Thanks. Some of this already discussed.
The
Bearden (not Beardman) link (your antiwar.com cite) was discussed [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=18857|above]. I didn't find it persuasive as it was a partial quote from a source I couldn't read myself (in context).
I've seen many repeats of the statement "He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian," but not the original interview or story even with extensive Googling. I'd like to see Teimourian's evidence. I'm not saying he's wrong - I'm saying I'd like to see some evidence.
I can't find the Congressional Research Service report which is claimed to support the allegation that the CIA provided "aid and training" to him.
The teachervision link just reports what others have said.
The public-i.org link is interesting for its detail. But he doesn't provide citations to indicate where he's getting his information, so I don't know how much to trust his take on things. (Again, I'm not saying he's wrong.) But it certainly provides a lot of detail which could be checked. An [link|http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba2000-08-09.htm|interview with Ahmed Rashid] is in the Atlantic Monthly.
An alternative view on bin Laden, CIA support, etc. is provided by links like these:
[link|http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm|Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program]
[link|http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm|Blowback] story in Atlantic Monthly. Notice it doesn't mention bin Laden, but contains many of the details that others associate with CIA support of bin Laden.
[link|http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan2.htm|This] story in the Atlantic Monthly neatly sums up my understanding of the US involvement:
These incomplete and somewhat self-serving accounts [of the Taliban's rise] encapsulated much complicated history. By early 1994 Afghanistan was in disarray. The mujahideen who warred against the Soviets had been a motley collection of seven Pakistan-based resistance groups, divided by region, clan, politics, and religious ideology. Worse, the resistance commanders inside Afghanistan had only the loosest of links to the seven groups. For them, party affiliation was merely a matter of access to weaponry -- the groups were awash in guns and money, provided by the CIA through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. Thus when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime collapsed in Kabul, the capital, in 1992, Afghanistan became a writhing nest of petty warlords who fought and negotiated with one another for small chunks of territory. Girls and young boys were raped and traded between commanders. The situation was especially bad in Kandahar. The road leading to it from Quetta was shared by at least twenty factions, each of which put a chain across the road and demanded tolls.
[...]
The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan also relied on crucial help from Pakistan. By 1994 Pakistan was tiring of its Afghan mujahideen puppet, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s its Inter-Services Intelligence had channeled more arms and money from the CIA to Hekmatyar's radical-fundamentalist faction than to any of the more moderate mujahideen groups. Hekmatyar was young, charismatic, highly educated, and power-hungry. Yet his attraction for the ISI lay in the fact that he had little grassroots support inside Afghanistan itself and was thus beholden to the Pakistanis. The continuing anarchy in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets showed the fundamental flaw in the ISI's policy. Hekmatyar could never consolidate power to the extent Pakistan required in order to safeguard its land routes to the new oil states of Central Asia -- routes that would create a bulwark of Muslim states that could confront India.
It was a democratically elected Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, along with her Interior Minister, the retired general Naseerullah Babar, who conceived of the Taliban as a solution to Pakistan's problem. Through the ISI the Bhutto government began to provide the Taliban with money, fuel, subsidized wheat, vehicles, weapons, and volunteers from Pakistan's madrassas. It also linked Afghanistan to Pakistan's telephone grid.
But the Taliban won't play the role of puppet. And Afghanistan's religious extremism is accelerating Pakistan's, through the network of madrassas. Furthermore, the future of the Taliban themselves is uncertain. They have restored security in Afghanistan by disarming much of the countryside, but they have built no institutions to sustain their rule -- and 70 percent of working-age Afghans are jobless. Just as the Taliban rose and spread like Islam itself, they could also descend into disorderly power struggles, much like the medieval Muslim rulers who followed the prophet Mohammed.
Yes, the CIA gave money to the ISI. Nobody disputes that. Yes, we supported the mujehedeen. Nobody disputes that either.
What I and many others dispute is the connection between CIA support of the mujehedeen implying explict or implicit support of bin Laden. I've not seen what I consider to be good evidence for that claim.
There's a difference between, say, saying, "Timothy McVeigh received training in the Army" and saying "The Army was behind Timothy McVeigh's bombing in OKC." I hope we all agree that there's a big difference.... Many of the claims (out on the web, etc.) of CIA support of bin Laden strike me as being similar distortions. (I'm not accusing anyone here of distorting anything.)
But, as always, I'm interested in seeing contrary evidence if there is any. What would I consider good evidence? Reports from Bearden (the man who ran the CIA operation) that bin Laden was indeed supported by the CIA. Reports from members of groups which got CIA money that they knew bin Laden and that he also got CIA support. Congressional reports. Investigative reports by reputable groups or people along with citations so that readers could see the original sources. Things like that.
Note that these things exist for things like Ollie North's Iran/Contra operation, the CIA's attempts against Castro, the US's actions against Allende, etc....
I think I'm done in this sub-thread. Thanks, all.
Cheers,
Scott.
