Did the us funding of Pakistan and the mujahideen (specifically Taliban associates like hekmatyar, haqqani, etc) cause the rise of the Taliban?
Yes, they also funded Isis and themselves
>>403310
No, but the lack of support afterwards did.
More money and weapons came into Afghanistan from China and Gulf States than the US. At least according to Borovik.
>>403317
The isi gave American weapons to mujahideen groups like haqqanis group, hekmatyars group, etc.. No?
>>403323
Pls respond
>>403310
I think there was a large lapse in oversight, especially when it came to the money from the Gulf states, that led to it more than anything
>>403323
yes, the American gave the money the ISI with the intention that they pass it on to northen alliance fighters under Ahmed Shah Massoud, but the ISI back Hekmatyars militia instead because he sent forces to and supported Pakistan in Kashmir.
>>403487
They knew Pakistan wasn't going to support Massoud. That's why they gave him monthly payments
>>403506
they still consistently tried to pressure the ISI in Massoud's direction with they're money.
this book is fantastic on the subject, an essential read if you want more on the subject
>>403526
Liberals read that book. Show me something factual
>>403487
Taliban is reaction to infighting between various mujahideen groups and warlords, plus all corruption and other shit that happened under them. After collapse of Soviet supported peoples republic fell there wasn't really any central government in Afghanistan. As civil war progressed and taliban became stronger various mujahideen groups joined 'em.
Northern alliance was reaction to raise of Taliban. Pretty much everyone that had reason for not joining taliban joined into northern alliance. Basically various mujahideen groups and remnants of communist government.
Then 9/11 happened and US found a natural ally against Taliban from 'em. Now they are pretty much Afghan central government.
>>403317
>More money and weapons came into Afghanistan from China and Gulf States than the US
True, but I wouldn't be sure that China provided more funding than US.
When it comes to US, Chinese and Pakistani involvement in insurgency against Soviets. US basically handed over bunch money and some stingers to ISI to hand over to random rebels various clicks in ISI supported. Weapons were mostly Chinese and US funds were used for purchasing 'em. China itself also funded insurgency.
When it comes to Pakistani involvement with Taliban. Some factions within Pakistani military and ISI supported some of warlords that joined Taliban, but other factions in Pakistan supported other warlords. In grander scheme of things Pakistan didn't really support any particular faction over others and they simply accepted Taliban running the show after they captured Kabul and most of country. Just simple pragmatism as doing anything against 'em would have destabilized tribal areas along border with Afghanistan.
US policy was essentially following: We have no idea what you are doing, but as long as you fight Soviets have some money and guns. After Soviets got out US support pretty much stopped on that very moment.
>>403310
Should have let the Shias (Iran) deal with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and now, ISIS.
They've proven themselves time and time again to be the ones who can be reasoned with, the ones who act with concrete goals and objectives in mind.
They hated nearly all of post 9/11 arab enemies and it was in their interest to remove them. Only the US did such a crappy, self-serving job that the entire region is a clusterfuck now.
The Shias are still likely to gain power in the region, and if Saudi pressure augments, we might even see Shias controlling Saudi oil (which is all found in areas inhabited by the Shia minority).
>>403526
This book was really good / enlightening.
