John Whitehead's Commentary
American Funding of Afghanistan Raises Important Questions
The costs of war are high, no matter which side of the battle you're on--in terms of life, money and resources--and the rewards are often meager. As America continues its war against terrorism, the number crunchers are calculating figures at an alarming rate. While some sadden, others alarm--and still others are baffling.
For example, according to a recent United Nations report, six million Afghans--one in every four --are at risk of death because of armed conflict, drought or chronic poverty. These numbers reflect a state of crisis that was in existence before the U.S. began to take action for the crimes against our country. And whereas three years ago Afghanistan was considered a promising developing nation, it has since become dependent on international aid--as the result of a three-year drought, civil war and the Taliban's ongoing association with Osama bin Laden.
Yet even the knowledge that the Taliban has harbored a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States for the past several years has not prevented the U.S. from being, according to the Los Angeles Times, the "biggest single donor" to Afghanistan, "providing $80 million of the $140 million in annual U.N. humanitarian assistance." Since we entered into this war on terrorism, President Bush has pledged an even greater amount of $300 million in humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.
And yet we seem surprised, even perturbed, when our attempts to "do the right thing" are thwarted at every turn. For example, officials for the U.N. World Food Program announced last week that the Taliban had seized two of its warehouses filled with around 7,000 tons of wheat--food intended to feed roughly 1.7 million people. But why should it surprise us that a government with so little regard for its citizens did not hesitate to increase the suffering of its people by denying them whatever meager food and medical aid they could procure?
While our leaders are to be commended for showing compassion to our enemies--particularly the innocent civilians suffering at their hands--our naiveté about the prospect of providing aid to the Afghan people should cause great concern.
Even that, however, pales in comparison to some recent information brought to light by Robert Scheer, a Los Angeles Times columnist, who reported that the U.S. government, under the Bush administration, gave $43 million to Taliban rulers to allegedly aid them in their war against drugs. This was only a few months before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The funds were reportedly given in exchange for the Taliban government's willingness to prevent its farmers from growing opium. Yet, having recently learned from DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson's testimony that Afghanistan produces more than 70% of the world's supply of illicit opium "and bin Laden is believed to have flourished in large part due to the Taliban's substantial reliance on the opium trade as a source of organizational revenue," how could we even begin to believe that they would suddenly choose do away with such a lucrative source of income for the Taliban? And why would the United States choose to financially reward this particular country for opposing drugs when it harbors a known terrorist and its human rights abuses are so atrocious?
As President Bush stated in his remarks to the nation several weeks ago:
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized--many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan--after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid--but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.
We know exactly how offensive the Taliban government has been to its own people--and the news that it sponsors and shelters terrorists is certainly not news to us, nor has it been for quite some time. Yet the Bush Administration still saw fit to present $43 million as a gift to the Taliban government--an act that goes far beyond humanitarian aid and is totally inconsistent with our condemnation of their regime.
And while it is true that "hindsight is always 20/20," could we not have predicted that such a despotic regime would do very little to ease the suffering of its citizens--and even go out of its way to deny them food and medicine, leaving them to die of starvation and illness? So why did we give taxpayer dollars to a government that has declared a holy war against our country and our way of life, even going so far as to harbor an individual who has been involved in shedding so much American blood? And is it not possible--let alone probable--that bin Laden has had access to this money and supplies--and even now is succoring his own troops on our humanitarian aid and American gullibility?
These are the very questions we need answered before any more American blood is shed--and any more American dollars are "gifted" to Afghanistan.
In presenting the Taliban with this "gift," it is quite possible that we've provided them with funds that are being used in their holy war against the United States. And while President Bush did call on all American financial institutions to freeze any assets belonging to bin Laden and his accomplices--and threatened overseas banks to do the same--it may be too little too late, especially considering the fact that bin Laden's money-laundering network is so hard to trace.
For now, it is high time that we get our house in order--and there is no time to be wasted, no corners to be overlooked, no dark, forgotten places we can afford to ignore. We must shine the bright light of truth on ourselves and our leaders so that while we target those responsible for such heinous acts of terrorism or a global assault on terrorism, we do it knowledgeably, honorably and wisely.
For example, according to a recent United Nations report, six million Afghans--one in every four --are at risk of death because of armed conflict, drought or chronic poverty. These numbers reflect a state of crisis that was in existence before the U.S. began to take action for the crimes against our country. And whereas three years ago Afghanistan was considered a promising developing nation, it has since become dependent on international aid--as the result of a three-year drought, civil war and the Taliban's ongoing association with Osama bin Laden.
Yet even the knowledge that the Taliban has harbored a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States for the past several years has not prevented the U.S. from being, according to the Los Angeles Times, the "biggest single donor" to Afghanistan, "providing $80 million of the $140 million in annual U.N. humanitarian assistance." Since we entered into this war on terrorism, President Bush has pledged an even greater amount of $300 million in humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.
And yet we seem surprised, even perturbed, when our attempts to "do the right thing" are thwarted at every turn. For example, officials for the U.N. World Food Program announced last week that the Taliban had seized two of its warehouses filled with around 7,000 tons of wheat--food intended to feed roughly 1.7 million people. But why should it surprise us that a government with so little regard for its citizens did not hesitate to increase the suffering of its people by denying them whatever meager food and medical aid they could procure?
While our leaders are to be commended for showing compassion to our enemies--particularly the innocent civilians suffering at their hands--our naiveté about the prospect of providing aid to the Afghan people should cause great concern.
Even that, however, pales in comparison to some recent information brought to light by Robert Scheer, a Los Angeles Times columnist, who reported that the U.S. government, under the Bush administration, gave $43 million to Taliban rulers to allegedly aid them in their war against drugs. This was only a few months before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The funds were reportedly given in exchange for the Taliban government's willingness to prevent its farmers from growing opium. Yet, having recently learned from DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson's testimony that Afghanistan produces more than 70% of the world's supply of illicit opium "and bin Laden is believed to have flourished in large part due to the Taliban's substantial reliance on the opium trade as a source of organizational revenue," how could we even begin to believe that they would suddenly choose do away with such a lucrative source of income for the Taliban? And why would the United States choose to financially reward this particular country for opposing drugs when it harbors a known terrorist and its human rights abuses are so atrocious?
As President Bush stated in his remarks to the nation several weeks ago:
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized--many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan--after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid--but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.
We know exactly how offensive the Taliban government has been to its own people--and the news that it sponsors and shelters terrorists is certainly not news to us, nor has it been for quite some time. Yet the Bush Administration still saw fit to present $43 million as a gift to the Taliban government--an act that goes far beyond humanitarian aid and is totally inconsistent with our condemnation of their regime.
And while it is true that "hindsight is always 20/20," could we not have predicted that such a despotic regime would do very little to ease the suffering of its citizens--and even go out of its way to deny them food and medicine, leaving them to die of starvation and illness? So why did we give taxpayer dollars to a government that has declared a holy war against our country and our way of life, even going so far as to harbor an individual who has been involved in shedding so much American blood? And is it not possible--let alone probable--that bin Laden has had access to this money and supplies--and even now is succoring his own troops on our humanitarian aid and American gullibility?
These are the very questions we need answered before any more American blood is shed--and any more American dollars are "gifted" to Afghanistan.
In presenting the Taliban with this "gift," it is quite possible that we've provided them with funds that are being used in their holy war against the United States. And while President Bush did call on all American financial institutions to freeze any assets belonging to bin Laden and his accomplices--and threatened overseas banks to do the same--it may be too little too late, especially considering the fact that bin Laden's money-laundering network is so hard to trace.
For now, it is high time that we get our house in order--and there is no time to be wasted, no corners to be overlooked, no dark, forgotten places we can afford to ignore. We must shine the bright light of truth on ourselves and our leaders so that while we target those responsible for such heinous acts of terrorism or a global assault on terrorism, we do it knowledgeably, honorably and wisely.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
