The US have announced they will talk to The Taliban after all. The occupation of Afghanistan has lasted longer than 2 world wars put together.
“These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers” – Ronald Reagan on The Taliban.
The main premise for the invasion was that The Taliban had refused to give up CIA asset Osama Bin Laden for his purported role in 911.
In fact they said they would give him up if evidence was produced. The FBI know how hard that evidence was to establish, despite “I dunnit” video tapes of dubious provenance which contradicted other statements from him. Their “Wanted” sheet made no reference to 911.
It makes sense for the US to talk to one set of old Islamist allies at a time when they are looking to arm the Al Qaeda side in the Syrian mess.
The hugely influential Council On Foreign Relations admitted last summer that the rebellion would have already been crushed by that point without the Jihad element.
It’s hard to fathom the reasoning used to prop up the case for arming Syrian rebels. The idea is that only good guys will get the weapons, they will only kill bad guys with them and then the bad guys will be brought to the table.
It’s a massive gamble at best, but even that gamble is sold on the idea that the ethical intentions are higher than those of crude geo politics. Yet the entire exercise reeks of crude geo politics, and the usual hall of mirrors propaganda is on full display, with truth the traditional first casualty. But the arms companies will make stacks of money, so it isn’t all bad. Arms dealers give more money to governing parties than those oddballs who want peace, so they have a proportionally greater impact on policy.
While intent and outcome seem dubious, the actuality of this looking dangerously like a proxy war (with Russia and Iran) is not. Proxy wars fought via a complex set of alliances suiting no one but the arms trade don’t have a record of triggering world wars, not in the last 99 years at least. But look back a little further and a rather stark example comes into view.
The lectures we are now getting regarding Syria are made in the exact same patronising tone as those pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan 10 years back. Look how swimmingly that all went. The same people who claim to give a hoot for human rights abroad call it “fair” to drive people at home to suicidal despair with austerity built around the “need” to finance an ongoing banking crime-wave that money laundered for, yes, Al Qaeda.
Syria brings the added bonus of The French getting in on the traditional USUK act. If you want to know what French involvement brings to stability then Algeria is a good place to start.
Yet, if one is skeptical about arming the FSA and, inevitably if not intentionally, allied death squads, it supposedly follows that one WANTS countless thousands of dead people at the hand of butchers. Therefore we simply MUST do more for Al Qaeda’s side, in the name of ethics.
Syria is the new stage. Afghanistan and Iraq are old hat, but it’s useful to remember these facts from those trails of woe:
Number of Afghans purported to be 911 hijackers: 0
Number of Iraqis purported to be 911 hijackers :0
Number of Saudis purported to be 911 hijackers: 15
USUK relations with Saudi Arabia (home of Wahibi lunacy, Bin Laden and the most reactionary regime in the region): Positive, including in relation to Syria.