There was me wondering what had happened to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar when all of a sudden he turns up in an article on 'Al Jazeera's' website today and what a lot of sense he is talking; he is saying things like, the attacks on the World Trade Centre were planned on American soil and no Afghani has taken part in any military action in Europe or the United States.Well, Hekmatyar might, to westen eyes, look like a raving lunatic and he does seem to have a habit of falling out with all and sundry. For instance, in 2002 even the Iranians saw it expedient to give up their "Pashtun card" when they found his vocal opposition to Karzai and the Americans a bit too much for their liking and interestingly today we hear him warn Washington by pointing out that Moscow and Tehran are the beneficiaries of the on-going conflict and that America must be aware of the fact that Karzai's government is under control of people linked to Iran and Russia.
Are they really so stupid in Washington? Well, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that they are and that evidence would bring us back to our man of the moment, Mr Hekmatyar, and it would bring us back to the early eighties when the CIA decided ultimately to to back him rather than Ahmed Shah Massoud . Now he might have been a little bit less "Salonfähig" than the articulate Massoud but Hekmatyar was certainly as good as the former when it came to putting the fear of God into the Russians or, as the CIA Station Chief in Islamabad, Milton Bearden said, when some voices were being raised regarding Hekmatyar's anti-Americanism. "The mission was to kill Soviets, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar killed Soviets." S.Coll, (2004). Now, of course, he is killing Americans.
The point is, whatever we might think of this Hekmatyar chap, there might just be enough evidence to suggest that he actually is what 'Al Jazeera' ultimately portrays him as and that is, as someone who has traditionally allied his forces to fighters who are opposed to the presence of foreign troops, and, if we know our history of Afghanistan, this opposition to the presence of foreign troops is not going to go away. Moreover, with the "olive branch" already being held out to the "moderate taleban" and with the hype man's adventure begining to look like a new Vietnam, I wouldn't be surprised if we have negotiations with Hekmatyar in the not too distant future. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Hekmatyar is already sitting down from time to time with the CIA Station Chief and drinking tea. It is, after all, something he became well accustomed to back in the 80s.
The point is, whatever we might think of this Hekmatyar chap, there might just be enough evidence to suggest that he actually is what 'Al Jazeera' ultimately portrays him as and that is, as someone who has traditionally allied his forces to fighters who are opposed to the presence of foreign troops, and, if we know our history of Afghanistan, this opposition to the presence of foreign troops is not going to go away. Moreover, with the "olive branch" already being held out to the "moderate taleban" and with the hype man's adventure begining to look like a new Vietnam, I wouldn't be surprised if we have negotiations with Hekmatyar in the not too distant future. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Hekmatyar is already sitting down from time to time with the CIA Station Chief and drinking tea. It is, after all, something he became well accustomed to back in the 80s.
No comments:
Post a Comment