Perhaps I should’ve been more clear in my initial statement. I wasn’t endorsing the view that Osama bin Laden himself was a CIA creation (the whole Tim Osman codename thing that even the Washington Post picked up on some years ago). But it isn’t disputed that we funneled weapons and money (along with advisors) through the ISI to the MAK, which was a precursor to Al Quada. Unlike some of his brothers (Salem comes to mind) he was never pro-US in any way.
But this is yet another example of covert interventionism burning us. You can unleash a rabid dog against your enemy, but odds are the dog will end up biting you too.
One enemy at a time. We allied with and armed Stalin's USSR to defeat Nazi Germany.
Should we have done otherwise...???
CIA financially supported the Afgans including arming the rebels and Saudi’s did the same thing with their holy warriors to drive out the Atheist Soviets. The Afgan natives didn’t like the Saudi’s for various reasons but the Afgan’s were fighting the Soviets; they would use any resource to drive them out. If weapons and funds were intermingling with the the two groups is the CIA responsible?
If a Saudi Holy Warrior came across a stinger missile from a dead Afgan Warrior after a major battle; is the CIA responsible for that too?
Why do OBL types like AK-47’s? Where did they get them from?
Dead Soviet soldiers?