>>I'm sure it is similar to Iraq, where many of the foreign fighters are those where daddy has enough money to fund the young jihadis trip, but the jihadi himself is soft and often a liability. << One writer on the topic of Afghanistan (I'm not recalling which at the moment) described joining the jihad as "Outward Bound for young, wealthy Arabs." Show up, have a rough time of it, pop some rounds at the enemies of the faith, and go home after a few months (provided you don't get killed, maimed, etc.). It's not hard to grasp why the Afghans considered the foreign "fighters" to generally be more annoyance than help, in light of that level of dedication and such. Which does seem to be the case in Iraq as well, with the wrinkle that the Outward Bounders are getting nominated for work as suicide bombers rather than getting to check out and go back home to brag about fighting for the faith after 90 days in country or whatever.

>>I have to disagree with you here. You be surprised were some damn Yankees turn up.<< As a general observation about the Cold War -- sure. In the particular of Afghanistan, no. At least that's not a premise that is strongly supported in the published and credible literature on the Afghan War, and the idea that such was considered forbidden gels quite well with both what is known about the polite courtesies of the Cold War in general, and how Pakistan ran things within their borders in particular. After the Soviet withdrawal is another matter entirely, particularly when monitoring, surveilling, and possibly trying to capture of kill Osama bin Laden became an issue late in the Clinton administration.

"NSDD 166 3/31/2006 2:31:41 PM I did look it up, and it is still classified:" I cannot believe this has not been called to task or at least pursued. Was it Lizard King who 'recomended' it read for a better understanding of his position? Knowing that it is still classified, what is the response of the original author who brought it up (LK?)?

>>http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html<< Not a legitimate source of information. As I have pointed out, the "Center for Research on Globalisation" is an ideologically motivated, anti-capitalist organization that is notable for shoddy research, shoddy documentation, zero accountability in terms of peer review and editorial fact checking, and a policy that stresses the importance of putting the cart before the horse in terms of actual research methods as accepted by any legitimate academic standard. In short, if this is the best you've got, then you've lost this debate from the onset.

>>"I would certainly agree with Horsesoldier that the Cold War is not the only lens to use when looking at Afghnistan." Your right, let us start with the Garden of Eden or perhaps the big bang... << Compared to my mention of forces like Pakistani nationalism, this bit of hyperbole is more appropriate to your Cold War hypothesis.

Anuts, Lizard King did indeed bring up NSDD 166 and probably because his socialist source mentions it. However, since the fact that it is still classified calls into question the depth of his knowledge, it is not convenient to address this comment nor the dozens of questions that I have posed throughout the thread, except with off-hand and irrelevant remarks. While I am certainly not a fountain of knowledge on the subject, I have read enough to be of the opinion that there hasn't been any credible links between CIA operations in Afghanistan and AQ. I am definitely willing to change my tune, but my guess is that Lizard King won't be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat on this thread, just like he didn't on a past thread about insurgencies that I recall.

Shek: You understand this is more of an inquiry for Lizard King. I intended not to call you out for not calling him out; yet an explanation on his part is what I am interested in. I think it would be an interesting and fascinating read to see how a classified document is supposed to bolster one's position. Now that it has been established that said document is indeed classified...all the more interesting. It begs a plethora of questions, but I will refrain until future response. The window for an honest, credible, and consistent explanation has been reduced to fractional levels. However, on a thread that has mentions of conspiracy theories, the entertainment value has increased exponentially.

"One writer on the topic of Afghanistan (I'm not recalling which at the moment)" Yes how convenient, how very convenient indeed. Why don't you start showing your hand and cite some your sources HorseSoldier - If that's your real name…. In short, if this is the best you've got, then you've lost this debate from the onset.

>>"One writer on the topic of Afghanistan (I'm not recalling which at the moment)" Yes how convenient, how very convenient indeed. Why don't you start showing your hand and cite some your sources << Yawn. I'm sorry, perhaps I did not clarify when I say "sources" I mean actually published texts -- histories, personal memoirs, the like -- concerning the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and the US covert operation to support the Mujaheddin. I'm sure you can grasp that citing such is a bit more difficult than, say, tossing out links to unpeer reviewed psuedo-intellectual "research centers" as such requires such quaint equipment as the books in question rather than simply a full can of caffeinated soft drink and a will to use google. My recollection is that the reference possibly turned up in _Charlie Wilson's War_, or possibly _Ghost Wars_, neither of which is handy at the moment. I'd check the citation later today when I'm home, but I'm not really seeing the point. Shek has demolished whatever argument you started with and the several you've tossed out as smoke screens for the glaring holes in the first, so there's really not much I can add to the debate besides a warm enthusiasm for watching you self-immolate yourself in this thread.

"has demolished whatever argument you started" Whatever, I guess ingorance is bliss. Have a nice sleep.