A Cockburn Classic

[Ken Hanly]

The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 but the Taliban did not come into power
until years laters. As soon as the Soviets withdrew the US ceased funding
and the mujahadeen groups were left to defeat a still very  powerful
communist government. It took years for the Taliban to get in power. One of
the causes of the burning hatred of the US guerilla groups is the clear
recognition that once the US aim of defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan was
achieved there was not the slightest interest in helping their cause.
Najibullah's government was not to fall until 1992 and the Taliban did not
take power until 1996. They immediately hung Najibullah and displayed his
body in public. So there were over six years of struggle for the Taliban
during which they were totally abandoned by the US who had signed an
agreement with the Soviets not to arm the mujahedeen. Hence they were
completely betrayed and abandoned by their main outside support while Soviet
forces were in the country.

    The problem with cutting off support in Pakistan is that this might mean
civil war and terrorism in Pakistan and even the overthrow of the
government. The US is putting Pakistan in a horrendous situation. Of course
that is neither here nor there to the US. Equally US allies in the Middle
East such as Saudi Arabia are also in great danger from their own people if
they are seen as supporting violent attacks on fellow muslims. These are
precisely results desired by the terrorists.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: A Cockburn Classic


>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> > From the January 21, 1980 Press Clips column in the Village Voice, for
> > Michael P:
> >
> > "Your Afghan's idea of a jolly good party is to cut off the balls of
> > his foe, stuff them in his mouth and leave him as an object of
> > derision in the local square. The British found this out, as they
> > retreated pellmell across the passes, and so too has Ivan."
>
> I remember reading this column.  We's some old men, DP.
>
> > And now Uncle Sam?
>
> One thing to bear in mind: a big reason the Russians got bogged down is
> because we were supporting the other side (during which time we created
> the Bin Ladens and Khattabs that have exported so much havoc ever since).
> And that's been true through history.  Afghanistan is great guerilla
> country, but part of why is because the guerillas have always been
> supported from without.  If Russia and the US (and India and Pakistan and
> Iran) were on the same side with the convergent interests, it might be a
> different story.  The Taliban, remember, swept the country in a remarkably
> short time, despite being at the time militarily quite weak and unknown to
> the inhabitants.  And the last effective pocket of resistance suffered a
> huge blow last week when their leader, Ahmad Shah Masood, was killed by
> suicide bombers posing as reporters.
>
> So the country might be ripe for another sweep.  And if the Taliban could
> be cut off from their support in Pakistan -- which might in itself be a
> crucially good thing for Pakistan, and for India/Pakistan relations --
> this might conceivably turn out differently from the invasions of Russia
> and Britain.
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
>