Would the Taliban have been successful in coming to power and would have

[mmonk]

the attacks that occured on September 11th, 2001 taken place had the Taliban not have had the backing and support both militarily and monetarily of the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and a few others?

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Except that we created them, they would not have had power.

We should have just let Russia wallow around in that awful quagmire on their own - would have hurt Russia more, and it would have kept the Taliban from gaining power.

[mmonk]

8. While true as far as creation goes, the Soviets might not have been

drawn into a quagmire had we not funded the rebellion inside their client state. But I'm not posting this to express my views but to determine others.:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. I had thought we didn't get involved until after Russia had invaded?

Not to say that I'm correct - I trust your knowledge far more than my shaky memory of a time I wasn't paying very little political attention (I was just a kid...).

Though knowing Reagan and Bush, I should have just assumed that we were in there fucking things up long before Russia came in...

[mmonk]

14. No, we began backing the rebellion in 1979. As a result, the Soviets

entered on Christmas day, 1979.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Figures.

Stupid of me to think that there if was a potential hot box to be stirred up somewhere that would later come back to burn our asses, that we wouldn't be there adding fuel to get the fire started.

[mmonk]

17. I guess from a geopolitical strategic standpoint, it was genius

in the effort to create a quagmire for the Soviet Union. In fact, it eventually led their collapse. I guess the key now is to not let it lead to ours.

[endarkenment]

2. You are asking at least two separate questions here.

The taliban had our implicit backing and pakistan's explicit backing, but might have taken power without either. Al Qaeda could very well have carried out 9-11 without the taliban's support.

[mmonk]

5. I tried to give room for all views in order to determine people's opinions.

[endarkenment]

7. I understand, but that makes answering the poll difficult.

So I ended up with 'Other'.

[mmonk]

10. There's no problem with other as I've included it and people

are free to post their opinion.

[anonymous171]

3. Blowback's a bitch.

Although a Soviet Afghanistan is too.

[mmonk]

11. Cause and effect. Bhutto called it "our Frankenstein's monster".

[AllentownJake]

4. Our error after the Soviets left

Was not spending the same amount of money we were spending on weapons for the Afghani rebels as we would for schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. We let them beat the Soviets and didn't offer to help them rebuild the country with the things that make a society a society.

[mmonk]

6. True.

There was no residual help. Mostly tribalism was left in its wake.

[endarkenment]

9. After the Soviets left Afghanistan collapsed

as the Kabul government was sacked and turned out and then the various mujahadeen warlords fought each other for control of Kabul and dominance over everyone else. Not that we tried, but had we tried to build schools roads and infrastructure, there was no effective authority to run such operations or protect them from predation. It was that collapsed state into which the Taliban entered as a non-corrupt militia capable of restoring order and normalcy, even if 'normal' meant normal circa 900 C.E.

[harun]

16. +1

[Clio the Leo]

13. 19 guys bought plane tickets....

.... how much money did they need?

9/11 happened because of our attitude .... not because of our ammo or cash.

[mmonk]

18. That's certainly one view I guess.

But I don't think its quite that simple. Why didn't they buy plane tickets in Sweden instead? It's much closer.

[ieoeja]

20. Because Sweden had not occupied portions of the Middle East since 1991? n/t

[ieoeja]

19. Other

1. We did not back the Taliban specifically. We backed the Mujahadeen. The Taliban did *not* come to power initially, and they only came to power after we *stopped* backing the Mujahadeen. So a better question would be:

Would the Taliban have been successful in coming to power had their enemies have had the continued support both militarily and monetarily of the United States.

To that I would have answered a resounding, "no! Musad would have kicked their ass even more easily than he did the Soviets."


2. Did Saudi Arabia back the Taliban? I think this is a factoid that evolved from, "wealthy Saudis like Bin Ladin in Al Qaeda backed the Taliban" to "Saudi Arabia backed the Taliban". There is an important difference.


3. Al Qaeda could have easily attacked us without a host country. And those nineteen passengers in airplanes attacked the United States because:

3a. During the last century the UK, France, Germany and Italy came to the Middle East as liberators, but stayed as conquerors.
3b. The United States came to the Middle East as peacekeepers on several occasions, and always left.
3c. Until 1991 when we stayed.

The governments of the Middle East welcomed us and the money that naturally attends the presence of any large organization. But given (3a) it is understandable that individuals of the nutjobbery persuasion would see (3c) as another act of colonialism. Hence, the first two attacks on US soil by Islamic terrorists in 1993 and 2001.

You see, I have my very own conspiracy theory. I believe that Al Qaeda attacked the United States for the very reasons that Al Qaeda says they want to attack the United States: those 1991 military bases. Weird, huh?

[mmonk]

21. Sarcasm aside, I'm sure what bin Laden said about some of his reasoning

was true and I'm sure some of what he did not say was involved too such as unpaid promised contracts from Saudi Arabia. But it's also important to know that the CIA and Pakistan's ISI were invoved with bin Laden and also important to know the funding by Pakistan and the US (around $124 million to the Taliban from the US as well as to take note of the Unocal pipeline efforts and the fact the Taliban demanded more than the $100 million lease).

[mmonk]

22. A link from the Federation of American Scientists from 1998

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/northern_alliance.htm


"The conflict in Afghanistan has continued to have an international dimension, both from political and economic perspectives.
The United States is intent on offseting Iranian influence on the spread of terrorism and expansion of markets in the region.
Russia had backed B. Rabbani’s government in Kabul and feared that a Pakistani backed Pashtun movement such as the Taleban would be expansionist, threatening Russia’s interests in Central-Asian countries. Russia has provided Dostem with 500 T55 and T62 tanks that are used against areas that oppose his rule. Russia has also provided Dostem with a large number of Frog 7 and Luna M missiles.
Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov had clandestinely supported his fellow Uzbek, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, with tanks, aircraft and technical personnel, with an expectation that Uzbek dominated provinces in northern Afghanistan would provide a buffer against the spread of fundamentalism from Afghanistan.
Tajikistan, racked by civil war and with a government backed by Russian troops, has been sympathetic to fellow Tajiks led by President B. Rabbani. Many Afghan Tajiks also support the idea of a greater Tajikistan - merging Tajik areas of Afghanistan with Tajikistan.
India in the early 1990s provided technical and financial assistance to Rabani and his military commander Masood. India, according to charges by the Taleban, is using "hirelings in Afghanistan to commit terrorist acts against Afghan men, women, and children." "

[ieoeja]

23. Russia ended up supporting the former Mujahadeen.

I remember the irony at the time. But the US did not support the Taleban until sometime after Dumbya took office. I remember *that* at the time as well. That was the outrage du jour at DU for a time when it first happened.

And that was years after the Taleban took Kabul.

I misspelled Masood as Masud. Of course, there is no definitive transliteration between these languages, but I have never seen it written Masud before. It has been a few years since I have seen his name mentioned.

[mmonk]

24. I disagree with that assessment but that wasn't the point of my original

post anyway. I was going to see what people thought. I do plan to post something later in the week on Afghanistan and will notify you when I do and you can judge my assessment if you like.