Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I noticed that Panetta fell off the radar. At any rate Coll wrote his fine history with the advantage of already witnessing the radicalization of some of the mujahedin and the Taliban movement.
“We didn't support Masoud much. That's part of the problem; we let pretty much all the aid get funneled through the ISI, and they gave it to the folks they wanted to support; that is to the Pashtuns (and the militant ones), in hopes that Afghanistan would become a client state and resolve their own security problems.”
If you go back and read Coll, he goes into detail as to why the Agency favored Hekmatyr over Massoud, not the least of which he notes that Massoud often would not uphold his agreements to attack at agreed times and would in fact sometimes make deals with the Soviets. We didn’t “let” the aid get funneled through the ISI, the ISI and Zia insisted that all training and funds go through them, that was a prerequisite that held from Carter and through the Reagan, Bush and Clinton terms. In fact, no American “advisors” trained any Afghans on Stingers, instead they trained the ISI, who in turn trained the Afghans. Massoud if my memory serves me right got 8.
“We gave up after the Russians left, and just let the ISI do what they wanted. Many people (including in the CIA) were quite upset about that. So were others who were trying to forge a republican Afghanistan, perhaps of a federal nature. The U.S. sat on the sidelines and let the Taliban take over and consolidate their position ... with immense help from the ISI.”
Obviously the US made a serious mistake in walking away from Afghanistan when it did. But you over simplify the case of what would’ve been necessary to bring down the ISI and it’s full on sponsorship and direction from the Pakistani government. Plus we haven’t even begun to speak of the heroin trade that fuels so much of the former and current crisis. I’ve been aware of the ISI and their myriad of deceit since 1987, so I don’t need any lessons in their underhanded dealings. We’ll see if Panetta has what it takes to take these guys on, but most likely he’ll be too busy cleaning house. You and Glenn still haven’t’ addressed the question of why the DCIA would have to come from the DO instead of another branch of the intel community.
For excellent updates on the ISI check out B. Raman's site (former RAW Intel Director) at:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/default.asp
". . . . Constitutionally, the benefit of the doubt rests with the citizenry, who are constitutionally entitled to "fire on federal agents" when those federal agents are involved in criminal trespass...."
_____
Dead wrong -- as dead as KKKoresh. And here's why:
"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.
Regardless whetehr citizens, or citizens holding public office, appointive or elective, none has ANY authority to take the law into her/his own hands. The private citizen has the authority to initiate civil suits. But the state has a monopoly on the police power, and thus on enforcing criminal laws, and thus on prosecuting ALLEGED violations of criminal laws.
The prosecution of such violations occurs in accordance with established legal procedures; and that is accomplished in the judicial branch.
KKKoresh had two basic options, one legal, and the other self-serving/criminal. The warrant was not for arrest of KKKoresh -- far-right America-hating lunatic fringe/gun-nuts notwithstanding; the warrant was for search of the compound concerning allegations of child abuse/rape.
The way to challenge the warrant LEGALLY was IN COURT. KKKoresh didn't lack for legal advice; but apparently he knew he hadn't a legal-challenge leg to stand on so chose instead to take the law into his own hands and ILLEGALLY resisted SERVICE of the warrant by use of deadly force, which was patently ILLEGAL.
NO citizen, private or in public capacity, has any "right" to violate the law, though the legal tradition, for many hundreds of years, is that in a conflict between public safety and societal survival, and individual right, the latter YIELDS, even when the individual right is LEGITIMATE. The "right" to kill gov't officials -- "Feds" -- based upon a private invocation of the blatantly illegal does not exist, and never has.
If you go back and read Coll, he goes into detail as to why the Agency favored Hekmatyr over Massoud, not the least of which he notes that Massoud often would not uphold his agreements to attack at agreed times and would in fact sometimes make deals with the Soviets....
Masoud was no fool.
One of the reasons the CIA "favoured" Hekmatyar was that they bowed to ISI wishes. Rabbani was also on the favoured list.
... We didn’t “let” the aid get funneled through the ISI, the ISI and Zia insisted that all training and funds go through them, that was a prerequisite that held from Carter and through the Reagan, Bush and Clinton terms....
I don't seen how you can call that anything else than acquiescence (even if the CIA did do some small stuff, unauthorised, through back channels).
... In fact, no American “advisors” trained any Afghans on Stingers, instead they trained the ISI, who in turn trained the Afghans. Massoud if my memory serves me right got 8.
Sounds about right. As I said, we let the ISI run the show.
[Arne]: “We gave up after the Russians left, and just let the ISI do what they wanted. Many people (including in the CIA) were quite upset about that. So were others who were trying to forge a republican Afghanistan, perhaps of a federal nature. The U.S. sat on the sidelines and let the Taliban take over and consolidate their position ... with immense help from the ISI.”
Obviously the US made a serious mistake in walking away from Afghanistan when it did. But you over simplify the case of what would’ve been necessary to bring down the ISI and it’s full on sponsorship and direction from the Pakistani government...
True. I don't say there was no downside. The powers-that-be thought that Pakistan was worth appeasing, even as it moved towards dictatorship and fundamentalism (and started developing nuclear weapons). MAybe they thought that appeasement was necessary because of these developments. But that hardly changes the fact that our policy resulted -- predictably -- in the strengthening of the Islamic hard-liners.
... Plus we haven’t even begun to speak of the heroin trade that fuels so much of the former and current crisis....
Hey, look, any way to make a buck. And when you don't get millions from the CIA, you have to buy your weapons (and friends) somehow.
One thing we could have done is stop our stoopid "War on Drugs", and treat it as the medical problem it is. Morphine is in fact an amasing drug. We turn it into Evil Incarnate simply by designating it so ... as we do with any illicit drugs (and that includes alcohol).
... I’ve been aware of the ISI and their myriad of deceit since 1987, so I don’t need any lessons in their underhanded dealings....
I'm glad. I'm not trying to lecture you.
... We’ll see if Panetta has what it takes to take these guys on, but most likely he’ll be too busy cleaning house. You and Glenn still haven’t’ addressed the question of why the DCIA would have to come from the DO instead of another branch of the intel community.
I didn't say they should. I've laid out the "argument" for such, but I don't subscribe to that, in part because the CIA has been so incompetent in its covert operations for so long that I don't see the utility of covert ops (particularly of the militaristic kind as opposed to cloak'n'dagger skulking). As Weiner recounts, over the decades (even in the heady Helms/Colby years), the vast majority of CA agents (not officers, but some there too) have simply been caught and killed (in part, thanks to double agents and moles, but, for instance in China insertions, simply through incompetence).
Then there's the Iran fiasco....
Cheers,
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
