![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Who Are the Afghan Insurgents?Posted on Dec 4, 2008
Anand Gopal Editor’s Note: This piece is a joint project of TomDispatch.com and the Nation Magazine, where a shorter version appears in print. If there is an exact location marking the West’s failures in Afghanistan, it is the modest police checkpoint that sits on the main highway 20 minutes south of Kabul. The post signals the edge of the capital, a city of spectacular tension, blast walls, and standstill traffic. Beyond this point, Kabul’s gritty, low-slung buildings and narrow streets give way to a vast plain of serene farmland hemmed in by sandy mountains. In this valley in Logar province, the American-backed government of Afghanistan no longer exists. Instead of government officials, men in muddied black turbans with assault rifles slung over their shoulders patrol the highway, checking for thieves and “spies.” The charred carcass of a tanker, meant to deliver fuel to international forces further south, sits belly-up on the roadside. The police say they don’t dare enter these districts, especially at night when the guerrillas rule the roads. In some parts of the country’s south and east, these insurgents have even set up their own government, which they call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the name of the former Taliban government). They mete out justice in makeshift Sharia courts. They settle land disputes between villagers. They dictate the curricula in schools. Just three years ago, the central government still controlled the provinces near Kabul. But years of mismanagement, rampant criminality, and mounting civilian casualties have led to a spectacular resurgence of the Taliban and other related groups. Today, the Islamic Emirate enjoys de facto control in large parts of the country’s south and east. According to ACBAR, an umbrella organization representing more than 100 aid agencies, insurgent attacks have increased by 50% over the past year. Foreign soldiers are now dying at a higher rate here than in Iraq. Advertisement The New Nationalist Taliban Who exactly are the Afghan insurgents? Every suicide attack and kidnapping is usually attributed to “the Taliban.” In reality, however, the insurgency is far from monolithic. There are the shadowy, kohl-eyed mullahs and head-bobbing religious students, of course, but there are also erudite university students, poor, illiterate farmers, and veteran anti-Soviet commanders. The movement is a mélange of nationalists, Islamists, and bandits that fall uneasily into three or four main factions. The factions themselves are made up of competing commanders with differing ideologies and strategies, who nonetheless agree on one essential goal: kicking out the foreigners. It wasn’t always this way. When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in November 2001, Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime. “We felt like dancing in the streets,” one Kabuli told me. As U.S.-backed forces marched into Kabul, the Afghan capital, remnants of the old Taliban regime split into three groups. The first, including many Kabul-based bureaucrats and functionaries, simply surrendered to the Americans; some even joined the Karzai government. The second, comprised of the movement’s senior leadership, including its leader Mullah Omar, fled across the border into Pakistan, where they remain to this day. The third and largest group—foot soldiers, local commanders, and provincial officials—quietly melted into the landscape, returning to their farms and villages to wait and see which way the wind blew. Meanwhile, the country was being carved up by warlords and criminals. On the brand-new highway connecting Kabul to Kandahar and Herat, built with millions of Washington’s dollars, well-organized groups of bandits would regularly terrorize travelers. “[Once], thirty, maybe fifty criminals, some in police uniforms, stopped our bus and shot [out] our windows,” Muhammadullah, the owner of a bus company that regularly uses the route, told me. “They searched our vehicle and stole everything from everyone.” Criminal syndicates, often with government connections, organized kidnapping sprees in urban centers like the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar city. Often, those few who were caught would simply be released after the right palms were greased. Onto this landscape of violence and criminality rode the Taliban again, promising law and order. The exiled leadership, based in Quetta, Pakistan, began reactivating its networks of fighters who had blended into the country’s villages. They resurrected relationships with Pashtun tribes. (The insurgents, historically a predominantly Pashtun movement, still have very little influence among other Afghan minority ethnic groups like the Tajiks and Hezaras.) With funds from wealthy Arab donors and training from the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, they were able to bring weapons and expertise into Pashtun villages. In one village after another, they drove out the remaining minority of government sympathizers through intimidation and assassination. Then they won over the majority with promises of security and efficiency. The guerrillas implemented a harsh version of Sharia law, cutting off the hands of thieves and shooting adulterers. They were brutal, but they were also incorruptible. Justice no longer went to the highest bidder. “There’s no crime any more, unlike before,” said Abdul Halim, who lives in a district under Taliban control. The insurgents conscripted fighters from the villages they operated in, often paying them $200 a month—more than double the typical police salary. They adjudicated disputes between tribes and between landowners. They protected poppy fields from the eradication attempts of the central government and foreign armies—a move that won them the support of poor farmers whose only stable income came from poppy cultivation. Areas under insurgent control were consigned to having neither reconstruction nor social services, but for rural villagers who had seen much foreign intervention and little economic progress under the Karzai government, this was hardly new. At the same time, the Taliban’s ideology began to undergo a transformation. “We are fighting to free our country from foreign domination,” Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told me over the phone. “The Indians fought for their independence against the British. Even the Americans once waged an insurgency to free their own country.” This emerging nationalistic streak appealed to Pashtun villagers growing weary of the American and NATO presence. The insurgents are also fighting to install a version of Sharia law in the country. Nonetheless, the famously puritanical guerrillas have moderated some of their most extreme doctrines, at least in principle. Last year, for instance, Mullah Omar issued an edict declaring music and parties—banned in the Taliban’s previous incarnation—permissible. Some Taliban commanders have even started accepting the idea of girls’ education. Certain hard-line leaders like the one-legged Mullah Daddullah, a man of legendary brutality (whose beheading binges at times reportedly proved too much even for Mullah Omar) were killed by international forces. Meanwhile, a more pragmatic leadership started taking the reins. U.S. intelligence officers believe that day-to-day leadership of the movement is now actually in the hands of the politically savvy Mullah Brehadar, while Mullah Omar retains a largely figurehead position. Brehadar may be behind the push to moderate the movement’s message in order to win greater support. Even at the local level, some provincial Taliban officials are tempering older-style Taliban policies in order to win local hearts and minds. Three months ago in a district in Ghazni province, for instance, the insurgents ordered all schools closed. When tribal elders appealed to the Taliban’s ruling religious council in the area, the religious judges reversed the decision and reopened the schools. However, not all field commanders follow the injunctions against banning music and parties. In many Taliban-controlled districts such amusements are still outlawed, which points to the movement’s decentralized nature. Local commanders often set their own policies and initiate attacks without direct orders from the Taliban leadership. The result is a slippery movement that morphs from district to district. In some Taliban-controlled districts of Ghazni province, an Afghan caught working for a non-governmental organization (NGO) would meet certain death. In parts of neighboring Wardak province, however, where the insurgents are said to be more educated and understand the need for development, local NGOs can function with the guerrillas’ permission. The “Other” Talibans Never short of guns and guerrillas, Afghanistan has proven fertile ground for a whole host of insurgent groups in addition to the Taliban. Naqibullah, a university student with a sparse beard who spoke in soft, measured tones, was not quite 30 when we met. We were in the backseat of a parked dusty Corolla on a pockmarked road near Kabul University, where he studied medicine. Naqibullah (his nom de guerre) and his friends at the university are members of Hizb-i-Islami, an insurgent group led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and allied to the Taliban. His circle of friends meet regularly in the university’s dorm rooms, discussing politics and watching DVD videos of recent attacks. Over the past year, his circle has shrunk: Sadiq was arrested while attempting a suicide bombing. Wasim was killed when he tried to assemble a bomb at home. Fouad killed himself in a successful suicide attack on a U.S. base. “The Americans have their B-52s,” Naqibullah explained. “Suicide attacks are our versions of B-52s.” Like his friends, Naqibullah, too, had considered the possibility of becoming a “B-52.” “But it would kill too many civilians,” he told me. Besides, he had plans to use his education. He said, “I want to teach the uneducated Taliban.” For years Hizb-i-Islami fighters have had a reputation for being more educated and worldly than their Taliban counterparts, who are often illiterate farmers. Their leader, Hekmatyar, studied engineering at Kabul University in the 1970s, where he made a name of a sort for himself by hurling acid in the faces of unveiled women. He established Hizb-i-Islami to counter growing Soviet influence in the country and, in the 1980s, his organization became one of the most extreme fundamentalist parties as well as the leading group fighting the Soviet occupation. Ruthless, powerful, and anti-communist, Hekmatyar proved a capable ally for Washington, which funneled millions of dollars and tons of weapons through the Pakistani ISI to his forces. After the Soviet withdrawal, Hekmatyar and the other mujahedeen commanders turned their guns on each other, unleashing a devastating civil war from which Kabul, in particular, has yet to recover. One-legged Afghans, crippled by Hekmatyar’s rockets, still roam the city’s streets. However, he was unable to capture the capital and his Pakistani backers eventually abandoned him for a new, even more extreme Islamist force rising in the south: the Taliban. Most Hizb-i-Islami commanders defected to the Taliban and Hekmatyar fled in disgrace to Iran, losing much of his support in the process. He remained in such low standing that he was among the few warlords not offered a place in the U.S.-backed government that formed after 2001. This, after a fashion, was his good luck. When that government faltered, he found himself thrust back into the role of insurgent leader, where, playing on local frustrations in Pashtun communities just as the Taliban has, he slowly resurrected Hizb-i-Islami. Today, the group is one of the fastest growing insurgent outfits in the country, according to Antonio Giustozzi, Afghan insurgency expert at the London School of Economics. Hizb-i-Islami maintains a strong presence in the provinces near Kabul and Pashtun pockets in the country’s north and northeast. It assisted in a complex assassination attempt on President Karzai last spring and was behind a high-profile ambush that killed ten NATO soldiers this summer. Its guerrillas fight under the Taliban banner, although independently and with a separate command structure. Like the Taliban, its leaders see their task as restoring Afghan sovereignty as well as establishing an Islamic state in Afghanistan. Naqibullah explained, “The U.S. installed a puppet regime here. It was an affront to Islam, an injustice that all Afghans should rise up against.” The independent Islamic state that Hizb-i-Islami is fighting for would undoubtedly have Hekmatyar, not Mullah Omar, in command. But as during the anti-Soviet jihad, the settling of scores is largely being left to the future. The Pakistani Nexus Blowback abounds in Afghanistan. Erstwhile CIA hand Jalaluddin Haqqani heads yet a third insurgent network, this one based in Afghanistan’s eastern border regions. During the anti-Soviet war, the U.S. gave Haqqani, now considered by many to be Washington’s most redoubtable foe, millions of dollars, anti-aircraft missiles, and even tanks. Officials in Washington were so enamored with him that former congressman Charlie Wilson once called him “goodness personified.” Haqqani was an early advocate of the “Afghan Arabs,” who, in the 1980s, flocked to Pakistan to join the jihad against the Soviet Union. He ran training camps for them and later developed close ties to al-Qaida, which developed out of Afghan-Arab networks towards the end of the anti-Soviet war. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. tried desperately to bring him over to its side. However, Haqqani claimed that he couldn’t countenance a foreign presence on Afghan soil and once again took up arms, aided by his longtime benefactors in Pakistan’s ISI. He is said to have introduced suicide bombing to Afghanistan, a tactic unheard of there before 2001. Western intelligence officials pin the blame for most of the spectacular attacks in recent memory—a massive car bomb that ripped apart the Indian embassy in July, for example—on the Haqqani network, not the Taliban. The Haqqanis command the lion’s share of foreign fighters operating in the country and tend to be even more extreme than their Taliban counterparts. Unlike most of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami, elements of the Haqqani network work closely with al-Qaida. The network’s leadership is most likely based in Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas, where it enjoys ISI protection. Pakistan extends support to the Haqqanis on the understanding that the network will keep its holy war within Afghanistan’s borders. Such agreements are necessary because, in recent years, Pakistan’s longstanding policy of aiding Islamic militant groups has plunged the country into a devastating war within its own borders. As Taliban and al-Qaida remnants trickled into Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, Islamabad signed on to the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror. It was a profitable venture: Washington delivered billions of dollars in aid and advanced weaponry to Pakistan’s military government, all the while looking the other way as dictator Pervez Musharraf increased his vise-like grip on the country. In return, Islamabad targeted al-Qaeda militants, every few months parading a captured “high-ranking” leader before the news cameras, while leaving the Taliban leadership on its territory untouched. While the Pakistani military establishment never completely eradicated al-Qaida—doing so might have stanched the flow of aid—it kept up just enough pressure so that the Arab militants declared war on the government. By 2004, the Pakistani army had entered the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a semi-autonomous region populated by Pashtun tribes (where al-Qaida fighters had taken refuge), in force for the first time in an attempt to root out the foreign militants. Over the next few years, repeated Pakistani army incursions, along with a growing number of U.S. missile strikes (which sometimes killed civilians), enraged the local tribal populations. Small, tribal-based groups calling themselves “the Taliban” began to emerge; by 2007, there were at least 27 such groups active in the Pakistani borderlands. The guerrillas soon won control of areas in such tribal districts as North and South Waziristan, and began to act like a version of the 1990s Taliban redux: they banned music, beat liquor store owners, and prevented girls from attending school. While remaining independent of the Afghan Taliban, they also wholeheartedly supported them. By the end of 2007, the various Pakistani Taliban groups had merged into a single outfit, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, under the command of an enigmatic 30-something guerrilla—Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistani authorities blame Mehsud’s group, usually referred to simply as the “Pakistani Taliban,” for a string of major attacks, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Mehsud and his allies have strong links to al-Qaeda and continue to wage an on-again, off-again war against the Pakistani military. At the same time, some members of the Pakistani Taliban have filtered across the border to join their Afghan counterparts in the fight against the Americans. Tehrik-i-Taliban proved surprisingly powerful, regularly routing Pakistani army units whose foot soldiers were loathe to fight their fellow countrymen. But almost as soon as Tehrik had emerged, fissures appeared. Not all Pakistani Taliban commanders were convinced of the efficacy of fighting a two-front war. Part of the movement, calling itself the “Local Taliban,” adopted a different strategy, avoiding battles with the Pakistani military. In addition, a significant number of other Pakistani militant groups—including many trained by the ISI to fight in Indian Kashmir—now operate in the Pakistani borderlands, where they abstain from fighting the Pakistani government and focus their fire on the Americans in, or American supply lines into, Afghanistan. The result of all this is a twisted skein of alliances and ceasefires in which Pakistan is fighting a war against al-Qaida and one section of the Pakistani Taliban, while leaving another section, as well as other independent militant groups, free to go about their business. That business includes crossing the border into Afghanistan, where the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida, and independent fighters from the tribal regions and elsewhere add to the mix that has produced what one Western intelligence official terms a “rainbow coalition” arrayed against U.S. troops. Living in a World of War Despite such foreign connections, the Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair. Foreign fighters—especially al-Qaida—have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders. “Sometimes groups of foreigners speaking different languages walk past,” Ghazni resident Fazel Wali recalls. “We never talk to them and they don’t talk to us.” Al-Qaida’s vision of global jihad doesn’t resonate in the rugged highlands and windswept deserts of southern Afghanistan. Instead, the major concern throughout much of the country is intensely local: personal safety. In a world of endless war, with a predatory government, roving bandits, and Hellfire missiles, support goes to those who can bring security. In recent months, one of the most dangerous activities in Afghanistan has also been one of its most celebratory: the large, festive wedding parties that Afghans love so much. U.S. forces bombed such a party in July, killing 47. Then, in November, warplanes hit another wedding party, killing around 40. A couple of weeks later they hit an engagement party, killing three. “We are starting to think that we shouldn’t go out in large numbers or have public weddings,” Abdullah Wali told me. Wali lives in a district of Ghazni Province where the insurgents have outlawed music and dance at such wedding parties. It’s an austere life, but that doesn’t stop Wali from wanting them back in power. Bland weddings, it seems, are better than no weddings at all. Anand Gopal writes frequently about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the “war on terror.” He is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor based in Afghanistan. For more of his information and dispatches from the region, visit his Web site. This piece appears in print in the latest issue of the Nation Magazine. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview with Gopal about the difficulties in reporting from Afghanistan, click here. Copyright 2008 Anand Gopal Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Paolo, December 6, 2008 at 9:53 pm #
Seems to me the natural response of people in any given nation to a foreign occupation, is to resist. If the USA were invaded and occupied by Denmark, don’t you think we’d try to force out the Danes? Wouldn’t we set up roadside bombs? Wouldn’t we try shoot and run tactics (aka “Fourth Generation Warfare”)?
Now, the Danes would undoubtedly label all those who took action against them as “terrorists.” Or maybe “fanatics.” Or, if they were trying to be nice, just “insurgents.”
But from our point of view, wouldn’t they instead be called “heroes”?
(By the way, I chose Denmark for this example because its GNP is about the same as that other terrible threat to us, Iran.)
Report thisBy cyrena, December 6, 2008 at 7:40 am #
• “The U.S. installed a puppet regime here. It was an affront to Islam, an injustice that all Afghans should rise up against.”
But, but, but…the US has been doing this for DECADES!!! Therein lies the problem. Invading other countries militarily and setting up puppet regimes is what the US does historically quite well. It’s a tried and proven method for destabilizing sovereign nation states by throwing them into a chaos that generally includes civil strife.
That has been the formula of the past 8 years, with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, (Musharraf being puppetted by Cheney’s neocons, though it may never be known how much of that relationship was another circumstance of the hunter being captured by his own game.)THEY got billions of our dollars, and WE got….pushed further into decline and the dead bodies of our troops and innocent civilians as they’ve continued to pile up.
So, the first part of this excellent piece reads like an Iraq Redux, in terms of who the so-called ‘insurgents’ actually are. That they had the same plans for Iran is without doubt. Somehow, we have so far escaped that, though I swear I know better than to put ANYTHING past dick cheney, and there are 7 weeks left.
• “..By 2004, the Pakistani army had entered the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a semi-autonomous region populated by Pashtun tribes (where al-Qaida fighters had taken refuge), in force for the first time in an attempt to root out the foreign militants…”
This Federally Administered Tribal Areas Region is yet another spoke in that collection of SEMI-autonomous regions that present legal complexities to the sanctity of state sovereignty in terms of the so-called ‘war on terror’. IF the term “Federally Administered” in conjunction with ‘SEMI’-autonomous means what it would appear to mean, than the Pakistani Army would apparently be ‘duty bound’ to enter the area themselves, and clearly that is a far better option than having our OWN military in the area, considering the state sovereignty . So, as much as I hate to admit it, (because it was probably a mistake on their part anyway) theoretically it made sense for the US to pay the Pakistanis to capture and/or otherwise eliminate the stateless terror rogues that just happened to be utilizing their state (Pakistan as well as Afghanistan) to hide out, plot, and train for more terror attacks, wherever they might be.
In the end, it was still a bad move, since the Pakistanis, even when they did finally make some initial moves to do something, only made it worse, thanks to the US pitching in and civilians dying. (it appears that the US can’t eliminate the assumed bad guys without killing a hundred times the number of civilians…sometimes not even then.) Meantime, I think we need a refund.
“..Despite such foreign connections, the Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair. Foreign fighters—especially al-Qaida—have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders…”
MORE Iraq redux!! For all the ink spilled during the past 5 years on the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq, and al-Qaeda being the big bad wolf in Iraq, neither the Shia or the Sunni of Iraq were willing to put up with al-Qaeda.
Anyway, this is an excellent article. Very informative. I learned some new stuff that I could so far only guess at. (like the Iraq insurgent redux)I’m gonna check out more of Mr. Gopal’s work. It’s really good stuff. This should be required reading for the new Obama Administration.
Report thisBy Maani, December 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm #
“Who exactly are the Afghan insurgents? Every suicide attack and kidnapping is usually attributed to ‘the Taliban.’ In reality, however, the insurgency is far from monolithic.”
The same can be said for Al Qaeda. From the very beginning of the “war on terror” begun after 9/11, every single terrorist bombing around the globe was attributed to “Al Qaeda” or terrorists “associated with Al Qaeda” or “with ties to Al Qaeda,” etc. In at least one instance, I even saw a terrorist act decribed as “inspired by Al Qaeda.” Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda. 24/7/365 for almost seven years. As if there were no other terrorists or terrorist groups in the world.
This was all part of the “climate of fear” required by Bush & Co. to control the populace. It is the old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will end up believing it to be the truth. (Think WMDs in Iraq, or, even moreso, ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein).
And here we go again…!
Report thisBy Folktruther, December 5, 2008 at 4:47 pm #
The war boils down now to the Occupation forces vs the Resistence to the occupation. Given Afghan history the US has already lost the war. It’s Nato allies are already starting to withdraw. Obama, howver, doesn’t want to lose it on his watch which would provide ammunition agaisnt him in the next election, so he going to continue the escalation of the war to Pakistan.
Therefore the terror bombings on the population and weddings will continue, along with the torture. The Dems like Feinstein are already advocating ‘flexibility’ on torture. Since Obama’s secruity adviser has publically advocated it as a “vital weapon”, Obama will no doubt renege on his elimination of torture, as he has of his other progressive positions.
Report thisBy Spiritgirl, December 5, 2008 at 4:27 pm #
This whole mis-Adventure was revealed 30 years ago with Ronald Reagan and his grand ambitions of power! Yes, yes, everyone wants to control the flow of OIL (black gold), however, at what cost? This governments backing of Saudi dictators and others, in order to ensure OIL flows and that “certain” corporations are the beneficiaries of that largesse are at the heart of it all!
Most of these people were trained in American schools: Castro, Saddam Hussein, The Saudi Royals, bin Laden, the former Shah of Iran, et al.! It is only after they have brutalize their own people to a point where they can not take it anymore (think: the Shah, etc.), or they “turn” against the US government and think for themselves and their country that (think: Castro, Saddam, etc.) then there is a “problem”!
These people Taliban, al Quaida, etc. may not govern their people well, and they may want to return their people back to a rule that the west considers pre-historic, but the way to work against that is not to wage incompetent wars, or support corrupt regimes and dictators!
Report thisBy Ipsi Dixit, December 5, 2008 at 1:54 pm #
Afganistan’s geo-strategic location so close to Russia, combined by the USA’s insatiable demand for oil and gas and control of the transit corridors for these resources, is reason enough for America to interfere in Afghanistan. If you then add into the mix an economic system that, lets face it, comes pretty close to the dictionary definition of facism (or ‘corporatism’ as Mussolini called it) compels it to feed the monster that is its military-industrial-political complex of deficit-pump priming which is the only thing keeping it’s economy afloat right now and the fact that such places like Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea and Iran (and as it looks increasingly likely, Pakistan) are countries that have fallen outside the control of the USA makes it all but inevitable. To put it bluntly, Afghanistan was showing far too much independance for a ‘Third World’ country. And its independant nationalism a la Vietnam (or Iraq), that America and the West really fear.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, December 5, 2008 at 11:04 am #
It was merely to get a foot in the Door to access Oil Rich nations for the Saudi’s.
Report thisIt is an Undeniable Fact that Our Troops, money and resources have been contracted out to the Saudi’s et al for their Quest to own and control all Oil Fields in the region.
Afghanistan was nothing more than a College Campus where Rich Saudi’s sent their Sons to stir up shit to provoke this Cluster fuck.
Why did we not Attck the Saudis since it was their native Sons who devised and were the main participants in 9/11?
Why was Sadam immediately blamed for the Anthrax attacks, even though it was quickly determine it was from Our Labs? Although it would have been the same strain since we gave it to Saddam in the ‘80’s to use against Iran (and the Kurds).
Seems to me someone was picking a needless fight to divert attention away from the real Criminal activities.
Are We so far in debt tot he saudi’s we must repay them with a ‘Favor’?
If DICK & Rummy had not been the main players in this Admin, conspiracy would not be applicable. However it was during the Reagan Admin that all this covert BS began. How in short order did former Beneficiaries become ‘enemies’....They didn’t they became indebted and what was the price they were expected to pay for our Assistance in the ‘80’s, help this group of conspirators pay off Their Debt to the Saudi’s.
Oh What a tangled Web we Weave…
So we should have done stratedgic strikes on the Campus’ in Afghaistan and then on the Saudi’s Oil ‘Royal’ palaces. We wouldn’t have just Freed US From their reign of Terror but also their People.
We need to not ony get off their Oil, we need to make that ‘resource’ Sludge with alternative energy sources. We have wanted out of that region for Decades, and their people have wanted US out..so let’s give them what they want..Sludge isn’t worth a cent on the open market, and certainly not worth any blood shed..The only commodity they will have is Sand and Camels, NOTHING We need.