Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sajuek
So what exactly is your point? You might not realize it, but that certainly isn't the first time in human history that former allies became enemies.
Bin Laden was there, but definitely NOT our ally. He steadfastly refused any US assistance, or even anything that smacked of US assistance, and
brought his own resources, mostly construction stuff and money. Gotta admire him for sticking to his guns in his refusals, though. He was nothing if
not consistent. Didn't take part in much of the actual fighting, either. I only know of one battle in which he "participated", from a safe distance,
directing movements over a radio.
The Taliban was not even there, so they don't even enter the equation. They are a creation of Pakistani ISI, in Pakistani madrasas, and most of them
were still kids at the time of the Soviet War - refugees, in the cross-border camps, "educated" by Pakistani ISI with intent to insinuate them into
Afghan government, providing heavy Pakistani influence therein, AFTER the Soviet war. The Taliban were basically a Pakistani government power-play. US
culpability in that situation is that we bailed out right after the Soviets did, leaving the country in a shambles with a major power vacuum. ISI
wasted no time filling that vacuum with their own men - the Taliban.
The ONE person I can think of off the top of my head who was an "ally" then and an "enemy" now is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He's actually an opportunist,
and known for changing sides more often than most change underwear. He's in it for the power trip. and will take his fighters to whomever he thinks he
can garner the most power from for himself.
Examples of our allies back then would be Masud, who was, conveniently enough, killed a couple of days before the events of 9/11 by operatives hired
by AQ, allegedly as a "favor" to the Taliban, whom he was a thorn in the side of. I'm sure that, knowing what was coming, part of their real reasons
was to eliminate another American ally in the area, to try to keep us from infiltration preparatory to an assault after the firestorm they knew was
See, during the Soviet war, most of our infiltration was done by the expedient of walking or driving over the southern border with Pakistan. Not much
in the way of jumps, and so that was what they expected our infiltration to consist of this time. Masud, based in the Panjshir, would be one of the
first stops and linkups in that scenario. By eliminating him, they hoped to make us cross a lot more hostile territory before linking up with allies.
Instead, we went a more direct route after 9/11, dropping straight into the north, where the Northern Alliance already held sway.
It's a fairly complex situation, and always has been, and can't be summed up by just saying "the US did it". Sure, some members of the current
organizations (or DIS-organizations, in the case of al Qaeda) may have presented themselves as "allies" back then, just as Mitt Romeny presents
himself as a Republican now, after presenting himself as a Democrat for umpty zillion years. This means that just because Hekmatyar allied himself
with the Taliban currently, and allied himself with us years ago, the leap cannot be made across all the intervening events to simply state that we
created the Taliban OR al Qaeda.
Think of it this way. I'm married, forming an attachment to my wife. If she goes and joins the PTA tomorrow, does that mean I created the PTA? Should
I put that creation on my resume, then? Another way of looking at it is saying that if my son is on a ball team, and I support that team, does that
mean I created ALL the ball teams?
We actually come closer to being able to take credit for creating the Northern Alliance, but that's only "close" - no cigar, because we didn't
actually do that, either. They were, however, the remnants of the mujaheddin we worked with back then.
edit on 2013/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)