What's new

US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan: Clinton

durrran 3, ur absolutely right
i mus say tht enuf is enuf, we have to counter this TTp or else we will meet the same faith as Afgh, enuf man we NEED A NATIONAL CONSENSUS AGAINST THESE CAVEMEN, and ur rite our politicians mus do sumthin to stop this virus,y is our gov sleeping, these ppl cant be negotiated, they don understand these things, for an ordinary man the most imp thin is life but these ppl don care bout their own life so y the hell will they care 4 otherz life, enuf is euf, **** them all
 
.
Which madrassa did osama study in ?.......or in that case al zawari,ksm,abu zubida ect.

Hekmatyar....what about him....which madrassa did he go to.
 
.
I recommend GREAT AMERICAN MEMBERS to read ROUGE STATE<GUIDE TO WORLDS ONLY SUPER POWER written by state departments retired senior officer WILLIUM BLUM to discover their greatness
 
.
"While nobody is denying that fact, one also ponders that you are reimbursed by US for what you DELIVER. And thousands of your casualties, sadly, do not account as DELIVERY in WoT..."

Don't be thick. I'm not using the death of our men in the way you've implied. The fact that they have indeed lost their lives PROVES that your previous comments about Pakistan being a 'passive spectator' were BS.

You're incapable of presenting an accurate or fair assessment of the situation anyway, professional soldiers don't just drop dead of their own accord. They certainly have achieved much, given the obvious restrictions they've had to contend with not least of which is resources. The reimbursement the US gives us for our operations is barely a small percentage of what the US spends on its own forces and campaigns in Afghanistan, and it is highly questionable if they&#8217;ve achieved any more or even as much. It&#8217;s you who is being selective with your definition of &#8216;solid results&#8217; on the ground.

I am just questioning your attitude of selectively believing US statements/accusations. When Mrs. Clinton shares a part of the blame, you agree.

First off, I respect Mrs. Clinton and empathize with everything she has said in regards to Pakistan, even her contention that we can do more. I do not, however, deny that there may be gaps in her understanding of the situation and of the factors involved and the motivations behind things she says or is told to say must also be taken into account.

However, this is different. Like I said, I&#8217;ve argued that US involvement (or lack of thereafter) in the region has been less than an ideal influence on the course of events that lead us here. Certainly, all the blame should not be dumped on Pakistan as if we were the devil-ishly scheming architects of the whole scenario. If Mrs. Clinton has been obliged to acknowledge this inconvenient truth, this at the very least proves my belief that this is a prevalent enough view to hold sway in some of the highest offices of the United States. The fact that this admission goes against convenience and is voiced by the party involved in the said matter, say as opposed to an American trying to comment on issues of Pakistan, also lends credibility to the assessment. If you, however, wish to disagree with her statements then you&#8217;re the one who it seems foolishly believes all the apparently negative comments an American official makes about Pakistan but not those negative observations about American policy itself since it exonerates your rivals Pakistan to a certain degree.

You assert that there would been no WoT today, had US not washed off their hands.

That is an absolutist and particularly clumsy statement that is not compatible with that I&#8217;ve said. There are a lot of variables involved that make it impossible to judge, what we do know is that the settling of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (after they were kicked out of Sudan) was a consequence of US withdrawal and disinterest, even if it wasn&#8217;t the only potential outcome.
Whatever policy pursued by Pakistan at the time, was obviously influenced by US attitude, which is what Mrs. Clinton just said.

I personally think that your administration would have thwarted all US efforts, if any at that time, to 'neutralize' the mujahideen/ Taliban elements. Who would want to surrender an army fighting for Allah, giving you an easy access to dominate & virtually rule your neighboring country? So I find it difficult to buy your argument that everything would have been all rosy by now, but alas, US just moved out.

A very weak personal opinion full of too many assumptions and little ground realities. After the Soviets left, the Americans were just as associated with the Mujahideen as Pakistan was. The Taliban did not exist at the time and would not for a while. You think Pakistan would&#8217;ve &#8216;thwarted&#8217; US attempts to prevent a civil war and establish peace, security and stable governance in a neighborhood country that was pumping drugs and millions of refugees in Pakistan? I don&#8217;t find it difficult to understand your psyche that constantly encourages you demonize Pakistan to a ridiculous extent at every turn as if we&#8217;ve always wanted Afghanistan to be a unproductive, war torn and ruined country only so that we can &#8216;virtually rule&#8217; (yeah right!) it in the most primitive manner possible. You accuse me of being too hypothetical, and yet your own would-have-beens are laughably ludicrous. Hilary said that the US is partly responsible for whatever happened, finished, if you think that&#8217;s being too hypothetical then look at your own contentions. Mrs. Clinton obviously thinks the US could&#8217;ve done a better job by staying, you don&#8217;t? Well then, come up with a better argument than &#8216;Pakistan would&#8217;ve thwarted them because they wanted to keep &#8220;their&#8221; army of Allah&#8217;.

There were no good or bad guys, everyone took sides including India. The rise of the Taliban, which is what is relevant to our situation today, was not a pre-planned Pakistani move to be implemented as soon as the Americans left. It was a spontaneous development that took place mainly thanks to the effects of the civil war and at a time when we had no control in Afghanistan. It was more of a case of backing the right horse that succeeded in bringing relative calm to Afghanistan but we never had any real &#8216;control&#8217; over them as was subsequently proved beyond a doubt by everything from their blowing up of Buddha statues to hosting the Al-Qaeda. The unrealistic malice you attribute to Pakistan is both laughable and sad at the same time.
 
Last edited:
.
Two distinctions- 1.) Omar returned to Oruzgan and only after the failure of civil war wrought by Rabbani, Massoud, Hekmatyar, and Haqqani did he emerge from Kandahar in 1994 with the taliban.

Where's the distinction?

Mullah Omar fought for the Mujahideen. The US trained him, and funded him. He was brainwashed through a trilateral agreement between the Saudis, Zia, and the US. You created him in other words.

2.) Gulbuddin Hekmatyar rings all sorts of bells with all sorts of people but if you're calling Haqqani or him taliban just see how long they live down towards Quetta.

Hekmatyar was considered to be the most effective leader of the Muajahideen against the Soviets. As a consequence he would receive the lion's share of US support.

Right?

Why would I do that? I deny that the taliban are mujahideen and damn near know it for fact now but for their most senior commanders. "Mujahideen" has a distinctly different tone these days anyway, I hope you know.

There's little argument that the Mujahideen are the present Taliban commanders. However, it is due to this fact, that their ideology and training, and even their weapons are passed down to their lower cadres, who in turn will pass them down to future generations.

Saudi Arabia had all the money, by itself, to fund this resistance. Nevermind that there were all sorts of wealthy private donors across Islam but notably and obviously the gulf emirates and S.A.

Our money wasn't central and I've first-hand recounting from a friend in Afghanistan in 1985 BADGERED by the mujahideen about the absence of U.S. aid. Most consider our aid strategically valuable beginning in early 1986 when STINGER began showing up on the battlefield. Prior to that, our role had been disappointingly mundane.

The US were involved from December, 1979, from the very instant Soviet Migs started pounding the Kabul TV centres. It's pretty well reported.

I don't know about your analogy but I do know that STINGERs did make a difference and that we had the ability to reach across a wide range of internat'l actors to gather a "coalition of the willing" (if you will) against the Soviet Union.

Those two elements may have had more to do with this war's ultimate success than all the bravery of the mujahideen or the motivated recruits provided by the madrassas.

The Stingers did help, but they're overrated. What won that war was the Afghans. If you watch 9th Company, though dramatized, Stingers could help shoot things out of the sky, but it was the foot soldiers that overran Soviet positions, as well as ambushes at the Salang Pass which cut off supplies.

America shares with many to include the Soviet Union in bringing a climate of violence and excessively armed, modestly trained, and highly charged idiot warriors to Pakistan and Afghanistan today. Beyond 1988, whatever involvement we had in this region faded rapidly. As such, there's no way that we held any ties to the taliban much less their formation as a military entity.

That might be correct, but that's not questioned. It is the creation of these people, and their ideology.

In truth, nobody-to include Pakistan, raised forth the taliban by my understanding. This is an entirely indigenous effort from Afghanistan and was near spontaneous. It wasn't until the taliban had collected an assortment of real victories that your government jumped on board and abandoned Hekmatyar (poor guy-deserted by his ally and left to fend for himself:tsk:).

So you didn't raise them forth either, even if involved fairly early.

The Mujahideen were a problem for Pakistan and Afghanistan. They never stopped fighting. So Pakistan tried to unify them as the Taliban. They did that so that instead of fighting each other, they would provide security in the neighbouring country. Make the best out of a bad situation.
 
.
Our money wasn't central and I've first-hand recounting from a friend in Afghanistan in 1985 BADGERED by the mujahideen about the absence of U.S. aid. Most consider our aid strategically valuable beginning in early 1986 when STINGER began showing up on the battlefield. Prior to that, our role had been disappointingly mundane.

Interesting, and I don't disagree. In fact if you don't mind I'd like to quote a little conversation we had many days ago. My words were in bold:
___________________________________________________

"The Americans only took their gloves off at the very end, with the Singer being the first significant US made weapon system arriving in Afghanistan, and that was just a couple of years before the end of the war."

1986 to be exact for STINGER. It would have been earlier but the C.I.A. feared that the Soviet Union might use it's presence to justify attacks upon Pakistan. Seemed timed about right. What were the other "significant US made weapon system, if any, please? Lots of money, small-arms, explosives. No stealth dune-buggies. No laser ray-guns. Oh!!! No IEDs or EFPs. Just very useful and simple battle implements.

"gloves off"? Alan Wolfe, the C.I.A.'s chief for the Near East and South Asia Division set the wheels in motion in late 1978 at the American embassy in Pakistan. Read the date carefully. Late 1978. That's a year BEFORE the Soviet intervention. How's that for "gloves off".

Your stuff is very, very weak.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/14394-battle-bajaur-19.html
___________________________________________________

You seem to be implying something that&#8217;s the opposite what you were venomously arguing with me about when I was expressing my opinion about the nature of US involvement in the Afghan Jihad in that thread. Maybe Hilary&#8217;s talk of this particular historical perspective will ring a few bells too since that was part of our discourse as well. I suggest everyone go over it, a lot of good information and debate there between S-2 and myself, all very relevant to this matter here.
 
.
we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.’
lmao. oh dear. some americans on this forum had better start eating a big dose of humble pie. I hate to brag, but all those times
 
.
U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

by Jacob G. Hornberger

U.S. officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems, however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.

While most Americans now view President Bush’s Iraq War as a “bad war,” the common perception is that Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan was a “good war” (despite the fact that he went to war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war). The notion is that the U.S. government was justified in invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban regime from power because the Taliban and al-Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.

There’s just one big problem with that belief: it’s unfounded.

The reason that Bush ousted the Taliban from office was that the Taliban regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver Osama bin Laden to U.S. officials after the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban responded to Bush’s demand by asking him to furnish evidence of bin Laden’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Upon receipt of such evidence, they offered to turn him over to an independent tribunal instead of the United States.

Bush never explained why the Taliban’s conditions were unreasonable. After all, as federal judges in the Jose Padilla case, the Zacarias Moussaoui case, and many others have confirmed, terrorism is a federal criminal offense. Thus, while it’s not unusual for one nation to seek the extradition of a foreigner to stand trial for a criminal offense, it’s just as reasonable for the nation receiving the request to be provided evidence that the person has, in fact, committed the crime.

Venezuela is currently seeking the extradition from the United States of a man named Luis Posada Carriles, who is accused of bombing a Cuban airliner over Venezuelan skies, a terrorist act that succeeded in killing everyone on board.

Venezuela and the United States have an extradition agreement. Nonetheless, the U.S. government is refusing to extradite Posada to Venezuela. The reason? It says that it fears that Venezuelan authorities will torture Posada. (Another reason might be that Posada was a CIA operative.)

But if fear of torture is a valid reason for refusing an extradition request from Venezuela, then why wouldn’t the same reason apply with respect to the Taliban’s refusal to extradite bin Laden to the United States? I think everyone would agree that if bin Laden had been turned over to the CIA or the Pentagon, he would have been brutally tortured, perhaps even executed, without ever being brought to trial before a fair and independent judicial tribunal.

What about the Taliban’s request that Bush provide evidence of bin Laden’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks? That request is precisely what is done in extradition proceedings. When one nation seeks the extradition of a foreigner, the rules of extradition require it to provide evidence to support the request.

What was remarkable about the Taliban offer was that there wasn’t even an extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. The Taliban was offering to deliver bin Laden to an independent tribunal even though international law did not require it, so long as U.S. officials provided the same type of evidence that is ordinarily required in an extradition proceeding.

Yet Bush refused to consider either the Taliban’s offer or its request for evidence. His position was effectively this: “We are the world’s sole remaining empire. We have the most powerful military on the planet. We have the capability of smashing you and removing your regime from power. You will comply with our demand, unconditionally and immediately.”

But the Taliban refused to comply with Bush’s unconditional demand. Consequently, when the United States invaded Afghanistan, it not only went after bin Laden, it also took sides in Afghanistan’s civil war, taking the side of the Northern Alliance. Ousting the Taliban from power in a classic regime-change operation, U.S. officials installed Hamid Karzai into office, who has been a loyal, friendly, and compliant member of the empire ever since, but one whose regime is now under constant attack by those who were ousted from power by the U.S. Empire.

While Bush and other U.S. officials promised to disclose evidence that the Taliban regime had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks, that promise was never fulfilled and it was ultimately forgotten. The likely reason for that is that they never had such evidence. After all, if they had evidence of such complicity, they would never have wasted time demanding that the Taliban turn bin Laden over. They would have simply declared war against Afghanistan for having attacked the United States.

What would have been the ideal way of handling bin Laden? The same way that the United States handled Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who committed the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Treating that attack as a criminal offense, U.S. officials simply waited Yousef out, relied on good police work, and finally were able to effect his arrest in Pakistan. He is now residing in a U.S. federal penitentiary. No bombs, no missiles, no destruction, no killing of Pakistani wedding parties, and no needless production of new enemies for the United States.

Instead, treating the capture of bin Laden as a military problem, U.S. officials invaded the country, killed and maimed countless innocent people, wreaked untold destruction on Afghanistan, effected regime change, created new enemies for the United States ... and failed to capture bin Laden.

But even given the military invasion of Afghanistan, the aim of that invasion could have been limited to going after bin Laden rather than being used as an opportunity to effect regime change at the same time.

Indeed, that’s precisely what happened after Pancho Villa killed several Americans in a raid on Columbus, New Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution. After the raid, U.S. officials sent an expeditionary force into Mexico to capture him and bring him back to justice. While the expedition was unsuccessful, what was noteworthy about it was that the expedition force limited itself to trying to capture Villa, not taking sides in Mexico’s civil war.

We would be remiss if we failed to keep in mind the role that U.S. foreign policy played in bringing into existence and supporting the Taliban. In a November 5, 2001, article, Congressman Ron Paul pointed out:

We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today’s brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today’s dollars.

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA....

Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing “against the will of God.”...

Once the Taliban regime refused to comply with Bush’s unconditional order to turn over bin Laden, the U.S. Empire did what it had done and tried to do in so many other countries – Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and others – bring about regime change by ousting a recalcitrant regime that refused to comply with the unconditional orders of the U.S. Empire – a regime that the U.S. Empire itself had helped to create – and replacing it with a submissive pro-empire regime. In the process, the empire succeeded in embroiling the United State into one more foreign conflict, one that has now spread to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

It’s just another “success story” in the life of the U.S. Empire and its interventionist foreign policy.

May 12, 2009

Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem by Jacob G. Hornberger

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

'Water under the bridge' at his point, but the rush to war in Afghanistan and the resulting mess illustrate why even the 'right war' was 'wrong' - at least given the limited efforts to bring AQ to justice without invading Afghanistan.
 
.
U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

by Jacob G. Hornberger

U.S. officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems, however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.

<snipped>

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA....
Really? How about we hear from bin Laden himself...

Interviews with Osama bin Laden in 1996 by Robert Fisk (idea)@Everything2.com
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help. When my mujahedin were victorious and the Russsians were driven out, differences started (between the guerilla movements) so I returned to road construction in Taif and Abha. I brrought back the equipment I had used to build tunnels and roads for the mujahedin in Afghanistan. Yes, I helped some of my comrades to come here to Sudan after the war." How many? "I don't want to say. But they are here with me right here, building this road to Port Sudan." I told him that Bosnian Muslim fighters in the Bosnian town of Travnik had mentioned his name to me. "I feel the same about Bosnia," he said. "But the situation there does not provide me with the same opportunities as Afghanistan.
Osama himself was not a frontline-in-the-trenches fighter but more of a motivational speaker and fundraiser for the Afghan resistance. The bin Laden family name was already famous in the ME, mainly in Saudi Arabia, so the best we can guess is that the US know of the bin Ladens and perhaps even Osama himself, but that hardly qualify as having an operational relationship with the man.
 
.
I don't see a contradiction. I still believe it was Alan Wolfe that engendered the genesis of the idea. It came from an indigenous rebellion but he built upon it sufficient to slowly begin to take form over the subsequent years.

If anything, it became, over time, a coalition of the willing. Clearly we were heavily involved in the organizational and fund-raising ends. We also contributed our own money and weapons. Instrumentally important even but not, by ourselves, militarily decisive.

STINGER changed that in early 1986 but that war had been sustained on the backs of many and would remain such until it ended.
 
.

Ahmed Rashid of Pakistan is a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity. He is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Daily Telegraph of London. This is an excerpt from his book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" (Yale University Press).

By Ahmed Rashid

In 1986, CIA chief William Casey had stepped up the war against the Soviet Union by taking three significant, but at that time highly secret, measures. He had persuaded the US Congress to provide the Mujaheddin with American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet planes and provide US advisers to train the guerrillas. Until then, no US-made weapons or personnel had been used directly in the war effort.

The CIA, Britain's MI6 and the ISI [PakistanÕs Inter-Services Intelligence] also agreed on a provocative plan to launch guerrilla attacks into the Soviet Socialist Republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the soft Muslim underbelly of the Soviet state from where Soviet troops in Afghanistan received their supplies. The task was given to the ISI's favourite Mujaheddin leader, Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. In March 1987, small units crossed the Amu Darya river from bases in northern Afghanistan and launched their first rocket attacks against villages in Tajikistan. Casey was delighted with the news, and on his next secret trip to Pakistan he crossed the border into Afghanistan with [the late Pakistani] President Zia [ul-Haq] to review the Mujaheddin groups.

Thirdly, Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The ISI had encouraged this since 1982, and by now all the other players had their reasons for supporting the idea. President Zia aimed to cement Islamic unity, turn Pakistan into the leader of the Muslim world and foster an Islamic opposition in Central Asia. Washington wanted to demonstrate that the entire Muslim world was fighting the Soviet Union alongside the Afghans and their American benefactors. And the Saudis saw an opportunity both to promote Wahabbism [their strict and austere Wahabbi creed] and to get rid of its disgruntled radicals. None of the players reckoned on these volunteers having their own agendas, which would eventually turn their hatred against the Soviets on their own regimes and the Americans.

Thousands of radicals come to study

. . . Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would pass their baptism under fire with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more foreign Muslim radicals came to study in the hundreds of new madrassas that Zia's military government began to fund in Pakistan and along the Afghan border. Eventually more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad.

In camps near Peshawar and in Afghanistan, these radicals met each other for the first time and studied, trained and fought together. It was the first opportunity for most of them to learn about Islamic movements in other countries, and they forged tactical and ideological links that would serve them well in the future. The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism. None of the intelligence agencies involved wanted to consider the consequences of bringing together thousands of Islamic radicals from all over the world. "What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" said Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US National Security Adviser. American citizens woke up to the consequences only when Afghanistan-trained Islamic militants blew up the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, killing six people and injuring 1,000.

"The war," wrote Samuel Huntington, "left behind an uneasy coalition of Islamist organizations intent on promoting Islam against all non-Muslim forces. It also left a legacy of expert and experienced fighters, training camps and logistical facilities, elaborate trans-Islam networks of personal and organization relationships, a substantial amount of military equipment including 300 to 500 unaccounted-for Stinger missiles, and, most important, a heady sense of power and self-confidence over what had been achieved and a driving desire to move on to other victories."

A young Bin Laden

. . . Among these thousands of foreign recruits was a young Saudi student, Osama Bin Laden, the son of a Yemeni construction magnate, Mohammed Bin Laden, who was a close friend of the late King Faisal and whose company had become fabulously wealthy on the contracts to renovate and expand the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina. The ISI had long wanted Prince Turki Bin Faisal, the head of Istakhbarat, the Saudi Intelligence Service, to provide a Royal Prince to lead the Saudi contingent in order to show Muslims the commitment of the Royal Family to the jihad. Only poorer Saudis, students, taxi drivers and Bedouin tribesmen had so far arrived to fight. But no pampered Saudi prince was ready to rough it out in the Afghan mountains. Bin Laden, although not a royal, was close enough to the royals and certainly wealthy enough to lead the Saudi contingent. Bin Laden, Prince Turki and General Gut were to become firm friends and allies in a common cause.

The centre for the Arab-Afghans [Filipino Moros, Uzbeks from Soviet Central Asia, Arabs from Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and Uighurs from Xinjiang in China who had all come to fight with the Mujaheddin] was the offices of the World Muslim League and the Muslim Brotherhood in the northern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The center was run by Abdullah Azam, a Jordanian Palestinian whom Bin Laden had first met at university in Jeddah and revered as his leader. Azam and his two sons were assassinated by a bomb blast in Peshawar in 1989.

During the 1980s, Azam had forged close links with Hikmetyar and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, the Afghan Islamic scholar, whom the Saudis had sent to Peshawar to promote Wahabbism. Saudi funds flowed to Azam and the Makhtab at Khidmat or Services Center, which he created in 1984 to service the new recruits and receive donations from Islamic charities. Donations from Saudi Intelligence, the Saudi Red Crescent, the World Muslim League and private donations from Saudi princes and mosques were channelled through the Makhtab. A decade later, the Makhtab would emerge at the center of a web of radical organizations that helped carry out the World Trade Center bombing and the bombings of US embassies in Africa in 1998.

Until he arrived in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's life had hardly been marked by anything extraordinary. He was born around 1957, the 17th of 57 children sired by his Yemeni father and a Saudi mother, one of Mohammed Bin Laden's many wives. Bin Laden studied for a masterÕs degree in business administration at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah but soon switched to Islamic studies. Thin and tall, he is 6 feet 5 inches, with long limbs and a flowing beard. He towered above his contemporaries, who remember him as a quiet and pious individual but hardly marked out for greater things.

His father backed the Afghan struggle and helped fund it, so when Bin Laden decided to join up, his family responded enthusiastically. He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. He brought in his company engineers and heavy construction equipment to help build roads and depots for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border. For the first time in Khost he set up his own training camp for Arab Afghans, who now increasingly saw this lanky, wealthy and charismatic Saudi as their leader.

. . . Bin Laden later claimed to have taken part in ambushes against Soviet troops, but he mainly used his wealth and Saudi donations to build Mujaheddin projects and spread Wahabbism among the Afghans. After the death of Azam in 1989, he took over Azam's organization and set up Al Qaeda or Military Base as a service center for Arab-Afghans and their families and to forge a broad-based alliance among them. With the help of Bin Laden, several thousand Arab militants had established bases in the provinces of Kunar, Nuristan and Badakhshan, but their extreme Wahabbi practices made them intensely disliked by the majority of Afghans. Moreover, by allying themselves with the most extreme pro-Wahabbi Pashtun MuMeddin, the Arab-Afghans alienated the non-Pashtuns and the Shia Muslims.

Upset by U.S. role in Gulf War

. . . By 1990, Bin Laden was disillusioned by the internal bickering of the Mujaheddin and he returned to Saudi Arabia to work in the family business. He founded a welfare organization for Arab-Afghan veterans. Some 4,000 of them had settled in Mecca and Medina alone, and Bin Laden gave money to the families of those killed. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait he lobbied the Royal Family to organize a popular defense of the kingdom and raise a force from the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq. Instead, King Fahd invited in the Americans. This came as an enormous shock to Bin Laden. As the 540,000 US troops began to arrive, Bin Laden openly criticized the Royal Family, lobbying the Saudi ulema to issue fatwas, religious rulings, against non-Muslims being based in the country.

. . . In 1992, Bin Laden left for Sudan to take part in the Islamic revolution under way there under the charismatic Sudanese leader Hassan Turabi. Bin Laden's continued criticism of the Saudi Royal Family eventually annoyed them so much that they took the unprecedented step of revoking his citizenship in 1994. It was in Sudan, with his wealth and contacts, that Bin Laden gathered around him more veterans of the Afghan war, who were all disgusted by the American victory over Iraq and the attitude of the Arab ruling elites who allowed the US military to remain in the Gulf. As US and Saudi pressure mounted against Sudan for harboring Bin Laden, the Sudanese authorities asked him to leave.

In May 1996, Bin Laden travelled back to Afghanistan, arriving in Jalalabad in a chartered jet with an entourage of dozens of Arab militants, bodyguards and family members, including three wives and 13 children. Here he lived under the protection of the Jalalabad Shura [an advisory body or assembly], until the conquest of Kabul and Jalalabad by the Taliban in September 1996. In August 1996, he had issued his first declaration of jihad against the Americans, whom he said were occupying Saudi Arabia.

"The walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets," the declaration read. Striking up a friendship with Mullah Omar, in 1997 he moved to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and came under the protection of the Taliban.

By now, the CIA had set up a special cell to monitor his activities and his links with other Islamic militants. A US State Department report in August 1996 noted that Bin Laden was "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world." The report said that Bin Laden was financing terrorist camps in Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan. In April 1996, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allowed the US to block assets of terrorist organizations. It was first used to block Bin Laden's access to his fortune of an estimated US$250-300 million. A few months later, Egyptian intelligence declared that Bin Laden was training 1,000 militants, a second generation of Arab-Afghans, to bring about an Islamic revolution in Arab countries.

CIA tries snatch operation

In early 1997, the CIA constituted a squad that arrived in Peshawar to try to carry out a snatch operation to get Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. The Americans enlisted Afghans and Pakistanis to help them but aborted the operation. The US activity in Peshawar helped persuade Bin Laden to move to the safer confines of Kandahar. On 23 February 1998, at a meeting in the original Khost camp, all the groups associated with Al Qaeda issued a manifesto under the aegis of "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." The manifesto stated "for more than seven years the US has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsular, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbours, and turning its bases in the peninsular into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples."

The meeting issued a fatwa. "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to." Bin Laden had now formulated a policy that was not just aimed at the Saudi Royal Family or the Americans, but called for the liberation of the entire Muslim Middle East. As the American air war against Iraq escalated in 1998, Bin Laden called on all Muslims to "confront, fight and kill, Americans and Britons."

1998 U.S. Embassy bombings

However, it was the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 220 people which made Bin Laden a household name in the Muslim world and the West. Just 13 days later, after accusing Bin Laden of perpetrating the attack, the USA retaliated by firing 70 cruise missiles against Bin Laden's camps around Khost and Jalalabad. Several camps which had been handed over by the Taliban to the Arab-Afghans and Pakistani radical groups were hit. The Al Badr camp controlled by Bin Laden and the Khalid bin Walid and Muawia camps run by the Pakistani Harakat ul Ansar were the main targets. Harakat used their camps to train militants for fighting Indian troops in Kashmir. Seven outsiders were killed in the strike -- three Yemenis, two Egyptians, one Saudi and one Turk. Also killed were seven Pakistanis and 20 Afghans.

In November 1998 the USA offered a US$5-million reward for Bin Laden's capture. The Americans were further galvanized when Bin Laden claimed that it was his Islamic duty to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons to use against the USA. "It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded for it by God," he said.

. . . After the Africa bombings, the US launched a truly global operation. More than 80 Islamic militants were arrested in a dozen different countries. Militants were picked up in a crescent running from Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan and Yemen to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and the Phillipines."

In December 1998, Indian authorities detained Bangladeshi militants for plotting to bomb the US Consulate in Calcutta. Seven Afghan nationals using false Italian passports were arrested in Malaysia and accused of trying to start a bombing campaign." According to the FBI, militants in Yemen who kidnapped 16 Western tourists in December 1998 were funded by Bin Laden. In February 1999, Bangladeshi authorities said Bin Laden had sent US$l million to the Harkat-ul-Jihad (HJ) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, some of whose members had trained and fought in Afghanistan. HJ leaders said they wanted to turn Bangladesh into a Taliban-style Islamic state.

Thousands of miles away in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania in West Africa, several militants were arrested who had also trained under Bin Laden in Afghanistan and were suspected of plotting bomb explosions. Meanwhile, during the trial of 107 Al-Jihad members at a military court in Cairo, Egyptian intelligence officers testified that Bin Laden had bankrolled Al-Jihad. In February 1999, the CIA claimed that through monitoring Bin Laden's communication network by satellite, they had prevented his supporters from carrying out seven bomb attacks against US overseas facilities in Saudi Arabia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uganda, Uruguay and the Ivory Coast -- emphasizing the reach of the Afghan veterans.

. . . But it was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the original sponsors of the Arab-Afghans, who suffered the most as their activities rebounded. In March 1997, three Arab and two Tajik militants [from Tajikistan] were shot dead after a 36-hour gun battle between them and the police in an Afghan refugee camp near Peshawar. Belonging to the Wahabbi radical Tafkir group, they were planning to bomb an Islamic heads of state meeting in Islamabad.

Fighting in Kashmir against India

With the encouragement of Pakistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden, Arab-Afghans had enlisted in the Pakistani party Harkat-ut-Ansar to fight in Kashmir against Indian troops. By inducting Arabs who introduced Wahabbi-style rules in the Kashmir valley, genuine Kashmiri militants felt insulted. The US government had declared Ansar a terrorist organization in 1996 and it had subsequently changed its name to Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin. All the Pakistani victims of the US missile strikes on Khost belonged to Ansar. In 1999, Ansar said it would impose a strict Wahabbi-style dress code in the Kashmir valley and banned jeans and jackets. On 15 February 1999, they shot and wounded three Kashmiri cable television operators for relaying Western satellite broadcasts. Ansar had previously respected the liberal traditions of Kashmiri Muslims, but the activities of the Arab-Afghans hurt the legitimacy of the Kashmiri movement and gave India a propaganda coup.

Pakistan faced a problem when Washington urged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to help arrest Bin Laden. The ISI's close contacts with Bin Laden, and the fact that he was helping fund and train Kashmiri militants who were using the Khost camps, created a dilemma for Sharif when he visited Washington in December 1998. Sharif sidestepped the issue but other Pakistani officials were more brazen, reminding their American counterparts how they had both helped midwife Bin Laden in the 1980s and the Taliban in the 1990s. Bin Laden himself pointed to continued support from some elements in the Pakistani intelligence services in an interview. "As for Pakistan there are some governmental departments, which, by the Grace of God, respond to the Islamic sentiments of the masses in Pakistan. This is reflected in sympathy and co-operation. However, some other governmental departments fell into the trap of the infidels. We pray to God to return them to the right path," said Bin Laden.

Conundrums for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

Support for Bin Laden by elements within the Pakistani establishment was another contradiction in PakistanÕs Afghan policy. . . . The US was PakistanÕs closest ally, with deep links to the military and the ISI. But both the Taliban and Bin Laden provided sanctuary and training facilities for Kashmiri militants who were backed by Pakistan, and Islamabad had little interest in drying up that support. Even though the Americans repeatedly tried to persuade the ISI to cooperate in delivering Bin Laden, the ISI declined, although it did help the US arrest several of Bin Laden's supporters. Without PakistanÕs support, the United States could not hope to launch a snatch by US commandos or more accurate bombing strikes, because it needed Pakistani territory to launch such raids. At the same time, the USA dared not expose PakistanÕs support for the Taliban, because it still hoped for ISI cooperation in catching Bin Laden.

The Saudi conundrum was even worse. In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates. The Saudis also gave cash for the Taliban's cheque book conquest of the north in the autumn. Until the Africa bombings and despite US pressure to end their support for the Taliban, the Saudis continued funding the Taliban and were silent on the need to extradite Bin Laden.

The truth about the Saudi silence was even more complicated. The Saudis preferred to leave Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan because his arrest and trial by the Americans could expose the deep relationship that Bin Laden continued to have with sympathetic members of the Royal Family and elements within Saudi intelligence, which could prove deeply embarrassing. The Saudis wanted Bin Laden either dead or a captive of the Taliban -- they did not want him captured by the Americans.

. . . By now Bin Laden had developed considerable influence with the Taliban, but that had not always been the case. The Taliban's contact with the Arab-Afghans and their Pan-Islamic ideology was non-existent until the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was closely involved in introducing Bin Laden to the Taliban leaders in Kandahar, because it wanted to retain the Khost training camps for Kashmiri militants, which were now in Taliban hands. Persuasion by Pakistan, the Taliban's better-educated cadres, who also had Pan-Islamic ideas, and the lure of financial benefits from Bin Laden, encouraged the Taliban leaders to meet with Bin Laden and hand him back the Khost camps.

A life with the Taliban in Kandahar

Partly for his own safety and partly to keep control over him, the Taliban shifted Bin Laden to Kandahar in 1997. At first he lived as a paying guest. He built a house for Mullah Omar's family and provided funds to other Taliban leaders. He promised to pave the road from Kandahar airport to the city and build mosques, schools and dams, but his civic works never got started as his funds were frozen. While Bin Laden lived in enormous style in a huge mansion in Kandahar with his family, servants and fellow militants, the arrogant behaviour of the Arab-Afghans who arrived with him and their failure to fulfill any of their civic projects antagonized the local population. The Kandaharis saw the Taliban leaders as beneficiaries of Arab largesse rather than the people.

Bin Laden endeared himself further to the leadership by sending several hundred Arab-Afghans to participate in the 1997 and 1998 Taliban offensives in the north. These Wahabbi fighters helped the Taliban carry out massacres of the Shia Hazaras in the north. Several hundred Arab-Afghans, based in the Rishkor army garrison outside Kabul, fought on the Kabul front against [the Mujaheddin leader Ahmad Shah] Masud. Increasingly, Bin Laden's world view appeared to dominate the thinking of senior Taliban leaders. All-night conversations between Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders paid off. Until his arrival, the Taliban leadership had not been particularly antagonistic to the USA or the West but demanded recognition for their government. However, after the Africa bombings the Taliban became increasingly vociferous against the Americans, the UN, the Saudis and Muslim regimes around the world. Their statements increasingly reflected the language of defiance Bin Laden had adopted and which was not an original Taliban trait.

As US pressure on the Taliban to expel Bin Laden intensified, the Taliban said he was a guest and it was against Afghan tradition to expel guests. When it appeared that Washington was planning another military strike against Bin Laden, the Taliban tried to cut a deal with Washington -- to allow him to leave the country in exchange for US recognition. Thus, until the winter of 1998 the Taliban saw Bin Laden as an asset, a bargaining chip over whom they could negotiate with the Americans.

The US State Department opened a satellite telephone connection to speak to Mullah Omar directly. The Afghanistan desk officers, helped by a Pushto translator, held lengthy conversations with Omar in which both sides explored various options, but to no avail. By early 1999 it began to dawn on the Taliban that no compromise with the US was possible and they began to see Bin Laden as a liability. A US deadline in February 1999 to the Tatiban to either hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences forced the Taliban to make him disappear discreetly from Kandahar. The move bought the Taliban some time, but the issue was still nowhere near being resolved.

The Arab-Afghans had come full circle. From being mere appendages to the Afghan jihad and the Cold War in the 1980s they had taken centre stage for the Afghans, neighbouring countries and the West in the 1990s. . . . Afghanistan was now truly a haven for Islamic internationalism and terrorism and the Americans and the West were at a loss as to how to handle it.
 
.
Methinks the article mis-titled.:agree:

I see one reference that OBL may have worked on a CIA sponsored tunneling project near Khost early in the Afghan-Soviet war after his arrival in Afghanistan.

That's it and likely not confirmed nor relevant. He was a young guy with a mechanical engineering degree. Big deal and nothing else except us putting bounties on his head and seeking help from those who REALLY midwifed this guy-

"Support for Bin Laden by elements within the Pakistani establishment was another contradiction in PakistanÕs Afghan policy. . . . The US was PakistanÕs closest ally, with deep links to the military and the ISI. But both the Taliban and Bin Laden provided sanctuary and training facilities for Kashmiri militants who were backed by Pakistan, and Islamabad had little interest in drying up that support. Even though the Americans repeatedly tried to persuade the ISI to cooperate in delivering Bin Laden, the ISI declined, although it did help the US arrest several of Bin Laden's supporters. Without PakistanÕs support, the United States could not hope to launch a snatch by US commandos or more accurate bombing strikes, because it needed Pakistani territory to launch such raids. At the same time, the USA dared not expose PakistanÕs support for the Taliban, because it still hoped for ISI cooperation in catching Bin Laden.

The Saudi conundrum was even worse. In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates. The Saudis also gave cash for the Taliban's cheque book conquest of the north in the autumn. Until the Africa bombings and despite US pressure to end their support for the Taliban, the Saudis continued funding the Taliban and were silent on the need to extradite Bin Laden.

The truth about the Saudi silence was even more complicated. The Saudis preferred to leave Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan because his arrest and trial by the Americans could expose the deep relationship that Bin Laden continued to have with sympathetic members of the Royal Family and elements within Saudi intelligence, which could prove deeply embarrassing. The Saudis wanted Bin Laden either dead or a captive of the Taliban -- they did not want him captured by the Americans."


Makes clear who was really giving OBL and the taliban sustenance and it wasn't America.

Just my humble perspective of Rashid's excerpt.:)
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom