Now, I also think it’s important to take a little historical review. If you go on YouTube, you can see Sirajuddin Haqqani with President Reagan at the White House, because during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States Government, through the CIA, funded jihadis, funded groups like the Haqqanis to cross the border or to, within Afghanistan, be part of the fight to drive the Soviets out and bring down the Soviet Union.
So when I meet for many hours, as I do, with Pakistani officials, they rightly say, “You’re the ones who told us to cooperate with these people. You’re the one who funded them. You’re the ones who equipped them. You’re the ones who used them to bring down the Soviet Union by driving them out of Afghanistan. And we are now both in a situation that is highly complex and difficult to extricate ourselves from.” That is how they see it.
– Remarks at the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series: Audience Question and Answer Segment (Secretary Hillary Clinton)
Uh huh. Well they “see it” wrong and you very well know that, Madam Secretary. Zia directed the monies and toward the end, we attempted to work around the Pakistanis. You know the history. And you’ve seen the intelligence. Didn’t your own State Department sign off on the certification for Kerry-Lugar-Berman after the bin Laden raid? What’s worse? Supporting an insurgency during the Cold War when officials couldn’t see into the future with a crystal ball, or signing off on an aid package after this?
This New York Times report on the murder of a US soldier on May 14, 2007 by Pakistani troops in Teri Mangal is an absolute must read if you are interested in understanding the frustration and contempt for Pakistan that exists among those who have been warning of that nation’s duplicity and complicity in the murder of US, NATO, and Afghan troops.
Let’s review some more, shall we?
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
excerpt via this Pundita blog post. Emphasis mine.
In order to have a relationship with Pakistan during the Cold War – and subsequently the War on Terror – various American officials and institutions had to, er, well, invest themselves in particular narratives. Nice to see Secretary Clinton continuing the tradition:
Back in January 2009, Secretary Clinton vowed to make development once again one of the pillars of America’s engagement as she said it would be an “equal partner” with diplomacy and defense. The so-called “3-Ds” would need AID to be “strengthened”, “adequately funded”, and ultimately given leadership after a decade of neglect and intentional weakening under the previous Secretary.
I don’t know what to think anymore. (I originally had something harsher here and then deleted it. I remain flabbergasted at her comments. Particularly given the history of the Clinton Administration during the ’90s. Everyone got it wrong on this one. Darn near everyone. The Americans weren’t the only ones to get it wrong, either. The Pakistanis were the main supporters of the jihadists – and for their own purposes. It’s simply not true that the Generals and others were passive observers. Neither were any of the neighbors. Everyone’s always “played” in that neighborhood. The poor Afghans. The poor mothers and fathers of young people in Afghanistan just learning how far the foreign policy establishment in Washington is willing to go in order to preserve cherished ideological myths – and self-importance or institutional funding, a skeptic might say.)
[Comment deleted by Jonathan at Charles Cameron’s request. Charles has posted an updated response as a separate post here.]
It has interested me for a long time to see how the Mythology of Hillary Clinton has progressed. It seems to me to be based on mostly leftist wishful thinking. First, there was the “two for the price of one” fantasy with Hilary as co-president. Then, after Hillarycare crashed and burned, we saw a retreat into obscurity. Bill’s infidelity, understandable as it was, brought round II. I will give her credit for the NY Senate seat but NY has always been that way. It always seemed odd that the woman who embraced Arafat’s “wife” was embraced by the Jews of the upper West Side but I have never been into psychology. My only grades less than A in medical school were in Psychiatry. I take that as a badge of honor, by the way.
Those who now regret Hillary as the better choice over Obama are a mystery to me.
This surprises you…why?
In the minds of leftists like Hillary and Hussein Insane, the greatest crime in human history was the US opposition to communism. Thus whenever Iran is mentioned, the actions taken to remove a Russian stooge in 1953 are brought up to justify the the numerous and ville crimes of the Mad Mullahs of Tehran.*
Whatever we sponsored in the 80s in our efforts to put the then present evil of the Soviet Union away, does not justify attacking a US embassy 30 years later.
It is utterly irrelevant to what is going on now. And an American Secretary of State should be able to tell the Pakistanis to STFU.
The only interesting question is whether ISI was behind the 9/11 attacks or they took over after UbL was run out of Afghanistan.
Personally, I still like the Milroy hypothesis, that Iraqi intelligence set up the 9/11 attacks.
*Ron Paul’s obsession about that incident is one reason why I find him tough to swallow.
I’m with the other commenters. Mrs. Clinton is a weak third-rater who gets credit based more on the hopes of her leftist fans than on her real-world performance. She is after all the same Secretary of State who gratuitously undermined Britain over the Falklands and has committed other blunders. Mrs. Clinton plays foreign policy like her domestic politics, where words mean little and she has often gotten away with talking out of both sides of her mouth. Such behavior is likely to come across as weak and confused to foreign audiences who may not appreciate the nuances of domestic hackery.
Brzezinski is a liar, or rather he is leaving out a a huge and important piece, the 1979 National Intelligence Estimte that predicted a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, written long before the CIA covert nonlethal aid was provided to the Mujahedin ( the July letter was not when aid begain and the initial aid was not direct military support, that came later).
Oh yeah, zen, that is correct. Why did he say that?
Mk and others – she strikes me as intellectually plodding. From my reading of the pakistani and indian papers, she has managed to alienate everyone but it is really obamas policy.
Trent- I don’t know. I am eternally naiive. I really should not blog on such topics.
– madhu
Ps, does anyone else hate their droid?