As the Taliban take over Afghanistan, let’s remember the US’s role in their creation

Support us and go ad-free

The US‘s withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan has gone alongside a stunning recapture of much of the country by the Taliban. This has naturally raised predictable whines from neoconservative elements who believe that withdrawal has “led to a Taliban triumph”.

However, not only is continuing the occupation of Afghanistan an abject exercise in futility, the US also has partly itself to blame for the rise of the radical Islamist group. A closer examination of history shows that this ascendency traces its roots to US interference in earlier decades.

Taliban sweeps up control of most of the country

On 14 August, the Guardian reported that the Taliban had taken control of Mazar-i-Sharif. This is Afghanistan’s fourth-largest city and “the government’s last major stronghold in the north”. On the same day, the New York Times reported:

President Biden’s top advisers concede they were stunned by the rapid collapse of the Afghan army in the face of an aggressive, well-planned offensive by the Taliban that now threatens Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital.

President Biden repeated that he wouldn’t reverse his decision. He pointed out that four presidents have presided over the US occupation of Afghanistan. He affirmed that he “would not, and will not, pass this war on to a fifth”. Biden first announced a US withdrawal on 14 April. He had set a deadline of 11 September, 2021 – the 20 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Another attempt at peace?

Meanwhile, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani said in an address to the nation that he would reorganise the military and begin a process of consultation with Afghan society and international allies. Rumours have been swirling that Ghani might step down as part of some kind of peace deal. In 2018, the Trump administration sent a ‘special envoy’ to begin a peace dialogue with the Taliban. The US then agreed to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for a ceasefire in 2020.

The Taliban eventually agreed to peace talks with the Afghan government in that same year, but the talks didn’t go anywhere. The former didn’t have much incentive to negotiate even then given their military strength throughout the country. The Afghan government, meanwhile, has never had much credibility. It’s largely considered a US puppet that owes its position to the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, which toppled the then-Taliban-led government.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free
A proxy war with each of the world’s superpowers on either side

There is a stunning irony to this. The US labelled the Taliban an enemy in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks (based on arguably dubious allegations that the Taliban had ‘harboured terrorists’ and had links to Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida). The reality, however, is that the Taliban owe their rise in part to US interference in Afghanistan.

During the Cold War, Afghanistan became a major focal point of proxy conflict between the world’s then dominant powers, the US and the Soviet Union (USSR). The USSR was allied to Afghanistan’s socialist government of Mohammed Najibullah. So the US intervened on the side of its opponents by launching ‘Operation Cyclone’.

Most expensive covert action in history

The operation was hatched by the US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Its aim was to covertly arm and finance a group of rebel guerrilla fighters called the ‘mujahideen’. It ultimately channeled $2bn to the Islamist group in what became the most expensive covert action in history.

Hostilities culminated in the Afghan Civil War, which pitted US-backed mujahideen against the Soviet-backed government. The problem was that, having now given this latter group support, the US couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle. When hostilities ended in the early 1990s, the Taliban emerged as a mujahideen splinter group. By 1996, it had taken control of most of the country and was essentially the government of Afghanistan.

A vicious cycle

So when the US invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, it was toppling a ruling faction that it had helped create in the first place. And this shines a light onto the vicious cycle that can emerge when Western powers interfere. Initial interference creates unintended consequences that then provide a ruse for further interference.

Another example is that of Vietnam. The country’s move toward communism was sparked in large part by French colonialism. (The communists were, after all, the most militant and committed of the anti-colonial movement’s factions.) This ‘problem’ was then ‘solved’ by the US first backing a puppet government in South Vietnam. It then invaded when this weak and unpopular government struggled to resist both an invasion from the communist-controlled north and an internal guerrilla insurgency.

Let Afghans lead the fight against the Taliban

To be clear, given its poor record on issues like women’s rights, the Taliban’s return to power is nothing to celebrate. But those who actually have credibility when it comes to opposing the Taliban are local Afghan democratic socialist factions like the Progressive Democratic Party of Afghanistan and the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan (SPA). Though these parties unequivocally stand against the Taliban, they stand against the US occupation in the same way. In fact, the SPA boycotted the last election since it claims no one can get elected without US support.

The US, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t have a shred of credibility when it comes to opposing the Taliban. Because just like the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the US created a problem that it ultimately couldn’t contain. Worst still, Washington then ended up using that problem to provide bogus justification for its self-serving foreign policies. It’s time to break this vicious cycle of interference begetting further interference.

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – isafmedia

Support us and go ad-free

Do your bit for independent journalism

Did you know that less than 1.5% of our readers contribute financially to The Canary? Imagine what we could do if just a few more people joined our movement to achieve a shared vision of a free and fair society where we nurture people and planet.

We need you to help out, if you can.

When you give a monthly amount to fund our work, you are supporting truly independent journalism. We hold power to account and have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence the counterpoint to the mainstream.

You can count on us for rigorous journalism and fearless opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right wing mainstream media.

In return you get:

  • Advert free reading experience
  • Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
  • 20% discount from our shop

 

The Canary Fund us
  • Show Comments
    1. No real condemnation of the Taliban in this article. “Not much to celebrate” being the strongest language used.
      This clusterfuck was created by Bush with the assistance of Blair. The modern day Labour Party has blood on it’s hands. Shameful.

    2. I appreciate the argument that the Taliban derive from the US support of the Mujahideen although the history is not direct.

      Can anyone tell me how the Taliban were financed and armed after they became persona non grata for the US (I will not say the Americans)?

      Because they are so puritanical in their fundamentalism they look like Wahhabi to me. Does this mean they are financed and armed by Saudi Arabia?

    3. This whole tragedy has its roots in the American campaign to overthrow the Afghan Democratic Socialist Peoples republic from the moment it was proclaimed in 1978; the Taliban was created entirely from whole cloth by the CIA, like the Contras in Nicaragua. If there is one thing the US can’t stand its a successful socialist country, like Grenada or Nicaragua. The US is the biggest sponsor of international terrorism in the world.

    4. Good article, but I would take issue with the claim it was “The most expensive covert action in history”. Actually, it was only a fraction spent on the creation, funding and arming of ISIS by the CIA, for the wars and destabilisation of Syria and Iraq. Operation Timber Sycamore has run into the 10s of $Billions!

      Steven: they are largely backed by Pakistan’s hard-line ISI, rather than the Saudis. In fact, they are implacably opposed to IS, which is funded by the Saudis and other Gulf dictatorships, as well as the CIA.

      The Taliban don’t seem to be Royalists, so hardline but not Wahhabist.

    5. How wonderful! I actually agree with the thing called “rightshoe” that the PRESENT Labour Party are despicable. What “rightshoe” so hopelessly fails to realize is that the leaders of todays “Labour Party ” are fully in tune with the fascism that “shoe” so fervently advocates. I have put up with enough of “shoes” comments it appears to be trying to sound like a real person. I unsubscribe from canary forthwith pity Nancy will lose a little income but those who tolerate fascist propaganda can not be tolerated. Good-by Di keep on “sniffing bums” you revolting freak.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.