US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan: Clinton

[HAIDER]

WASHINGTON: Two days of continuous congressional hearings on the Obama administration’s foreign policy brought a rare concession from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Mrs Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

‘We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it’s merited because we are wondering why they just don’t go out there and deal with these people,’ said Mrs Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a ‘mortal threat’ to the world.

‘But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,’ she said.

‘Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.’

‘They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.’

‘And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’

‘And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.’

‘So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.’

‘So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country… you deal with the mines that are along the border and… by the way we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you… So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.’

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided ‘a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,’ they had not changed the paradigm.

‘And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.’

‘How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?’ he asked.
DAWN.COM | World | US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan: Clinton

 

[HAIDER]

First time after Afghan war , any US official accepted the responsibility of deteriorating situation of Afghanistan and after effects in the region. A biggest surprise.

 

[roadrunner]

‘Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.’

lmao. oh dear. some americans on this forum had better start eating a big dose of humble pie. I hate to brag, but all those times I pointed out the Americans funded these guys, and S-2 and the denial brigade vehemently denied it, are over!

 

[jeypore]

lmao. oh dear. some americans on this forum had better start eating a big dose of humble pie. I hate to brag, but all those times I pointed out the Americans funded these guys, and S-2 and the denial brigade vehemently denied it, are over!

Then how about this RR, where the pakistanie are dening it:

And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.’

‘How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?’ he asked.

 

[qsaark]

lmao. oh dear. some americans on this forum had better start eating a big dose of humble pie. I hate to brag, but all those times I pointed out the Americans funded these guys, and S-2 and the denial brigade vehemently denied it, are over!

Just hang on, they'll come up with other stories and some Indian and Pakistani members will also support them as usual.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Got to love that analysis by Mrs Clinton. You see the problems here is that the americans had short term memories---memories attached to their interests only---once the interest is resolved the memory is deleted.

With their blood and sacrifices the afghans brought the wall down in germany---their land destroyed---their children and familes murdered---living in camps dependant on foreign aid for years till now---no place to call home---no secure place to live---no identity---this is what the free world paid them back in----no recognition of the sacrifices---die in *****---die of hunger---die of disease---heres to the victors of afghan / russian war. Thankyou america.

Have you people ever wondered what ever happened to the compassionate america---the way it is compassionate to israel america---why there was not a similiar compassion for afghanistan---possibly they were not europeans---they were not cultured people---they could not sit at the table and raise a glass of wine at the boys club or at the ladies get together---maybe the afghans showed themseleves to come real cheap---maybe they were easy to deal with.

You see----america didn't like these simple minded people---a so called inferior culture---but then the america we knew of had gone on to a different track---now america was the # 1 super power---gone were the days of Jimmy Carter---when they were # 2---born again and discovered anew was the new term---be american buy american was the chant and the hate mongers like Newt Gingrich ruled the mindset of the nation. We don't care about the world---let them be---they deserve what they got---we are not here to be your benevolent daddy---. S-crew russia--s-crew afghanistan s-crew everyone.

That really was a shameful time in american foreign policy history---tragically it also showed the weaker and in-experienced side of the american history. Being a young nation themseleves, they had no clue how to act---as their was no precedence---they chose stupidity to lead their instincts----and boy did they have a wild ride for awhile till the bucking bronco threw them over the cliff on 9/11.

 

[S-2]

The eagerness is astounding to jump on this but, please, let's remember that the mujahideen of twenty-eight years ago are not the taliban of today.

Second-when have I said that U.S. money and specialized weapons weren't a critical component of the mujahideen success? What I have said is that I highly doubt that America took the lead in the raising forth of madrassas to service the ideological bent of that war. I firmly believe that was a product of the Saudis and Zia.

Rope yourself in roadrunner.

Thanks.

 

[blain2]

The eagerness is astounding to jump on this but, please, let's remember that the mujahideen of twenty-eight years ago are not the taliban of today.

Second-when have I said that U.S. money and specialized weapons weren't a critical component of the mujahideen success? What I have said is that I highly doubt that America took the lead in the raising forth of madrassas to service the ideological bent of that war. I firmly believe that was a product of the Saudis and Zia.

Rope yourself in roadrunner.

Thanks.

Do remember where folks like Haqqani etc. come from. Although the current Taliban were little kids in madrassas back in the days of the Russian-Afghan war, at least some of the motivation that lingers comes from the old guard.

Also this madrassa raising is not the issue. For many centuries, this is all that the area that makes up settled Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas had...i.e. madrassas. What the war did was to turn these same madrasses into recruitment center for the Afghan jihad.

Monies came in from outside (each dollar given by the US matched by the Saudis) and were used to fund these recruits among other things. No body had an objection to this so passing the buck over to Zia and the Saudis is being less than honest. The bottom line is that nobody knew what would happen down the road when all funding to these fully trained and motivated fighters would stop. Americans, Zia and Saudis, no body knew.

 

[S-2]

Rant, stud.

"...they were not cultured people---they could not sit at the table and raise a glass of wine at the boys club or at the ladies get together..."

Unlike the Jews from Israel, eh? You'd better check yourself. The history of the west and it's old boys anti-semitism is hardly new either. A bunch of smelly Kibbutzniks from the holy land didn't exactly garner a seat at the New York Athletic Club or Princeton.

I haven't had it explained how a nation as rich as S.A. and the U.A.E. could recognize the taliban and not lift it's people up? Oh, worse, how the rest of Islam save those two and you couldn't even RECOGNIZE this gov't.

But it's America's fault. Seems there were plenty of petrodollars in the gulf. God knows they've no problem shooting that money to the wahabbists in your country now.

Where would you have us STAY? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Did you want us to send our army? Who, exactly, was STAYING. Anybody else stay? PRC? France? Great Britain?

Fear not, though, that's all changed as we can't afford more of the last time. An abysmal mistake to believe you had/have Afghanistan's interests at heart then or now so we'll be around for a long, long time.

Thanks.

 

[roadrunner]

The eagerness is astounding to jump on this but, please, let's remember that the mujahideen of twenty-eight years ago are not the taliban of today.

Second-when have I said that U.S. money and specialized weapons weren't a critical component of the mujahideen success? What I have said is that I highly doubt that America took the lead in the raising forth of madrassas to service the ideological bent of that war. I firmly believe that was a product of the Saudis and Zia.

Rope yourself in roadrunner.

Thanks.

So Mullah Omar, Gulbiddin Hekmatyar don't ring any Mujahideenic bells? They are at the forefront of today's Taliban.

Even if you want to deny these people were Mujahideen (which is a severe case of denial), the Saudis and Zia would not have done anything without American funds and support. It was the Saudi ideology propogated, they did fund the madrassas to support these militants, but the US also funded, trained and militarized what descended into today's Taliban.

I'll give you an analogy. You have a man, your friend brainwashes him to commit a robbery (hypothetical of course), you train him to commit the robbery. Both of you are acting on the man to create the "perfect package" to commit your crime. You can look at the relationship between the Taliban, the Saudis, and the US in the same way. One did the training, one the brainwashing, but they acted on the same machine, the Muajahideen/Taliban. Both are equally responsible.

This is of course assuming the US did not fund any madrassa which may not or may have occurred.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Indeed the saudi money did teach the lesson the best they could---the madrassah's and the wahabi culture---the taliban are from that culture as well---now if the U S had owned upto them---things would have been totally different---there was never any foresight----well actually there was---there were people in the agency that were bitterly against the total u s withdrawl from the scenario----but then the berlin wall had come down---russia had fallen down---there was a new world order---.

There was no place for dooms sayers in the new america after the cold war---the visionaries were methodically kicked out of the services and new blood with a new vision took over. Actually---funny as it sounds---it was in Clinton's first term that most of the frings and terminations of old pros happened---and there are rumours that Mrs Clinton would indulge herself to get rid of the old school staff---I have read That Mrs Clinton used to sit in intel briefings that a spouse of the president was not allowed to.

It was not an issue of petro dollars or the lack of petro dollars---the issue is if america had stayed, their personal influence would have brought more stability to the afghans. The petro dollars would have come in from saudi and uae on u s urgence---but the godfather figure when needed the most was absent.

American attitude towards the afghan cirsis was extremely non-chalant---the americans never realized that they were getting into a death do us apart scenraio with the afghans---it was like the leave me alone at your peril.


" Unlike the Jews from Israel, eh? You'd better check yourself. The history of the west and it's old boys anti-semitism is hardly new either. A bunch of smelly Kibbutzniks from the holy land didn't exactly garner a seat at the New York Athletic Club or Princeton. ".

Funny that you wrote it---most pakistanis have no clue what this means and neither would they believe that it was possible and happened as stated.

My point is if the israelis had been the afghanis---to help bring down the russian empire--they would not have been left to rot like the afghans.

 

[S-2]

"So Mullah Omar, Gulbiddin Hekmatyar don't ring any Mujahideenic bells? They are at the forefront of today's Taliban."

Two distinctions- 1.) Omar returned to Oruzgan and only after the failure of civil war wrought by Rabbani, Massoud, Hekmatyar, and Haqqani did he emerge from Kandahar in 1994 with the taliban.

2.) Gulbuddin Hekmatyar rings all sorts of bells with all sorts of people but if you're calling Haqqani or him taliban just see how long they live down towards Quetta.

"Even if you want to deny these people were Mujahideen (which is a severe case of denial)"

Why would I do that? I deny that the taliban are mujahideen and damn near know it for fact now but for their most senior commanders. "Mujahideen" has a distinctly different tone these days anyway, I hope you know.

"...the Saudis and Zia would not have done anything without American funds and support."

Saudi Arabia had all the money, by itself, to fund this resistance. Nevermind that there were all sorts of wealthy private donors across Islam but notably and obviously the gulf emirates and S.A.

Our money wasn't central and I've first-hand recounting from a friend in Afghanistan in 1985 BADGERED by the mujahideen about the absence of U.S. aid. Most consider our aid strategically valuable beginning in early 1986 when STINGER began showing up on the battlefield. Prior to that, our role had been disappointingly mundane.

I don't know about your analogy but I do know that STINGERs did make a difference and that we had the ability to reach across a wide range of internat'l actors to gather a "coalition of the willing" (if you will) against the Soviet Union.

Those two elements may have had more to do with this war's ultimate success than all the bravery of the mujahideen or the motivated recruits provided by the madrassas.

America shares with many to include the Soviet Union in bringing a climate of violence and excessively armed, modestly trained, and highly charged idiot warriors to Pakistan and Afghanistan today. Beyond 1988, whatever involvement we had in this region faded rapidly. As such, there's no way that we held any ties to the taliban much less their formation as a military entity.

In truth, nobody-to include Pakistan, raised forth the taliban by my understanding. This is an entirely indigenous effort from Afghanistan and was near spontaneous. It wasn't until the taliban had collected an assortment of real victories that your government jumped on board and abandoned Hekmatyar (poor guy-deserted by his ally and left to fend for himself).

So you didn't raise them forth either, even if involved fairly early.

 

[Tang0]

I don't think that anyone was ever in the business of denying that the US gave guns to Islamic radicals, some of whom eventually became part of the Taliban. The disagreement comes in as to if the US was actually in the business of "Creating" the Taliban.

Is there any evidence that the US recruited, commanded, or was in any way responsible for the structure of the Mujahideen fighters? The CIA provided weapons and hired some contractors who knew how to use them and sent them to Pakistan.

If I sell a gun to a criminal and show him how to use it, does that make me culpable in later crimes he commits? Only if I had reason to believe he would commit crimes with the weapon. The US didn't have any reason to believe that the Mujahideen would stick around after the Soviets left.

Okay, this was a pretty epic lack of foresight, but how do you get from that to "Creating the Taliban"?

Maybe the US should have cleaned up its messes better, maybe it should have supported the insertion of peacekeepers after the war. Maybe if people made better decisions the world would be a better place. But saying "Aha! This is your mess, reap what you sow!" is a bit like blaming modern Russia for the failings of the current Vietnamese government.

Oh, and if you noticed, the US and NATO has a significant long term commitment in Afghanistan now, so, its "Reaping its oats" in any case. Even if it is not.

Its all just history now.

 

[S-2]

"For many centuries, this is all that the area that makes up settled Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas had...i.e. madrassas."

Pakistan's Islamic Schools In The Spotlight-BBC 14 July, 2005

"It is estimated that there are now around 20,000 madrassas in Pakistan, compared to around 137 at the time of partition."

Now I believe that 137 might not be true. Certainly if one considers E. Pakistan and India. Low? Perhaps, depending on the effects of manpower to S. Asia during W.W. II. If you went to war as did so many others, then likely madrassas lost a lot of young men to the war.

OTOH, 20,000 seems in the middle of what I've read of late (17,000-28,000). So I can't speak for centuries but somebody at the BBC thinks there was a time when madrassas anywhere in Pakistan, much less the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan numbered in the low hundreds. If so, then there's been a dramatic change since 1947.

 

[Beskar]

Clinton admits US liable for Pak tensions

Saturday, April 25, 2009



Clinton admits US liable for Pak tensions
------------------------------------------------------------​

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Hillary Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

‘We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it’s merited because we are wondering why they just don’t go out there and deal with these people,’ said Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a ‘mortal threat’ to the world.

‘But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,’ she said.

‘Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.’

‘They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.’

‘And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’

‘And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.’

‘So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.’

‘So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country… you deal with the mines that are along the border and… by the way we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you… So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.’

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided ‘a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,’ they had not changed the paradigm.

‘And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.’

‘How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?’ he asked.