While this article does hit a few points, especially regarding Musharraf, I doubt bombing Pakistan or making war against it is justifiable in any way. The Pakistani people would end up being killed and bear the biggest burden of any war. Its surprising how cavalier Ted seems about it...

---"No country was more responsible than Pakistan for 9/11. Pakistan hosted Al Qaeda's headquarters in Kashmir. Most of its training camps were in Kashmir and Pakistan's Tribal Areas–not Afghanistan."

Finally ... i was wondering when someone would come up with these facts and Ted Rall seems to have done his research.

--"Actually, Musharaff is worse than Saddam. Despite occasional kowtowing to fundamentalists in Iraq's Koran Belt, he was a secular socialist who jailed radical Islamists. Musharraf's political prisoners, on the other hand, are journalists, judges, lawyers, artists and peace activists."

This is the holy truth which was NEVER touched by any western journalist. Despite Musharrafs proclamations of secularism he was neck deep in creating, funding, supporting and financing the Taliban, which he now conveniently decides to eliminate due to political expediency. Blowback is a bitch.

--"Before long my bus was passing columns of Taliban soldiers on foot and riding pick-up trucks and tanks. Pakistani Kashmir, an Afghan commander manning a checkpoint told me, was under Taliban control."
The Kashmiris in India dread this fundamentalist onslaught. Kashmiris are Sufi and abhor the fundamentalist creed of the Taliban and other like minded extremists who have been creating havoc in Kashmir these last 15 years with the generous help of the Pakistani govt.

Who backed the coup in 1999?

Sounds like one of the many dictators the U.S. supports!

So OBL was in Pakistan on 9-11! I bet that was some secret to military intelligence. They never told Dick & Bush.

Who backed the coup in 1999?

Sounds like one of the many dictators the U.S. supports!

So OBL was in Pakistan on 9-11! I bet that was some secret to military intelligence. They never told Dick & Bush.

Who backed the coup in 1999?

Sounds like one of the many dictators the U.S. supports!

So OBL was in Pakistan on 9-11! I bet that was some secret to military intelligence. They never told Dick & Bush.

Kashmir was the host of terrorism because the US purposely made it very difficult and straining for India to keep Kashmir out of Pakistan's clutches. Kashmir used to be a land of beauty but I'd hate to see Pakistan turn it into another wasteland just like their own. Anyone who has been to Pakistan would actually know that from birth to life's end, people are forced to live a "military lifestyle" or get kicked out as a pariah. Notice that the Christian Zionists don't even bother to reform Pakistan. I'd like to see a mixture of religions in Pakistan as there are in India and Turkey but I'm afraid the US is hell bent on turning any secular leaning nation into FUNDIE land, regardless of religion, just like they did in Iraq.

Taliban were always Pakistan's proxies and have been agents of suffering to the peoples of the region in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Pakistan is still sending their Taliban across the boarders to cause Afghan loss of life and livlihood. Pakistan needs to be outted publically as a terrorist pyriah state. I feel for the progressive Pakistani reformers who are jailed by Musharraf's thugs though and for the innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Kashmir who are victims of Pakistan's ugly foriegn and domestic policies.

"Musharraf was nothing more than a con man" - not really. The con has been perpetrated by GWB on the american public. Pervez is just doing what any responsible dictator would do in a similar situation.

Mr. Rall obviously knows more about Pakistan than I do, but his analysis still doesn't ring right. Musharraf has always struck me as a sleazy opportunist rather than a determined Islamist. Even his example of Musharraf using the Taliban as cannon fodder against India might be a case of solving two problems at once.

Then there's a much bigger problem than Pakistan: Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has a few nukes and 300 (?) million bodies but in itself it's not much of a threat to anyone but its immediate neighbors. Saudi Arabia has far fewer people but controls much of the industrialized world's energy supply, and it produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. They've also got an in with the Bush clan. They exploit masses of guestworkers and won't let them practice any religion but Islam. Why does everyone give the Saudis a pass?

Thank you militantliberal, I was just about to mention the Saudis. Pakistan is a relatively poor country with many basics such as education and health care denied to large minority, if not the majority of its people. And yet, they have the money to build nukes? Where does this money come from? Much of it comes from SAUDI ARABIA, with a major match from the U.S.

Who builds the madrassas - ostensibly schools that provide free education but generally only education in fuundamental Islam and jihadism - and pays for the teachers and takes the best of the students out of Pakistan for further indoctrinization? That would be Saudi Arabia.

Follow the money - it leads back to the Saudis, the Isrealis (AIPAC), and the western and eastern elite. Though outwardly this may seem like strange bedfellows, it makes perfect sense when the only thing the bedfellows want is money, power, and control.

"So OBL was in Pakistan on 9-11! I bet that was some secret to military intelligence. They never told Dick & Bush...." Don't you mean Bush's Dick..

Ted is the first with the facts in print that support what my Pakistani friends have been maintaining for years - Musharraf is and has been nothing but evil. Most have managed to get their families out.

Ummn, Rall is also a cartoonist and in a few frames says everything he wrote in this essay and more.

You can see it here:

http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2007/11/08/

enjoy, well, puke is perhaps more appropiate.

"Why does everyone give the Saudis a pass?" - militantliberal

Read my posts from other topics on this site and you'll se that I don't give "free" passes to Saudi Arabia. In any case, you forgot to mention the fact that the working/lower/middle class do not benefit at all from "black gold". In fact, since the days of black gold in Saudi Arabia, the middle class has been wiped out and what's left of the working poor is forever shrinking ! I always said that countries like Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc ... who are known as the most blatant violators of human rights deserves SUPER SCRUTINY but who the FUCK listens ?

--"Musharraf has always struck me as a sleazy opportunist rather than a determined Islamist."

Musharraf is a sleazy opportunist like you said and not an Islamic fundamentalist but he has used the Islamic fundamentalists extremely well to foster his own agenda against Afghanistan and India. He has funded, supported and provided state sponsorship to this low-life the Taliban. You need to actually read up more on what these Talib bastards are capable of ... look up the RAWA website...

The Ben Ladins, Bushes, ISI, CIA, BCCI, Federal Reserve, Richard Helms, William Casey, Bank of England, Ruling Family in Abu Dhabi, many more banks, US Foreign Policy, Pakistani Nuclear Bomb, Kissinger, Kamal Adham, Adhan Kashoggi, Iran-contra affair, Sauidi Arabia....

--> These are all related to what is happening in Pakistan today. A few folks get rich, the masses suffer, and we the tax payer foots the bill. And, no democracy at all costs because the pakistani people might actually control their own affairs.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

Thanks, Ted, for showing us this bizarre funding/arming-all-sides-war-circus-through-the-looking-glass-perfect-storm-of-endgame crap.

There were Saudis who funded the Taliban too. The money to purchase their Toyota pick-up trucks which they used to conquer territory with arms in hand came from the Saudis. The Taliban's interpretation of Islam came from Saudi Arabia which funded the islamist madrasas where these students (Taliban means students in Arabic and Madrasa means school/any school in Arabic) came from in Pakistan. Just read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars or Pakistani Journalist Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban.

By the way the Saudis have a Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Abolishment of Vice and the Taliban had the same Orewellian Ministry. Coincidence? Think again. The Saudis treat women like crap and the Taliban did the same (Afghan women in the cities had many opportunities starting with Zahir Shah's rule including education and the choice of whether or not to wear the veil/chador back when Afghanistan was under Afghan rule look up the old pictures and you'll see what I am talking about). The rights of Afghan women went backwards under the Pro-Saudi, Pro-Pakistan Taliban.

Yup the Saudis made a mess of South Asia also but they have done that everywhere and many places in Africa now are also suffering from the Saudi poison. South Asia and Pakistan and Afghanistan were traditionally Muslim Sufis in outlook not Wahhabis/Salafis. Rumi, who was born in Afghanistan is the world's most famous Sufi poet he was from the real Afghan culture and the culture that tolerated and protected the Bamiyan Buddhas for centuries (until the Taliban back by foreign powers destroyed them). Inshallah Afghanistan will one day recover from all this and gain back its traditions of tolerance, education, and beauty.

--"Inshallah Afghanistan will one day recover from all this and gain back its traditions of tolerance, education, and beauty"

Hopefully they will but it looks really bleak right now. The Taliban are waay too strong right now :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK13Df01.html
The tolerant Sufi strain of Islam is predominant in South Asia and spread through the Indian sub-continent over hundreds of years.
Pakistan will eventually break up on its own accord if Democracy in its true sense (not the bush-dick variety) is not allowed to flourish.

The US also supported the Taliban, and is closely aligned with the Pakistani ISI. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are BOTH clients of the US, so in fact, all roads lead right back here to the good old USA.

Pakistan is "the most dangerous" nuclear state? Pakistan is a pariah? It is the USA that is busy bombing every Islamic country in sight! The US and Israel are the most dangerous states in the world, both directly and by proxy through PUPPET states. Why do so many of you insist on blaming the puppet instead of the master?

"Why do so many of you insist on blaming the puppet instead of the master?"

True enough ... but it takes two hands to clap. The Pakistani military and the intelligence (ISI) run the whole state and are culpable. The Pakistani people as always dont have a say in what transpires. The most dangerous trend currently is the rapid radicalization of the Pakistani population thanks to the mess bush-mush have created. If this process continues South Asia will blow up in flames .... we are talking close to 2 billion people !!!
Hey but who cares ... its brown-skinned people and not good old blue-eyed white people so dont expect much reaction from friggin CNN/FOX.

dcbeltway--thanks for bringing up Steve Coll's book. I was about to say how much this column of Rall's reminds me of "Ghost Wars". The pernicious involvement of ISI, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda, CIA, and just about everyone else in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a recipe for a nuclear holocaust.
militantliberal, maxpayne, iowairish, and many others have made good posts, and there are several books and websites dealing with this travesty of foreign meddling, but we are the league of Cassandras; who cares what we think, we didn't go to no stinkin' harvard/yale on daddy's money like a certain president did.

Why does everyone give the Saudis a pass?

The Saudi dictators get a free pass because they own a large chunk of the US federal debt. In the US, the bankers set the policy. It isn't a democracy. Americans vote the bankers' choice in federal elections.

It should be easy for the people to break the oppressive spell and draw appropriate conclusions: Big is bad. Boycott all things big.

Speaking of one man control. Around the world, the strong man leader, the military junta and the dictatorial governing principles of the right seem to be settling in around the world. Didn't some leader in one of the russian 'stans' (Kryghestan?) declare himself 'leader for life'?

Musharef rounded up the 'opposition'. In Myanmar the junta crushed the marches. Perhaps the west and not just the emperor has no clothes?

Bush mess spreads.

The world is paused on Pakistan. They brought back Bhutto (as a known quantity to the west) if Musharef goes, fearing the vacuum would be filled by extremists. What if they both go?

What if Musharef's 'elections' can only elect him? What if Pakistan goes extremist?

On the other hand a war with Iran would likely precipitate an upswelling of anti-americanism across the mideast as yet another muslim country is attacked... and THAT would likely provide the impetus to topple Musharef and even perhaps Bhutto's successor government.

The world is paused on Pakistan. Musharef becomes the more overt strongman dictator. A focal point of increasing emotional intensity. With WMDS?

Bush is clueless and blinded by denial and the rationalizations for his dead end agenda but Pakistan already has the WMDS while Iran (sans PNAC agenda) does not at this time nor for years to come.

Bush seems barely to focus on what seems the real focal point of these destabilizing times. Pakistan... but even if Bush isn't interested in preventing WW3... the focal point is Pakistan. Only an older and failed agenda in denial continues to remain focused on Iran.

WW3 could pivot around Pakistan and it's WMDs. It should give the world pause.

WHY BLAME PAKISTAN?

It was the U.S. that organised the war to oust the USSR from Afghanistan and used Pakistan to do it. Why start with George Bush? Destabilizing the pre USSR occupation regime was also the doing of the USA. Even under Jimmy Carter those secret U.S. activities encouraging the fundamentalists were actually done to trick the USSR into invading Afghanistan.

WHY BLAME SAUDI ARABIA?

The resource hungry West has been very keen to deal with elites and kings to make exploiting things like oil in their nations so much easier. The West buys off the leaders with all sorts corrupt offers. Marcos was one of the most classic cases. Blaming it all on the belief system and culture of one such exploited nation such as Saudi Arabia is a bit too much for me. The driving force and immoral tactics have been coming first and foremost from the West in general and the U.S. in particular.

STOP IT

There is far too much stereotyping of foreign cultures going on here on commondreams. Even Michael Moore's approach (bless him) smacks of some kind of populist racism to me at times. (I did enjoy SICKO but to blame Saudi Arab people's beliefs in order to highlight the innocence of another Arab people such as Iraqis or Afghanis, is still unwise.)

SO WHAT?

So the Saudis have been sending money overseas to build mosques and schools. So What? The Western Christians have been doing that for years creating openings for Western Imperialism in all its power and glory and leavimg much of the mess we have now around the world. So the Fundamentalists criticise the West for its decadence and immorality - well who is going to trumpet how moral our societies in the West really are? We have invaded all over the place for generations and still exploit people who can't stick up for themselves so that we can live the high life - those who can afford it - and yet we have the gall to make out that somehow we are the deserved leaders of the future. Anyone can see the models of life coming from the West will lead the world to destruction.

So let's get off our high-horse and stop blaming the problems in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the Saudis and the Pakis. Just look at ourselves in the mirror for once!

I just saw a program showing how Africa trains doctors and then rich nations "steal" them in the most disgusting brain drain I have ever seen.

SAUDI MONEY - TERRORIST MONEY?

Does anyone actually believe that the Saudi money given to mosques and charities in most countries, is money intended to breed terrorists. Do you really believe that elite, rich Saudis want to encourage the very movement overseas that would overthrow them at home? You so called progressives need to get your critical faculties switched back on when dealing with the systematic misimformation coming from the West even from "Progressives" sources.

GAY AND FEMINIST COLORED GLASSES

Unfortunately it seems many on the left can't see past their own relatively recently developed feminist and gay consciousness to see that all over the world in pre Modern cultures most people don't think like them. It is not just Wahabi Islam that makes it hard for women and gays. Just look around.

STOP THE ETHNIC RELIGIOUS STEREOTYPING.
.

Jan Afghans are not Arabs first of all. Neither are all Iraqis Arabs. Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of South Asia and not the Middle East.

Not all Saudis are bad this is why I said some Saudis support the Taliban but not all. However some Saudis are know to prosetlitize their strict interpretations on other Muslims and this becomes a big problem in many parts of the world when the local version of Islam is more progressive then the Saudi version. The Afghan interpretations of Islam varied greatly from the Saudi ones prior to the war with the USSR. During the battle with the USSR the Saudis sent billions of dollars which corrupted Afghanistan and put in power Saudi backed mullahs with their Salaffiah interpretations of Islam. This did not help Afghanistan and this idealogy spread amongst mainly rural people with little access to education. Why be tolerant of that when the Salaffi version of Islam is not tolerant of Afghan Islam and Shia beliefs? The Saudis believe Shia's are infidels. Look it up. The Taliban took up that idealogy and then committed genocide against the Hazara Afghan ethnic group which is Shia. Hazaras died as a result. Tajiks and Heratis were also persecuted because many of them are also Shia. Salafism also preaches the idea that women are second class citizens and certainly the Taliban took that mantra up as we have all seen the photos of the Taliban beating women and banning them from work and school. Mainstream Sunni and Shi'a Islam preach tolerance and the Qu'ran itself gives equal rights to women. Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism goes against these mainstream Islamic traditions. Most Muslims are intolerant of Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism as a result because it goes against their traditions.

This is my point that there are times for tolerance and there are times when tolerating those who are intolerant is a bad idea. Certainly the British, US and Soviet Union as western nations all had an ugly role in this mess too. It was the British who put the Saudis in power and even amongst other Arabians they were not looked on favorably and many Saudi citizens today do not like the Saudi royals and view them as horrendously corrupt. Other Arabs have been highly critical of Saudi Arabia and Salafism and its backing of Islamist political movements in some Arab countries. America used the Afghans and Pakistanis to fight their covert war against the Soviets and then walked away leaving a power vaccum, a civil war, and Pakistan's Taliban to take advantage. What should have happened then was an Afghan martial plan...the thing that is supposed to be happening now but is not.

I'm Muslim by the way so this is not ethnic religious stereotyping. The situation in South Asia is complicated and there is nothing wrong with discussing all the intracacies involved.

Please see here about the spread of Salaffi/Wahhabi idealogy in South Asia:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/nasr.html

I also suggest the wonderful book "Three Cups of Tea" about one many who worked to bring education to Pakistan and Afghanistan and had to fight for funding of his schools which taught all subjects including local interpretations of Islam next to Saudi funded Wahhabi schools that were being built next door.

I like Ted Rall's writing, and I get his cartoons in my mailbox when they are pulbished. I recently read both his books on Central Asia. They provided interesting insights in to the "Stans."

But he is too simplistic in his analysis of the Northern Areas of Pakistan. The Northern Areas (the Pakistani part of Kashmir) are divided into two regions, the Balti region and the Gilgit region, and those regions are divided into districts. I spent a month in Baltistan last summer, in the Skardu District, and there are no Talibs there as far as I could tell. The only people we saw with AKs were the Paki Army. The culture was peaceful and the people were very friendly. They are Sufi Muslisms, and do not ascribe to the violent practices of the Wahabis. I wandered around alone in the Skardu Bazaar in blue jeans and a sport shirt and experienced no problems whatsoever with hostility to Westerners.

Even on the day that the headlines in the Paki newspapers read "Obama Says Will Bomb Pakistan" I had no problems. That did give me pause regarding Obama's experience and thoughtfulness regarding international relations and the unexpected effects his words may have in other countries.

Ted Rall passed through the Gilgit province of the Northern Areas, and the situation there is much different. There is a direct route by road to the Chitral/Peshawar area of Pakistan. Those cities are the places where Talib influence is strongest, and the main route to China from there is through Gilgit. Because of the Talibs many people in the Gilgit and Hunza areas are armed and it is pretty dangerous. I would not want to travel alone in the Gilgit region, and maybe not at all unless I was with some locals who had a good grasp of the situation and were confident they could keep you safe.

I am driving to Minnesota from California next week to visit family for the Holiday. I am more concerned about crossing Nebraska than I would be traveling through Balitistan.

We passed through a part of the Pashtun tribal area on our way to Baltistan and we were advised to stay inside the locked gates of the hotel compound there. The walls were at least 12 feet high with metal spikes on the top, but I didn't see anybody lurking around the gates or anything. We did see trucks with dozens of young men in the back on the Karkaoram Highway in the Pashtun area who we joked looked like truckloads of Talibs, and, who knows, maybe they were, but nobody bothered us and we were waved perfunctorily through all the military checkpoints we passed through.

dcbeltway as always is right. This Jan needs to read her post.

--"but to blame Saudi Arab people's beliefs in order to highlight the innocence of another Arab people such as Iraqis or Afghanis, is still unwise"
Thats right. Why should we distinguish between the Americans and the French or Canadians. They are ALL the same. Insignificant facts like who started the Iraq/Afghan war and all the slaughter that ensued should be shared equally by ALL western nations.

The fact that the Pakistan military and ISI have created the monster Taliban for their own strategic reasons should be completely overlooked because blaming them is racist ?? Are you stupid or something ??

Thanks Gyptian :). Glad you got my back and I got yours!

By the way I meant Marshall plan not martial plan.

dcbeltway said
"What should have happened then was an Afghan martial plan…the thing that is supposed to be happening now but is not."

That is the crux of the problem...in the days of the Marshall Plan...it was Western Europe built up to become stronger against any coming threat from the Eastern bloc or internal communism.

The equivalent recipient of U.S. aid these days (to compare with Western Europe then) has been Israel... it has been built up with massive U.S. help for a long time. But the rest are generally seen as not really to be trusted and to be brought down if ever they start to buck the U.S. or get too big. The U.S. supported Egypt financially AFTER President Sadat did a peace deal with Israel in exchange for Egypt getting back the Sinai. The U.S. rips them off, wrecks them or tries to buy them, like buying the loyalty of the Pakistani military with massive military aid. To show the U.S. priorities just look how little Pakistan got for its people compared with what the military got. It will always be so. Israel gets all. How many others will be destroyed by the U.S./ Israel axis? Don't wait around for a Marshall plan - all your getting is a martial plan, which dcbeltway knows deep down.

"I'm Muslim by the way so this is not ethnic religious stereotyping. The situation in South Asia is complicated and there is nothing wrong with discussing all the intracacies involved." dcbeltway

Nothing wrong with discussing the intracacies involved AGREED.

But there is a war on and you support one side i.e. The NATO intervention and its necessary escalation to try to win the war for the side you fear might lose.

At what point does the escalation just become destruction? Surely the intracacies involved say that the resistance is getting HUGE money from opium (See today's UN Report)How can you deal with that without alienating the farmers even more? How many more are joining the anti NATO war effort because IT'S A FOREIGN OCCUPATION? Hating Taliban beliefs and practices won't necessarily help win the hearts and minds of opponents of the occupation.

Sometimes the *West Just Screws Things Up* and get themselves in a hole - the harder they dig, the deeper in they get. Wars against these fanatics will only harden their anti-Western resolve setting back any possiblity of reforms in the long run. If you, like me, are against the massive polarisation that goes with war, then support a peace and not an escalation. It may be better to lose a war and try again into the future...unless of course you are not really into intricacies but really into your own specific values system ahead of ALL ELSE.., which would make you a kind of mirror of the fundamentalist fanatics you so hate.

"The fact that the Pakistan military and ISI have created the monster Taliban for their own strategic reasons should be completely overlooked because blaming them is racist ?? Are you stupid or something ??"

There was a civil war and eventually one side won most of the country. If the side with the Iranian backing had won we wouldn't have heard the end of it either. Just like in Iraq now, in the civil war in Afghanistan there were various neighbouring interests with their hand in Afghanistan trying to achieve results in their favour. Despite their backers Taliban was/is an entity independent of Pakistan just as Pakistan under Musharraf is an entity independent of the U.S.. ONCE given birth to something the child can act on its own (as the U.S. sees now with Musharraf)

How much more did the U.S. create "Al Qaeda" to fight its wars etc than Pakistan created Taliban? Such questions are real and are not what I was getting at about racism.

But when our people bash Arabs in the street because our troops are at war in an Arab country we have racism. Wars polarise and these polarisations are felt in the community at large. People who want wars often exagerate differences to help demonise the enemy. Polarised thinking aids the war effort.

It is so easy to appeal to commonly held prejudices when trying to win something. Islamophobia and xenophobia are not qualities that require any careful discernment. The impression that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were bedfellows became readily understood by a vast number of people although it was wrong. People can be quick to make sweeping condemnations of ethnic and religious groups especially when we are at war with them. Amongst many non-Islamic peoples there is a growing chorus of scared people who want to condemn Islam as a whole because of "Terrorism" and the "War on Terrorism" and its various "fronts".

It is understandable that many concerned Islamic people would want to point out the specific intricacies of various issues to show "Muslims as such are not terrorists".

It is tempting even to point to some group in the Islamic scene across the world and say how they are an abberation and don't represent Islam, or they have "hijacked Islam", or they are really the CIA's bastard child of the war against the USSR or some such.

One might even say here:
"...that the Pakistan military and ISI have created the monster Taliban for their own strategic reasons" so that Islam as a whole might appear less responsible for the Taliban's existance. But the Islamophobes aren't to be diverted with such intricacies. Such detail merely provides more amunition to help target the scapegoats needed to explain why this ill-conceived war/occupation in Afghanistanis is failing - Blame it on the Pakistan military - blame it on the "Taliban" their "monster child".

But with all this scapegoating and blaming, don't be fooled for a minute that the wider populace isn't getting further indoctrinated with one more example that shows the evils inherent in Islam.

Peace in that region is impossible without security. It doesn't matter who is in charge because if they cannot bring security and rule of law there will be no peace. The one thing the Taliban did bring when they ruled was security but it came at the expense of human rights and also at the expense of the economy (which failed miserably and all foriegn investors pulled out of the country) and in the end for the Afghan people that did not work. They suffered. With the warlords in charge the problem is that they do not bring security they bring lawlessness. As I have said before these men need to be brought to justice because once they are that will lend the current government far more legitimacy amongst the masses. The warlords are also criminals of the worst sort. They killed and raped their way to power. I do believe Afghanistan needs some sort of peace-keeping force. Without one there will be a power-vacuum and we know what happened last time there was a power-vacuum---a civil war ensued and the Taliban arose from the ashes.

There are those resisting occupation but they are not necessarily pro-Taliban. Let's be clear about that. The Taliban may take advantage of people who are part of that group. However, it doesn't mean that they are one and the same.

Regarding farmers they mostly grow crops that are profitable so they can feed their families. If they grow opium its because its more profitable. Just like the situation wiht coca in Columbia. However when presented with alternatives many farmers will grow crops if they are viable. See the article below:
Afghans Expanding Pomegranate Exports
By NOOR KHAN – 1 day ago

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) — Farm hands place mounds of bright red pomegranates into shipping boxes stamped "Product of Afghanistan." The price and quality of the sweet fruit are up, and the farmers are happy that a new storage facility has extended their selling season. The advances in the pomegranate trade are a sliver of good news from a region of Afghanistan known more for Taliban attacks and a thriving opium trade. Ubaidullah Jan, a 50-year-old farmer from the Arghandab area just north of Kandahar, said the price his pomegranates command has doubled this year to about 54 cents a pound, due to the new cold storage facility and quality control programs implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development. "The goods we are selling with the help of USAID and being able to keep them in cold storage have brought a tremendous change in our business," Jan said, adding that his goods are sent to Dubai, Pakistan, India and Singapore.

Scarred by an almost perpetual state of conflict since 1980, Afghanistan has only one truly successful export: opium and the heroin that is made from it. The country produced 8,200 tons of opium in 2007, up 34 percent from last year's record harvest. Farmers this year can make $2,000 on an acre of opium poppies, while wheat yields about $220. The total value of the opium trade for Afghan farmers this year stands at $1 billion. The value of all of Afghanistan's legal exports in 2006, meanwhile, was $193 million, with animal hides and wool skins topping the list at $21 million. Revenue from legal exports has increased an average of 28 percent annually over the last four years and will continue to expand, said Loren Owen Stoddard, director of alternative development and agriculture for USAID. Afghanistan's fruit and vegetables in particular have potential, he said. The "perceived value" of Afghan pomegranates and other fruits is high in regional markets.

"Talk to an Indian fruit seller and he'll instinctively know that (Afghan pomegranates) are the best in the world," Stoddard said. "When we show up, the reaction is, 'Oh, these are the great Afghan products I used to buy.'" In Kandahar, USAID is spending $6.6 million on agricultural and marketing assistance programs for producers of fresh and dried fruits and nuts. The goal is sustained economic growth that can help reduce and eventually eliminate poppy cultivation. About 330 vineyards and orchards have been developed in Kandahar, and 51 raisin sheds have been rehabilitated. Next year, 12,500 grape vines will be planted. Farming is challenging in Afghanistan. Pomegranate farmers in the Arghandab district abandoned their fields this month and headed toward the relative safety of Kandahar city after Taliban fighters moved into the region for several days. USAID opened the cold storage facility in September and is trying to increase contacts with potential buyers overseas. Farmers are being taught to produce raisins away from Kandahar's dusty earth; cleaner raisins can fetch up to four times more at market.

Western aid workers dress in local outfits and travel the province to link buyers and sellers. "War creates a lack of communication and so some of what our guys are doing is reintroducing Afghans to buyers who have changed over 30 years," Stoddard said. The program has helped ship 690 tons of pomegranates to India, 600 tons to Pakistan and 36 tons to Dubai, mostly on military flights. A sample 1,000-pound shipment was also sent to the United States, said Mohammad Gul, a USAID program officer in Kandahar. The pomegranate growers say Taliban fighters — who recruit gunmen and force some farmers into the poppy trade across Afghanistan's south — leave them alone. "This is a business we've inherited from our ancestors," said Hayatullah Khan. "The Taliban never say that we should grow poppy instead of pomegranates."

Khan said the success of the pomegranate project could lure other farmers back into legal crops, though the trend is currently in the opposite direction. Kandahar province in 2007 saw a 32 percent increase in the amount of land devoted to poppies. To increase production, Afghanistan needs a better electrical grid. Only the western city of Herat, which imports power from Iran, has reliable electricity. The municipal grid in Kabul on average provides only three hours of electricity a day. "The No. 1 challenge to agribusiness is electricity," Stoddard said. "You can't keep things cold and you can't bottle them without power."

Associated Press writer Jason Straziuso in Kabul contributed to this report

dcbeltway said
"these men need to be brought to justice "

Using warlords to oust the Taliban has its consequences - the indebtedness that makes it harder to topple them. In reality Karzai hangs on to power by co-operating with the ex-warlords. Turn against them and they will overthrow him. Pious ideals are worth nothing if they can't be implemented.

Turning Afghanistan into a permanent NATO colony is also no solution. NATO forces won't stay as the war is unwinnable. Losses will mount until they all pull their troops out eventually. Why not sooner than later and get it over with. The Shah of Iran's family settled nicely elsewhere and similarly Karzai and his group/family will probably go into exile somewhere and live comfortably dying of old age.

Intervening when we don't like the regime is the last thing we should ever do. The Taliban had co-operated with the U.S. and had the drug production well down until they were rewarded for their efforts by an invasion. Vengence is sweet - but counterproductive.

How can we criticise the warriors in places like Afghanistan when the U.S. and NATO attack so often. Hardly a shining example for others. Vote for a peace candidate.

Jan I cannot in good conscience support another Pakistani and Saudi backed Taliban government against the better wishes of the majority of Afghan people. I'm disgusted that you are supporting that.

Jan --"But when our people bash Arabs in the street because our troops are at war in an Arab country we have racism."

I totally agree with this and I think living here in the U.S. this racism is very apparent and barely hiding under the surface. Its especially sad and disturbing when people you have associated with in the past fall prey to this 'blame the Arabs' mentality , the Arabs meaning anyone from the rest of the world except U.S., Europe, China etc.

I also understand why you see the need for accomodating the Taliban to bring about security. But the truth is all we end up doing is replacing one monster(US/NATO) with another(Taliban).

I think the ONLY answer to this madness is for the US/NATO to get out of there and for Afghanistan/Pakistan/India to sit together and form a combined strategic response to terrorism in the region. If these three countries can act in concert with each other we can actually see a stable and secure Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Jan I cannot in good conscience support another Pakistani and Saudi backed Taliban government against the better wishes of the majority of Afghan people. I'm disgusted that you are supporting that." dcbeltway

Why are you so sure that any alternative to the current arrangement in Kabul is the Taliban? How much war would you support in all good conscience? Are you so sure more people in Afghanistan are not being radicalised against Western values by the endless ongoing or escalating warfare?

Remember the fabled child who had two mothers fighting about which one was the real parent. Solomon judged he would give half the child to each woman until the real mother was the one who was prepared to give up the child to save it. Which of the sides loves Aghans more than their own ideology? To be able to let go would win more in the long run.

"I think the ONLY answer to this madness is for the US/NATO to get out of there and for Afghanistan/Pakistan/India to sit together and form a combined strategic response to terrorism in the region. If these three countries can act in concert with each other we can actually see a stable and secure Afghanistan and Pakistan." gyptian

Whilst Afghanistan's future is seen in terms of a "reponse to terrorism" it will have no future. It was a "response to terrorism" that excused the U.S. invasion. It is the "response to terrorism" that justifies the current escalation. Turning Afghanistan (or parts of it) into a kind of India/Pakistan Territory, which is what would happen under gyptian's scheme, would be another "reponse to terrorism" that the resistance in Afghanistan can be predicted to reject.

It is great for all involved to get together about their regional problems etc just like the Taliban did with the US before 9/11 to successfully reduce the opium growing problem. But why assume that India and Pakistan are the vital ones to the solution. Just because some analysts have put the Kashmir issue into the explanatory mix does that mean India and Pakistan should be encouraged to dominate the much smaller Afghanistan? Also what happens when you ostracise whole groups from discussions like Israel wants to isolate HAMAS or like NATO and some here would want to exclude certain groups in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Such exclusions lead one way...attempts at total elimination by each side of the other. But a "final solution" is totally undesirable that is even if it would work. Those of us with progressive values need to learn to live with some things we may not ever see overcome in our lifetime. You do not overcome an evil like institutionalised sexist bullying by using an even greater evil like the institutionalised bullying we called wars.

A soldier with a gun cannot stand beside each girl to protect her right to an education when that education becomes a symbol representing the foreigners. Do we really want to put our young girls on the front line of our war? In Kosovo, when the children's education had become THE political issue, Serbs were straffing Kosovo children from the air as the children went to their Albanian language/cultural schools (instead of to the Serbian schools). That NATO invasion has only become manageable because Serbs were clearly less than 10% in Kosovo. However in Afghanistan how would you cope seeing more attacks on schools as Western values are increasingly actively resisted in the provinces? Why allow their girls to become the front line of the war?

Mussharaff, Bush and people here have been attacking Islamist schools and yet the increasing threat of attacks on Western schooling doesn't seem to occur to people. It is time people started seeing things from both sides so we can find the best way to go. Are you part of the escalating polarisation in the world or are you open to finding real solutions?
.

Actually Afghans do support sending their girls to school provided that schools are nearby to villages and that the teachers are females. A major problem is the teachers salaries and the lack of girls schools in some areas. However, in the rural areas they do not support mixed gender classrooms. Where are you getting your information from? Your the one who keep insisting, Jan, that the Pushtun people are backwards and are against women and support the Taliban. This is not true and you are the one that is stereotyping. Stop stereotyping Pushtuns!!!! Afghans males including Afghan Pushtun males want their daughters to have educations. Its the Taliban that is burning girls schools not the Afghan people. I met with Afghan University professors recently in DC and they were very supportive of women attending the universities and these men were from universities in the provinces all over the country and were of Pushtun, Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek backgrounds. My husband is a translator and he translated a video about Afghan primary education during reconstruction and the Pashtuns interviewed in the video supported their daughters going to school. They were unhappy that their children could not under the Taliban! No one is promoting western style schooling for the Afghans. Education experts are tailoring the education system to the need of the Afghan community and so is the Afghan Ministry of Education which is working in partnership! My Afghan father-in-law worked for the Afghan Ministry of Ed. for over 40 years so I do know what I am talking about when it comes to the Afghan education system!

For the millionth time the culture of the Taliban does not stem from Afghan culture its not supported. All Afghans enjoy their music and kite flying the Taliban banned these things for example.

On the last thread you go on and on about how wonderful RAWA is and I said to you its not even supported by the Afghan community! Several prominent Afghan female activists hate RAWA as RAWA bad-mouthed them including Dr. Sima Samar who headed the Afghan Women's Affairs Ministry! However, RAWA is anti-Taliban and here you are supporting the Taliban over and over again with your statements? Why do you continue to post when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and you contradict yourself?? Your not helping the Afghan community at all.

--"Whilst Afghanistan's future is seen in terms of a "reponse to terrorism" it will have no future." Jan

But this is exactly what the problem is in Afghanistan. The only way the Taliban come to power is by terrorising people. History has shown that a small group of dedicated individuals can control a society through terror or brute force/power. As long as this terror is not contained there is no future for Afghanistan, and im not even talking about the U.S/Al Qaeda death dance. The U.S. ofcourse doesnt give a fuck about Afghanistan as is evident by their actions. Nothing, and i repeat nothing, can justify the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

Jan "Turning Afghanistan (or parts of it) into a kind of India/Pakistan Territory, which is what would happen under gyptian's scheme,"

This is NOT what I suggested but it fits neatly into your pre-conceived notions. Go back and read my post.

gyptian she strikes me as a troll.

dc yup ...
"It is great for all involved to get together about their regional problems etc just like the Taliban did with the US before 9/11 to successfully reduce the opium growing problem. But why assume that India and Pakistan are the vital ones to the solution. Just because some analysts have put the Kashmir issue into the explanatory mix does that mean India and Pakistan should be encouraged to dominate the much smaller Afghanistan?"

This statement belies a complete lack of understanding of South Asian politics. Unless this Jan is hiding in a cave along with AlQaeda and Mullah Omar , he/she should realize India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads for the last 60 years and Afghanistan actually has closer ties with India rather than Pakistan.
The Pakistani military has created not just the Taliban but also JEM/HUM/Lashlar terrorist organizations that wreak havoc in Kashmir trying to imprint their version of Wahhabi Islam on an essentially Sufi culture, while the military creates this proxy war to confront India. The very creation of the Pakistani state based on a dubious premise was again a cheap parting shot by the bloodthirsty Brits in their dying Imperialist venture.

Agreed they should sit down and talk as the problems in Afghanistan are definitly a spillover of the Pakistan-India conflict. I've heard the Taliban are actually a Pakistan strategy to have a force to fall back to and a place to fall back to in the event of a Pakistan invasion by India.

Seems like we are still dealing with diaster of British imperialsim wherever it colonized the planet from Israel/Palestine to Northern Ireland (which is occupied Ireland in my book) and India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. Divide and conquer is such a nasty idealogy.

"place to fall back to in the event of a Pakistan invasion by India. "

In my travels to India I did not sense any rabid hatred towards Pakistan though the rivalry is intense. Pakistanis inturn seem to love Indian cultural exports (Bollywood !!). I do not think India would even contemplate a Pakistan invasion. Whats amazing is Pakistanis are ethnically similar to northern Indians as opposed to southern Indians. People in the South of India dont have the same level of antagonism to Pakistan that a lot of Northerners do.

I think India is more concerned with a stable Kashmir. There seems to be a general consensus to convert the Line Of Control to an International border and then open up the borders to trade and commerce, which is probably the best long term solution for all involved.

Wow what happened to our collective memory?? Pakistan (good guys) was financing the Taliban (good guys) when the Russians were burning Afghanistan.
Now years later, ooops out of hand. Damn these Pakis, how do they allow Taliban on their north border.
Now US wants to bribe some of the northern tribes to fight the Taliban. Another Bush well thought out plan that will blow up in his face. These tribes will NOT fight the Taliban, they will turn their guns on central government.
Iraq Two. With a bigger cake to walk on..

"However, RAWA is anti-Taliban and here you are supporting the Taliban over and over again with your statements?" said dcbeltway.

I NEITHER SUPPORT TALIBAN NOR RAWA. However I believe various sources have shown that the occupation in Afghanistan is a disaster and cannot be won. RAWA also happens to say that along with all sorts of others.

I don't support the Taliban but don't believe the NATO analysis that what is happening now is just the same Taliban that was in power before ousted by the NATO/US invasion.

I do not doubt that women's education is desired by many or even most people in Afghanistan. However it doesn't take more than a decent sized minority to make it impossible to carry out without making pupils and schools a target. Pushing cultural change even with massive local support is dangerous when there is a military force against it because the changes are associated with the invading/occupying forces.

dcbeltway it is clear you are single mindedly in favour of the occupation no matter how much war making it will take for it to survive. Surely at some point one has to question the ruthlessness you will need to get the things you hope for. To me you seem like a one-eyed occupation supporter.

gyptian also serves the interests of NATO with this simpleminded acceptance of the pro-occupation people that is is all about Pakistan/India instead of now being a nationalist/religious war of resistance against an invading occupying NATO force.

I have refuted the need for a Pakistan support for that resistance, yet gyptian and dcbeltway just keep on with the same old propaganda that it is all coming from the Pakistan military. There is plenty of drug money available to fund a resistance against a foreign aggressor.

People like gyptian and dcbeltway need to stop advocating that the US and NATO intervene in nations to bring about the culture change they so much would love to see. There is evidence the invasion of Afghanistan was planned BEFORE 9/11. We should reject such crusades for geopolitical advantage disguised as humanitarian interventions.

gyptian said: "The only way the Taliban come to power is by terrorising people"

This is totally untrue. Certain very large parts of Afghanistan offered NO resistance to the advancing Taliban which many hoped and believed would be a group to end the wars between the various warlords. Many peope believed the Taliban to be a principalled group that were largely guided by their religious beliefs and not by personal motives of gains in comforts, money, fame and power as the warlords had been. Of course the people may not have anticipated the severe code the Taliban would enforce in the new peace they brought. But apart from the last stages of their war to control the northern areas of Afghanistan, in general the Taliban came to power with relatively little fighting compared with what had been going on between the warlords they replaced.