Taliban leader's ex-bodyguard says

September 29, 2001 6:17 PM

Taliban leader's ex-bodyguard says "We laughed when we heard the Americans asking Mullah Omar to hand over Osama bin Laden," he said. "The Americans are crazy. It is Osama bin Laden who can hand over Mullah Omar - not the other way round." Take a look at this insider's personal account of the Taliban that some are so eager to apologize for in the name of cultural relativism.
posted by rushmc (27 comments total)

If this guy has any legitimacy, then all claims that the Taliban represents a defensible government, culture or religious group is a joke. They look a lot more like opportunistic thugs from where I sit.

Of course, that's been apparent to me since they blew up the statues, for which crime against humanity alone I support removing them.
posted by rushmc at 6:22 PM on September 29, 2001

Strikes me as being believable -- www.rawa.org
posted by aramaic at 6:31 PM on September 29, 2001

the Taliban that some are so eager to apologize for in the name of cultural relativism... claims that the Taliban represents a defensible government, culture or religious group is a joke

Ummm...I've seen a lot of opinions about a lot of things lately, but I just can't figure out who you're arguing against here. Who are these apologists for Taliban Civilization? (Unless you mean some nutcase like this...)

You're not getting the Taliban confused with Muslims, people sickened by American foreign policy, or some other constituency that hasn't made itself a laughingstock by unanimous assent, are you?
posted by Zurishaddai at 6:34 PM on September 29, 2001

There have been those arguing to limit our actions due to the sovereignty of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I suppose I was remembering comments like holgate's in the linked thread. If no one believes these things any longer, than I am gratified to learn that that is the case. But I'll reserve judgement until I see how this thread develops.
posted by rushmc at 6:38 PM on September 29, 2001

Take a look at this insider's personal account of the Taliban that some are so eager to apologize for in the name of cultural relativism.


I can only assume that you're refering to the Bush adminstration, which earlier this year gave the Taliban $43 million for their cooperation in the war on drugs.
posted by electro at 6:58 PM on September 29, 2001

I think I hear what you're saying now, rushmc (I had a look at the Bamiyan statue thread). But still, I think it's important to observe a distinction between holgate's opposing police action to overthrow a wicked foreign regime (then, at least) and being an "apologist" or praising a sickly misguided political or religious movement. I won't begin to point out how many wicked regimes we (in some cases, wisely respecting their sovereignty or power) aren't planning mayhem against, since I think that's well known.

I for one am glad that "the tight focus of the planned military operation is a victory for the pragmatists in Bush's cabinet, notably Secretary of State Colin Powell... [who] has been involved in a battle of wills with hawks gathered around the figure of Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who would like to see US strikes against a wide range of targets," since, as our military strategists well know, there's all kind of potential for time to prove morally justifiable aggression as incredibly counterproductive vis-à-vis our safety and even our ultimate "moral" objectives.
posted by Zurishaddai at 7:01 PM on September 29, 2001

My argument in that earlier thread wasn't based on "cultural relativism" so much as a weary reflection on realpolitik: "we turn a blind eye to states that direct their authoritarian zeal at their own people". Same with Iraq. Gassing the Kurds? Fine. Threatening Kuwait? Eat hot missile death. (And so on: Turkey, "our ally", has been submerging Kurdish villages in the name of hydroelectric power: or rather, subcontracting it to Balfour Beatty.)

(I was definitely too glib with this comment, alas. Mea culpa. Though I stand by what I said about "contentious sites", remembering the mess of Ayodhya. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about those grim World Service reports of the Afghan civil war in the mid-90s.)

Anyway, the Bamiyan demolition appears to have stuck in Dubya's mind.
posted by holgate at 7:22 PM on September 29, 2001

I think it's important to observe a distinction between holgate's opposing police action to overthrow a wicked foreign regime (then, at least) and being an "apologist" or praising a sickly misguided political or religious movement.

No doubt. But my point is that we need to take a close look at what constitutes legitimacy and illegitimacy on the world stage, and figure out what, if anything, can be done before things reach the world-crisis stage.

I for one am glad that "the tight focus of the planned military operation is a victory for the pragmatists in Bush's cabinet..."

We shall see. We shall see.
posted by rushmc at 7:45 PM on September 29, 2001

I could deal with the beatings, the crucifixions, the scourging of wounds with salt, but that business of fishing with hand grenades -- that's just unfair.
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:35 PM on September 29, 2001

Maybe it's just the way it was written, but the more I read, the more it sounded like a bunch of hooey--salting wounds, fishing with hand grenades, license to rape--I have a bad feeling about the truth of this article.
posted by wiinga at 9:23 PM on September 29, 2001

It's true. I spent most of the summer this year working with Afghan refugee's in camps on the Pak-Afghan border. This is just the tip of the ice-berg, believe me.

I have been a lurker here for a year and a half now and the only time I realized I needed to contribute to a discussion is because of your cynicism. I can understand where it comes from but you have to understand, if the WTC bombing hadn't already hit the information home, the world is alot more disturbing than the average persons worst imaginings.

I went to the refugee camps prepared for the worst. I learned how naive I was this summer. And for better or worse, I grew up.
posted by samishah at 9:35 PM on September 29, 2001

crazy
posted by Robin at 9:53 PM on September 29, 2001

Regarding the trustworthiness of the article: the author, Christina Lamb, used to live in Portugal, wrote a weekly column, at least one good novel("The Africa House")and was one of the main contributors to Time Out's guide to Lisbon. She now writes for the Daily Telegraph. So her credentials are definitely OK and we should take her at her word.
As usual in these cases, it's the interviewee's motives, the typical stool pigeon's late but sudden conversion to moral outrage, that must be judged accordingly.
Unfortunately, it looks like most of it rings true...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:56 PM on September 29, 2001

> Please stop lying.

"Call it what you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable."

From CIA's Tracks Lead in Disastrous Circle, by Robert Scheer (Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2001).
posted by RavinDave at 1:56 AM on September 30, 2001

aaron, please. It’s not a lie, but I’d agree it isn’t precisely accurate.

I’m willing to believe the Bush Admin didn’t write a check to Mullah. It is, however, very hard to believe a good portion of money didn’t find it’s way to Taliban control. Regardless of how it was spent, it was a grant that the Taliban benefited from by the simple nature of where it was spent. Mullah benefited in the same sense that Bülent Ecevit did when Turkey recieved earthquake assistance in ’99.

The Bush Admin was in a diplomatic corner. They couldn’t let Afghan farmers starve, nor could they dump millions into a fascistic regime. The compromise was the best their Drug War policy would allow, but still pitiful.

That said, the following opinion is just wrong.

“Eli Lake ... calls the notion that the White House gave the money to the Taliban as a reward for their anti-drug efforts ‘just absurd’.”

Eridacting opium for economic assistance was an agreement the Taliban had with the international community in general and the US specifically, since it is the biggest fighter in the Drug War.

"The eradication of drugs cannot be the work of one country. It needs the cooperation of all regional countries and especially international organizations," said the statement addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Taliban Calls For International Help In Anti-drugs Drive

"We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans," [Colin Powell] said in a statement, "including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome."
Taliban's Ban On Growing Opium Poppies Is Called a Success
posted by raaka at 2:21 AM on September 30, 2001

RavinDave: Since Robert Scheer's the main reason the bogus "$43 million to the Taliban" story is so popular, I wouldn't give much credence to his recent column, which seems like a calculated effort to cover his ass.

I’m willing to believe the Bush Admin didn’t write a check to Mullah. It is, however, very hard to believe a good portion of money didn’t find it’s way to Taliban control. Regardless of how it was spent, it was a grant that the Taliban benefited from by the simple nature of where it was spent.

The same could be said of any money or humanitarian aid finding its way to Afghanistan from the U.S. or the U.N. (or any other relief offered to people living in oppressive regimes).
posted by rcade at 5:18 AM on September 30, 2001

The Face of Evil.
posted by stbalbach at 7:09 AM on September 30, 2001

Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

Not sure if this worthy of a front-page link, but didn't the Taliban first say they didn't know where OBL was, and then that he'd left Afghanistan? And now "he's under their control," "had been given an edict from a council of religious elders asking him to leave the country, but had not responded to it"?

Does that make any sense at all? How can you claim to "control" someone while a: not being responsible for their actions and b: being unable to make them leave your country?

Aren't they officially admitting to harboring him now?
posted by Sinner at 7:33 AM on September 30, 2001

Sinner,

I guess it's sort of analogous to having a house guest in your home. You really can't be expected to know from one minute to the next whether they are in the guest bedroom, the kitchen, one of the bathrooms, or out taking flying lessons.
posted by MAYORBOB at 7:57 AM on September 30, 2001

MAYORBOB,

I dunno. If, as you said, if "you really can't be expected to know from one minute to the next whether they are in the guest bedroom, the kitchen, one of the bathrooms, or out taking flying lessons," can you really claim to "control" your houseguest?
posted by Sinner at 8:38 AM on September 30, 2001

I find this last part about high-ranking relatives getting him out very suspicious. If he has high-ranking relatives in the Taliban then why couldn't they help the grandfather? Why couldn't he get out earlier or get reassigned to something better? Why could they only intervene when he was caught red-handed trying to desert and not when he was a faithful killer?

Very very fishy to me. Sounds like a convenient ending to an imaginary story.

And it may not be the reporter's fault. Very conveniently (for some) leads to the conclusion that the Taliban should be our enemy and not only bin Laden.
posted by locombia at 10:04 AM on September 30, 2001

The Northern Alliance has been doing some disinformation. For instance, they tried to convince the world that bin Laden was holed up with Mullah Omar. I assume what they were hoping was that the US would then saturate-bomb that area where Omar was.

It's possible that this guy was a plant.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:47 AM on September 30, 2001

The Face of Evil.

The pirate in the background looks pretty mean.
posted by rushmc at 11:07 AM on September 30, 2001

> The Face of Evil.

Actually, Mullah Zaeef is claimed to be part of a moderate faction of the Taliban who could be trying to move towards giving up bin Ladin, according to this interesting BBC article, Analysis: Decoding Taleban's message, which is headed up by the same photo.
posted by Zurishaddai at 11:12 AM on September 30, 2001

Please stop lying.


I admit I was misinformed, and it doesn't say much for Robert Scheer that he hasn't retracted his statements.
posted by electro at 1:55 PM on September 30, 2001

I’d agree with that rcade, which is why I included the Ecevit example. Examples abound of people recieving assistance, and little changing after they get it, notably occupied Palestine. Just look at all the countries USAID serves. Most of them have had problems for decades that “development assistance” simply doesn’t address.

It’s the same truism behind give a man a fish/teach a man to fish. If planes airdrop food, people are going to expect more food to rain from the sky until a change comes in the parameters that caused the famine. Unless an action addresses the root of a problem, in this case the Taliban, they will certainly continue. Doctors call it treating the symptom instead of the disease.

Look where the Bush Admin is now. They gave a multi-million dollar grant which at least partially benefitted a fasicst regime. Which isn’t to say the aid is bad in the abstract, but every action has an effect. For the same reason, linking trade rights to human rights is important.
posted by raaka at 2:27 PM on September 30, 2001