New US-backed President of Afghanistan supported Saddam Hussein against US during Gulf War

Meet the Press ^ | November 18, 2001 | Tim Russert

[rightwing2]

The political head of the Russian-backed Northern Alliance and new Afghan President Rabbini was a staunch supporter of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein according to Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Mr. Russert was interviewing Condi Rice, the US National Security Advisor on whether Rabbini is someone the US can support and work with. Mr. Russert also queried Dr. Rice about the fact that the Northern Alliance has reportedly exported even more opium abroad than the hated Taleban. Earlier this morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal program, a noted US author and analyst of Afghanistan repeatedly referred to the fact that the Northern Alliance which the US and Russia have restored to power is heavily Russian backed and influenced and that Russian President Putin would like to see the Northern Alliance rule Afghanistan without having to form a coalition from the Afghan majority ethnic group known as the Pashtun which served as the primary support base for the Taleban. Left out of this morning's news interviews was the fact that while ruled by President Rabbini and his main faction of the Northern Alliance, Afghanistan was listed by the US Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism during all four years it was in power in Kabul from 1992-96.

[rightwing2]

So much for the US victory in Afghanistan. Restoring to power a drug-pushing Saddam Hussein backing head of state who has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism can hardly be called a "victory" particularly when his Defense Minister, General Fahim is a former head of the "Afghan KGB" according to the Washington Post, which usually turns a blind eye to the Communist past of foreign leaders. The only real victors here besides the Northern Alliance are the Russians who were allowed by Bush to triumphantly enter Kabul before US forces and representatives in a stunning reversal of their humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. Along with Putin's spectacular victory last week in getting the President of the United States to agree to unilaterally destroy fully 75% of the US strategic nuclear arsenal without making any any firm or verfiable commitments to do likewise and without one Russian missile being fired or indeed even one drop of Russian blood being shed, we can chalk up one more foreign policy victory for Moscow. The fact that this longtime grand strategic Soviet/Russian foreign policy objective was achieved without even one Russian missile being fired or indeed even one drop of Russian blood being shed makes it all the more stunning a victory.

[Lucas1]

That sounds about right.

[rightwing2]

BUMP!

[Ratatoskr]

Wait a second! When did we declare backing for the former president? That's news.

[lavaroise]

bulls eye ... for you comments and the RUssians.

[bond7]

I definitely join you in these concerns, but hope that the new relationship with Russia, and forming a broad-based government changes the meaning of these events this time around.

[OK]

I wonder if he will back Saddam in the next war coming soon.

It is my hope that we will soon declare victory and get out of Afghanistan.

[M. Thatcher]

There IS no "US-backed President of Afghanistan." Complete BS.

Keep your shirt on.

[Aerial]

Along with Putin's spectacular victory last week in getting the President of the United States to agree to unilaterally destroy fully 75% of the US strategic nuclear arsenal without making any any firm or verfiable commitments to do likewise and without one Russian missile being fired or indeed even one drop of Russian blood being shed, we can chalk up one more foreign policy victory for Moscow. The fact that this longtime grand strategic Soviet/Russian foreign policy objective was achieved without even one Russian missile being fired or indeed even one drop of Russian blood being shed makes it all the more stunning a victory.

More globalism.

[Amerigomag]

New US-backed President of Afghanistan

Your concern is valid but your post is vanity. Rice was having nothing to do with the direction Russert was pointing.

[Dane]

This is not "breaking news". Rightwing2's link leads to a list of transcripts of Meet the Press.

It seems the body of his post, is his own opinion.

[Cicero]

To be frank, our power to control the unfolding of events in Afghanistan is somewhat limited, unless we want to fight a second campaign. We really don't want to remain there, and we don't live anywhere near there, so the best we can probably hope for is to leave behind us when we leave some reasonable kind of consensus of tribal leaders, North and South.

Keep in mind, too, that the world has changed since the last Afghan war. What we want is for the Afghans to rule themselves and mind their own business, keeping foreign trouble makers from the Arab states out. If it's a choice between their leaning toward Russia, which is no longer Communist, or toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which remain fanatically Islamic, then it's better that they should lean toward Russia.

Putin is probably not going to rudely dump Iraq, a long-time ally, but he's not going to back Iraq either if Bush decides that Saddam needs to be brought down. And if Putin doesn't back Saddam, then probably neither will this fellow. That was that time, this is this time, and Tim Russert is a superficial analyst at best.

[stilts]

The alleged US backed President will probably quickly get a chance to reassess his support for Saddam as the war on terrorism continues.

[Republican Wildcat]

You've been here long enough to know the rules about posting vanities.

[bandleader]

To rightwing2,As far as I know, "W"has NOT indicated that he supports ANY successor(s)to the Taleban.Don't get your knickers in a twist over the machinations of Mr.Russert.He is very adept at "creating"scenarios.We have the A-TEAM in The White House,not a bunch of poll-takers and concensus seekers!!!

[weikel]

he won't be supporting Hussein now he saw what happens to our enemies I don't care about him exporting opium personally as long as he executes those arab terrorist. Still I wish Masoud was alive.

[etcetera]

The Afghans are set to make the same mistakes that got the country screwed up before. They don't see what's best for the country, just what's best for themselves and their tribes. These people can't rule themselves. They need to be conquered and ruled.

[rightwing2]

The other thing that went unmentioned in this morning's interviews is the fact that when the Taleban wrested control of Afghanistan from the Rabbini's Northern Alliance government in 1996, the Clinton Administration welcomed the Taleban takeover as a likely improvement over Rabbini's regime which was a known state sponsor of terrorism.

[TomB]

Has your hatred for the President grown to such a level that you now have to start making things up?

[Faraday]

Your vanity sounds like a second phase of the war against the war on terrorism. Two weeks ago we were told by Seymor Hersch and a phalanx of BS pundits how poorly the military campaign was going. NOW the problem is our overwhelming military success. This raises questions about who will replace the Taliban. And, guess what, there are precious few Shirley Temples and Mother Theresas to ally with in Afghanistan. Well, duh. The US will complete its objectives (destruction of al Qaeda, removal of the Taliban from power, ensure no new base for terrorism); we'll give aid, and advice if they'll take it. And then we'll move on to our next targets. This is what victory looks like in that part of the world. Learn to love it.