In case you haven’t heard, Afghanistan is in turmoil again. With the fake withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, there’s now a Taliban takeover of the entire country, and the troops the US government allegedly trained either did nothing or didn’t do enough to stop it. Some training that was. As a result, you have fleeing crowds of afghani citizens, trying to escape the country itself, before the takeover happens.

This has resulted in what many are calling a refugee crisis, and what many are also claiming the US government should throw even more money at. This has been regarded in libertarian and antiwar circles as a bad idea. Because it is. But not just because it’s yet more money that should be going to our own infrastructure going to theirs, but because it represents the next in a long series of situations where the US will use its involvement in this kind of way to secure yet more years of war.

Some people, however, will claim that I’m being uncharitable, and that I just don’t want to help people or something similar. But most of the people who would object in that way don’t know the history of the US funding regime change in that region, including the Taliban. So, I figured I’d go over some ways that the US has been responsible for a significant amount of the violence in the region for many decades now, stretching all the way back to the anti-communist red panic of the Cold War, and stretching all the way till now when people are, oh wait… afraid of Russia. Some things never change.

To understand this, it helps to remember that the US has an agency which is responsible for a significant amount of global malady, which has overseen some of the greatest human rights abuses in U.S. history. That organization is the Central Intelligence Agency, and in this instance, they play a key role in the social unrest in Afghanistan for a significant period of time, basically installing the current social order, in exchange for help against the Russians. The CIA was essentially established to fight the “Communist Threat™” and has never really stopped. So, it had to find new creative ways to keep going even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Its job is to go against the left and force the world onto the American program.

The CIA is very good at its job. Whether it be the assassination of JFK for speaking out against the banks and the war machine, the installation and financial support of Augusto Pinochet in Chile (with the help of the Chicago Boys), or working with literal Nazis for the US government’s Science™ programs (ranging from NASA to mind control), they’ll do anything and work with pretty much anyone, if it means reducing the power of the left, and making sure that American state-capitalist hegemony gets to prevail as the global social order. One of their favorite ways to do it, as referenced earlier through Augusto Pinochet, is regime change.

That was no different with the CIA’s initial intervention in Afghanistan; with the Soviet Afghan war coming to a head, the US government saw an opportunity to change the region in their favor. They came in, funded the mujahideen, and installed a bunch of policies which would go on to inform the rest of the War on Terror. These policies coincided with the rise of terror groups like al Qaeda, and largely served to enrich the interests of Western powers. It also provided a stable reason to exist in the region, so of course the rising neocon warhawks ate it up.

If you want to learn more about that situation, I wrote an article on the reasons the US government has no plans on leaving Afghanistan. However, a key issue I didn’t really cover very well in the other one was the fact that a significant amount of US foreign policy has been colored by the war on drugs. Back home, they needed a reason to increase the power of the prison industrial complex and they didn’t get as much as they needed to expand their empire. So, as imperial expansionists do, they set their sights elsewhere for their power, this time on the Middle East as a source of war on drugs related power.

When I brought up that the CIA had been funding what would eventually become terror groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, I didn’t bring up what those terror groups were doing for money on their own time, and when you look into that, it gets very clear that they were using U.S. dollars to fund interests that the US claims to be against. See, the US can’t go anywhere without messing something up, and in this case, the US claimed to be against the opium trade, as part of its war on drugs initiative at home, fearmongering heavily about heroin use and a variety of other things, up to, until, and after, the opioid pandemic hit home. That didn’t stop them from supporting Big Pharma, as it poisoned the bodies and minds of a significant amount of people by getting them addicted to opioids themselves, handing out the pills like candy. But that’s for another piece.

Point is, the US has a significant drug problem of its own and I don’t want the next part of this piece to imply otherwise. Everything the US criticizes other people for it has significant issues with itself. They compete for top spot as the world leaders in hypocrisy. Mostly, any attempts at claiming morality amount to nothing more than empty virtue signaling, usually for profit and power.

Therefore,hen you read this, you should know that the US government was funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan early on, creating the modern day terror threat, using the justification of fighting Russians, as they do, whenever they need power. It’s funny how fast people forget that they do exactly that, and how willing they are to give these people more power over the Russiagate hoax. That was obvious bullshit from the start. But that didn’t stop the common person from biting it hook, line, and sinker. Once the mainstream media reports something enough, it becomes the truth, even if it had no grounding in reality. That’s how it usually goes. Despite the fact that EU has been playing regime change games in the region since the Cold War, and arguably sooner, we get to be the victims of an international attempt to control our elections. Even though the reasons they gave made no sense and had no proof behind them. But the proof really lies against the US. Because they’re constantly trying to pull the same sort of thing that they claim was pulled on them.

So, when the US government was funding the mujahideen, they were using that money to fund the baseline for a broader operation of opium trade. This didn’t go very reported in the media and was generally not something you could bring up. For a long time, anyone who brought up the fact that the US was basically funding opium over there and doing what amounts to guarding poppy fields, you got called a hippie or a liberal or something, and thrown off the reservation as far as common conversations go. Especially after 9/11, when anyone who criticized U S foreign policy was working with the terrorists or something. This environment of lack of questions is what creates the fertile soil for warmongering. And that soil is exactly what they attempted to cultivate. From the Guardian:

“[Starting] In December 1979… the CIA would provide the mujahideen guerrillas with an estimated $3bn in arms. These funds, along with an expanding opium harvest, would sustain the Afghan resistance for the decade it would take to force a Soviet withdrawal. One reason the US strategy succeeded was that the surrogate war launched by the CIA did not disrupt the way its Afghan allies used the country’s swelling drug traffic to sustain their decade-long struggle.”

It goes on to say, “In one of history’s bitter ironies, Afghanistan’s unique ecology converged with American military technology to transform this remote, landlocked nation into the world’s first true narco-state – a country where illicit drugs dominate the economy, define political choices and determine the fate of foreign interventions.”

Irony indeed, if that’s indeed what it is. I tend to see it as a bit more sinister and intentional. I follow the opposite of the mantra you hear floated around, where you’re not supposed to ascribe to malice what could adequately be described by ignorance. Since this is the way I see them, I can’t help but think that maybe the obvious truth that the US government has gotten significant additional power and money over the consequences of supporting Afghan drug Lords and would-be terrorists, and maybe that was intentional. Maybe. And since I expect this kind of thing to happen, it’s actually not ironic to me at all. It’s just yet another reason that I oppose the state entirely.

But to be specific, the US government did this with more than just the mujahideen, and Afghanistan slowly became one of the many hubs of U.S. government empire in the Middle East. After that point, it only became natural that it was a source of a significant amount of corruption, as wherever the US goes, it brings with it an atmosphere of moral compromise. Around the time Operation Cyclone was drawing to a close, suddenly the US government needed a new place to throw money in Afghanistan, and a new reason to justify war spending, and the like.

Operation Cyclone would end in 1989 and pave the way for funding yet more third parties in the Middle East, this time the Taliban government, which would take power about six years later. If you think the Taliban is some outside threat, it would help you to understand that the US government will never take its hands out of an ample cookie jar, and they’re not going to just leave Afghanistan and all of its resources behind.

The US knew who they were, and were very aware of what they were doing, when they gave them a significant amount of funds, using the old trusty war on drugs as justification.

If you’ll remember from my other piece, the US government funded Bin Laden. His actual name was Tim Osman and he was a CIA asset during the Operation Cyclone days. Well, the US’s funding didn’t stop there, and would eventually go on to form the basis for the early Taliban government. The Taliban, you see, were the same kinds of mujahideen they had funded, and they would eventually go on to form a power group in the 90s. The word itself means “students” in Pashto. They were a coalition of Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (CIA’s puppet during Cyclone) and the mujahideen.

But back to Bin Laden. He began the work of bombing embassies, and the Taliban quickly began running cover for him. But that dishonesty didn’t stop the US government from “totally believing” that the Taliban government would act in their interests and keep promises in exchange for money. In 2001, the Bush administration funded the Taliban government to the tune of $45m in addition to other money that they were already giving them. This money, as referenced by many people, was estimated to be around $53 million in total. So why did they get that?

Well, they promised to end the opium trade. That didn’t end up happening, spoiler alert. But we’ll get to that. Basically, they promised to prohibit it, and to ensure that its production and exports stemmed. And to be honest, that would make perfect sense. The Afghan government, and its neighboring countries, should theoretically enforce the laws associated with Islam, and that includes sobriety. It would make sense that a Muslim-run country would have some sort of protections in place to avoid that sort of corrupting influence reaching the streets, or in general, being used. Especially making that country known as a chief exporter of certain things that adulterate the mind. They had all the other hallmarks of a theocracy, so they might as well add that to the pile. They treated women and children poorly, banned music and TV, and jailed men with short or no beard, ran an apartheid state hinging on religious belief, controlled education, the economy, and more. So why not make the picture complete, and also ban this obviously terrible substance?

Well, the problem with that, is that the Taliban actively stored stockpiles of opium. And after the prohibition hit, the value of it only increased, and so did the exports, according to reports from neighboring countries. Just like before, the US government had essentially worked with Afghani militants to increase their capability to export and profit from opium. Just like before, American theocrats, who would definitely support some sort of Christian centerpiece to US rule (albeit rejecting much of what Jesus said, like not living by the sword, and not serving two masters) had supported their fellow theocrats in Afghanistan, resulting in a significant amount of hardship to the locals. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan…all the way to George W. Bush – all of them helped the operations that would lead to the funding of Afghani militants, all to support regimes that the US wanted to install so that their interests would be served.

The reason I used “totally believing” in quotes was because I actually don’t think the US government ever believed that they would keep their word, and they might have even known that it wasn’t going to happen, only using that  justification to appease the public. After all, they knew the mujahideen were going to use the money they had already gotten to enact their particular vision of law, and the arms to militantly enforce their ideals on the region, and so the idea that they would also intentionally support this in another group isn’t farfetched.

Therefore, when the US recently announced that they would be sending 18,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but these ones private and more on US government payroll, as well as no announcement that those would be withdrawn as well, I had my suspicions about the recent Afghan “pullout”. And with so many profitable ventures still on the line, I don’t see this ever ending – especially given the fact that there is a significant amount to be done in the Middle East, and sacrificing Afghanistan would mean sacrificing regional footholds near Iran, who the US has been planning to go against for a long time.

It’s sorta like covid. We went from 15 days to flatten the curve too all these months of time, energy, and money wasted on a transfer of power to the corporate and government class. Then, we went from being vaccinated getting you immunity, to requiring regular and multiple vaccines. From only one strain too about six now, with “covid 3” trending just the other day. By the way, isn’t it funny that as soon as the new normal started to be protested heavily by the common person, they suddenly had a reason that the US government needed more money?

Suddenly, there’s a “humanitarian crisis” in Afghanistan, and humanitarian aid is what’s “necessary” yet again. The US went from a withdrawal, where they were going to have all troops out by May under Trump, to all troops out by August under Biden, two 4500 troops left there, to 6 to 7000 more added now. And that’s completely ignoring the 18,000 sent  earlier this year. But those don’t count… because they’re private. At least private in the same bullshit sense that Facebook would be considered “private”.

28,500 boots on the ground doesn’t sound like “withdrawal” to me. But hey, what do I know, I’m just another dumb civilian anarchist, who doesn’t understand how the actual situation is. That’s why people with anti-war solutions are constantly shouted down, because we get in the way of this massive profit machine. We are wrenches in the works. And we will continue to be that.

Ever since the initial fall of the Taliban in 2001, Afghanistan has been subject to the US trying to install a United States-like system of government, trying to puppeteer from abroad and insisting that anything that falls outside of their purview and permission is somehow more terrorist than the other things. Now that they’ve “left”, the government they funded from the start (and kept funding even after it got bad) suddenly has access to all of these weapons and the US is considering bombing those. But Ron Paul rightly pointed out that the US government is now the single largest arms provider to the Taliban, and many people are calling this out as an obvious transfer of equipment. I did the same thing and got laughed at on Twitter, so it’s pretty clear where the discourse is right now.

Either way, something is clear. If the people in the region didn’t want to fight using all the training that they had been provided, and if they didn’t have the proper training to do it if they did want to do it, the US’s tactics have wholly failed to install what they wanted.

That is, if you take all of this at face value. I don’t. Which is why I tweeted, “There’s an abuse tactic you should know about. The abuser makes someone materially dependent on them. Then, they’ll force compliance by threatening to revoke that support. Eventually, disobedience will cause total withdrawal, too suddenly to adapt. So, the victim crawls back in.”

Regime change tactics are pretty much political abuse. The desire is that you can control the other party, without ever having to provide any real incentives. You just give them enough  “attaboys” that they can convince themselves that it’s OK, and brutalize them enough that they don’t think there’s a way out. But if the US is going to withdraw, there’s clearly a way out…

The US not being there.

So, they have to make it look like a humanitarian crisis and that a bunch of evil is going on, so that they can justify going right back in with all those troops I mentioned earlier. This whole thing is a spectacle, designed to prove in a sick way that there is no way out.

That this will happen forever. And they might be right.

A lot of Afghan funds have been frozen and the IMF has restricted $450 million in aid from being sent. The country is broke and it might not recover if the US doesn’t get involved again. This is that tactic I discussed in its finest form.

And during a time when deadly coronaviruses are allegedly sweeping the globe,  causing all sorts of movement and travel restrictions, the Biden administration suddenly doesn’t think that it’ll be a problem for a bunch of refugees to come to the US. Suddenly, the rhetoric they employed – saying “do not come” when it came to fleeing people coming from south of the border, and the people from the Middle East are suddenly not the same kind of threat. I wonder why. It also happens to coincide with a bunch of false flag reports indicating the suspicion of a new incident of domestic terrorism just two decades after 9/11. No way they could be attempting to scare the public into accepting whatever region locking and national control they want…because they’re never dishonest in an attempt to ensure their power goes unchallenged, right?

… right?

Let’s recap.

The US used CIA funding to arm, fund, and train Afghan rebels, who would later go on to form the Taliban and a bunch of other terrorist organizations, including the one responsible for 911, at least according to them. It probably wasn’t. The Taliban was then paid yet more money to control the region, in favor of US interests, and when it collapsed, the US still controlled the region until now, at which point they have claimed to pull out, while tens of thousands of boots are still on the ground. Meanwhile, the government that they already gave a ton of money to just got a bunch of “accidental” weapons surpluses. This has meant that a “humanitarian crisis” has been engaged and is creating the fertile and profitable soil for a ton of potential attacks, both foreign and domestic, all at around the same time that the US government still controls a significant amount of their financial and political wherewithal. Oh, and the Taliban says they really will ban opium this time. Pinky promise. Swearsies.

In summation, I have commented something else on the matter. “The US has outright created every ‘terror threat’ it has used as an excuse to fight in the Middle East. They funded the Mujahideen, then fought them some decades later.  They funded the Taliban and will fight them some decades later. That being now. History repeats itself, yo.”

I would love to be wrong.