By Gordon Duff

Hamid Karzai and Manmohan Singh in a handshake

Two years ago analysts claimed most of the Taliban were fighting America simply because “they were there.”  Though this may be true to some extent still, other factors have made this statement obsolete.  Not only is America financing the Taliban, we are arming it and, through our ally India, training it as well.  This is the “understory” behind the news that is never reported and the reports handed out to the press.

First we started by blaming the Taliban for the massive increase in narcotics production after the Taliban were forced out of power.  Is it a coincidence that America invaded Afghanistan after Al Qaeda and bin Laden, only when opium production was entirely eradicated in Afghanistan?  We never found bin Laden, who had been living in Afghanistan under virtual “house arrest” prior to 9/11, an incident, despite misleading stories to the contrary, he has never been tied to in any way.  In fact, we never really found Al Qaeda or any training camps either.  We did, however, manage to start a war against the Afghan tribes, a war that stretched into Pakistan, a war that is left America and the Karzai government in control of part of the city of Kabul and nothing else.

The traditional blame for American failures is passed on to President Karzai, accused of being a weak leader or tied to the massive corruption and narcotics dealing that have overwhelmed Afghanistan.  Even more blame has been placed on failed American policies of aligning with minority tribes in the north known to be generally hostile to the majority of Afghanistan’s population.  These things, though true, are little more than excuses covering larger scandals, much larger and much more insidious.

  Beginners Guide to Writing SEO-friendly Blog Posts

A couple of weeks ago, it was quietly admitted that the massive new Afghan national police force was a failure, not just because it was feared and hated across the country or that it was untrained, ethnically unbalanced and a black hole of lost money.  It was also selling its weapons and ammunition to the Taliban, weapons and ammunition paid for by the United States, the best money could buy, far above the quality available to our enemies from local sources.  We did nothing about this other than let the story die on the vine as usual.

We had long known that the primary source of funds for the Taliban was the protection money paid them to allow supplies to come through their territory to reach American forces.  Prices per truck, and the trucks number in the thousands per week, have gone from $300 USD to nearly $1500 USD.  Now, it seems, massive transportation contracts have been given to individuals in Afghanistan that own no trucks but rather sub-contract to unknown companies.  We are no longer certain that we haven’t actually hired the Taliban itself to do America’s logistical support in Afghanistan.  They used to provide security.  Now they may even own the trucks themselves.


Despite the fact that our primary ally, Pakistan, has been telling us that India has been arming and training terrorists in Pakistan, we continue to allow this.  Thousands of Indian “security forces” hostile to Pakistan man “consulates” along the Pakistan border.  It is reported that they are arming Taliban forces, forces that should be called the “Indo-Taliban” to fight inside Pakistan.  This, of course, constitutes America allowing an enemy to openly operate against its own allies and even its own forces.  What could be the political inducement for this?


Why would the Pakistan government send a high level delegation to Washington to ask our government to end supporting India’s effort to train and arm the Taliban, a group America is currently fighting against?  Could India’s close relationship with Israel, a nation over half the members of congress signed a pledge of “undying and unconditional support” for be a factor?  The only historical equivalent would have been for America to bring Canada into Vietnam to arm and train the Viet Cong.  The only secret that is more poorly kept than this one is our decision to “attack” Marjah, the drug capital of Afghanistan, attack an enemy that had withdrawn or may have never existed and to “protect” the opium crop we used to claim financed the Taliban.

Who would want to interfere with a narco-empire stretching over, not only Afghanistan, but an entire region, governments that loosely support American efforts as long as drug revenue keeps coming.


With 30,000 new troops coming into Afghanistan while the remaining support for the Karzai government crumbles around us and corruption level reach new highs, can a military solution in support of a totally dysfunctional narco-state really bring about democratic reforms and eliminate the origins of political extremism?  Will more tapes of Osama bin Laden surface, perhaps now including mortgage advice or talking about basketball scores?  With tape recorders almost impossible to buy anymore and every cheap digital camera having a full video capability now, will we, at least, start getting a look at the short fat black haired bin Laden clone again?  Did he die too?  Can’t we do more to invent “infamous evildoers” and “enemy strongholds” for us to spend our billions in endless and fruitless pursuit of?

  Two-Directional Hurricane

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, grunt and 100% disabled vet. He has been a featured commentator on TV

Gordon Duff

Gordon Duff

and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues. He is active in the financial industry and is a specialist on global trade. Gordon Duff acts as political and economic advisor to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East.