How times change...

bonkey

There has been a lot of dicussion concerning doing terrible things to Afghanistan because they harbour terrorists like bin Laden, and are a terrible regime, and also a lot of discussion centering on the the defense/condemnation of the US foreign policy.

As a result, I thought the following article would make interesting reading....and may lead to some interesting discussion :

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html

Published in the LA times last May (2001), here's the body of text, in case ppl cant get to the link :

BUSH'S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women.

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

gandalf

Well I guess thats the aid that all these Americans have been talking about. It makes for painful reading especially as its the same US regime that sanctioned those funds.

Gandalf.

pepperkin

"That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan"

!! I did NOT know about that. (but then, of COURSE I wouldn't know about it would I...I'm American.)

However that was not the funds I was referring to...I was referring to funds sent from humanitarian aid resources, including US run charities. Humanitarian aid sent strictly to assist those whom are starving and dying.

I, for one, ADAMANTLY oppose the Taliban and what it stands for. I see them as the Nazi's of the 21st century. I would never have condoned a 'gift' to that fascist regime, but my opinion wasn't exactly asked for.

But in a country of 284.5 million people, I am rather unimportant. Do many Europeans actually think us US residents have the ear of the president whenever we wish? "Oy, Georgie, c'mere I wanna talk to you a sec..."

I am also adamantly opposed to making war against Afghanistan without damn good cause, (which I do not feel we have) and in my puny way have said what I could through e-mails to the president (which he'll never read) letters to congressman (which will also be tossed in the trash) but what else am I going to do, throw myself in the intake of an F-15 to stop the plane? It might stop one plane, for a little while, but not for long...
And unfortunately, my shallow thinking countrymen are all for war, they don't give a damn whom gets hurt, revenge has become a testosterone high that the country is falling prey to. It's sickening.

Here's to hoping that someone gets some sense in the higher up gov't...

Manach

On the article itself, it fails to clearly distingush between the Taliban and mainstream Islam. I am not an expert on Islam but it has struck me as a belief (fringe extremism aside) having clear moral guidelines & a dignified sense of faith.
The Sharli (religious laws) in regard Women's issues seem to be only vaguely applied in many Islamic countries, even in Iran the Mullahs are entering a more tolerant world viewpoint and loath the Taliban who they see as uncultured barbarians.


Side Note, Peperkin - off hand I though there was about 250 million in the States?

pepperkin

Yes, yes, I got called on this already...
There are, according to census.gov, about 284.5 million in the states (give or take.) I was literally making an off the top of my head guess, and I have *NEVER* been very good at math, spelling and English were always my strong suit...
C'mon, I failed algebra 1...
But I stand corrected, and I looked up the correct census so that I don't look quite so ignorant next time.
I'm not a complete ignoramus, really...:) Although I felt like an eejit when I realized I put 1947 as the year for Pearl Harbor in another post when I KNOW it's 1941 (I was thinking about a friend of mines birthday coming up and thinking about how old he will be when I typed that in, multi track minds had their lines crossed.)

Anyway...