Did the US train/arm Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda?

[Warhammer]

I had a big discussion with my co-workers (some of them are veterans) about the Bush family, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Enron, etc. Many of y'all probably know what point was attempted to be made based on all of those names. However, this really isn't about that. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was brought up and very interesting things were said.

Now, I ask you, political aficionados of the Hype, did the United States train or arm Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda during the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

It's a little more nuanced and complex than that. The CIA trained and armed mujahaideen forces, elements of which would later go on to found Al Qaeda. They didn't arm Osama Bin Laden specifically, at least not that we're aware of. But he was fighting in Afghanistan at that time, so he probably indirectly benefited from US aid. The US did arm people, some of which were nationalists fighting to liberate their country from Soviet oppression, but some of which were just anti-Western zealots looking for holy wars and taking advantage of chaos.

 

[KevanG]

It's a little more nuanced and complex than that. The CIA trained and armed mujahaideen forces, elements of which would later go on to found Al Qaeda. They didn't arm Osama Bin Laden specifically, at least not that we're aware of. But he was fighting in Afghanistan at that time, so he probably indirectly benefited from US aid. The US did arm people, some of which were nationalists fighting to liberate their country from Soviet oppression, but some of which were just anti-Western zealots looking for holy wars and taking advantage of chaos.

I was going to say that a little less specific but pretty much. Gotta fight them there commies so give weapons to the natives and hope it doesn't blow up in your faces later.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's just silly.

The United States made a lot of bad decisions during the Cold War. Arguably, this whole situation in Afghanistan is just a sideshow to the real show: Pakistan.

 

[The Endless]

Of course they did. The CIA has been arming and training radicals who (at the time) would benefit them for decades.

 

[Schlosser85]

Not directly/specifically, but the CIA did pour millions into arming Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. At the time, the objective was to stem the spread of Communism (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Bin Laden was among the rebels fighting the Russians.

Unfortunately, some of those Afghan rebels did go on to found the Taliban and Al Queda and put those American-supplied weapons and funds to other purposes, including bin Laden.

 

[Venom75]

I've always found it amazing that arming those fighters in the 80's against the Soviets would come back to haunt us like that. I'm sure we thought we did the right thing back then,only to see our aid and weapons be used by Al Qaeda against us in the 90's and 2000's.

 

[Pink Ranger]

**DELETED SCENE FROM THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS**

JAMES: Good work all around, chaps! Now, you all have to promise me that you won't use the training and equipment I just provided you to attack the West 14 years from now.

MUJAHIDEEN (in unison): Oh, we won't ...

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I've always found it amazing that arming those fighters in the 80's against the Soviets would come back to haunt us like that. I'm sure we thought we did the right thing back then,only to see our aid and weapons be used by Al Qaeda against us in the 90's and 2000's.

That's not the only time we've experienced blowback for our foreign policy adventurism. We did so with the 1953 installation of the Shah in Iran after deposing their Democratically elected and moderate/secular leader. We all know what happened in 1979 as a result.

 

[The Overlord]

That's not the only time we've experienced blowback for our foreign policy adventurism. We did so with the 1953 installation of the Shah in Iran after deposing their Democratically elected and moderate/secular leader. We all know what happened in 1979 as a result.

This is why the US government should not play machiavellian politics, they are bad at it.

 

[KevanG]

They are bad at it.

...

They're ****ing terrible at it and trying to predict the repercussions of their actions.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair, I doubt Iran would be a liberal democracy today even if America had stayed out of it. Though it might be a marginally better place.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

To be fair, I doubt Iran would be a liberal democracy today even if America had stayed out of it. Though it might be a marginally better place.

It's impossible to know for sure, but I disagree. Iran was on its way to being a moderate (or at least relatively moderate) democracy like Turkey. Mohammad Mosaddegh was extremely popular and was so secular and moderate that the reason he was deposed, was the US was scared of Soviet influence as well as the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. To this day, most of Iran's citizens are among the most moderate and Westernized people you'll find in the Middle East. The girls want to wear jeans and dance to pop music, and the guys want to drink and have parties. There is a lot of simmering discontent under the Ayatollah and the morality police. They also want an end to their global isolation.

Things seem to be improving under Rouhani, but he can only do so much, because the Ayatollahs really control the direction of the country.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Can a mod (Schlosser?) clean up this thread and remove any trace of Orlok-related comments? We were having a substantive discussion and now it's all derailed.

 

[Schlosser85]

Please report off topic posts instead of spending a page replying to them, it gives me a lot less to delete and doesn't derail the thread as much.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Sorry, Schlosser. Thanks, tho.

 

[Pink Ranger]

They are bad at it.

...

They're ****ing terrible at it and trying to predict the repercussions of their actions.

Some days I think Americans installed Stephen Harper.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's impossible to know for sure, but I disagree. Iran was on its way to being a moderate (or at least relatively moderate) democracy like Turkey. Mohammad Mosaddegh was extremely popular and was so secular and moderate that the reason he was deposed, was the US was scared of Soviet influence as well as the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. To this day, most of Iran's citizens are among the most moderate and Westernized people you'll find in the Middle East. The girls want to wear jeans and dance to pop music, and the guys want to drink and have parties. There is a lot of simmering discontent under the Ayatollah and the morality police. They also want an end to their global isolation.

Things seem to be improving under Rouhani, but he can only do so much, because the Ayatollahs really control the direction of the country.

I think the Westernization of Iran may be overestimated by people in the West. That is true for the elite and middle class in Tehran and some of the big cities, but most of Iran is anything but Western or moderate. Since they are generally the ones people are most likely to see outside of Iran, that probably gives people a false impression of how widespread moderate sentiment is in Iran.

Go into the country side and it might as well be Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. And even in the cities, there is considerable support for the theocracy, and virulent anti-Western sentiment.