Dear Moneeb

Thank you for shining more light on this incredibly tormented situation. I am sorry for your loss of your immediate family. I know that time does only a little to take the edge of such grief.

It's my understanding that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to install a non-religious government in Kabul and stem what they perceived as a threatening tide of religious fundamentalism which they regarded as a threat to their control over the Muslim states of Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. The Soviets and their Kabul cronies were brutal.

The United States definitely used Pakistan as its local proxy to torment the Soviets in Afghanistan, at the same time we tilted our policy toward Iraq in its war with Iran. There is no doubt that US cold-war policy was mischievous and shortsighted.

You are also correct that Pakistan accepted Afghanistan's refugees during the Soviet invasion and occupation. There is also no doubt but that the Soviet's war on Afghanistan reduced it to rubble.

You are also correct that Pakistan has changed much since partition, and that change has accelerated since the tide of religious fundamentalism swept through Pakistan.

US policy supporting bin Laden and other warlord's fight against the Soviets was very shortsighted. There are still hundreds of Stinger missiles with which the US so amply supplied various Afghani groups.

You are also correct when you point out that the Mushareff government is not fundamentalist. I agree with your analysis that the current Pakistani government "Is is a desperate government trying to hold the tide against an overwhelming swamp of religous fundamentalism that is sweeping the country." It has also developed nuclear devices and supports the fundamentalist war against India in Kashmir and in cities such as Bombay where the stock exchange and other major institutions were bombed.

I also agree with you very much when you say, "The Afghani people are already suffering under the stifling oppressive rule of the Taliban. They do not need more misery." I hope US planners can figure a way to destroy the Taliban without causing more misery to the Afghan people.

You correctly observe, "I think the only way this confilct can eventually be won comprehensively is if the U.S. supports whatever liberal non-fundamentalist elements (which includes the current military ruler of Pakistan) in these countrys and help them overcome this evil force of fundamentalism that is sweeping these countries."

Pakistan has what is perhaps the largest middle class of just about any Muslim mid-near Eastern state, (Iran the exception) and it is not a large middle class. If Mushareff supports the US, his government (the army) will be at war with Pakistan's fundamentalists. The stakes of that struggle will be Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

I am sorry if my shallow analysis offended you. The situation is incredibly complex. I suppose the bottom line to what I was trying to say is that the great risk is that the US response to this Jihad will be to stress every non fundamentalist government in the region. Ultimately, I think, the fundamentalists will prevail and this war will not be against assorted terrorists, but against a fundamentalist tide.

Also as an interesting aside, I think that fundamentalist tide is rising in Pakistan, but ebbing in Iran. It's a crazy world, Moneeb.

Thank you for your much deeper and more personal analysis of some of these issues.

2x6

 

Thank you for sharing your insights with us Moneeb. It is very important that we all understand that there are many sides to this very confused situation.

I hope, and trust, that any "military solution" to this problem is directed at, and contained to, only those responsible and the innocent citizens of affected countries do not suffer as a result.

 

Thanks Moneeb

I think your post was very timely and appreciated by most of us.

I am seriously concerned about the position which Mushareff has been forced into now and I hope hetriples his security details because he is going to need it now.

Most people here have a desire for the US to avoid civilian casualties. I think history has shown that in any conflict, it is the people who suffer most.

Does anyone out there think that Sadaam Hussein himself has suffered personally as a result of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq? That said, I see an lot of ordinary citizens doing it awful tough now.

A number of the military hawks in the US have come out and said that collateral damage is acceptable. Is it?

 

And assassination isn't. Go figure!

 

Good thread! Enjoying the great input from all. Views are very open and people are learning from one another.

Thank you all.

 

Moneeb's reply was very timely. I feel that the US government shields their population too well from the goings on in the rest of the world, and without knowing the full story, it is difficult to make reasoned decisions. To us in the UK, it appears than many American's think that the heinous attacks on Tuesday were down to plain old anti-capitalist, anti-free west sentiment, rather than an escalation in a long running campaign in which the west has been a major instigator.

How many Americans that gave money to Noraid in the 80's (with the full support of the US government) truly realised that they were funding terrorism against the British (including many attacks on the British mainland) by paying for bombs and guns (PS, I'm not defending the British actions in Northern Ireland here). Without the full facts, it's very difficult to make a reasoned judgement.

I believe that it's crucial for the US to minimize collateral damage in order to restrict the spread of fundamentalism. Much as many of us would like to think that carpet bombing would do the trick, it won't. More innocents will die and it will give the fundamentalists more ammo to brainwash their populace against the West and in particular the US, causing an escalation in this conflict. It would also lessen the support from less radical muslim countries that are currently unlikely allies. By the sounds of it, the situation in Pakistan is very dodgy - the current deputation of Pakistani officials in Afganistan trying to persuade them to give up bin Laden does not contain any of the religious clerics that would ordinarily assist, as they refused to support the government's actions.

We have to stamp out religious fundamentalism, but we have to be so careful how we do it, otherwise it will flare up and burn us all again.

Steve

 

Finally, a well-informed take on the subject. Anybody else notice that Bin Laden (a classic meglomaniac) wants to destroy those who formerly befriended him (made him important as a source of arms or, like Sudan, protected him) and have since rejected him? Pakistan may well be getting ready to suffer as we have from first helping some guy to prominence and then telling him to piss off. Love 'em and leave 'em works just the same in politics.

Some see a muderous maniac, some see a man of religious conviction. I see a man who systematically seeks to be the ruler of the Middle East.

Of course, we now embark on this path again since the renewed call to develop "human assets" for our espionage program. I hope we can keep ourselves safe without empowering any more of his sort. Bin Laden was one of these "human assets."

Revolutions seem always to be armed by American or Soviet arms. Afganistan was seen, by some, as a giant weapons testing program. Anyone remember seeing the Mujahadeen sporting our LAWS rockets?

Global politics require making many important yet distasteful decisions. I don't know enough to second guess, but I do know enough to worry. Let's hope we can pull this one out without any long-term reprecussions.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Moneeb
[B]2x6spds - On the vast majority of your posts I feel that you present very sensible and balanced views - but here I think your facts are just plain wrong. The situation your refer to is much more complex than you might think and needs more attention to detail than your message suggests.

Before anything else - let me say that my hear grieves for those who suffered due to the tragic events of Sep 11th. I remember them in my prayers and hope that God provides closure and peace to the families/friends left behind.

Now my attempt to clarify your misunderstandings:

First of all I am a Pakistani/Afghani American and I grew up in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan as a kid. My immediate family was killed by invading Soviet forces in 1986 and I then grew up with distant relatives in Pakistan.

Most people do NOT realize how very terrible that conflict was and how many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people died and MILLIONS suffered in that confilct.

From day one the entire country of Pakistan was committed to supporting Afghanistan against the Soviets. It is very easy to claim that Pakistan should be on the "shit" list. You are entitled to your opinion but PLEASE know the facts because for some of us this is a very sensitive and heartfelt topic.

 

I have to weigh in on this. There is no possible way to support the assertion that the U.S. effort to train and arm Afghanis against the Russians was directly or indirectly responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia.

There seems to be above an implication that the U.S. is partly culpable for the establishment of Taliban rule in Aghanistan. This is absurd. Aghanistan is responsible for its own actions. America invested its time and materials in order to protect its own interests against the Russians. The claim that we baited Afghanis by inciting religious fervor is insulting. You can wave meat over a dog and he'll bite, but religious dogma comes from within.

The Taliban rules with an iron fist -- stoning people, cutting off their hands, randomly detaining them, raping women and forcing women to stay at home and denying women the right to attend schools. The Taliban's opposition, the NIA, is just as bad -- firing Scuds into civilian Khabul, upholding most of the same misogynistic and misanthropic beliefs as their enemy. The people of Aghanistan that are not helplessly starved, thirsty, poor, uneducated or jailed are criminals against humanity.

Regardless of their role in this catastrophe, the scales of justice are tipped heavily against both Afghanistan and Pakistan. People need to understand that the destruction of the World Trade Center is just the straw that broke the camel's back. The disregard for basic human rights in Central Asia has spilled onto America's doorstep.

I keep hearing people say that the masses of Afghanistan should not suffer because of their extremist leadership. My response is that the people of Aghanistan are suffering today because of their extremist leadership. On some level, a war against the Taliban will be a humanitarian effort, liberating the vast majority of Afghanis from a terrible regime.

But what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Afghanis created the Taliban (not America), and that Afghanis created the equally terrible NIA (again, not America) and other fringe terrorist factions under the rubric of Islamic fundamentalism? I'm far from sure, but I have to suspect a fatal flaw in the character of cultures that repeatedly rally around such a deplorable value system.

I know that Islam is a religion, and fundamentalism is a subset of that religion. I also know that Islamic fundamentalism is growing in popularity in Central Asia and the Middle East. Any attacks from America will have their intended effect -- to galvanize support for the fundamentalist cause.

There are roughly 25 million Afghanis that are being persecuted by the Taliban and its allies. Those are the real victims of Aghanistan's miserable choices. All I can hope is that the millions of Afghani women and children (mostly surviving their lost husbands after the Russian invasion) are somehow put into a better place by America's reaction. IMO, they seem to be the only innocents left in Afghanistan.

So, the point I'm trying to make is that, while we need to look at ourselves to understand what America did to engender such a vicious attack, we also need to remember that the people of Central Asia have a hard-on for Islamic fundamentalism and that their political and cultural leadership is a direct threat to a world that has long since abandoned such quaint and barbaric "religious" practice as public stonings and rape with impunity.

 

Moneeb:

Great post!..............Thanks.