URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about
one
article/day.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
========================================
Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban Forces to be Slaughtered
* Excerpts from a most revealing hearing
* Comments by Jared Israel [posted 16 October 2001]
========================================
"At a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person of this
administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill Richardson, personally went to
Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the
offensive
and, furthermore, convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces, their
supporters,
to disarm them and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban
forces. At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort,
which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of
the
anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
"Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me
to sit
here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" --
and
the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp
in
Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts
to
create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent
with
the beliefs of the Afghan people." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, lambasting the
U.S.
State Department at Congressional hearings 12 July 2000. Excerpts from
those
hearings are posted after these comments.
On July 12, 2000 a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings that
turned
into a knockdown drag out fight over Washington's role in Afghanistan.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher accused the U.S. State Department of treachery and
hypocrisy. He presented evidence that:
The U.S. deliberately sent 'humanitarian aid' only to Taliban-controlled
areas;
The U.S. State Department refused to act on information concerning the
location of Osama bin Laden's headquarters in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials tricked the Anti-Taliban opposition into disarming,
though the
officials knew Pakistan was airlifting weapons to the Taliban. This
allowed
the Taliban to wipe out most of the opposition forces.
Below I have posted excerpts from that hearing. As you will see, the two
U.S.
State Department officials, Mr. Eastham and Mr. Sheehan, and their
congressional supporters, never answered Rep. Rohrabacher's charges.
Rohrabacher listed specific acts of treachery. Eastham, Sheehan and
their
supporters dodged and responded with noble generalities.
This is important stuff. By definition, when a government engages in
covert
support of terrorist forces it does so to hide its real policy, and so
of
course the real policy is hard to expose. As Rep. Rohrabacher commented
at
the end of the hearing.
"You know, I am the only one here [making these accusations]. I am not
the
chairman of the committee. I would never get the opportunity to have a
back
and forth with you [people from the State Department], except in times
like
this." [From hearing, posted below]
Because he charged the U.S. State Department with pretending to oppose
bin
Laden and the Taliban while actually secretly supporting them, and
because
the State Department officials were manifestly unable to answer his
charges,
and because the whole thing was recorded and transcribed, Rohrabacher
gave us
a strong piece of documented evidence that during the 1990s, the actual
U.S.
policy was to support Islamist terrorism.
A note on Representative Rohrabacher: By posting this material we are
not
endorsing the Congressman or his current actions. In our opinion, Rep.
Rohrabacher did the world the service of exposing State Department
duplicity
not because he opposed US interference in Afghanistan, during the 1980s
and
1990s, but because he wanted the U.S. to meddle in a different way.
While the
U.S. was openly financing the worst Islamist terrorists, and, later,
secretly
supporting the Taliban, Rep. Rohrabacher was close to the former Afghan
King.
Now that his King has gained more influence, Rep. Rohrabacher has
altered his
criticisms of U.S. policy. He used to say the U.S. actively hurt
Afghanistan.
Now he says:
"We thought just forcing the Russians out and supporting the Afghans in
their
fight against Soviet domination was the end of story. But it wasn't,
obviously. We did not do, as far as I'm concerned, our responsibility to
the
Afghan people. We left them asleep in their own rubble and left them to
suffer. And what emerged? The Taliban emerged. What emerged after that?
Bin
Laden." (CNN SUNDAY MORNING, 07:00, September 30, 2001)
This is a complete change from the much more honest criticism you will
find
below: namely, that the U.S. actively fostered the rise of the Taliban
and
refused to go after bin Laden, even when the information regarding bin
Laden
and the Taliban came from Mr. Rohrabacher and his Afghan friends. Thus
he
charged Washington with having a policy of arrogant interference,
treachery
and hypocrisy. During the hearing, quoted below, Mr. Rohrabacher said:
"The
United States created that swamp in Afghanistan." A far cry from "We
left
them asleep in their own rubble and left them to suffer."
It appears that Dana Rohrabacher has made his peace with the State
Department.
Note: I have included a few comments in brackets by way of connecting
the
excerpts.
-- Jared Israel
July 12, 2000
Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on "Global
Terrorism
And South Asia."
Chaired By: Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)
Witnesses: Michael Sheehan, State Department Coordinator For
Counterterrorism; Alan Eastham, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State
For
South Asian Affairs
[Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after the hearing started, Rep.
Rohrabacher
heated things up by attacking U.S. policy in Afghanistan, head on:]
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
thank
you very much for holding this hearing.
As we discuss terrorism in South Asia, I think it is important to renew
the
members of this committee's and the public's acquaintance with the
request
that I have made for the last three years concerning American policy
toward
the Taliban, because as we examine -- as we examine terrorism in South
Asia,
one can't help but recognize that if it weren't for the fact that the
Taliban
are in power, there would be a different equation going on.
It would be whole different situation in South Asia.
After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan
policy
-- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I
believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful
covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after
many,
many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me
documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those
documents, I
have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And
I
might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me,
even
after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents
concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would,
again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I
expect
to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr.
Chairman,
indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its
position
that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to
have
the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was
struggling to take over Afghanistan.
And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is
clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from
supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so
much as
when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in
Afghanistan,
Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this
administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the
Taliban's opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were
vulnerable,
and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military
assistance to [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan
was
heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.
What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban's
major
enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the
Taliban
the supreme power in Afghanistan.
So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this
administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for
the
Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the
Taliban in
power.
One last note. Many people here understand that I have been in
Afghanistan on
numerous occasions and have close ties to people there. And let me just
say
that some of my sources of information informed me of where bin Laden
was,
they told me they knew and could tell people where bin Laden could be
located. And it took me three times before this administration responded
to
someone who obviously has personal contacts in Afghanistan, to even
investigate that there might be someone who could give them the
information.
And when my contact was actually contacted, they said that the people
who
contacted them were half-hearted, did not follow through, did not appear
to
be all that interested, appeared to be forced to be talking to him.
…
[Emperor's Clothes note: Rep. Bonior attempted to rebut Rohrabacher's
charges. Note that this gentleman speaks entirely in generalities:]
REP. DAVID E. BONIOR (D-MI): On earlier occasions, the administration
has
expressed the importance of working with Pakistan in addressing
terrorism in
South Asia. I also believe that cooperation with Pakistan continues to
be
very much in our national interest. Combating and preventing global
terrorism
is one of the most serious challenges facing America's foreign policy in
this
new era.
It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that Pakistan, as a long-standing ally of
the
United States, is committed to cooperating with the United States on
terrorism. Its record shows that. Sanctioning Pakistan will serve no
purpose
other than to isolate them and aggravate the social and economic and
political challenges in the region.
I also strongly believe that the Taliban support for terrorism, and its
harboring of Osama bin Laden, must be condemned in the strongest
possible
terms. We must also respond to the threat, and I believe that is where
Pakistan plays a very critical role. We must remember that it is not in
Pakistan's interest to have the Taliban on its border. It is also not in
Pakistan's interest to have terrorist groups operating within its
borders.
And it is clearly not in India's interest to have Pakistan isolated,
thereby
producing a greater threat to peace and stability in South Asia….
I know from my talks with General Musharraf, when I visited Pakistan and
India in April, that he is committed to dealing with the Taliban. He has
met
with one leader of the Taliban and is prepared to meet with others in
Afghanistan. Throughout my trip, I gained a new appreciation of the new
challenges facing the region. I also came away, more convinced than
ever,
that the United States must play a proactive role in helping to meet
those
challenges.
There are serious challenges and threats, which exist in Pakistan. But I
also
know that General Musharraf and General Aziz (sp), in Pakistan, are well
aware of what needs to be done.
[Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after this, Michael Sheehan, the State
Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism and Alan Eastham, Jr., the
Deputy
Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs spoke. However,
they
also talked in generalities. Following there remarks REP. GEJDENSON
spoke,
ending with the following heated exchange:]
REP. GEJDENSON: â?¦One last thing. Are there any countries supplying
weapons to
the Taliban at this point?
MR. SHEEHAN [from State Dep't]: I think I'll have to go in closed
session on
that as well, Mr. Congressman. I'm not -- what I know about that is from
classified sources. I'll be glad to talk to you about it after this.
REP. GEJDENSON: Thank you. You might check with Mr. Rohrabacher for any
other
information you need on Afghanistan -- (laughter). He seems to be very
knowledgeable about the military situation there.
REP. GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Rohrabacher?
REP. ROHRABACHER: (Laughing.) This is a joke! I mean, you have to go to
closed session to tell us where the weapons are coming from? Well, how
about
let's make a choice. There's Pakistan or Pakistan or Pakistan. (Laughs.)
Where do you think the Taliban -- right as we speak -- I haven't read
any
classified documents. Everybody in the region knows that Pakistan is
involved
with a massive supply of military weapons and has been since the very
beginning of the Taliban.
Let me just state for the record, here, before I get into my questions,
that
I think there's -- and it's not just you, Mr. Ambassador, but it is this
administration and, perhaps, other administrations as well. I do not
believe
that terrorism flows from a lack of state control. A breakdown of state
control, all of sudden you have terrorism. That's not what causes
terrorism.
What causes terrorism is a lack of freedom and democracy, a lack of a
means
to solve one's problems through a democratic process.
Afghanistan, from the very beginning, we have been -- when the Reagan
administration was involved with helping the Afghans fight the Russians,
which was engaged in trying to put a totalitarian government there --
because
of Pakistan's insistence, a lion's share of our support went to a guy
named
Hekmatyar Gulbuddin, who had no democratic tendencies whatsoever. And
since
the Russians lost, we have not been supporting, the United States has
not
been supporting any type of somewhat free, somewhat democratic
alternatives
in Afghanistan, and there are such alternatives, and we all -- those of
us
who have been involved know that.
So there's no democracy or freedom in Afghanistan, where people who are
good
and decent and courageous people, have a chance to cleanse their society
of
the drug dealers and the fanatics that torture and repress, especially
the
women of Afghanistan. But the men of Afghanistan are not fanatics like
the
Taliban, either. They would like to have a different regime. Only the
United
States has given -- and I again make this charge -- the United States
has
been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is
let me
add. But you don't have any type of democracy in Afghanistan.
â?¦Let me note that, three years ago, I tried to arrange support, aid,
humanitarian aid, to a non-Taliban-controlled section of Afghanistan,
the
Bamian area. Mr. Chairman, the State Department did everything they
could to
thwart these humanitarian medical supplies from going into Bamian. And
we
heard today that we are very proud that we are still giving aid to
Afghanistan. Let me note; that aid has always gone to Taliban areas. So
what
message does that send to people of Afghanistan? We have been supporting
the
Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people
from
the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban,
they are
thwarted by our own State Department.
And let me just note that that same area, Bamian, where I tried to help
those
people who are opposed to the Taliban; Bamian now is the headquarters of
Mr.
Bin Laden. Surprise, surprise! Everyone in this committee has heard me,
time
and again over the years, say, unless we did something, Afghanistan was
going
to become a base for terrorism and drug dealing. And, Mr. Chairman, how
many
times did you hear me say that this administration either ignored that
or --
a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
Again, let me just -- I am sorry Mr. Inderfurth is not here to defend
himself
-- but let me state for the record: At a time when the Taliban were
vulnerable, the top person of this administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and
Bill
Richardson, personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the
anti-Taliban
forces not to go on the offensive and, furthermore, convinced all of the
anti-Taliban forces, their supporters, to disarm them and to cease their
flow
of support for the anti-Taliban forces. At that same moment, Pakistan
initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and
caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in
Afghanistan.
Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me to
sit
here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" --
and
the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp
in
Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts
to
create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent
with
the beliefs of the Afghan people.
REP. GILMAN: Did the panelists want to respond at all?
MR. SHEEHAN: I would, Mr. Congressman.
REP. GILMAN: Ambassador Sheehan.
MR. SHEEHAN: First of all, Mr. Congressman, I'm sorry that you think
it's a
joke that I won't respond on the issue of support for the arms for the
Taliban, but the information that I have, which is -- I cannot respond
by
public source -- is based on intelligence methods, and I don't have the
authority to speak about that in this session. But I'll be glad to talk
to
you or anybody else afterwards.
Secondly, regarding the responsibility the United States government has
for
Afghanistan and the situation there, I don't accept that conclusion at
all.
The United States did help participate in helping the mujaheddin reject
the
Soviet occupation in the mid-'80s, and that was a policy that I think
was a
correct one at that time. The situation in Afghanistan, the
deterioration of
that state since 1979, has primarily to do with the situation in
Afghanistan.
Certainly there were those responsible, whether it was the Soviet
occupiers
or those who were involved in a civil war that has waged there for 20
years.
But the idea that the United States government is responsible for
everything
in Afghanistan I think is not true.
And the idea that we support the Taliban I also reject as well
completely. I
have spent 18 months in this job leading the effort within the United
States
government and around the world to bring pressure on the Taliban. After
the
bombing of the embassies in East Africa, when I got hired for this job,
I
have made it my sole effort, my primary effort in this job to bring
pressure
on that regime. And the United States government leads that effort in
providing pressure on that regime. My office leads that effort within
the
United States government. We started with an executive order in August
of
1999 that brought sanctions to bear on the Taliban. We've led the effort
in
the U.N. to bring international sanctions against them. We're also
leading
the effort internationally right now to look at further measures against
the
Taliban. It's the United States government that is leading that effort
--
we're ahead of everybody else -- to bring pressure on the Taliban. And
the
Taliban knows it, and those other member states within the U.N. and
other --
the other community knows our efforts to bring pressure to bear on that
organization because of its support for state -- for terrorism.
REP. GILMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Eastham, did you want to comment?
MR. EASTHAM: Yes, sir, I would. I would be happy to defend Mr.
Inderfurth, if
you'd like, Mr. Rohrabacher, even if he's not here in person.
I would just note that I have spent nearly 15 years of my life working
on
this part of the world. I was with the mujaheddin in Peshar [Pakistan!]
from
1984 to 1987. I was in the consulate in Peshar at that time. I've been
back
on this account now for -- I began my sixth year on the South Asia
account
this time, around this week. I was in Pakistan when you were trying your
effort to put -- the airdrop assistance into Bamian. So I'm quite
familiar
with the history of the whole episode. And I can say that at no point --
at
no point -- in the last six years has the United States of America
offered
its support to the Taliban.
This is why I think that despite the fact we've provided you nearly a
thousand documents in response to the request of the chairman, that you
haven't been able to find the support for the Taliban, because it isn't
there.
REP. ROHRABACHER: That is incorrect, by the way. And I will say that for
the
record. That is incorrect. I have found several references. And
documents
have been kept from me indicating what our policy formation about the
Taliban
has been. So that is not accurate.
MR. EASTHAM: Well, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, then,
about
the record of what this administration has done with respect to the
Taliban.
But I will say that we have -- that our goals with respect to the
Taliban
have shifted over the past two years, almost, since the East Africa
bombings.
When the Taliban first came into power in Afghanistan, we had an agenda
which
addressed terrorism, narcotics, human rights, including the rights of
women,
and bringing peace to Afghanistan. We tried to address all of those at
the
same time.
After the East Africa bombing, the terrorism problem became much more
acute
and a much higher priority in terms of our -- in terms of what we were
doing.
But we've been addressing all these issues since the first day the
Taliban
came into being, and particularly since they came to power in Kabul.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
â?¦
[TENC note: Rohrabacher replied:]
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.
Let me just say that, in your denials to the charges that I made, you
were
very good at general denials. But there was no denial of some specific
charges, so I'd like to ask you about them now.
I charged that the aid that the United States has been giving has been
going
to the Taliban-controlled territories, especially during that time
period
when one-third of Afghanistan was being controlled by non- and
anti-Taliban
forces. Specifically, I used the example of the Bamian effort in which
we
tried to help the folks down there, who my sources said were in great
deprivation and starving, and the State Department undermined that
effort.
And we mentioned earlier there is an aid program going on to
Afghanistan. Ten
percent of Afghanistan is still controlled by anti- Taliban forces. Is
any of
the aid that we are giving going to this anti-Taliban area?
â?¦
MR. EASTHAM: The answer to the question is, yes, there is aid flowing to
all
areas in Afghanistan. That is a function, however, of accessibility, of
how
you get it to them. There is assistance, which flows through the United
Nations who are the implementers of the program, into the North, via
Tajikistan, and also through the Chitral area of Pakistan --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Okay. So --
MR. EASTHAM: -- as well as to the 80 percent of the country.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- okay. So your answer is yes, that currently that
one
area in the Panjshir Valley, now controlled by Commander Massoud, that
does
-- they do receive humanitarian supplies?
MR. EASTHAM: I can't take you specifically to the Panjshir Valley
because
access to the Panjshir Valley is blocked from the south by the Taliban.
REP. ROHRABACHER: But of course, it's not blocked from Tajikistan,
right?
MR. EASTHAM: Yeah. But there is assistance, which flows into all areas
of
Afghanistan, through these U.N. programs.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Okay. So you're on the record. Thank you
very
much.
MR. EASTHAM: Okay. But --
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's not what my sources say.
MR. EASTHAM: -- with respect to Bamian, I want to take you back to the
period
two, three years ago that you are referring to. In fact, I have -- at
around
that same time, I made a trip myself from Pakistan to Kandahar, to talk
to
the Taliban about the blockade, which they had imposed at the time, upon
assistance to Bamian, because at the time Bamian was controlled by
non-Taliban forces, from the Hazara people, there.
One of the main effects of the trip by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Inderfurth
that
you have so criticized was to attempt to persuade the Taliban in fact to
lift
that very blockade of Bamian, which was -- and we followed it up with
discussions in Islamabad, in which the Taliban did, in fact, agree to a
partial lifting to enable foodstuffs to go into Bamian.
REP. ROHRABACHER: So we traded off with the Taliban that they were going
to
lift their blockade and we were going to disarm all of their opponents.
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir, that's not the case.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Well, let's go back -- go to disarming the
Taliban's
opponents. And by the way, this has been reconfirmed in everything that
I've
read, both official and unofficial. Are you trying to tell us now that
the
State Department's policy was not, at that crucial moment when the
Taliban
was vulnerable, to disarm the Taliban's opponents? Did not Mr.
Inderfurth and
the State Department contact all of the support groups that were helping
the
anti-Taliban forces and ask them to cease their flow of military
supplies to
the anti-Taliban forces?
MR. EASTHAM: At that time we were trying to -- we were trying to
construct a
coalition which would cut off support for all forces in Afghanistan from
the
outside.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, and I take it --- so I take it that's a yes to my
question. But the --
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir; you've left out the cutting off the Taliban part.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- but the Taliban were -- but the Taliban were
included;
except what happened right after all of those other support systems that
had
been dismantled because of Mr. Inderfurth's and Mr. Richardson's appeal,
and
the State Department's appeal? What happened immediately -- not only
immediately after, even while you were making that appeal, what happened
in
Pakistan? Was there an airlift of supplies, military supplies, between
Pakistan and Kabul and the forward elements of the Taliban forces?
(Pause.) REP. ROHRABACHER: The answer is yes. I know.
MR. EASTHAM: The answer is --
REP. ROHRABACHER: You can't tell me because --
MR. EASTHMAM: The answer is --
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- it's secret information.
MR. EASTHAM: The answer is closed session, if you would like to dredge
up
that record.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Right. Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: That would be fine.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Well, I don't have to go into closed session because I
didn't get that information from any classified document. That
information is
available to anybody watching the scene up there. They know exactly what
happened. Mr. Inderfurth, Mr. Bill Richardson, a good friend of mine,
doing
the bidding of this administration, basically convinced the
anti-Talibans'
mentors to quit providing them the weapons they needed, with some scheme
that
the Taliban were then going to lay down their arms. And immediately
thereafter, Pakistan started a massive shift of military supplies which
resulted in the total defeat of the anti-Taliban forces.
This is -- now, this is either collusion or incompetence on the part of
the
State Department, as far as this congressman is concernedâ?¦
Why haven't I been provided any documents about State Department
analysis of
-- during the formation period of the Taliban, about whether or not the
Taliban was a good force or a bad force? Why have none of those
documents
reached my desk after two years?
MR. EASTHAM: Congressman, we were responding to a specific request
dealing
with a specific time period, which I believe the commencing period of
the
request for documents was after the time period you're talking about. We
were
asked to provide documents, by the chairman of this committee, from 1996
to
1999.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I see. You found a loophole in the chairman's wording
--
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir. We were responding to the chairman's request.
REP. ROHRABACHER: You found a loophole in the chairman's wording of his
request as to not to provide me those documents.
You know, I am the only one here. I am not the chairman of the
committee. I
would never get the opportunity to have a back and forth with you,
except in
times like this.
The State Department has taken full advantage of its use of words in
order
not to get this information out. I am looking forward to more documents.
I
will say this, I have spent hours overlooking those documents, and
there's
been nothing in those documents to persuade me that my charges that this
administration has been covertly supporting the Taliban is not accurate.
Feel free to respond to that.
MR. EASTHAM: It's not true.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: I have to negate the whole thesis that you're operating
under,
sir.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Then -- okay, the other option is the State
Department is so incompetent that we have done things that helped the
Taliban
and have put them in a position of having hundreds of millions of
dollars of
drug money, and had power in Afghanistan, and undercutting the
anti-Taliban
forces. This is just -- this isn't intent, this is just incompetence?
MR. EASTHAM: That's a judgment you can make.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.
MR. EASTHAM: And if you want to make that judgment, that's up to you,
Congressman.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: I would just observe that it's considerably more complex
than
that to deal with people over whom we have so little influence as with
Taliban. I have spent -- I have been myself, by my count, six times into
Afghanistan on both the northern side and the southern side. I have met
innumerable times with Taliban officials to attempt to achieve U.S.
objectives, and I have to tell you that it's a tough job.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I believe it is a tough job --
MR. EASTHAM: I'd like to introduce you to some of them sometime.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, I've met many Taliban, thank you. And as you are
aware,
I have met many Taliban and talked to them. Especially when you disarm
their
opponents, and you participate in an effort to disarm their opponents at
a
time when they're being supplied -- resupplied militarily, I guess it is
very
hard for them to take us seriously when we say we're going to get tough
with
them.
MR. EASTHAM: You keep saying that, but it's not true.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Well -- oh --
MR. EASTHAM: The effort --
REP. ROHRABACHER: You're just saying -- no, you're just --
MR. EASTHAM: The effort was to stop the support for all the factions.
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's correct. You didn't deny that we disarmed their
opponents, you just said we were doing it with the Taliban as well. But
as I
pointed out, which you did not deny, the Taliban were immediately
resupplied.
Which means that we are part and parcel to disarming a victim against
this
hostile, totalitarian, anti- Western, drug-dealing force in their
society,
and we were part and parcel of disarming the victim, thinking that the
aggressor was going to be disarmed as well, but it just didn't work out
-- at
the moment when Pakistan was arming them, I might add.
Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc. Reprinted for Fair Use Only
***
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about
one
article/day.
Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Further Reading
= = = = = = = = = = =
1) "Why Does Washington Want Afghanistan?" by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff
and
Nico Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
2) Is Washington sincere about fighting terrorism? Then why has it
coddled
the terrorist armies in the Balkans? See '"TERRORISM AGAINST SERBIA IS
NO
CRIME' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/nocrime.htm
And why has it threatened to unleash a campaign of terror against
Belarus?
See, 'Tough Measures Needed in Belarus!' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm
3) In the course of one week Osama bin laden switched from saying he
opposed
the 9-11 destruction to saying he rejoiced in it. Emperor's Clothes
found
this change a bit too convenient. See "'Osama bin laden, Terrorist
Monster,'
TAKE TWO!" by Jared Israel, at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm
=======================================
Emperor's Clothes Needs Your Help!
=======================================
On 18 September about 100,000 readers transferred more than 1.7
gigabytes of
data from Emperor's Clothes. That's the equivalent of around 1.5 million
pages in printed books.
As you may know, the Website was "down" for about four hours that day.
Because of the current crisis, we are strained beyond capacity.
We recently hired a full time computer person. He has partly finished
remodeling the Website so it loads more quickly and is easier to use. We
hope
you find these changes useful. Now we need to complete the makeover and
improve our technical facilities to meet the huge increase in demand for
bandwidth.
Emperor's Clothes does not charge money for articles. We rely on
donations.
Many of our readers have contributed in the past. This has allowed us to
function. Now we need contributions from everyone who finds Emperor's
Clothes
useful so we can pay our (overworked, underpaid) computer helper and
make
technical improvements so that all our articles are available all the
time.
Please send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000
or
more. Every penny will be used to get articles to more people.
You can make a donation using at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us
know
by email at emperors1000@... to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about
one
article/day.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
========================================
Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban Forces to be Slaughtered
* Excerpts from a most revealing hearing
* Comments by Jared Israel [posted 16 October 2001]
========================================
"At a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person of this
administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill Richardson, personally went to
Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the
offensive
and, furthermore, convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces, their
supporters,
to disarm them and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban
forces. At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort,
which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of
the
anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
"Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me
to sit
here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" --
and
the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp
in
Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts
to
create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent
with
the beliefs of the Afghan people." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, lambasting the
U.S.
State Department at Congressional hearings 12 July 2000. Excerpts from
those
hearings are posted after these comments.
On July 12, 2000 a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings that
turned
into a knockdown drag out fight over Washington's role in Afghanistan.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher accused the U.S. State Department of treachery and
hypocrisy. He presented evidence that:
The U.S. deliberately sent 'humanitarian aid' only to Taliban-controlled
areas;
The U.S. State Department refused to act on information concerning the
location of Osama bin Laden's headquarters in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials tricked the Anti-Taliban opposition into disarming,
though the
officials knew Pakistan was airlifting weapons to the Taliban. This
allowed
the Taliban to wipe out most of the opposition forces.
Below I have posted excerpts from that hearing. As you will see, the two
U.S.
State Department officials, Mr. Eastham and Mr. Sheehan, and their
congressional supporters, never answered Rep. Rohrabacher's charges.
Rohrabacher listed specific acts of treachery. Eastham, Sheehan and
their
supporters dodged and responded with noble generalities.
This is important stuff. By definition, when a government engages in
covert
support of terrorist forces it does so to hide its real policy, and so
of
course the real policy is hard to expose. As Rep. Rohrabacher commented
at
the end of the hearing.
"You know, I am the only one here [making these accusations]. I am not
the
chairman of the committee. I would never get the opportunity to have a
back
and forth with you [people from the State Department], except in times
like
this." [From hearing, posted below]
Because he charged the U.S. State Department with pretending to oppose
bin
Laden and the Taliban while actually secretly supporting them, and
because
the State Department officials were manifestly unable to answer his
charges,
and because the whole thing was recorded and transcribed, Rohrabacher
gave us
a strong piece of documented evidence that during the 1990s, the actual
U.S.
policy was to support Islamist terrorism.
A note on Representative Rohrabacher: By posting this material we are
not
endorsing the Congressman or his current actions. In our opinion, Rep.
Rohrabacher did the world the service of exposing State Department
duplicity
not because he opposed US interference in Afghanistan, during the 1980s
and
1990s, but because he wanted the U.S. to meddle in a different way.
While the
U.S. was openly financing the worst Islamist terrorists, and, later,
secretly
supporting the Taliban, Rep. Rohrabacher was close to the former Afghan
King.
Now that his King has gained more influence, Rep. Rohrabacher has
altered his
criticisms of U.S. policy. He used to say the U.S. actively hurt
Afghanistan.
Now he says:
"We thought just forcing the Russians out and supporting the Afghans in
their
fight against Soviet domination was the end of story. But it wasn't,
obviously. We did not do, as far as I'm concerned, our responsibility to
the
Afghan people. We left them asleep in their own rubble and left them to
suffer. And what emerged? The Taliban emerged. What emerged after that?
Bin
Laden." (CNN SUNDAY MORNING, 07:00, September 30, 2001)
This is a complete change from the much more honest criticism you will
find
below: namely, that the U.S. actively fostered the rise of the Taliban
and
refused to go after bin Laden, even when the information regarding bin
Laden
and the Taliban came from Mr. Rohrabacher and his Afghan friends. Thus
he
charged Washington with having a policy of arrogant interference,
treachery
and hypocrisy. During the hearing, quoted below, Mr. Rohrabacher said:
"The
United States created that swamp in Afghanistan." A far cry from "We
left
them asleep in their own rubble and left them to suffer."
It appears that Dana Rohrabacher has made his peace with the State
Department.
Note: I have included a few comments in brackets by way of connecting
the
excerpts.
-- Jared Israel
July 12, 2000
Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on "Global
Terrorism
And South Asia."
Chaired By: Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)
Witnesses: Michael Sheehan, State Department Coordinator For
Counterterrorism; Alan Eastham, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State
For
South Asian Affairs
[Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after the hearing started, Rep.
Rohrabacher
heated things up by attacking U.S. policy in Afghanistan, head on:]
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
thank
you very much for holding this hearing.
As we discuss terrorism in South Asia, I think it is important to renew
the
members of this committee's and the public's acquaintance with the
request
that I have made for the last three years concerning American policy
toward
the Taliban, because as we examine -- as we examine terrorism in South
Asia,
one can't help but recognize that if it weren't for the fact that the
Taliban
are in power, there would be a different equation going on.
It would be whole different situation in South Asia.
After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan
policy
-- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I
believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful
covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after
many,
many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me
documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those
documents, I
have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And
I
might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me,
even
after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents
concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would,
again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I
expect
to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr.
Chairman,
indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its
position
that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to
have
the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was
struggling to take over Afghanistan.
And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is
clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from
supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so
much as
when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in
Afghanistan,
Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this
administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the
Taliban's opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were
vulnerable,
and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military
assistance to [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan
was
heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.
What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban's
major
enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the
Taliban
the supreme power in Afghanistan.
So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this
administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for
the
Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the
Taliban in
power.
One last note. Many people here understand that I have been in
Afghanistan on
numerous occasions and have close ties to people there. And let me just
say
that some of my sources of information informed me of where bin Laden
was,
they told me they knew and could tell people where bin Laden could be
located. And it took me three times before this administration responded
to
someone who obviously has personal contacts in Afghanistan, to even
investigate that there might be someone who could give them the
information.
And when my contact was actually contacted, they said that the people
who
contacted them were half-hearted, did not follow through, did not appear
to
be all that interested, appeared to be forced to be talking to him.
…
[Emperor's Clothes note: Rep. Bonior attempted to rebut Rohrabacher's
charges. Note that this gentleman speaks entirely in generalities:]
REP. DAVID E. BONIOR (D-MI): On earlier occasions, the administration
has
expressed the importance of working with Pakistan in addressing
terrorism in
South Asia. I also believe that cooperation with Pakistan continues to
be
very much in our national interest. Combating and preventing global
terrorism
is one of the most serious challenges facing America's foreign policy in
this
new era.
It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that Pakistan, as a long-standing ally of
the
United States, is committed to cooperating with the United States on
terrorism. Its record shows that. Sanctioning Pakistan will serve no
purpose
other than to isolate them and aggravate the social and economic and
political challenges in the region.
I also strongly believe that the Taliban support for terrorism, and its
harboring of Osama bin Laden, must be condemned in the strongest
possible
terms. We must also respond to the threat, and I believe that is where
Pakistan plays a very critical role. We must remember that it is not in
Pakistan's interest to have the Taliban on its border. It is also not in
Pakistan's interest to have terrorist groups operating within its
borders.
And it is clearly not in India's interest to have Pakistan isolated,
thereby
producing a greater threat to peace and stability in South Asia….
I know from my talks with General Musharraf, when I visited Pakistan and
India in April, that he is committed to dealing with the Taliban. He has
met
with one leader of the Taliban and is prepared to meet with others in
Afghanistan. Throughout my trip, I gained a new appreciation of the new
challenges facing the region. I also came away, more convinced than
ever,
that the United States must play a proactive role in helping to meet
those
challenges.
There are serious challenges and threats, which exist in Pakistan. But I
also
know that General Musharraf and General Aziz (sp), in Pakistan, are well
aware of what needs to be done.
[Emperor's Clothes note: Shortly after this, Michael Sheehan, the State
Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism and Alan Eastham, Jr., the
Deputy
Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs spoke. However,
they
also talked in generalities. Following there remarks REP. GEJDENSON
spoke,
ending with the following heated exchange:]
REP. GEJDENSON: â?¦One last thing. Are there any countries supplying
weapons to
the Taliban at this point?
MR. SHEEHAN [from State Dep't]: I think I'll have to go in closed
session on
that as well, Mr. Congressman. I'm not -- what I know about that is from
classified sources. I'll be glad to talk to you about it after this.
REP. GEJDENSON: Thank you. You might check with Mr. Rohrabacher for any
other
information you need on Afghanistan -- (laughter). He seems to be very
knowledgeable about the military situation there.
REP. GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Rohrabacher?
REP. ROHRABACHER: (Laughing.) This is a joke! I mean, you have to go to
closed session to tell us where the weapons are coming from? Well, how
about
let's make a choice. There's Pakistan or Pakistan or Pakistan. (Laughs.)
Where do you think the Taliban -- right as we speak -- I haven't read
any
classified documents. Everybody in the region knows that Pakistan is
involved
with a massive supply of military weapons and has been since the very
beginning of the Taliban.
Let me just state for the record, here, before I get into my questions,
that
I think there's -- and it's not just you, Mr. Ambassador, but it is this
administration and, perhaps, other administrations as well. I do not
believe
that terrorism flows from a lack of state control. A breakdown of state
control, all of sudden you have terrorism. That's not what causes
terrorism.
What causes terrorism is a lack of freedom and democracy, a lack of a
means
to solve one's problems through a democratic process.
Afghanistan, from the very beginning, we have been -- when the Reagan
administration was involved with helping the Afghans fight the Russians,
which was engaged in trying to put a totalitarian government there --
because
of Pakistan's insistence, a lion's share of our support went to a guy
named
Hekmatyar Gulbuddin, who had no democratic tendencies whatsoever. And
since
the Russians lost, we have not been supporting, the United States has
not
been supporting any type of somewhat free, somewhat democratic
alternatives
in Afghanistan, and there are such alternatives, and we all -- those of
us
who have been involved know that.
So there's no democracy or freedom in Afghanistan, where people who are
good
and decent and courageous people, have a chance to cleanse their society
of
the drug dealers and the fanatics that torture and repress, especially
the
women of Afghanistan. But the men of Afghanistan are not fanatics like
the
Taliban, either. They would like to have a different regime. Only the
United
States has given -- and I again make this charge -- the United States
has
been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is
let me
add. But you don't have any type of democracy in Afghanistan.
â?¦Let me note that, three years ago, I tried to arrange support, aid,
humanitarian aid, to a non-Taliban-controlled section of Afghanistan,
the
Bamian area. Mr. Chairman, the State Department did everything they
could to
thwart these humanitarian medical supplies from going into Bamian. And
we
heard today that we are very proud that we are still giving aid to
Afghanistan. Let me note; that aid has always gone to Taliban areas. So
what
message does that send to people of Afghanistan? We have been supporting
the
Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people
from
the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban,
they are
thwarted by our own State Department.
And let me just note that that same area, Bamian, where I tried to help
those
people who are opposed to the Taliban; Bamian now is the headquarters of
Mr.
Bin Laden. Surprise, surprise! Everyone in this committee has heard me,
time
and again over the years, say, unless we did something, Afghanistan was
going
to become a base for terrorism and drug dealing. And, Mr. Chairman, how
many
times did you hear me say that this administration either ignored that
or --
a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
Again, let me just -- I am sorry Mr. Inderfurth is not here to defend
himself
-- but let me state for the record: At a time when the Taliban were
vulnerable, the top person of this administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and
Bill
Richardson, personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the
anti-Taliban
forces not to go on the offensive and, furthermore, convinced all of the
anti-Taliban forces, their supporters, to disarm them and to cease their
flow
of support for the anti-Taliban forces. At that same moment, Pakistan
initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and
caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in
Afghanistan.
Now, with a history like that, it's very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me to
sit
here and listen to someone say, "Our main goal is to drain the swamp" --
and
the swamp is Afghanistan -- because the United States created that swamp
in
Afghanistan. And the United States' policies have undercut those efforts
to
create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan, which is consistent
with
the beliefs of the Afghan people.
REP. GILMAN: Did the panelists want to respond at all?
MR. SHEEHAN: I would, Mr. Congressman.
REP. GILMAN: Ambassador Sheehan.
MR. SHEEHAN: First of all, Mr. Congressman, I'm sorry that you think
it's a
joke that I won't respond on the issue of support for the arms for the
Taliban, but the information that I have, which is -- I cannot respond
by
public source -- is based on intelligence methods, and I don't have the
authority to speak about that in this session. But I'll be glad to talk
to
you or anybody else afterwards.
Secondly, regarding the responsibility the United States government has
for
Afghanistan and the situation there, I don't accept that conclusion at
all.
The United States did help participate in helping the mujaheddin reject
the
Soviet occupation in the mid-'80s, and that was a policy that I think
was a
correct one at that time. The situation in Afghanistan, the
deterioration of
that state since 1979, has primarily to do with the situation in
Afghanistan.
Certainly there were those responsible, whether it was the Soviet
occupiers
or those who were involved in a civil war that has waged there for 20
years.
But the idea that the United States government is responsible for
everything
in Afghanistan I think is not true.
And the idea that we support the Taliban I also reject as well
completely. I
have spent 18 months in this job leading the effort within the United
States
government and around the world to bring pressure on the Taliban. After
the
bombing of the embassies in East Africa, when I got hired for this job,
I
have made it my sole effort, my primary effort in this job to bring
pressure
on that regime. And the United States government leads that effort in
providing pressure on that regime. My office leads that effort within
the
United States government. We started with an executive order in August
of
1999 that brought sanctions to bear on the Taliban. We've led the effort
in
the U.N. to bring international sanctions against them. We're also
leading
the effort internationally right now to look at further measures against
the
Taliban. It's the United States government that is leading that effort
--
we're ahead of everybody else -- to bring pressure on the Taliban. And
the
Taliban knows it, and those other member states within the U.N. and
other --
the other community knows our efforts to bring pressure to bear on that
organization because of its support for state -- for terrorism.
REP. GILMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Eastham, did you want to comment?
MR. EASTHAM: Yes, sir, I would. I would be happy to defend Mr.
Inderfurth, if
you'd like, Mr. Rohrabacher, even if he's not here in person.
I would just note that I have spent nearly 15 years of my life working
on
this part of the world. I was with the mujaheddin in Peshar [Pakistan!]
from
1984 to 1987. I was in the consulate in Peshar at that time. I've been
back
on this account now for -- I began my sixth year on the South Asia
account
this time, around this week. I was in Pakistan when you were trying your
effort to put -- the airdrop assistance into Bamian. So I'm quite
familiar
with the history of the whole episode. And I can say that at no point --
at
no point -- in the last six years has the United States of America
offered
its support to the Taliban.
This is why I think that despite the fact we've provided you nearly a
thousand documents in response to the request of the chairman, that you
haven't been able to find the support for the Taliban, because it isn't
there.
REP. ROHRABACHER: That is incorrect, by the way. And I will say that for
the
record. That is incorrect. I have found several references. And
documents
have been kept from me indicating what our policy formation about the
Taliban
has been. So that is not accurate.
MR. EASTHAM: Well, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, then,
about
the record of what this administration has done with respect to the
Taliban.
But I will say that we have -- that our goals with respect to the
Taliban
have shifted over the past two years, almost, since the East Africa
bombings.
When the Taliban first came into power in Afghanistan, we had an agenda
which
addressed terrorism, narcotics, human rights, including the rights of
women,
and bringing peace to Afghanistan. We tried to address all of those at
the
same time.
After the East Africa bombing, the terrorism problem became much more
acute
and a much higher priority in terms of our -- in terms of what we were
doing.
But we've been addressing all these issues since the first day the
Taliban
came into being, and particularly since they came to power in Kabul.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
â?¦
[TENC note: Rohrabacher replied:]
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.
Let me just say that, in your denials to the charges that I made, you
were
very good at general denials. But there was no denial of some specific
charges, so I'd like to ask you about them now.
I charged that the aid that the United States has been giving has been
going
to the Taliban-controlled territories, especially during that time
period
when one-third of Afghanistan was being controlled by non- and
anti-Taliban
forces. Specifically, I used the example of the Bamian effort in which
we
tried to help the folks down there, who my sources said were in great
deprivation and starving, and the State Department undermined that
effort.
And we mentioned earlier there is an aid program going on to
Afghanistan. Ten
percent of Afghanistan is still controlled by anti- Taliban forces. Is
any of
the aid that we are giving going to this anti-Taliban area?
â?¦
MR. EASTHAM: The answer to the question is, yes, there is aid flowing to
all
areas in Afghanistan. That is a function, however, of accessibility, of
how
you get it to them. There is assistance, which flows through the United
Nations who are the implementers of the program, into the North, via
Tajikistan, and also through the Chitral area of Pakistan --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Okay. So --
MR. EASTHAM: -- as well as to the 80 percent of the country.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- okay. So your answer is yes, that currently that
one
area in the Panjshir Valley, now controlled by Commander Massoud, that
does
-- they do receive humanitarian supplies?
MR. EASTHAM: I can't take you specifically to the Panjshir Valley
because
access to the Panjshir Valley is blocked from the south by the Taliban.
REP. ROHRABACHER: But of course, it's not blocked from Tajikistan,
right?
MR. EASTHAM: Yeah. But there is assistance, which flows into all areas
of
Afghanistan, through these U.N. programs.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Okay. So you're on the record. Thank you
very
much.
MR. EASTHAM: Okay. But --
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's not what my sources say.
MR. EASTHAM: -- with respect to Bamian, I want to take you back to the
period
two, three years ago that you are referring to. In fact, I have -- at
around
that same time, I made a trip myself from Pakistan to Kandahar, to talk
to
the Taliban about the blockade, which they had imposed at the time, upon
assistance to Bamian, because at the time Bamian was controlled by
non-Taliban forces, from the Hazara people, there.
One of the main effects of the trip by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Inderfurth
that
you have so criticized was to attempt to persuade the Taliban in fact to
lift
that very blockade of Bamian, which was -- and we followed it up with
discussions in Islamabad, in which the Taliban did, in fact, agree to a
partial lifting to enable foodstuffs to go into Bamian.
REP. ROHRABACHER: So we traded off with the Taliban that they were going
to
lift their blockade and we were going to disarm all of their opponents.
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir, that's not the case.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Well, let's go back -- go to disarming the
Taliban's
opponents. And by the way, this has been reconfirmed in everything that
I've
read, both official and unofficial. Are you trying to tell us now that
the
State Department's policy was not, at that crucial moment when the
Taliban
was vulnerable, to disarm the Taliban's opponents? Did not Mr.
Inderfurth and
the State Department contact all of the support groups that were helping
the
anti-Taliban forces and ask them to cease their flow of military
supplies to
the anti-Taliban forces?
MR. EASTHAM: At that time we were trying to -- we were trying to
construct a
coalition which would cut off support for all forces in Afghanistan from
the
outside.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, and I take it --- so I take it that's a yes to my
question. But the --
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir; you've left out the cutting off the Taliban part.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- but the Taliban were -- but the Taliban were
included;
except what happened right after all of those other support systems that
had
been dismantled because of Mr. Inderfurth's and Mr. Richardson's appeal,
and
the State Department's appeal? What happened immediately -- not only
immediately after, even while you were making that appeal, what happened
in
Pakistan? Was there an airlift of supplies, military supplies, between
Pakistan and Kabul and the forward elements of the Taliban forces?
(Pause.) REP. ROHRABACHER: The answer is yes. I know.
MR. EASTHAM: The answer is --
REP. ROHRABACHER: You can't tell me because --
MR. EASTHMAM: The answer is --
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- it's secret information.
MR. EASTHAM: The answer is closed session, if you would like to dredge
up
that record.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Right. Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: That would be fine.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Well, I don't have to go into closed session because I
didn't get that information from any classified document. That
information is
available to anybody watching the scene up there. They know exactly what
happened. Mr. Inderfurth, Mr. Bill Richardson, a good friend of mine,
doing
the bidding of this administration, basically convinced the
anti-Talibans'
mentors to quit providing them the weapons they needed, with some scheme
that
the Taliban were then going to lay down their arms. And immediately
thereafter, Pakistan started a massive shift of military supplies which
resulted in the total defeat of the anti-Taliban forces.
This is -- now, this is either collusion or incompetence on the part of
the
State Department, as far as this congressman is concernedâ?¦
Why haven't I been provided any documents about State Department
analysis of
-- during the formation period of the Taliban, about whether or not the
Taliban was a good force or a bad force? Why have none of those
documents
reached my desk after two years?
MR. EASTHAM: Congressman, we were responding to a specific request
dealing
with a specific time period, which I believe the commencing period of
the
request for documents was after the time period you're talking about. We
were
asked to provide documents, by the chairman of this committee, from 1996
to
1999.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I see. You found a loophole in the chairman's wording
--
MR. EASTHAM: No, sir. We were responding to the chairman's request.
REP. ROHRABACHER: You found a loophole in the chairman's wording of his
request as to not to provide me those documents.
You know, I am the only one here. I am not the chairman of the
committee. I
would never get the opportunity to have a back and forth with you,
except in
times like this.
The State Department has taken full advantage of its use of words in
order
not to get this information out. I am looking forward to more documents.
I
will say this, I have spent hours overlooking those documents, and
there's
been nothing in those documents to persuade me that my charges that this
administration has been covertly supporting the Taliban is not accurate.
Feel free to respond to that.
MR. EASTHAM: It's not true.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: I have to negate the whole thesis that you're operating
under,
sir.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right. Then -- okay, the other option is the State
Department is so incompetent that we have done things that helped the
Taliban
and have put them in a position of having hundreds of millions of
dollars of
drug money, and had power in Afghanistan, and undercutting the
anti-Taliban
forces. This is just -- this isn't intent, this is just incompetence?
MR. EASTHAM: That's a judgment you can make.
REP. ROHRABACHER: All right.
MR. EASTHAM: And if you want to make that judgment, that's up to you,
Congressman.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. EASTHAM: I would just observe that it's considerably more complex
than
that to deal with people over whom we have so little influence as with
Taliban. I have spent -- I have been myself, by my count, six times into
Afghanistan on both the northern side and the southern side. I have met
innumerable times with Taliban officials to attempt to achieve U.S.
objectives, and I have to tell you that it's a tough job.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I believe it is a tough job --
MR. EASTHAM: I'd like to introduce you to some of them sometime.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, I've met many Taliban, thank you. And as you are
aware,
I have met many Taliban and talked to them. Especially when you disarm
their
opponents, and you participate in an effort to disarm their opponents at
a
time when they're being supplied -- resupplied militarily, I guess it is
very
hard for them to take us seriously when we say we're going to get tough
with
them.
MR. EASTHAM: You keep saying that, but it's not true.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Well -- oh --
MR. EASTHAM: The effort --
REP. ROHRABACHER: You're just saying -- no, you're just --
MR. EASTHAM: The effort was to stop the support for all the factions.
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's correct. You didn't deny that we disarmed their
opponents, you just said we were doing it with the Taliban as well. But
as I
pointed out, which you did not deny, the Taliban were immediately
resupplied.
Which means that we are part and parcel to disarming a victim against
this
hostile, totalitarian, anti- Western, drug-dealing force in their
society,
and we were part and parcel of disarming the victim, thinking that the
aggressor was going to be disarmed as well, but it just didn't work out
-- at
the moment when Pakistan was arming them, I might add.
Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc. Reprinted for Fair Use Only
***
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about
one
article/day.
Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Further Reading
= = = = = = = = = = =
1) "Why Does Washington Want Afghanistan?" by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff
and
Nico Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
2) Is Washington sincere about fighting terrorism? Then why has it
coddled
the terrorist armies in the Balkans? See '"TERRORISM AGAINST SERBIA IS
NO
CRIME' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/nocrime.htm
And why has it threatened to unleash a campaign of terror against
Belarus?
See, 'Tough Measures Needed in Belarus!' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm
3) In the course of one week Osama bin laden switched from saying he
opposed
the 9-11 destruction to saying he rejoiced in it. Emperor's Clothes
found
this change a bit too convenient. See "'Osama bin laden, Terrorist
Monster,'
TAKE TWO!" by Jared Israel, at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm
=======================================
Emperor's Clothes Needs Your Help!
=======================================
On 18 September about 100,000 readers transferred more than 1.7
gigabytes of
data from Emperor's Clothes. That's the equivalent of around 1.5 million
pages in printed books.
As you may know, the Website was "down" for about four hours that day.
Because of the current crisis, we are strained beyond capacity.
We recently hired a full time computer person. He has partly finished
remodeling the Website so it loads more quickly and is easier to use. We
hope
you find these changes useful. Now we need to complete the makeover and
improve our technical facilities to meet the huge increase in demand for
bandwidth.
Emperor's Clothes does not charge money for articles. We rely on
donations.
Many of our readers have contributed in the past. This has allowed us to
function. Now we need contributions from everyone who finds Emperor's
Clothes
useful so we can pay our (overworked, underpaid) computer helper and
make
technical improvements so that all our articles are available all the
time.
Please send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000
or
more. Every penny will be used to get articles to more people.
You can make a donation using at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us
know
by email at emperors1000@... to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]