3 ms·

You do know that all the mujahideen were Islamists, right? We are talking about Afghanistan. The Mujahid group that was the least Islamist was led by the heir

You do know that all the mujahideen were Islamists, right? We are talking about Afghanistan. The Mujahid group that was the least Islamist was led by the heir of a religious order and structured as such. The OP's assertion are fully accurate. The CIA knowingly funded and fomented the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It is incorrect the relationship was fully indirect. The CIA directly met with militant Islamic fundamentalist groups, including inviting leaders to the USA, and directly funding them : https://books.google.com/books?id=b95MAgAAQBAJ&q=cia%2C+bin+laden&pg=PA289 https://books.google.com/books?id=b95MAgAAQBAJ&q=cia%2C+bin+... https://books.google.com/books?id=wcljXYTZVnUC&q=rABBANI,+reagan https://books.google.com/books?id=wcljXYTZVnUC&q=rABBANI,+re... https://books.google.com/books?id=r3TLByMXsJkC&q=thatcher,+hekmatyar&pg=PA169 https://books.google.com/books?id=r3TLByMXsJkC&q=thatcher,+h... https://books.google.com/books?id=N8Qxf-33dxMC&q=howard+hart%2C+abdul+haq&pg=PT69 https://books.google.com/books?id=N8Qxf-33dxMC&q=howard+hart... https://books.google.com/books?id=-R13CgAAQBAJ&q=zalmay%2C+gulbuddin%2C+us+tour&pg=PT52 https://books.google.com/books?id=-R13CgAAQBAJ&q=zalmay%2C+g... https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/11/afghan-warlords-formerly-backed-by-the-cia-now-turn-their-guns-on-us-troops https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/11/afghan... http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/201212614551208744.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126145... The evidence is absolutely crushing. The statement of the OP is not misleading at all - it is completely accurate.

ethbr0 5y ago
We can quibble over the meaning of Islamist, but there's an obvious gradient in goals and methods between (to use examples) Massoud, Hekmatyar, and Omar. And the primary reason the CIA met directly with groups was to cut the ISI out of the picture and give them more direct control over to whom and how aid was provided.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The CIA still met with some of the more extreme groups. The reason they wanted to cut the ISI out was to maximize their interests. If you read the sources I linked, you will see that the CIA directly met with and financed Haqqani, which was one of the most extreme and who went on to be instrumental in the founding of Al Qaeda by greatly assisting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and allying with him. That is to say, unequivocally, the CIA directly funded and abetted the rise of Islamist fundamentalism.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Didn't the CIA fund Haqqani because his group was one of the more effective at attacking the Soviets? My impression was that effectively, their decision at the time was: (a) fund moderate elements who weren't gung-ho about actually risking their forces to kill Soviets vs (b) fund religious extremists who were a more militarily effective option. And even given that calculus, they still spread the money around (or even skewed it towards moderates), because even at the time they were uncomfortable going all-in on someone who took his orders from God.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      As I said, the most moderate faction of the mujahideen was literally a religious order. They all believed to be taking their orders from God in one way or another, and even the most moderate ones were organized around religion. The CIA only ever directly financed the more extreme elements that I know of. The more moderate ones, ironically, got all of their funding through Pakistan, though Pakistan gave more to the extremists. If the CIA gave them more money because they wore more effective, it doesn't change the fact that they directly fomented the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

ethbr0 5y ago

We can quibble over the meaning of Islamist, but there's an obvious gradient in goals and methods between (to use examples) Massoud, Hekmatyar, and Omar. And the primary reason the CIA met directly with groups was to cut the ISI out of the picture and give them more direct control over to whom and how aid was provided.

sudosysgen 5y ago
The CIA still met with some of the more extreme groups. The reason they wanted to cut the ISI out was to maximize their interests. If you read the sources I linked, you will see that the CIA directly met with and financed Haqqani, which was one of the most extreme and who went on to be instrumental in the founding of Al Qaeda by greatly assisting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and allying with him. That is to say, unequivocally, the CIA directly funded and abetted the rise of Islamist fundamentalism.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Didn't the CIA fund Haqqani because his group was one of the more effective at attacking the Soviets? My impression was that effectively, their decision at the time was: (a) fund moderate elements who weren't gung-ho about actually risking their forces to kill Soviets vs (b) fund religious extremists who were a more militarily effective option. And even given that calculus, they still spread the money around (or even skewed it towards moderates), because even at the time they were uncomfortable going all-in on someone who took his orders from God.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    As I said, the most moderate faction of the mujahideen was literally a religious order. They all believed to be taking their orders from God in one way or another, and even the most moderate ones were organized around religion. The CIA only ever directly financed the more extreme elements that I know of. The more moderate ones, ironically, got all of their funding through Pakistan, though Pakistan gave more to the extremists. If the CIA gave them more money because they wore more effective, it doesn't change the fact that they directly fomented the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.