reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
It appears to me that you are confusing the Taliban with the mujahideen, a common enough misconception, fostered by certain interests now, but
entirely untrue. I'm willing to concede it could be an honest mistake, as it's often difficult to keep the various factions separate in one's mind
without a score card.
"Taliban" comes from "talib", a student. The Taliban, as a political unit, did not exist until after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and
the subsequent withdrawal from the same area of the CIA. We miscalculated in thinking that since "our" enemy was no longer there, we didn't need to
be there either. When all the players but the locals took their balls and bats and went home, it created a vacuum that resulted in the creation of
further factions, and a prolongation of the war. The Taliban was created and fostered by Pakistani ISI, and thrown into the cauldron with the rest of
the warlords and warring factions, in the 1990s. They simply didn't exist as an independent entity when the CIA and Soviets were duking it out
there.
Now, what I notice, and what leads me to the conclusion that it was an honest mistake, is that the references you provided make mention of the
mujahideen, specifically, and NOT the Taliban. They aren't the same. The mujahideen were actively fighting AGAINST the Taliban for the entire time
that the Taliban were in power. That's why Masud was assasinated just before 9/11. He was muj, and he was at war with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda, under
Bin Laden, cut a deal with the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda actually carried out his assasination to remove a thorn from the Taliban's side. In return, the
Taliban gave Al-Qaeda safe harbor.
That didn't set well with the Afghan populace, as Al-Qaeda were viewed as every bit as much "foreigners" as the Soviets, the Americans, et al.
Matter of fact, when the Northern Alliance was rolling up the Taliban southward, right after the "invasion" by U.S. Special Forces, they would put a
few bills in the mouth of any dead Al-Qaeda they found. Someone got curious about that custom, and asked, and the NA muj said "It's their pay as
foreign mercenaries" and spat on the latest corpse he'd "paid".
Here's a link that may help you in sorting the two out:
Soviets War in Afghanistan
Admittedly, it's wikipedia, and it has a few inaccuracies in it, but all in all it's a pretty good overview.
You'll note that in every case of mention, the Taliban came AFTER the Soviet/ US withdrawal from the area.
So yes, there are muj, there are Talban, and there are Al-Qaeda, but they are not the same. Mujahideen is a general term for ANY jihadist, and so in a
way does cover the Taliban, among many other groups, in a blanket sort of way, but neither they, nor Al-Qaeda, existed at the time of CIA involvement
against the Soviets, when we were supporting "that" mujahideen.
Bin Laden WAS there, but Al-Qaeda didn't exist, Bin Laden brought his own big bucks rather than take money from the CIA (via the Saudis and Pakistani
ISI - it was a twisted route of support), and only fought in one battle that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did. Most of the time he was
behind the scenes in "safe" areas pulling strings,and handing out his share of his daddy's warbucks.
This is a long winded way of saying that the CIA did NOT equip or support the Taliban OR Al-Qaeda.
Mod-Typo-Edit
[edit on 22-10-2009 by Skyfloating]
