Refuting Liberal M-I-L: Origin and Evolution of Taliban

My wife was recently asking about the Taliban during a conversation with her mother. My m-i-l is a liberal of the NPR/PBS ilk and hissed that the US created the Taliban through the efforts of the CIA. While I know it is true that the U.S. supported the insurgency against the Soviet Union by supporting the Taliban, I'm sure there is a lot more to the story. If anyone has any willing insights - or can direct me to a useful site, I'd appreciate it.

I will be away from my computer for the day - so thanks for any help in advance.

Taliban was a homegrown Afghan movement sponsored and funded by Pakistani Intelligence. Pak Intel is still fairly pro-Taliban. This is one of the problems we deal with in trying to operate in Pakistan, and this is the fine line Musharraf walks in dealing with us, that he is surrounded by pro-Taliban security men. Probably half his military is pro-Taliban.

Be aware that people who support this kind of thinking are very artful. Things to keep in mind:

The Taliban's first military success came in 1994 when they captured the city of Kandahar.
The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

So that's the timeframe for Taliban power.

The claim of US support stems from US arms shipments to the Mujahadeen in the early 1980's (note that) when the Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets.

The later rise of the Taliban came as a reaction against the Mujahadeen who had beaten the Soviets and who were then seen as oppressive and insufficiently pro-Islamic.

It's hard for me to see how the US "created" the Taliban, but through pretzel logic some folks make that claim.

The Taliban's first military success came in 1994 when they captured the city of Kandahar. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. So that's the timeframe for Taliban power. The claim of US support stems from US arms shipments to the Mujahadeen in the early 1980's (note that) when the Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets.

Excellent point. We supported the muj there in the eighties. Taliban ruled in the nineties, and they were a reaction to the in-fighting among the various militias we had supported during the Afghan War against Russia.

In fact, the Northern Alliance that we used to topple the Taliban were remnants of the militias we had supported during the eighties. We abandoned them after the war, and they were chased into the remote valleys by the Taliban. So, in effect, the truth is the opposite of what the M-I-L is saying. When we decided it was time for the Taliban to go, we simply reestablished contact with our old friends among the Northern Alliance, and helped them take back the country.

The Taliban did not arise until after the defeat of the Soviets and later defeat of the Afghan communist government, after the U.S. had shut down its clandestine support operation. Afghanistan had fallen into chaos, with several mujahadeen factions vying for power. The Taliban, a Pastun movement backed by Pakistan, eventually seized most of the country, but not all. Some mujahadeen fought on against them. The Taliban were not backed by the U.S.

The U.S. could be accused of neglecting Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat and not taking a leadership role to rebuild the country and bring stability to it, but that would have involved some kind of U.S. intervention, possibly even leading some kind of international peacekeeping force. I doubt that's what your liberal m-i-l had in mind, though.

BTW, the U.S. was not behind Al Qaeda, either, another liberal myth. You can blame the Saudis for funding that operation, which originally was just a support organization to train and supply fighters going into Afghanistan from a Pakistan base.

It very simple its called Joe Wilsons War. The liberals did not want to spend money rebuilding Afganistan so we left just like the libs want us to do in Iraq. Same crapola as Vietnam we should not support our friends and allies. They forget it took us almost 100 years before we could stand tall in the saddle. You dont build a nation in less than 50 to 100 years thats a fact.

Something else to keep in mind -- I wish I hard hard info on this, but I don't -- I'm pretty sure that the US was giving substantial foreign aid to Afghanistan up through 2001. This would have most likely been food, medicine, and development grants. I suppose someone could spin this as "supporting the Taliban" but I'm reasonably sure there was no military aspect to this.

While we sent them humanitarian aid, they were plotting to bring down the World Trade Center. But, yes, people still say the whole thing was our fault and we deserve the blame. Go figure.

To avoid the rise of the Taliban, we would have to have done in the nineties what we are finally doing now. Which is, as you say, intervene with an international force, to pacify the country, rebuild the country, and install humane government. There was no interest in this kind of involvement there during the nineties, so we operated through third parties, the Pakistanis and Saudis. They had their own agenda and their own ideas about how best to go about it, and we got what we got.

I agree. Neither party at the time would have had any interest in a military intervention in Afghanistan to bring about a stable government. And Afghanistan's use as a terror base was well into the future.

Heck, Charlie Wilson, who helped get billions in military aid to the mujahadeen, couldn't get Congress to spend even modest funds on reconstruction aid.

There is no case the U.S. is responsible for the Taliban. Pakistan, on the other hand . . . .

It's hard for me to see how the US "created" the Taliban, but through pretzel logic some folks make that claim.

If it makes the US look evil, this is seen by such folks as confirmation. They start from the assumption that the US is evil, and look for evidence to support their preconceived notion. They assume this because they fancy it makes them look broad minded and intelligent.

As others have said, prior U.S. support in the 80’s was for the Muhajedeen fighting the Soviets. Even then it was mostly limited to getting them some stinger missiles and some antiaircraft guns. They were getting pounded by the Soviet Hind helocopters and needed some way to get at them.

But it wasn’t until years after that that the Taliban rose up as a political force, and by then there wasn’t much left over in the way of U.S. weapons. They got most of their stuff from Pakistan, financiers like Bin Laden, and whatever ex-soviet stuff they could scrounge, which appears to have been a lot.

You can challenge the M-I-L to simply look for herself. Look at the weapons that the Taliban has used throughout their sordid history:

Soviet AK-47’s
Soviet RPG’s
Soviet Machine guns
Soviet armor (well, until we got there anyway...)

Same for that matter with the Northern Alliance. Not a whole lot in the way of American gear.

It’s like those that claim that the U.S. “created and armed” Saddam Hussien. It’s ridiculous. Suppose that’s where he got all those T-72 tanks? AK’s? Scuds? Silkworms? In the war with Iran we gave Saddam some tiny support and advice, but it was inconsequential. Especially compared to the supply line he had coming from the Soviets, and to some extent from the Chinese.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.