As we approached I'd seen several men talking on mobile phones on street corners watching us very closely. It's clear the Taliban don't trust us not to have sold him out.

The room is small with two doors: One to a tiny hole-in-the-ground toilet under the stairs the other, the only way in and out.

A red carpet runs wall to wall and matching pillows ring the room. The only furniture is a chair, a small table and a computer.

When we first arrive the man minding the room has a pistol by his side. We follow his lead and sit backs to the wall propped up on the cushions and wait.

I'm expecting to hear a convoy of cars pulling up, but nothing, silence. Then a whisper: He is coming. There is no time to wonder what's going to happen. He steps in alone, no sound of a car.

He is nervous and seems in a hurry, telling me I only have 15 minutes. It could take me that long to ask just half my questions, never mind his answers.

I want the interview to last. I want to get the most out of it. I want to put him at ease so he wants to stay and talk.

My first question is simple: What's your strategy?

He tells me the policy is clear. "We ask from the beginning and we say once again one to enforce the Sharia law and Islamic government in Afghanistan, and to remove foreign forces remove from our country."

He tells me presidential elections expected this year are a sham, that the Taliban are telling Afghans to stay away and he warns: "We will target the Afghan parliamentary members and government officials so if there is elections, yes it is clear we will target them."

He says they'll use suicide bombers in their attacks. I want to know how they justify tactics that kill so many civilians. I find his answer falls far short of even trying to explain let alone apologize for the carnage they cause. He says it is justified in Islam, it has its roots in history and Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

That's not what most Muslims I talk to say; they abhor such nihilistic thinking.

I want to ask more, to probe and push, even question his morality, but to do so would, at the very least, drive the interview in to a cul de sac and waste valuable time when there is still so much more I want answered.

He could even get up and leave and we'd be left guessing about their plans for the future and the possibilities for peace.

It's also about now, as we are sitting just a few inches apart on the floor, that I realize he has gun holsters under his loose fitting waistcoat. I can't see if they are full or empty but it reinforces the notion that should he choose he could pull a weapon on me and there would be little I could do. I found out later an armor plate protects his back.

A couple of sources on the Afghan conflict have been keeping me informed of back channel talks aimed at bringing peace and splitting the Taliban from al Qaeda. In September last year the first face-to-face meeting between Afghan officials and Taliban representatives got under way in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

My sources had told me Mullah Omar had let it be known the Taliban recognized they will not win the war by military means alone. This was my first chance for feedback direct from the Taliban.

Mujahid affirmed that is the Taliban's position. "We believe by both ... by negotiation and also by war ... we ask them to leave the country we are ready to talk ... so they are not ready to leave so they want to talk by the mouth of the gun we will talk by the mouth of the gun."

I'd also been told if the talks were to continue the Taliban needed to show a commitment to break from al Qaeda. What they had done, I was told, was to tell their fighters to avoid civilian casualties.

When I asked Mujahid he told me that policy hadn't changed. In their newly announced battle plans to target Afghan officials as well as U.S. and NATO troops he told me "we ask of the civilians don't be close to the troops; be away from them; not to be targeted."

I ask what are the conditions for going into talks? "Our conditions are clear, we want to negotiate and they [the U.S.] will not interfere in our affairs, secondly they [the U.S.] will leave the country, third let the Afghan people to do what they want to do, like form the Islamic government they want to establish."

From what my sources tell me, the talks seem stalled or at the very least to have sunk to a very low level. The Taliban don't just want U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan, they want them out before talks can even begin. Always with negotiations, I've learned the key is in working out the sequencing.

Mujahid confirms my suspicions and what I hear from my sources is that the talks are bogged down. He says the former Taliban officials who have been at the talks so far don't represent Mullah Omar.

He said when "we want to talk, it will be clear, our representatives' names will be clear, we will announce [it to] the people."

My gut and my sources tell me he may not be telling me everything. For Mullah Omar to be in talks with President Karzai's western-backed government would be tantamount to suicide right now, not least from al Qaeda who don't believe in any form of negotiation. It's one of the defining factors that sets the two groups apart.

I ask Mujahid about their links. "We are not under the command of al Qaeda: some people are coming to fight and we say welcome." On the issue of who is in charge he is emphatic: "We are from the country [Afghanistan] we are the boss, we not have any link with them they not have any link with us."

Interestingly, this is much different to Iraq where al Qaeda in the guise of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and others came from outside and dominated the insurgency, overrunning the inexperienced local insurgents, for several years. The Taliban are smarter, and have a longer history of armed guerilla conflict. Plus they are not as ideologically close to al Qaeda as some may think.

Not long after 9/11, one senior Taliban official told me Osama bin Laden was a pain in the backside. Hard to control, intent on doing his own thing. The only reason they didn't turn him over was out of fearsome ethnic tribal loyalty known as Pashtunwali. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are at opposite ends of the ultra-conservative corner of Islam they occupy. Not natural bedfellows.

All this is going through my head as I'm sitting there inwardly urging him to give me more time. I want to branch off and explore these theories. Several times he asks, is that it? But I push on. He wants to talk about the Taliban's response to the imminent arrival of 20,000 more U.S. troops.

He tells me it doesn't matter how many come, they won't win. "If the Pentagon is thinking of changing its policy, we too are thinking of changing the policy. If they want to send 20,000 to start a new campaign, this is a war and we will see the war and make our policy."

At one point he laughs when I say he is up against the strongest army in the world. His point is Taliban fighters are not afraid of dying. "If they want to send the troops and change things ... we believe they can't do anything.

"Afghanistan will be the Vietnam for them, concerning their policy, it is the same Bush policy. There no changes in this policy. I want to tell you clearly we will win, and they will die."

I know he is telling me what he wants me to believe, but he pushes the boundaries of credibility when he tells me the Taliban make no money from the country's $300 million illegal opium poppy crops.

He points out when the Taliban were in government they eradicated the narcotic plants, something I saw and reported on almost a decade ago, but the facts speak differently today. Where the Taliban are strongest the opium harvests are the heaviest.

Even before he gets up I can tell he's been getting ready to leave for quite some time, not only asking if this is the last question but looking more and more agitated again. He'd given me 15 minutes initially but as he'd relaxed he let the time run on to almost 45 minutes, but clearly doesn't want to take any chance that our interview has been an elaborate cover-up to snatch him.

Almost as soon as he's gone we're encouraged to wrap it up and get out fast too. We weren't attacked or kidnapped on the way in; the next most likely time would be on the way out.

I'd had three hours sleep the night before, and not much more the nights before that too. Adrenaline has kept me going, focused, sharp, alert to the dangers and the myriad questions I'd planned.

The further away we get, the more I can let my guard down, the more I can reflect on what was said.

Was it worth it? Yes. Without their voice we are all fighting in the dark.

Afghan Taliban spokesman: We will win the war - CNN.com (Check out this video!)

Afghan Taliban spokesman: We will win the war - CNN.com

-----------------------------------

Talk about superpower, what superpower, the world has seen how much of a superpower US is!

Can't control Afghanistan all by himself and it's allies, and wants Pakistan to do more and more!

This is for people who think US is wining this war!
 
.
I cannot believe that the CNN correspondent is so damn blind that he cannot see the damage done to the chinook was so severe that the heli dropped the humvee just to stay airborne, and this correspondent guy calls it a propaganda:crazy:

What does he want the US public to see, that the heli didnot come under fire, every one can see the machine gun bullets hitting the heli, they can be seen in red light as they travel through the air, and it was not forced to drop the humvee, i have not seen any news correspondent in my life who is so damn blind, wonder if the US public believes him, I don't, they (taliban) showed the downed humvee after the ambush on the heli and he still doesnot believe.:woot:
 
. .
I am pretty sure that no one will win in this war. They US will steal nothing cause there is nothing in Afghanistan to be stolen. They might encircle Iran and Pakistan or push China out of it but frankly they are slaves of China (US bonds...).

The biggest losers will be the locals. Another occupation and another local terrorist. They can die this or that way. And frankly non cares cause they are muslims and have nothing to offer.
 
.
I am pretty sure that no one will win in this war. They US will steal nothing cause there is nothing in Afghanistan to be stolen.

This isn't true. Afghanistan is 95% untapped. It has vast mineral resources in its mountains.

More important to the US are the oil pipelines though.

The biggest losers will be the locals. Another occupation and another local terrorist. They can die this or that way. And frankly non cares cause they are muslims and have nothing to offer.

Agreed, which is why these foreign imperialist powers need to get out of Afghanistan and stop meddling in its affairs.
 
.
"Agreed, which is why these foreign imperialist powers need to get out of Afghanistan and stop meddling in its affairs."

I thought we were supposed to stay after the Russians left? Would we have been "imperialists" had we done so?

In any case, we can't leave now. After the way Pakistan bungled it's mentorship of Afghanistan and B. Bhutto's sponsorship of the taliban, there's no way we'd leave Afghanistan to YOUR meddling again.

Better a corrupt N.A.-dominated gov't and Indian allies than that anytime. ANYTHING but.:agree:

Key is the centralization of CAR energy pipelines within Afghanistan and radiating like the spokes of a wheel from there to the various ports. Same in reverse for inbound goods too.

Catbird seat.:usflag:

Thanks.
 
.
Better a corrupt N.A.-dominated gov't and Indian allies than that anytime.

Lol! We are all in the same boat S-2. Not sure how the Afghan public will judge you folks after all is said and done. Indications are that they will be just as rough given the approach above.
 
.
"We are all in the same boat S-2."

Naw.

I don't subscribe at all to my above view.

I want a plural gov't. Always have in serious discussion. That means pashtu inclusive. But no free ride for some ethnicity at the expense of others and a nation capable and desirous of asserting an independant foreign policy which reflects Afghanistan's determined interests.

Otherwise just out walking in the park and feedin' the conspiratorial trolls.:agree:
 
.
I don't have time to get involved in the usual circular bullshyt discussions you get into, but I'll answer this.

"Agreed, which is why these foreign imperialist powers need to get out of Afghanistan and stop meddling in its affairs."

I thought we were supposed to stay after the Russians left? Would we have been "imperialists" had we done so?

No, I never said you were supposed to stay in Afghanistan after the Russians left. That is what others say. You should have never been in Afghanistan in the first place has been my argument all along. You should never have built those madrassas or created the Mujahideen, and let the Afghans take on the Soviets alone, if they wanted to.

Before someone points out the obvious, that, the soviets had an eye on Pakistan, perhaps, it is a possibility, but not a certainty. The Soviet economy would have imploded regardless of the Afghan war. It just became the catalyst.

In any case, we can't leave now. After the way Pakistan bungled it's mentorship of Afghanistan and B. Bhutto's sponsorship of the taliban, there's no way we'd leave Afghanistan to YOUR meddling again.

Pakistan meddled in Afghanistan,. AFTER you'd created the Mujahideen. What was to be done with all these religious crazed fanatics you made? Pakistan's western border was getting volatile. The only option was to unify them into a religious outfit, to try and control the mess you'd created.

Better a corrupt N.A.-dominated gov't and Indian allies than that anytime. ANYTHING but.:agree:

The Afghans fight you, and you still seem to claim that the majority want some NA dominated government, and Indian activity. The ground doesn't suggest you're right.
 
.
roadrunner


No, I never said you were supposed to stay in Afghanistan after the Russians left. That is what others say. You should have never been in Afghanistan in the first place has been my argument all along. You should never have built those madrassas or created the Mujahideen, and let the Afghans take on the Soviets alone, if they wanted to.

Ok. But who was willing partner in the same, who wanted US in in earnest? Who? Any guesses?


Before someone points out the obvious, that, the soviets had an eye on Pakistan, perhaps, it is a possibility, but not a certainty. The Soviet economy would have imploded regardless of the Afghan war. It just became the catalyst.

Not at all. There was no wish on behalf of USSR to invade Pakistan. Had they wished so they could have at any time and please dont even begin to contend that the valiant PA would have stopped them. They would easily have nuked you too had they wanted and NOT one in this world, US or NATO could have done anything to stop them.

And economic considerations stop Russia from waging war? Have you ever read their history/understood their mental psyche? They will wage war if they think that is the only route, and they are willing to pay any price for that. Chechnya is a heavy toll (they have a overall casualty rate of over 6000 p.a. KIAs there about 10 times IA casualty rate in all theaters in CI operations with 1/5th the population size and negative population growth rate with skewed sex ratio of 3:1 against the guys)


Pakistan meddled in Afghanistan,. AFTER you'd created the Mujahideen. What was to be done with all these religious crazed fanatics you made? Pakistan's western border was getting volatile. The only option was to unify them into a religious outfit, to try and control the mess you'd created.

Pakistan actively participated from day 1. ISI was instrumental in initial contact being established and setting up the camps in NWFP as also recruiting 'leaders'.You facilitated at every point. Now you are trying to wash your hands off the whole thing? Laughable
 
.
Thank you, roadrunner, for highlighting the critical role America played in the islamization of the hill regions. Nevermind that the mujahideen were an indigenous and spontaneous rebellion which had originated in western Afghanistan in August 1978. Ignore the critical ISLAMIST and monetary role played by your own arch-muslim-Zia and the KSA with it's gulf minions in the theological radicalization of this spontaneous movement.

Blame good ol' Christian America for every brick laid of every madrassa in FATA after 1980. Yes, indeed. We were some SERIOUS Islamophiles back in Washington, D.C. in those days.

Witness the Iranian revolution and our embassy takeover. Oh! Didn't you good folks burn our embassy in Islamabad at the same time? Think so...

Yeah, real DEEP muslim thinkers, those yanks.

You are, INDEED, a giggle, sir.:lol: Every damned time.

Beyond that historical backdrop, the rest of your narrative drivels off into...

irrelevance.

You don't understand Afghanistan.

We don't battle Hazaras, tajiks, turkomen, or afghan uzbeks. We don't even battle all the pashtu.

The available polls aren't even close between America/ISAF and the taliban. Hell, the foreign irhabi poll 2-1 over the taliban. Why are they so "popular"?

They aren't...but they can be damned intimidating in the dead of night. Read-

In Preview of Surge, U.S. Calms Afghan Valley But Peace Is Fragile- Wall Street Journal

This is a security issue. NATO has seen approval ratings fall from the mid-80s to the low 60s because of a worsening security situation. Yet there's been no increase in the approval for the taliban.

Get it?

If you don't, ask the good residents of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, Bajaur, SWAT, or Buner. They'll be able to help you.:disagree:
 
.
Thank you, roadrunner, for highlighting the critical role America played in the islamization of the hill regions. Nevermind that the mujahideen were an indigenous and spontaneous rebellion which had originated in western Afghanistan in August 1978. Ignore the critical ISLAMIST and monetary role played by your own arch-muslim-Zia and the KSA with it's gulf minions in the theological radicalization of this spontaneous movement.

Blame good ol' Christian America for every brick laid of every madrassa in FATA after 1980. Yes, indeed. We were some SERIOUS Islamophiles back in Washington, D.C. in those days.

Witness the Iranian revolution and our embassy takeover. Oh! Didn't you good folks burn our embassy in Islamabad at the same time? Think so...

Yeah, real DEEP muslim thinkers, those yanks.

You are, INDEED, a giggle, sir.:lol: Every damned time.

Beyond that historical backdrop, the rest of your narrative drivels off into...

irrelevance.

You don't understand Afghanistan.

We don't battle Hazaras, tajiks, turkomen, or afghan uzbeks. We don't even battle all the pashtu.

The available polls aren't even close between America/ISAF and the taliban. Hell, the foreign irhabi poll 2-1 over the taliban. Why are they so "popular"?

They aren't...but they can be damned intimidating in the dead of night. Read-

In Preview of Surge, U.S. Calms Afghan Valley But Peace Is Fragile- Wall Street Journal

This is a security issue. NATO has seen approval ratings fall from the mid-80s to the low 60s because of a worsening security situation. Yet there's been no increase in the approval for the taliban.

Get it?

If you don't, ask the good residents of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, Bajaur, SWAT, or Buner. They'll be able to help you.:disagree:

S-2

Sorry to intervene, but dont you think you should plan a big bash soon? I mean I am waiting for the day when someone credits you guys with being authors of Wahab philosophy and being the spiritual leaders of the same ....... and that the whole movement is actually a CIA operation funded and launched to "colonise" the 'islamic nations'

Am coming over in a month or so. If any such plans, do tell, may join in!!!:woot:
 
.
S-2

Sorry to intervene, but dont you think you should plan a big bash soon? I mean I am waiting for the day when someone credits you guys with being authors of Wahab philosophy and being the spiritual leaders of the same ....... and that the whole movement is actually a CIA operation funded and launched to "colonise" the 'islamic nations'

Am coming over in a month or so. If any such plans, do tell, may join in!!!:woot:

The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books). [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2002; CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 5/6/2002] A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads the textbook program. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierre’s work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA. Unocal will pay Gouttierre to work with the Taliban (see December 1997) and he will host visits of Taliban leaders to the US, including trips in 1997 and 1999 (see December 4, 1997 and July-August 1999). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328]

ournalist Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan, will later write in a book about the Taliban that the US supported the Taliban in its early years. “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project.” He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 326] Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties, will later say that he complained at the time about how Pakistani ISI support of the Taliban was backed by the CIA. “I warned them that we were creating a monster.” [TIMES OF INDIA, 3/7/2001] There is evidence the CIA may have helped supply the Taliban with weapons during the first months of their rise to power (see October 1994).

Afghanistan has been mired in civil war ever since the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. The Taliban arise organically in early 1994, but are soon co-opted by the Pakistani ISI (see Spring-Autumn 1994). By mid-October 1994, the Taliban takes over the town of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. Before the end of the month, John Monjo, the US ambassador to Pakistan, makes a tour of areas controlled by the Taliban with Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar, who is said to have been been a force behind the Taliban’s creation. The State Department issues a press release calling the victory of the “students” a “positive development likely to bring stability back to the area.” [LABEVIERE, 1999, PP. 261-262]
Entity Tags: Taliban, Nasrullah Babar, US Department of State, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, John Monjo

Ahmed Rashid, correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Daily Telegraph, conducts extensive investigative research in Afghanistan after the Taliban conquest of Kabul. As he will later write in his 2000 book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, he sees a “massive regional polarization between the USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Taliban on one side and Iran, Russia, the Central Asian states and the anti-Taliban alliance on the other. While some focused on whether there was a revival of the old CIA-ISI connection from the Afghan jihad era, it became apparent to me that the strategy over pipelines had become the driving force behind Washington’s interest in the Taliban, which in turn was prompting a counter-reaction from Russia and Iran. But exploring this was like entering a labyrinth, where nobody spoke the truth or divulged their real motives or interests. It was the job of a detective rather than a journalist because there were few clues. Even gaining access to the real players in the game was difficult, because policy was not being driven by politicians and diplomats, but by the secretive oil companies and intelligence services of the regional states.” [RASHID, 2001, PP. 163]

Unocal pays University of Nebraska $900,000 to set up a training facility near Osama bin Laden’s Kandahar compound, to train 400 Afghan teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipe fitters in anticipation of using them for their pipeline in Afghanistan. One hundred and fifty students are already attending classes in southern Afghanistan. Unocal is playing University of Nebraska professor Thomas Gouttierre to develop the training program. Gouttierre travels to Afghanistan and meets with Taliban leaders, and also arranges for some Taliban leaders to visit the US around this time (see December 4, 1997). [DAILY TELEGRAPH, 12/14/1997; COLL, 2004, PP. 364] It will later be revealed that the CIA paid Gouttierre to head a program at the University of Nebraska that created textbooks for Afghanistan promoting violence and jihad (see 1984-1994). Gouttierre will continue to work with the Taliban after Unocal officially cuts off ties with them. For instance, he will host some Taliban leaders visiting the US in 1999 (see July-August 1999).
Entity Tags: Taliban, Unocal, Osama bin Laden, University of Nebraska, Thomas Gouttierre
Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; DAILY TELEGRAPH, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328-329]


ulie Sirrs, a military analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), travels to Afghanistan. Fluent in local languages and knowledgeable about the culture, she had made a previous undercover trip there in October 1997. She is surprised that the CIA was not interested in sending in agents after the failed missile attack on bin Laden in August 1998, so she returns at this time. Traveling undercover, she meets with Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. She sees a terrorist training center in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs claims, “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” She partly blames the interest of the US government and the oil company Unocal to see the Taliban achieve political stability to enable a trans-Afghanistan pipeline (see May 1996) (see September 27, 1996). She claims, “Massoud told me he had proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul.” She also states, “The State Department didn’t want to have anything to do with Afghan resistance, or even, politically, to reveal that there was any viable option to the Taliban.” After two weeks, she returns with a treasure trove of maps, photographs, and interviews. [ABC NEWS, 2/18/2002; NEW YORK OBSERVER, 3/11/2004] By interviewing captured al-Qaeda operatives, she learns that the official Afghanistan airline, Ariana Airlines, is being used to ferry weapons and drugs, and learns that bin Laden goes hunting with “rich Saudis and top Taliban officials” (see Mid-1996-October 2001) (see 1995-2001). [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 11/18/2001] When she returns from Afghanistan, her material is confiscated and she is accused of being a spy. Says one senior colleague, “She had gotten the proper clearances to go, and she came back with valuable information,” but high level officials “were so intent on getting rid of her, the last thing they wanted to pay attention to was any information she had.” She is cleared of wrongdoing, but her security clearance is pulled. She eventually quits the DIA in frustration in 1999. [ABC NEWS, 2/18/2002; NEW YORK OBSERVER, 3/11/2004] Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) will later claim that the main DIA official behind the punishment of Sirrs is Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, who later becomes “one of the top officials running the Department of Homeland Security.” [DANA ROHRABACHER, 6/21/2004]
 
.
"Agreed, which is why these foreign imperialist powers need to get out of Afghanistan and stop meddling in its affairs."

I thought we were supposed to stay after the Russians left? Would we have been "imperialists" had we done so?

In any case, we can't leave now. After the way Pakistan bungled it's mentorship of Afghanistan and B. Bhutto's sponsorship of the taliban, there's no way we'd leave Afghanistan to YOUR meddling again.

Better a corrupt N.A.-dominated gov't and Indian allies than that anytime. ANYTHING but.:agree:

Key is the centralization of CAR energy pipelines within Afghanistan and radiating like the spokes of a wheel from there to the various ports. Same in reverse for inbound goods too.

Catbird seat.:usflag:

Thanks.

Lets refresh you a bit. Your CAPITALIST/IMPERIALIST system had an enemy after WW2. That was COMMUNISM. Why? Because they threatened your economic sytem based on 'forced consumerism' & never 'satiated' fat corporations. Thus the COLD WAR began.
RUSSIA made a mistake by getting into AFGHANISTAN. A desperate move. Your counter move to bring out the 'ISLAMIC IDEALOGY' of JIHAD & one MUSLIM UMMAH (which was dead for the last couple of centuries) to counter this. Your desperate move against your own policy of nations/states based on secularism & ethnicities. Thus a grand mass of MUSLIM JIHADIS were created from every nook & corner of the world.
BTW- Correction here, PAKISTAN never begged you for help. It was the opposite.You begged to let you help us.
USSR was defeated & Communism got buried ,thus the desired results achieved. You left AFGHANISTAN but later found out about the new threat , the genie named 'ISLAM & JIHAD' which on the first place was awakened & brought out by the bottle by your FAT POLICY MAKERS. In fact the GENIE has a monster now named TALIBAN. When you cut the head , 2 more grow and so on. Its springing its heads in PAKISTAN and thanks again to your present policies, it will cross PAKISTAN soon & get into other places
 
.
The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books). [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2002; CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 5/6/2002] A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads the textbook program. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierre’s work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA. Unocal will pay Gouttierre to work with the Taliban (see December 1997) and he will host visits of Taliban leaders to the US, including trips in 1997 and 1999 (see December 4, 1997 and July-August 1999). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328]

ournalist Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan, will later write in a book about the Taliban that the US supported the Taliban in its early years. “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project.” He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 326] Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties, will later say that he complained at the time about how Pakistani ISI support of the Taliban was backed by the CIA. “I warned them that we were creating a monster.” [TIMES OF INDIA, 3/7/2001] There is evidence the CIA may have helped supply the Taliban with weapons during the first months of their rise to power (see October 1994).

Afghanistan has been mired in civil war ever since the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. The Taliban arise organically in early 1994, but are soon co-opted by the Pakistani ISI (see Spring-Autumn 1994). By mid-October 1994, the Taliban takes over the town of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. Before the end of the month, John Monjo, the US ambassador to Pakistan, makes a tour of areas controlled by the Taliban with Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar, who is said to have been been a force behind the Taliban’s creation. The State Department issues a press release calling the victory of the “students” a “positive development likely to bring stability back to the area.” [LABEVIERE, 1999, PP. 261-262]
Entity Tags: Taliban, Nasrullah Babar, US Department of State, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, John Monjo

Ahmed Rashid, correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Daily Telegraph, conducts extensive investigative research in Afghanistan after the Taliban conquest of Kabul. As he will later write in his 2000 book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, he sees a “massive regional polarization between the USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Taliban on one side and Iran, Russia, the Central Asian states and the anti-Taliban alliance on the other. While some focused on whether there was a revival of the old CIA-ISI connection from the Afghan jihad era, it became apparent to me that the strategy over pipelines had become the driving force behind Washington’s interest in the Taliban, which in turn was prompting a counter-reaction from Russia and Iran. But exploring this was like entering a labyrinth, where nobody spoke the truth or divulged their real motives or interests. It was the job of a detective rather than a journalist because there were few clues. Even gaining access to the real players in the game was difficult, because policy was not being driven by politicians and diplomats, but by the secretive oil companies and intelligence services of the regional states.” [RASHID, 2001, PP. 163]

Unocal pays University of Nebraska $900,000 to set up a training facility near Osama bin Laden’s Kandahar compound, to train 400 Afghan teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipe fitters in anticipation of using them for their pipeline in Afghanistan. One hundred and fifty students are already attending classes in southern Afghanistan. Unocal is playing University of Nebraska professor Thomas Gouttierre to develop the training program. Gouttierre travels to Afghanistan and meets with Taliban leaders, and also arranges for some Taliban leaders to visit the US around this time (see December 4, 1997). [DAILY TELEGRAPH, 12/14/1997; COLL, 2004, PP. 364] It will later be revealed that the CIA paid Gouttierre to head a program at the University of Nebraska that created textbooks for Afghanistan promoting violence and jihad (see 1984-1994). Gouttierre will continue to work with the Taliban after Unocal officially cuts off ties with them. For instance, he will host some Taliban leaders visiting the US in 1999 (see July-August 1999).
Entity Tags: Taliban, Unocal, Osama bin Laden, University of Nebraska, Thomas Gouttierre
Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; DAILY TELEGRAPH, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328-329]


ulie Sirrs, a military analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), travels to Afghanistan. Fluent in local languages and knowledgeable about the culture, she had made a previous undercover trip there in October 1997. She is surprised that the CIA was not interested in sending in agents after the failed missile attack on bin Laden in August 1998, so she returns at this time. Traveling undercover, she meets with Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. She sees a terrorist training center in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs claims, “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” She partly blames the interest of the US government and the oil company Unocal to see the Taliban achieve political stability to enable a trans-Afghanistan pipeline (see May 1996) (see September 27, 1996). She claims, “Massoud told me he had proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul.” She also states, “The State Department didn’t want to have anything to do with Afghan resistance, or even, politically, to reveal that there was any viable option to the Taliban.” After two weeks, she returns with a treasure trove of maps, photographs, and interviews. [ABC NEWS, 2/18/2002; NEW YORK OBSERVER, 3/11/2004] By interviewing captured al-Qaeda operatives, she learns that the official Afghanistan airline, Ariana Airlines, is being used to ferry weapons and drugs, and learns that bin Laden goes hunting with “rich Saudis and top Taliban officials” (see Mid-1996-October 2001) (see 1995-2001). [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 11/18/2001] When she returns from Afghanistan, her material is confiscated and she is accused of being a spy. Says one senior colleague, “She had gotten the proper clearances to go, and she came back with valuable information,” but high level officials “were so intent on getting rid of her, the last thing they wanted to pay attention to was any information she had.” She is cleared of wrongdoing, but her security clearance is pulled. She eventually quits the DIA in frustration in 1999. [ABC NEWS, 2/18/2002; NEW YORK OBSERVER, 3/11/2004] Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) will later claim that the main DIA official behind the punishment of Sirrs is Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, who later becomes “one of the top officials running the Department of Homeland Security.” [DANA ROHRABACHER, 6/21/2004]

too long and taxing

can you kindly cut it into smaller segments next time?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom