#WHO FINANCES THE TALIBAN HOW TO#
Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Since that is a political impossibility, though, we’re more or less guaranteed a Vietnam-like experience.Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Only then, once the Taliban has been marginalized, if not destroyed, can we attempt to win the favor of the Afghan population via nation-building projects. After a year or two of this, we should be able to maintain control of most of the nation. This will mean civilian suffering as humanitarian projects languish. It seems to me that, as horrible of a conclusion it is, the only way we have any hope for maintaining control of Afghanistan is to completely eliminate all nation-building and non-military spending, to choke off funding to the Taliban. Since the strategic assumption amongst the military and civilian command is that the war in Afghanistan is a necessity, it is apparent that we will be continuing to occupy the country, which in turn means we’ll continue spending money we don’t have on the occupation. They did not have numbers on the percentage of military spending, which was speculated to be lower, but not insignificant. They were estimating that between 10% and 20% of all of our “nation-building” spending was ending up directly financing the insurgency. NPR did a piece on it a few months back that was never followed up on. feeling in Afghanistan, it would not be surprising to learn that every soldier we put into Afghanistan supports ten Kalashnikov-toting Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.Īssuming that we cannot win a decisive victory when outnumbered by 10:1, this is a simple recipe for an endless self-sustaining war. soldier in the field, the low cost of paying an Afghan fighter, and the level of corruption and anti-U.S. If half of those siphoned funds end up in the Taliban’s pockets, that’s enough to support a large army. We’ve heard that Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world ( source) and that at least 50 percent of the money that we’re putting in gets siphoned off by various politicians and their cronies (though perhaps not as much as Wall Street, GM, and Chrysler siphoned from U.S. Let’s consider an aid project in a village. bases, they are sold by Afghans ( source), who may turn over a percentage of their profits to fighters against the U.S. When a fraction of these supplies go missing from U.S. trucks in supplies, it pays the Taliban directly not to attack the trucks ( source).
Some of the higher cost translates into profits for Afghans who sympathize or are connected with the Taliban. It pays vastly higher prices for these items than it would pay at a Walmart in Kansas. military buys food and supplies in various local markets in Afghanistan. occupation, he may well choose to spend some of that to pay the salary of a Taliban fighter.
What will he spend it on? Depending on his feeling about the U.S.
Our homeowner now has a $750 per month windfall. report showing that the cost of living in Kabul was higher than in New York City in 2005). invasion, dozens of U.S., U.N, and NGO groups moved into Kabul, driving up the market rent to over $1,000 per month (due to overwhelming demand, Kabul is now one of the most expensive cities in the world see this U.N. Whatever his political or religious beliefs, he would not have been able to support any cause because he would need all $250 to feed his family. invasion, he might have been able to rent out his house for $250 per month. Who has been financing these guys for eight years? What if the answer is “us”? As the war in Afghanistan settles into its eighth year, it might be worth asking ourselves how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda can possibly remain so strong.
0 kommentar(er)
