<If the Taliban can be neutralized, the Islamic guerillas in the Caucasus will be up against the wall, so no immediate threats will remain for these regimes.>
i couldn't quite assemble the various oil theories into a logical thread. it seems clear that the u.s. had supported the taliban on behalf of unocal et al.. but why, i have been wondering, did u.s. support for the taliban erode? why was a pipeline deal not consummated? according to eqbal ahmad, it had to do with bin laden's having taken up residence in afghanistan. he speculated in 1998 that as soon as the "bin laden business" was taken care of, the u.s. would renew its support of the taliban.
but if that were the case, why has the u.s. been planning an invasion of afghanistan since last summer, and would the cia have been meeting with bin laden?
what you say here, hakki, would seem to tie the loose ends together. but does the taliban really have so much influence that its neutralisation would cause islamic guerillas in the caucusus states to wither at the vine?
one other sticking point, though. it's fairly evident that the bush administration would have no problem working with bin laden. but i wonder about the opposite. isn't bin laden supposed to be a man of principle? aren't the attacks on america designed to remove the infidels from the holy land? why would he stoop to deal-making?
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp