IP: Re: Funding of terrorism?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:20:02 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Einar Stefferud <stef () nma com>
> Subject: Re: IP: Funding of terrorism?
>
>
> Something is missing on this thread of logic.
>
> If we can start our story with the Mojahedin being funded, what about the 
> Soviet invasion which destroyed the existing government structures in 
> Afghanistan and then left the country to its own devices.
>
> Should the US have stepped in and done a Marshall Plan or an "Occupation" 
> as in Japan to instill democracy and peaceful coexistence, after helping 
> to end the Soviet "Occupation" which was intended to 'fix" Afghanistan 
> with Soviet styled governance.
>
> I would have preferred the "Marshall Plan" if given such choices,
> and if given the ability to see this far into the future from then.
> But, I think it is a bit too late to offer a Marshall plan at this time.
>
> So, are you (or are we) employing hindsight (always 20/20) and exhibiting 
> great clarity, or were you advocating this back when the decisions had to 
> be made.
>
> For myself, I prefer the hindsight of seeing that the Soviets should not 
> have invaded Afghanistan, if we get to choose our hindsight visions of the 
> cause of present predicaments.
>
> The reality is that foresight is never as good as hindsight,
> and we are always the victim of the law of unintended consequences.
>
> Are we therefore supposed to always look back to our actions as being the 
> trigger of all unintended consequences, or always look back to the actions 
> of others for the causes of the mix of unintended consequences.
>
> This is pretty much a binary choice.  Either we always got it wrong, or 
> someone else always got it wrong.  Either blame ourselves first, or 
> someone else first.
>
> Or accept that the law of unintended consequences will always leave all of 
> us with the need to fix something later, that we could not foresee at the time.
>
> In space travel, it is called "mid course corrections" without looking 
> back to find the then invisible past error that led to the need for the 
> present mid course correction.
>
> Is all this current fighting just mindless tit for tat, or mid course 
> corrections.
>
> Should the US have just let the Soviets take over Afghanistan, by virtue 
> of foreseeing all of what has unwound from those US actions of long ago?
>
> Are you so sure that not interfering would have produced a better result?
>
> Or does calling the results "blowback" mean that these are not midcourse 
> corrections, but are some other kind of reaction to actions whose long 
> term consequences are now assumed to have been visible at the time?
>
> I presume that the occurrence of "blowback" is due to errors in engineering.
>
> Can anyone prove either of these hindsight analyses to be more correct 
> than the other?
>
> Where do we stop going back to find the causes of all our current troubles?
> I am certain that the Roman's must have done it!  Or was it flaws in the 
> work of the predecessors of the Romans?  Greeks?  Egyptians?  The 
> Huns?  Cave Men?
> AHA!  I know!  It was the Babylonians!
>
> Seems to me that the real art here is to pick your favorite historical 
> cause of it all, and trace all our troubles back to your chosen cause, and 
> claim to have the superior analysis.
>
> In the meantime, how do we deal next with the current set of consequences?
>
> How about erasing history and doing it over, and do it  right this time;-)...
> Are you sure you can get it right the second time?
>
> So, here we are, and the question is not "how can we do it over?"
>
> The question is "How best can we deal with what we have now?"
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> PS:  Actually, for my very own self, I prefer to look at all this as the pains
>      of social evolution, which suffers the same ills as all evolution, which
>      is that it proceeds without a clear vision of the future, and every now
>      and then, it gets caught in a blind alley.  Ala the Dinosaurs.
>
>      In Chaos Theory, it might be said that the Afghanistan society and
>      government has evolved to a form that is not a good fit to its
>      "landscape";-)...  And so it needs to find a way to leap to a new
>      landscape or evolve to find a better fit to the landscape it has.
>
>      The landscape it has accidentally happens to consist of being one nation
>      among many nations that need to find a way to get along with each other
>      without destroying each other.
>
>      It is clear to me that the rest of us  should not switch to the 
> Mojahedin
>      social DNA.
>
>      /S
>
>
>
> At 12:51 -0400 17/09/01, David Farber wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
> > > From: Harry Hochheiser <hsh () cs umd edu>
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave:
> > >
> > > you may have seen this, but it seems particularly relevant given Herb
> > > Schorr's comment on funding of terrorism...
> > >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257158,00.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blowback chronicles
> > > Giles Foden on the murky deals that fuelled international terrorism
> > >
> > > During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, US officials passed
> > > billions in funding and training to the mojahedin. The CIA, in
> > > particular while under the direction of William Casey - head of the
> > > agency during the Reagan administration - was the main manager of
> > > these operations. With the Russian withdrawal in 1989, the CIA
> > > "celebrated its victory with champagne". So says Unholy Wars:
> > > Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (Pluto Press,
> > > £12.99), the definitive account by ABC journalist John Cooley.
> > > ......
> >
> >
> >
> > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/