Sleeping With the Enemy
by Ron Callari
The
Taliban organization that ruthlessly gripped control of Afghanistan during the
last decade has been condemned by the entire civilized world. Even Muslims denounced
this group as a disgrace to Islam. With Afghanistan isolated among the world
community of nations, who could have ever supported this barbaric domination
of one impoverished country? Well, we have learned just recently that a young
20 year old American by the name of John Walker might have- but are our memories
so short that we can’t remember when the US government aided and abetted this
regime as well?
What were the ulterior motives for the US to cross this thin red line? In the aftermath of September 11th, could we have at one time actually slept with the enemy? And if so, should we be so quick to condemn a young, naïve American from doing the same?
US administrations spent billions of dollars funding the Islamic holy war or jihad by Mujaheddin fighters against the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul in order to undermine the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan’s name for the men of the Taliban in the 80s was “freedom fighters”. Moreover, until the late 1990s, the US turned a blind eye to the Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban, which was funded by two of Washington’s closest allies in the region—Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The Taliban regime was brought to power with Washington's silent blessing. We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that we just spent a good portion of our surplus to annihilate.
In
the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA (seal shown, right) was very involved
in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan.
In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving these groups at least 6 billion
dollars in military weaponry. Bin Laden himself received training and weapons
from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the
Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost.
And while our ‘wake-up’ call should have been the ’93 World Trade Center bombing, we continued to support these Afghan rebels who landed on our shores, because they circuitously helped us fight the Soviets in their homeland.
Clinton’s administration was weighed down by scandal and impeachment proceedings to such an extent, that any attempt to fight terrorism was thwarted by Republicans as an attempt to distance the voters. The Wag the Dog theory kept Americans focused on titillating tales in the Oval Office versus the growing threat of terrorism throughout the world.
.jpg)
Terrorism
was not raised as an issue by either Vice President Al Gore or George W. Bush
in the 2000 presidential campaigns. Incredibly, as late as May, 2001, Secretary
of State Colin Powell (left, with President Bush at NATO last year) 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 this senseless drug war by declaring
the cultivation of opium "against the will of God." They weren't serious, of
course.
The reality is that opium was far and away the most profitable industry in the country. The Taliban was hardly prepared to give up its major source of export revenue, any more than the demand for opium was suddenly going to disappear. If anything, Afghanistan's production of opium was growing exponentially. Experts estimated it had doubled since 1999. How tragic that our government was willing to ignore Taliban brutality in its quest to find victories in this failed war against drugs in a foreign land.
More important however than drugs, was the US’s keen desire to build a $4.5 billion oil and gas pipeline. American oil companies were hoping to exploit the petroleum reserves of the newly independent country of Turkmenistan. Here we saw a way to run pipelines without going through either Russia or Iran. The route through Afghanistan to Pakistan and then to the Indian Ocean was the answer.
The California-based Unocal Corporation in 1996 devised plans to develop the pipeline, and the United States wanted most of Afghanistan to be under the stable control of one government to ensure the pipeline's security. The Taliban was the likely choice.
While the United States has denied supporting the Taliban's rise, experts say that at the time they seized the capital five years ago, Washington saw the militia as a strange but potentially stabilizing force.
Now, years on, the US has to cope with the damage for which it is partially responsible "starting with its role during and after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," said Radha Kumar of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
So as this historical review demonstrates, Washington’s objectives in Afghanistan are not determined by fears about terrorism or concerns over human rights. The US has for the first time established a military presence in the Central Asian republics with troops in Uzbekistan and its military campaign ensures that it will dictate the terms for any post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Even if bin Laden were killed tomorrow and his organization destroyed, Washington has no intention of retreating from these first steps towards the domination of this key strategic region and its vast energy reserves.
.jpg)
Now
flash forward to Operation Enduring Freedom’s end of the Taliban’s occupation
of Afghanistan in December 2001, and we are witnesses to an individual American
facing charges of aiding and abetting the enemy. While the Justice Department
contemplates Walker's legal fate, the Bush administration may favor a charge
of ‘providing material support to terrorists’ versus treason, which could carry
a maximum 15-year prison sentence. Why the leniency?
Could Walker’s defense include some of our country’s mishandling of the Taliban in the past? Would the pubic acknowledgement of our misdealings diminish the recently found patriotic fervor that has swept the country of recent date?
Does one American not have the same rights as a collective government to pick and choose his own affiliation?
Walker may be a mere gnat in the overall war on terrorism, but the administration will have to be extremely careful and creative in swatting him. As a country, we have selected our allies based on altruistic reasons, but we need to take a hard look at how we accuse and determine the fate of others when they follow suit. While politics make strange bedfellows, we should not be so easy to condemn others who have lusted after the same partner. ***
© 2002 Ron Callari
See more of Ron's work at his website HERE.
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer