Someone posted a question on Yahoo asking who is arming the Taliban and its affiliated Islamic groups fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan.
I've been pondering that question too. Everyone is quick to blame Iran and/or USA and/or Russian mafia. Then after seeing the Taliban arms, I realised it's the wrong question to be asking.
The Taliban is always seen armed with the AK47 assault riffle and rocket-propelled grenades. Both USSR-soviet era weapons that have clearly been around many decades, well before this post-911 "war on terror" conflict started. There's no indications I've seen anywhere, that suggest the Taliban have access to modern weapons in any significant quantity, even small arms, i.e. hand guns.
So, the real question you need to ask about the Taliban puzzle, is where do they get the munitions? They've been fighting a modern, well-equipped and supplied NATO force for a decade now.
Yet they still have plenty of bullets and rockets. They are not falling from the sky on demand by way of Allah. My guess is, Taliban have a very tight and limited supply line when it comes to munitions. That's why they avoid direct clashes with the NATO forces and prefer instead terror tactics, improvised explosives and collateral damage.
They're either extremely good at guerilla warfare tactics and have got it down to a fine art, else some countries are supplying munitions to them, either directly, or indirectly by diversion (i.e probably in Afghanistan itself or Pakistan, by sympathetic people in a position to divert caches of munitions their way).
Either that, or they're good at avoiding NATO bullets and blending in with civilians, and save their bullets for self-preservation (when they're not blowing themselves up with suicide vests).
The whole thing is sheer madness. I was reading a blog, with daily entries of the US soldiers on the frontline, fighting in some of the most remote and desolate places on earth.
Young men, teenagers and guys in their 20's, dying for what?!
So Afghanistan can be democratic and more like the West?
All those billions (or is it trillions) of dollars spent on this war are wasted. All those lives wasted.
You cannot fight an ideology in peoples heads and hope to win with warfare.
OK, so the Taliban blew up a building in New York. Yes, it was a devastating and audacious attack by some Islamic fundamentalist lunatics. However, the response by USA and NATO* has been wholly disproportionate and inappropriate.
It would have made far more sense to just accept airport security was lapse. And the world isn't a safe place yet. Making wars on people of one religion doesn't make the world safer. Focus on making it safer by improving security and focusing on education.
I bet it would have cost a fraction of the money spent on a decade of war with no end in sight, which a much more effective outcome and probably no lives lost either.
NATO was supposed to ensure peace in the world (well actually it was intended to balance the threat and power of the USSR during the cold-war era, and extend the US's nuclear reach on USSR).
The cold war ended in the 1990's with the end of the USSR and the threat of global nuclear war has gone. So why do we still have NATO? To keep the world safe of course. Or is it to excuse any action the US wishes to carry out in the interests of "world stability and peace (and trade of course)".
If NATO is intended to keep world peace, then NATO ain't working. Some might say, NATO is being misused and should be disbanded, before any more money and lives are lost to this insanity.
Coming back to the original question. Ultimately the American CIA funded and trained Al Qaeda (which then later became the ideological Taliban in Afghanistan), to keep the USSR out. The USSR left a lot of weapons behind. The Taliban are good at bogging the world down in a messy war with improvised explosives and infrequent gun battles and frequent acts of terror. That's all there is to it.
Eventually either the Taliban will exaust their munitions and ability to fight and have to resort entirely to terrorism and improvised explosives. That's my theory. However, the IRA (only about 2,000 men) managed to keep shooting at the British Army for 30+ decades.
Footnote: For those who don't know too, NATO has a provision that an attack on one member nation is an attack on ALL members. As such, all members are required to defend that nation in time of war. The 911 attack technically was an act of war on the US homeland so all countries in NATO were obligated to join the "war on terror"
Posted on 10 May 2014
Click below to view older versions of this site, note some of the links and images may no longer work.