• AbnormalHumanBeing@lemmy.abnormalbeings.spaceEnglish
    9·
    4 days ago

    I knew that part, but it seemed improbable to me that none of the armaments provided to what later became the Taliban weren’t at least indirectly provided by the US.

    My understanding - which granted is not an expert one and could be rooted in a myth - was that they handed weapons out relatively indiscriminately, to any displaced Afghans in Pakistan presenting as able and willing to fight the Soviets. I always assumed a lot of them ended up in their hands as well.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      8·
      4 days ago

      I knew that part, but it seemed improbable to me that none of the armaments provided to what later became the Taliban weren’t at least indirectly provided by the US.

      I mean, if we’re going that route, you could argue that plenty of Soviet weapons found their way into the hands of the Mujahedeen and local warlords, and then into the hands of the Taliban. But no one would seriously claim that the Soviets were the original supporters of the Taliban.

      The claims centered around this are generally that the Taliban ‘grew out’ of the Mujahedeen, or that the Mujahedeen were the proto-Taliban. In reality, the Taliban didn’t come onto the scene until 1994, long after the Soviets left and the Americans lost interest; their numbers were largely of Pakistani Pashtuns from rural areas who flooded over the border to join the ‘exciting’ and new religious-military movement, the Taliban were in opposition to the Mujahedeen, and the Taliban’s successes were overwhelmingly backed by Pakistani supply and direct support. The idea that American weapons in the hands of radicals turned the Taliban into a nightmare for Afghanistan simply doesn’t hold water, nor does the more ‘radical’ and commonly expressed opinion that the US funded the Taliban, which then took over the country and fought the US.