9/11 was the only ending that made sense.
The idea that people in 1988 would have been concerned about radicals taking over Afghanistan and eventually training people that would attack the US is just ridiculous
That's would be ludicrous
if that were the manner in which blowback was presented. But it wasn't. What Sorkin says in his 2005 draft script is that blowback happened because Charlie, like the other key players in the covert war, didn't care who he was arming and didn't care to know much about the region apart from what his pal Zia told him. He preferred sexier topics like what kind of weapons systems to provide. And he preferred the sexiness of dressing himself up as a foppish mujahideen warlord ("It's my war, I paid for it, and I'm darn well going to see it") and crossing over into Afghanistan on a white steed over consulting with Afghan refugees about their distrust of the mujahideen parties sanctioned by Pakistan. No one in Washington ever asked or, better yet, polled them with the question: "if we could negotiate an early end to the conflict with a political moderate to head the government, or possibly even Zahir Shah, would you agree?")
9/11 didn't have to happen. Had the US just left the Middle East at the conclusion of the Cold War (which would have been the logical thing to do) 9/11 never happens, no matter how radical Afghanistan becomes.
Washington doesn't think it's the logical thing to do to leave an oil-rich region completely without protection and neither do the kings and sultans of the area. Even if we had left the area, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait would have inevitably drawn us back. But here is the bigger picture. Bin Laden grew addicted to jihad and the vanity of leading it, and the Soviet withdrawal deprived him of a raison d'etre for continuing global jihad against an infidel superpower. He had two choices: jihad against his own regime in Saudi Arabia, or jihad against the other infidel superpower. For him, peace was not much of an option given his Afghanistan war-induced addiction to terror and intrigue. And spearheading an anti-US crusade made more sense in his case than an anti-Riyadh insurgency for two reasons: Bin Laden isn't much of a politico; coordinating terrorist action is more his metier. Even more important, an anti-US terrorist campaign would sustain him as a global, rather than a merely local player. Not only did he like operating a global network of jihadists, but he had the "rolodex" and wherewithal to do it: many of his most ardent supporters were Egyptians and Yemenis, and still others came from much further afield.
To be sure, Bin Laden
was upset by US military presence in the Middle East. But he was, above all, a man who had become addicted to anti-superpower jihad and was determined to prosecute it for one reason or another. He was a Cold War creation, a Cold War instrument of the US, in point of fact. Had we not made use of him (first in Yemen in 1979 according to one source) and then for a decade in Afghanistan, Bin Laden, in all probability, would never have turned to terror.
We should all keep one central point in mind: In NO other Muslim countries except in Afghanistan and in training camps in Pakistan could would-be terrorists and insurgents get such intensive training in violence and such intensive brainwashing in jihadist propaganda. The radicalization of Afghanistan has as much if not more to do with US, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian interference than with the reckless and brutal repression by Afghan communists and the subsequent Soviet intervention.
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
A 9-11 ending to the movie would have blamed the 9-11 attack on our support of the Muj in Afghanistan and that simply isn't the case.
It is so simple that even nbjeff should get it.
Bin Laden declared war on the US because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, defending Saudi Arabia from Iraq and anybody else who might wish to take over their oil.
If Bin Laden hadn't been urged to leave Khartoum by the Sudanese, or better yet, if Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton had take up the Sudanese on their offer to deliver bin Laden, the attack would not have provoked our response in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, 9-11 may not have happened at all...but, who knows, it was KSM's, not bin Ladens' idea (to attack with planes) and may have been carried out anyway.
The only connection that 9-11 had to Afghanistan was that the Taliban was allowing bin Laden to use their country to train terrorists and act as a base of operations for international terrorism and then 9-11 happened.
Funny, the Taliban told bin Laden before he came that he could stay in Afghanistan but not if he did anything to bring the wrath of the Americans down on them. I guess all the international money flowing in kinda blinded them to that, huh?
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
It is so simple that even nbjeff should get it.
Except when it's too
simpleminded. Then I don't get it.
The CIA encouraged Bin Laden to develop a global, Islamic terrorist network with impressive financial and human resources. We encouraged him to represent the war as a struggle between Islam and an infidel superpower. By encouraging his prolonged efforts in the covert war, we transformed him from a shy, pious son of a construction company tycoon into a hyperglobalist with an addiction to terror and jihad. The point is that he wanted to keeping fighting somewhere,
anywhere. He looked Prince Turki straight in the face and claimed that he could push the Iraqis out of Kuwait without US help. Around the same time he funded a jihad in Yemen against the socialist government there. In other words, the CIA, working with the ISI, apprenticed Bin Laden to a Palestinian terrorist in Pakistan and allowed him to make a career that didn't exist before we invented it: a career of recruiting and financing global Islamic terrorism. Bin Laden liked the job so much he wanted to keep it going even after the Soviet-Afghan war had ended.
And this is not just about Bin Laden and the blowback to America. It's about the fact that we turned a blind eye to all the MIDDLE EASTERN and NORTH AFRICAN TERRORISM caused by the global jihadification of the Afghan war. Note also that we didn't say a word when many Afghanistan-trained terrorists were turned against the civilians of Kashmir and India.
Algeria in particular suffered far more blowback from the CIA's jihadification efforts in Afghanistan than Americans did. But that doesn't seem to trouble anyone besides other Algerians.
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
nbjeff, these are just lies that you are telling. There is no proof, nobody who whould know has even suggested, that bin Laden had anything to do with the CIA.
You can point to any event you want, but nothing shows bin Laden having anything to do with the CIA.
But one thing for sure, you can't even get the simple ones. pathetic.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
nbjeff, these are just lies that you are telling. There is no proof, nobody who whould know has even suggested, that bin Laden had anything to do with the CIA.
That response tells me two things: 1) That you're not up on the basic literature on the subject and 2) that you don't really want to know (or else you would have challenged me to produce some sources.)
There is a difference between saying that BL was used as a proxy for US interests (which he certainly was) and saying that he was on the CIA payroll. You will notice I never made the latter allegation.
Let's start with the basics and see if I can get you to admit to
anything. Which of the following do you deny?
That the US policy was to encourage global Islamic jihad and terror in Afghanistan?
That the US knew about and encouraged the establishment of Bin Laden's MAK in Peshawar?
That the US knew about and supported Azzam's (BL's terrorist boss) trips to the US in search of jihadi recruits, and approved of his branch offices in the US?
That CIA director Casey expressly called on the Saudis and Paks to step up the recruitment of radical Islamists from around the world?
That if the US had made a point of
opposing the recruitment of global jihadis, and the privatization of financing for this jihad, Bin Laden would have been out of a job?
On a related matter, do you further deny that we knew the Paks were diverting some of the jihadists trained in the mujahideen camps to Kashmir, to carry out terrorist attacks there?
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
The subject on this thread is if 9-11 should have been the ending to Charlie Wilson's War. The answer is no, because the only thing that links Afghanistan and 9-11 is that the Taliban allowed bin Laden to live there, and even after they told him not to do anything that would bring the wrath of the Americans down on them...he did.
The answer is no.
reply
share
THE_Tetsuo
17 years ago
Continue on with your strawman arguments, citizenright1.
"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
You have to explain that.
I am making the point that the only connection between Afghanistan (and our support of the Mujahedeen) and 9-11 is that bin Laden was living there when the 9-11 attack was made. The Taliban sure didn't want it to be traced back to Afghanistan.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
I am making the point that the only connection between Afghanistan (and our support of the Mujahedeen) and 9-11 is that bin Laden was living there when the 9-11 attack was made
You make it sound as if BL had rented a condo in the Afghan countryside and was sunning himself the whole time on his back porch. What exactly was he doing there and who sent him?
I know you'd prefer a simplistic explanation that evades the important questions, but I'm still asking them, even if you're not answering:
Let's start with the basics and see if I can get you to admit to anything. Which of the following do you deny?
That the US policy was to encourage global Islamic jihad and terror in Afghanistan?
That the US knew about and encouraged the establishment of Bin Laden's MAK in Peshawar?
That the US knew about and supported Azzam's (BL's terrorist boss) trips to the US in search of jihadi recruits, and approved of his branch offices in the US?
That CIA director Casey expressly called on the Saudis and Paks to step up the recruitment of radical Islamists from around the world?
That if the US had made a point of opposing the recruitment of global jihadis, and the privatization of financing for this jihad, Bin Laden would have been out of a job?
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
You can say I make it sound however you want, but your description is ludicrous.
Bin Laden fled to Afghanistan from Sudan following a failed assasination attempt by the Saudis, and the Sudan's two faileds attempt to get the Clinton Administration to take bin Laden off their hands.
Having hundreds of armed al-qaida around Karthoum was too much of a threat to the Sudanese gov't who told bin Laden that Sudan was no longer safe for him and his family. He got he message, if he didn't leave they would send him to Allah.
Bin Laden approached the Taliban who said sure, he could live in Afghanistan, but no media interviews and under no circumstances should he do anything to bring the wrath of the Americans down on them. Well...
It seems possible that all the money bin Laden directed into Afghanistan lulled the Taliban, or blinded them to what he was doing.
The rest you know from reading the headlines, apparently about as deep you ever go into the facts of a story.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
The rest you know from reading the headlines
I hate to break it to you, but nothing in your post was news to anyone.
I can always count on you to contribute nonsequiturs along with facts familiar to the average adult. Need I remind you that the subject of the film is the Soviet-Afghan war of 79-89? The question is whether anything the US did during that period which contributed to blowback.
apparently about as deep you ever go into the facts of a story.
I'm trying Citizen, but you just won't cooperate. For a "deep thinker", you've managed to ignore some very basic questions several times now. Is it because you don't know or because you're afraid to confront the truth? (I have no idea where you got the idea that my questions have anything to do with the Intl Ctr for Global Communications. These are questions I came up with myself based on wide reading about the covert war.)
Which of the following do you deny?
That the US policy was to encourage global Islamic jihad and terror in Afghanistan?
That the US knew about and encouraged the establishment of Bin Laden's MAK in Peshawar?
That the US knew about and supported Azzam's (BL's terrorist boss) trips to the US in search of jihadi recruits, and approved of his branch offices in the US?
That CIA director Casey expressly called on the Saudis and Paks to step up the recruitment of radical Islamists from around the world?
That if the US had made a point of opposing the recruitment of global jihadis, and the privatization of financing for this jihad, Bin Laden would have been out of a job?
On a related matter, do you further deny that we knew the Paks were diverting some of the jihadists trained in the mujahideen camps to Kashmir, to carry out terrorist attacks there?
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
Need I remind you that the subject of this thread is should 9-11 be the ending.
It is a common disinformation tactic to switch the subject, broaden the topic and otherwise obscure the issue with material not pertinent to the discussion. That is what you are doing. So, let me refocus you.
Q. Should 9-11 have been the ending to the movie Charlie Wilson's War?
A. No, for the answers I have already given.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
Q. Should 9-11 have been the ending to the movie Charlie Wilson's War?
A. Absolutely. US policy spearheaded and legitimized the globalization of Islamic jihad and terror. It afforded Bin Laden years of experience financing and recruiting terrorists worldwide in an important, high profile job. Without that policy, radical Islamic militancy would have remained largely local in scope and BL, in all likelihood, would have remained at home managing his father's construction company.
The US supported terrorism when it suited its purposes, recoiling from it only when its own interests were damaged by it.
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
You really are a dufus, aren't you.
It wasn't the US policy that created or developed or grew the radical islamic movement. It has been going on for centuries, (for you, that would be before the US was a country, before Columbus discovered the new world).
>>The US supported terrorism when it suited its purposes, recoiling from it only when its own interests were damaged by it. >>
Not exactly true.
What is true is that we have supported people and issues in the past when it was in our interest to, and didn't when they threatened us.
Now, any adult understands that statement. And, I suspect that when you grow up, you too will understand it. In the meantime read some history of the world and report back to me one country that did not follow that philosophy. And, you know what, I don't really need to hear from you until you have found that country.
OK?
Go to it.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
You really are a dufus, aren't you.
That's right Citizenright, you are a genius and the sum total of respected journalists and scholars who have written about the covert war in Afghanistan are all idiots.
If you were at all interested in the truth, you would ask me about my sources. The reason you never ask is obvious. You are afraid of having your prejudices challenged.
It wasn't the US policy that created or developed or grew the radical islamic movement
The difficulty you're having stems from sloppy thinking. You don't seem capable of distinguishing "radical Islamic movements" in various countries from "globalization of jihad."
Do you actually think there were organizations prior to 1980 which financed and recruited jihadis from around the world to fight the infidel? Then please identify them by name.
I can identify an organization for you. MAK, based in Peshawar, founded in Feb 1980, headed by Palestinian terrorist Abdullah Azzam, to whom the US gave indirect aid and to whom Bin Laden was apprenticed as the #2 man. Bin Laden was only able to set up Al Qaeda based on the experience and contacts he developed during his near decade long association with MAK. This organization was set up expressly to recruit jihadis to fight the Soviets and to gather funds for their training. Islamic countries were glad to get rid of their riff raff and malcontents by shipping them off to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Pakistan was glad to have them because coordination of the global jihad bolstered its foreign policy and enriched its government coffers. It was a rare opportunity for global jihad that was made possible by America's Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union.
What is true is that we have supported people and issues in the past when it was in our interest to, and didn't when they threatened
We knew that many of the Kashmiri terrorists were trained in Pakistani and Afghan camps, yet said nothing. Some other Pak/Afghanistan-trained terrorists killed civilians in India. That makes us abettors of terrorism.
And, I suspect that when you grow up, you too will understand it
Enough of the "when you grow up and move out of Mommy's basement" routine. I was an adult and nearly out of grad school when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. I also followed the unfolding events with greater care than you seemed to.
Next.
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
You haven't completed your homework assignment. Name that country that doesn't pursue its own interests.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
I'm talking about America sanctimoniously lecturing other countries about aiding and abetting terror, when we did the same with respect to East Timor, Central America, and - most germane to this discussion - Kashmir and India.
Now, where's your refutation of the specifics in my last post? Is it possible you don't have one?
reply
share
Ddey65
17 years ago
I'm talking about America sanctimoniously lecturing other countries about aiding and abetting terror, when we did the same with respect to East Timor, Central America, and - most germane to this discussion - Kashmir and India.
We've done no such thing. Timor's problems are rooted in pre-colonial divisions of the island. The communist bloc were the ones guilty of spreading terrorism to Central America, not us. We simply gave the people help resisting it. As for Kashmir and India, we do NOTHING wrong to those countries. Kashmir's problem is that they've been torn by India, Pakistan, Red China, and Al-Qaida.
reply
share
nbjeff
17 years ago
We gave Indonesia the green light to invade and the weapons with which to commit massive genocide.
The communist bloc did not spread "terrorism" to Central America. Please cite a credible source.
We turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of terrorists in Kashmir, terrorists ostensibly trained (with US financial assistance) for the jihad against the Soviet Union. That makes us complicit.
reply
share
Ddey65
17 years ago
We gave Indonesia the green light to invade and the weapons with which to commit massive genocide.
They did so on their own.
The communist bloc did not spread "terrorism" to Central America. Please cite a credible source.
Tell that to the OSPAAAL, who got their weapons from the Soviet Bloc AND the Red Chinese, not to mention the people who were victimized by those reds. The FSLN, FMLN, and other communsit terrorists in Latin America were backed by the Communist Bloc. It's a known fact!
We turned a blind eye to Pakistan's use of terrorists in Kashmir, terrorists ostensibly trained (with US financial assistance) for the jihad against the Soviet Union. That makes us complicit.
Bullsh_t! We never wanted "jihad" against anybody. We were too busy struggling with Iranian jihad in the Muslim World. We were fighting communism in Afghanistan, and that was primarily what we cared about.
reply
share
n00i3
17 years ago
India... we bend over backwards for just about anybody, we even let the british rule us for about 200 years!
reply
share
Citizenright1
17 years ago
And respond to the absolute bu!!$#it from the International Center For Global Communications?
Spare me, please.
reply
share
Ddey65
17 years ago
There is a difference between saying that BL was used as a proxy for US interests (which he certainly was) and saying that he was on the CIA payroll. You will notice I never made the latter allegation.
I'm not going to speak for citizenright1, but both are incorrect, because like many within the Muslim world, he chose to go help the Mujahadeen on his own. He had the means for it.
Which of the following do you deny?
That the US policy was to encourage global Islamic jihad and terror in Afghanistan?
That the US knew about and encouraged the establishment of Bin Laden's MAK in Peshawar?
That the US knew about and supported Azzam's (BL's terrorist boss) trips to the US in search of jihadi recruits, and approved of his branch offices in the US?
That CIA director Casey expressly called on the Saudis and Paks to step up the recruitment of radical Islamists from around the world?
That if the US had made a point of opposing the recruitment of global jihadis, and the privatization of financing for this jihad, Bin Laden would have been out of a job?
All can be denied, because as I stated earlier, he chose to go on his own. We weren't encouraging global islamic terrorism. We were about fighting COMMUNIST terrorism.
reply
share
jrmellem
13 years ago
Where is your proof that he didn't have anything to do with them? In the end, war and other distractions are needed to further the agenda and not just the apparent, regional conflicts you have been led to believe.
reply
share
AtheistRevolution
14 years ago
Thats a lie. US was never made an offer by Sudan to turn over Bin Laden.Sandy Berger said he met with Mansoor Ijaz once and he was proved to be unreliable. And he was an investment banker trying to get US to lift sanctions on Sudan.So he could access Sudanese oil. A self-appointed private citizen made that offer. Sudan officials denied they made the offer and wouldn't allow such an offer.They only offer they made was to Saudi Arabia but they would have to pardon him. Saudi Arabia wouldn't pardon him and they didn't want him in their country.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
reply
share
cineastral
17 years ago
I thought that Al Qaeda did attempt several anti-government activities within Saudi Arabia. That was why bin Laden was expelled from his home country.
reply
share
reddpill
16 years ago
abjeff:
US involvement in the Middle East is not about protection of anything other than US interests. It is not about protecting countries or their people. Your analysis of bin Laden is flawed as well -- bin Laden didn't just attack the US because we are the only superpower nation left in existence and he had "grown addicted to jihad." There are specific elements of US foreign policy past and present that made us a target.
reply
share