[THS] The Guardian: Afghans Believe US is Funding Taliban

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25537.htm


Afghans Believe US is Funding Taliban

Intellectuals and respected Afghan professionals are convinced the west is prolonging
conflict to maintain influence in the region

By Daniella Peled

May 25, 2010 "The Guardian" -- It's near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan
who doesn't believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it's the highly educated
Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media
organisations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced.

One Afghan friend, who speaks flawless English and likes to quote Charles Dickens,
Bertolt Brecht and Anton Chekhov, says the reason is clear. "The US has an interest
in prolonging the conflict so as to stay in Afghanistan for the long term."

The continuing violence between coalition forces and the Taliban is simple proof in
itself.

"We say in this country, you need two hands to clap," he says, slapping his hands
together in demonstration. "One side can't do it on its own."

His arguments are reasoned, although he slightly ruins the effect by explaining to me
that no Jews died in the Twin Towers. It's not just the natural assets of Afghanistan
but its strategic position, the logic goes. Commanding this country would give the US
power over India, Russia, Pakistan and China, not to mention all the central Asian
states.

"The US uses Israel to threaten the Arab states, and they want to make Afghanistan
into the same thing," he says. "Whoever controls Asia in the future, controls the
world."

"Even a child of five knows this," one Kabuli radio journalist tells me, holding his hand
a couple of feet from the ground in illustration. Look at Helmand, he says; how could
15,000 international and Afghan troops fail to crush a couple of thousand of badly
equipped Taliban?

And as for the British, apparently they want to stay in Afghanistan even more than
the Americans. The reason they want to talk to the Taliban is to bring them into the
government, thus consolidating UK influence.

This isn't just some vague prejudice or the wildly conspiratorial theories so prevalent
in the Middle East. There is a highly structured if convoluted analysis behind this. If
the US really wanted to defeat the Taliban, person after person asks me, why don't
they tackle them in Pakistan? The reason is simple, one friend tells me. "As long as
you don't get rid of the nest, the problem will continue. If they eliminate the Taliban,
the US will have no reason to stay here."

The proof is manifold, they say (although it does tend to include the phrase
guaranteed to dismay every journalist: "everybody knows that 
").

Among the things everybody knows are that Afghan national army troops report
taking over Taliban bases to find identical rations and weapons to their own US-
supplied equipment. The US funds the madrasas both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan,
which produce the young Talibs. US army helicopters regularly deliver supplies
behind Taliban lines. The aid organisations are nothing more than intelligence-
collecting agencies, going into regions the army cannot easily reach to obtain facts on
the ground. Even the humblest midwife-training project is a spying outfit.

One political scientist, who works as an advisor to US agencies in the north of the
country, recounts how people fear the continuing influence of the warlords,
illustrating his point with descriptions of violence and corruption that extends into the
realms of banking, government and trade.

Afghans hate these warlords, he says, but the US wants them kept in place. "If they
were removed, and competent and clean people brought in, we would bring in
revenues of our own. We could have our own economy, and demand foreign
investment with transparency. We would have a true army, to protect us and serve
Afghanistan."

So why do these well-educated Afghan professionals work for governments they are
convinced want to sink their claws into their country?

There's nothing contrived about their patriotism – with their skills they could easily
study or work abroad, but choose to stay to build a better future for their country.
Afghans have a historical suspicion towards any foreign power involved in their
country and maybe with the resilience of a nation which has seen off one occupier
after another, they are willing to wait it out, confident the will of the US will break
before their own.

They don't want Nato to leave for 15, maybe 20 years, anyway. It will take that long
for Afghan institutions to be able to survive independently. In the meantime, as my
literature-loving friend – who works for a number of US agencies – tells me, there is
no contradiction in survival. "I like Benjamin Franklin in my pocket," he smiles. So
much for hearts and minds.