The Taliban weren't just widely vilified in the West. They were (are) widely vilified everywhere. Iran had a friggin' Maginot line on the border. With artillery pieces.
You people are acting like the Taliban (and more importantly, the people they were hosting, probably mostly in exchange for money, of which the Taliban had little) just hung around in Afghanistan blowing up statues of the Buddha. They did not. It's an extremely messianic and, er, imperialistic creed. There was a huge infrastructure there devoted to preparing, er, cadres to go abroad (in a region of the world with open borders) and 1) spread/dictate the Word 2) build the Caliphate and 3) kill the infidel. Which is precisely what they did in western China and Central Asia and the North Caucasus.
Of course the Taliban endangered US interests, such as the interest in not having planes being rammed into large towers full of people.
--- On Sun, 6/7/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> From: Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 6:32 PM
> The Taliban never posed and continue
> to pose no direct threat to US
> interests.
>
> Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was invaded because it was
> identified as the
> sanctuary for the Bin Laden terror apparatus, and therefore
> the most obvious
> state target for the Bush administration, under intense
> pressure by the
> terror-stricken and vengeful US population and itself
> driven to respond the
> organizers of the assault on the WTC and Pentagon. The
> administration would
> have undoubtedly have preferred to tie the 9/11 attackers
> to Saddam's Iraq,
> which the neocons had targeted even before taking office,
> and it spent the
> next two years manufacturing that link, but the invasion of
> Afghanistan and
> overthrow of the Taliban, widely vilified in the West, was
> not in
> contradiction to that objective, and was seen, in fact, as
> a useful proving
> ground for that later exercise.
>
> Currently, the US strategy in the Pashtun-controlled areas
> of Pakistan and
> Afghanistan seems to be the same as in Iraq: a temporary
> "surge" of US
> troops and money to split the insurgents, quell the local
> uprisings, and
> integrate the "moderates" into strengthened central
> governments and armies
> capable of maintaining order and serving US energy and
> other strategic
> interests in those regions.
>
> Those balls are all still very much up in the air.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Doss" <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm, what danger might a messianic group of cultists that
> harbors people
> who organize massive terror attacks pose to neighboring
> populations. I
> wonder.
>
> --- On Sun, 6/7/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 4:41 PM
> > Michael Smith wrote:
> >
> > > One would like to hear more about the danger that
> the
> > Taliban posed to Russia, Iran, China and so forth.
> > > [...]
> > > Which brings us back to the Unitary Hegemon
> problem.
> > Did the US as such -- assuming there is such a thing,
> > possessing the capacity for action -- then act against
> its
> > own interests? Or at random, without regard for its
> > interests? Or did one gang of elite gangsters have an
> > interest that the other gangs didn't share, and was
> that
> > gang able to take the Marines out for a joyride,
> either
> > because they Bogarted the other gangs or because the
> other
> > gangs didn't much care?
> > > The third hypothesis seems the most likely to me,
> but
> > it's all conjecture. I'd like to see a coherent
> account that
> > gives *any* intelligible and credible explanation for
> the
> > Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. I would greet it like
> a
> > long-lost brother.
> > > The idea that the rag-tag Taliban was a "threat"
> to
> > every great power in the world doesn't ring true for
> me,
> > alas.
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>