America's affinity with Israel.

 

The leading supporter of Israel in the world has long been the United States. This is somewhat appropriate as the US was born out of a revolt on America's East Coast only for the colonies to expand westward into Indian territory. It isn't often discussed that there may have been as many as 18 million, possibly even 25 million, people living in North America when European settlers first arrived. The fact that the US would consist of a narrow slither of land if it weren't for genocide, war and slavery was long suppressed by historians. This denial of these origins was nothing exceptional. In the same way that the trauma of childbirth is suppressed in all of our minds, the horrors of nation-building are quickly wiped from the national memory. What follows then is the creation of a national mythology, the shibboleths of American exceptionalism were crafted by English colonists quite early on. Ronald Reagan liked to describe America as "a shining city upon a hill", well it was John Winthrop who coined that phrase in 1630 and not surprisingly it was a Bible reference.

 

So the notion of America as a nation chosen by God to spread its ideals actually predates the Revolution. Winthrop viewed America as ordained by God and received the charter of Massachusetts Bay from King Charles I. The charter stated that the principle purpose of the plantation was to save the indigenes from a pagan fate - in other words, it was a mission civilisatrice. The humane mission of spreading Christianity amounted to a systematic programme of extirpation and extermination. John Locke viewed America as the land where the world began and defended the theft of Indian land.  The heinous nature of the policies undertaken against the indigenous population was understood well by the Founding Fathers. Even the brilliant Thomas Jefferson made the case for the Native Americans to be forced into starvation if they didn't accept an existence as free-holding farmers. Jefferson went as far as to plan to drive the tribes into Canada, only to invade Canada and ensure that the job was finished. And so, civilisation came to America.

 

This was nothing out of the norm. To the indigenous population George Washington was known as the Town-Destroyer and for good reason. By the late 1770s Washington had set out to, in his own words, extirpate the indigenes from the country in a bid to expand westward to the Mississippi. As a punishment for resisting the Iroquois tribe was forced to cede their territory to compensate the butchers. Later John Quincy Adams would lament the "hapless race of Native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty". Expansionism soon acquired the designs of self-defence. The Jackson administration would conquer Florida in order to maintain the security of the American Republic. There were repeated attempts to annex Canada, where the British held-off the Americans. Instead the US took on the Spanish empire with much more success, succeeding in stealing away half of Mexico, Puerto Rico and Guam. This allowed the US government to buy the Philippines from the Spanish.

 

This was the period of so-called American imperialism. Yet if we look closely we find that the constant expansionist aggression that the US had demonstrated since day-one, we would find that the US has been engaged in colonial violence for much longer. In much the same way that Israel seems to go to war every 3 or 4 years these days. One minute it's Lebanon, then it's Gaza, Iran next perhaps! It's bound to be the case with a highly militarised economy and an irrationally right-wing establishment. It can't be ignored anymore, with Likudniks calling black immigrants a "cancer" on the Jewish state, - and talk of Hiroshima as the model for Israeli policy on Gaza - there's a problem that has to be acknowledged. Sadly it seems unlikely that Israel has any reason to even consider a position that would change the bloody stalemate that the region has to live with. The US isn't going to withhold its veto at the UN any time soon, that's for sure. Meanwhile the next election is due in January and Bibi Netanyahu is running with Avi Lieberman, the worst of worse scenarios.

Reagasm!

This week a statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled near the US Embassy in London on American Independence Day, it was built to commemorate the man who supposedly "won" the Cold War without firing a shot (at least not at Russians). Apparently the Iron Curtain fell because Reagan stood up and asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", it had nothing to do with the internal situation of the Soviet Union. Though we know that the Berlin Wall fell because of people power, it had nothing to do with American foreign policy, the Soviet Union was a house of cards and it collapsed from within. The statue will stand beside Franklin D Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, who look left-wing compared with the wasp-ish ferocity of Reaganomics. Supposedly the 10ft Reagan will remind us of the "power of freedom", which the Reaganites loved so much they supported Apartheid and Nikolae Ceaușescu right up until the bitter end. The irony being we have a statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square, Mandela was condemned as a "terrorist" by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

I have written about the deification of Ronald Reagan in the past and now the time has come to remind people about the reality of Reaganism as the media fawn over him once more. We can read at Sky News about how Thatcher shared his "idealism and conviction". In the comments you'll notice references to a "golden era" heralded by the Reaganites, for which there is no substance. You have to notice that the praise of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is always particularly shallow and characterised by vague language, preferably with the Union Jack and the Old Glory in the background to symbolise trans-Atlantic unity. Back in February, President Obama praised Reagan for the way he "restored" a sense of optimism in America and "transcended" politics. It seems as though people are a bit lost as to why there should be a statue to this man in London. The reasons range from a centenary (in which case it's only 5 months late) to Reagan accomplished "Peace through Strength" by killing thousands of Latin-Americans and propping vile despots all over the world.

Thatcher's words were read out by William Hague "'Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man - a true leader for our times. He held clear principles and acted upon them with purpose. Through his strength and his conviction he brought millions of people to freedom as the Iron Curtain finally came down." The Reagan years were marked out by a slaughter of thousands of people in Latin America and the Middle East, whilst dictators oppressed millions more on his watch. The Iron Lady finished with this "It was a pleasure to be his colleague and his friend and I hope this statue will be a reminder to future generations of the debt we owe him." The only debt incurred by the Reagan era was in the form of a $3 trillion debt which turned the US from the biggest creditor to the largest debtor in the world. All of it was used to pay for enormous tax-cuts for the rich, unprecedented protectionist barriers to foreign competition and a bloated military budget. The fawning British press is a disgrace.

It is appropriate that this man joins other overrated and misguidedly praised politicians as John F Kennedy and Jan Smuts as immortalised statues. Though it is most unfortunate that we build statues of such people in juxtaposition to statues of great men like Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. It is more of a testament to the warped age in which we live, I suppose in twenty-odd years we'll be building statues of George Bush and hearing about how he fought so valiantly for freedom and democracy against Islamo-fascism. We find ourselves in Britain worried to death about the fucking Eurocrats in Brussels whilst Trident is a part of the US nuclear command system and we have been led into six "humanitarian interventions" in the last 20 years. Have we even made an independent foreign policy decision since Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to die in Vietnam? We are America's Trojan Mule in Europe, the British elite are aware that without the "special relationship" we have no role in world affairs.

Shame on You, Mr Blair!

A Journey is the title of the self-serving piece of narcissistic trash churned out by Tony Blair, like so many other lies, for the "rabble" to feast upon. Clearly, Mr Blair is not content with the Medal of Freedom from George Bush, the £20 million he has amassed since he left office or his cushy job as Peace Envoy to the Middle East. No, it is not enough for him, he must play a part in crafting his own legacy. Blair can't help himself, he must distort the truth further for the sake of self-glorification. Mr Blair would prefer it if we, the people he despises, were to remember him as a "progressive" for implementing the minimum wage, working tax-credits, repealing Section 28 and devolving power to Scotland and Wales. These were just tokens, symbolic gestures, Blair threw to the "rabble" to look like a "progressive". Blair is less proud of banning fox hunting, which he boasts of sabotaging in his book, and coming up with the Freedom of Information act, because it enables journalists to ask annoying questions.

The donation Blair has made to British troops is also a token, a symbolic gesture of caring to help the image. Of course, in donating the proceeds to soldiers Blair does not absolve him of the role he played in engineering a blood bath in the Middle East. There is no compensation for the 1 million-plus Iraqis slaughtered and the 4 million displaced because of the decision made under him. If we lived in a civilised society the Blair cabinet and the Bush administration would be in the Hague. He would rather we forgot about Iraq and Afghanistan, rather we remember him as a great man for bringing peace to Ireland and the Balkans. But we the people, whom he harbours such contempt for, should not forget him as the neoconservative who opposed tighter regulations of banking whilst supporting a campaign of violence in the Middle East.

In 2007 Blair was driven out of office, he was succeeded by the much loathed Gordon Brown, just one year short of meeting Thatcher's record of 11 years in power - a goal so petty we know it must have consumed him. In retrospect it was sad to see Blair leave office so prematurely, as we were denied the pleasure of his downfall and had to "make-do" with Brown. He has only resurfaced recently to peddle copies of his mediocre book, which Richard Seymour described as "Blair's fat little compendium of pseudo-revelations, attacks on personal acquaintances and colleagues, self-justifying circumlocutions, political polemic, and narcissistic reflections, comes with its own self-destruct button." In which Blair compares himself to Lady Diana, as she was as manipulative as he is apparently, and remarks that he felt "armoured and able to float above the demonic rabble tethering at his limbs."

Recently, when being interviewed by Andrew Marr, Blair appeared glib as always. He was keen to come across as the maker of right decisions and humble enough to admit a few faults. The "right decision" being the invasion of Iraq, the "fault" being the ban on fox hunting. But it would be a gross understatement to say that Blair is "out-of-touch". As the old Poodle is now to the Right of Nick Clegg on foreign policy and to the Right of David Cameron on ID cards, civil liberties and immigration. Blair even claims that Brown lost the election because he deviated from the "New Labour programme" and insisted that the Labour Party has to be open to "successful people", like himself obviously. This Poodle has even gone so far as to back the Con-Dem Coalition in the cuts agenda they are pursuing, further demonstrating that his loyalty to the Labour Party is little more than a shallow tribal instinct. The only thing "red" about Tony Blair is the blood under his fingernails.

Whether he likes it or not, Tony Blair will go down in history for his part in the illegal invasion of Iraq and the shameful way in which he aligned himself with the Bush administration. He claims that aligning himself with the Bushites brought him closer to the American people, even though Bush was anointed by the US Supreme Court not the American people and out of a populace of over 300 million people only 50 million people voted for Bush. We should not forget that 'George the Anointed' and his policies only really benefited around 1% of Americans. It was the richest 1% of the population which gained $1.6 trillion under the Bush tax-cuts. So the invasion of Iraq, an act of aggression which would be condemned under the Nuremberg principles, is certainly not a crime perpetrated by the majority of the American people - the same is true of Britain. The responsibility lies on the members of the Blair cabinet and the Bush administration. To call these people "liars" would be to presuppose the false notion that they can even tell the truth.

In the Andrew Marr interview Blair proclaimed that it is moral to overthrow tyrants because they are tyrants. Though he was keen to point out exceptions, such as Mugabe, exceptions made along "pragmatic grounds". Of course King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Hosni Mubarak, dictators backed by Britain and America, were not examples of his choice. This is the principle which is supposed to vindicate Mr Blair of the illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis. Though he still claims that the invasion was down to Saddam's violations of UN resolutions over weapons of mass-destruction. Blair has backed away from a previous statement in which he "revealed" that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that Saddam did not have WMD. After realising that this is an indefensible position which leaves him vulnerable to even more criticism Blair backed away from it.

The Poodle also claimed that the invasion of Iraq was not for America, it was for Britain. The truth is that it was not for a country at all. The no-bid reconstruction contracts handed over to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel via executive agreements are evidence of this. It's been estimated that 80% of Iraqi oil has been seized by American and British energy corporations. Not only that, the economy of Iraq has been transformed - for the worst - with the public sector being decimated by a series of economic reforms known as "shock therapy". These policies were not the result of a "fledgling democracy" but were imposed through the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was made up of Americans and Brits. It was "shock therapy", which slashed the corporation tax down from 40% to 15% and has allowed multinational corporations to transfer 100% of their profits out of Iraq tax-free. The war Blair embarked on for Britain, was more like an armed looting spree by corporations.


Blair is not the first to bring out a book to set the record "straight", and he will not be the last either. George W Bush will be releasing his book Decision Points in November of this year. As Michael Moore once said, we live in fictitious times in which we have fictitious election results and fictitious governments who send the poor off to kill other poor people for fictitious reasons. Shame on you, Mr Blair! Though it is no surprise that these people are now attempting to sway and distort history in their favour. Let's hope that New Labour and its "noble lies" are dead now, the only way forward for the Labour Party is a return to its heritage of working-class radicalism. Nothing short of a trial in the Hague would be a moral end to this chapter in 21st Century politics. Sadly the chapter may outlive Blair and Bush, as the extremities of the past decade will reverberate throughout government for years to come.

BP stands for "Bad Poodle!"

Rewards for Justice?

Recently the furore surrounding the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has been reignited, there has been talk of "transatlantic tensions" and the "damage" to the "special relationship" between the US and the UK - which is of course only discussed on the Queen's side of the pond. Never mind the fact that al-Megrahi was convicted due to the testimony of a man who not only gave around 20 false descriptions of him and failed to identify him in court, but was rewarded for his testimony with payments. Tony Gauci received in excess of $2 million, and his brother Paul received a payment in excess of $1 million, from the US Department of Justice - as part of the "Rewards for Justice" programme. Never mind the anonymous witness, a CIA informant, who received $4 million upon al-Megrahi's conviction. The debate is about the UK's standing in the world, or more specifically in Washington. The innocence or guilt of the man is no longer up for debate.

The matter at hand is whether or not the devolved Scottish Parliament released al-Megrahi so that BP could secure its "commercial interests" in Libya. But more importantly, for David Cameron, how will the British government look in the eyes of the American government after this - the "special relationship" is at stake they claim. US Senators have accused BP of having a hand in al-Megrahi's release, which is another twist in the tale of BP's oil spill in the Mexican Gulf and the outrage surrounding it. Though BP has admitted that it did lobby the British government to further prisoner transfer negotiations between the UK and Libya, but has insisted that it did not lobby to ensure al-Megrahi's release. Considering that BP has $900 million offshore drilling operations in the region, undoubtedly the company was acting to avoid disrupting such interests. It wouldn't be the first time that BP has been a source of agitation and turmoil, though usually for others and not us.


British Petroleum may have been used by Americans in their tirades about the company, which were laughably deemed "anti-British" by the British press, but the company was once called the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as its primary source of oil was Iranian in origin. The company became known as British Petroleum in the early 1950s. This was just after Mossadeq had been elected in Iran and nationalised the country's oil reserves. The British government soon acted to subvert Mossadeq's government. With the support of the US, and the active participation of the CIA, this "subversion" eventually led to a coup in 1953, the nationalist Mossadeq was removed from power and bringing back the Shah to govern Iran. BP continued to operate in Iran, though had been diminished, until the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that overthrew the Shah and subsequently led to the oil reserves being nationalised once more. This drove BP out of Iran and the "War on Terrorism" was soon underway.

 A "Special Relationship"?

This neatly brings us back to the issue at hand. After the establishment of the Islamic Republic, tensions quickly began between the US and Iran due to the hostage crisis and the war with Iraq. It was in 1988, just months before the Lockerbie bombing, that the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people including 66 children. The US wrote this off as an "accident" and Bush I went on to reward the ship's captain "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer." In the aftermath of 9/11, it reflected the widespread ignorance as Bush II asked "Why do they hate us when we're so good?" But it has been argued that the Lockerbie bombing, just months after the Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down, could have been retaliation from Tehran. Though we may never know as Thatcher squashed the attempts at an independent inquiry just before she left office.

That instance tells you of the true nature of the "relationship" between Britain and America. Thatcher squashed an independent inquiry, which could have brought a link between the way Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 just months later. But the British government were not involved in gunning down the Iranian airliner, just as in 2003 the invasion of Iraq was not conceived by Blair but by American neoconservatives. Nevertheless, the UK media still assumes that Britain has a major role in international affairs, even though we are more or less an appendage of the US. Take Trident, Britain's last claim to power in the world, as we have the power to liquidate entire countries - but only with the permission of Uncle Sam. The "special relationship" between the UK and the US is nothing but window-dressing and Britain is more like an obedient lieutenant than a partner. The only country in the world that has anything like a "special relationship" is Israel.

The furore around the premature release of a so-called "terrorist" is more about the incompetence of the UK government to follow the party-line in Washington than it is about al-Megrahi or the "War on Terror". This is the reason that al-Megrahi's guilt is not even a matter of debate, the debate is on the standing of Britain in the world (a euphemism for the White House). If al-Megrahi is guilty locking him away would be meaningless and merely hypocritical. As there are wanted terrorists being harboured by the American government, like Orlando Bosch who blew up a Cuban airliner and killed 73 people on the CIA's watch. Bosch, and others like him, are wanted throughout Latin America for a host of terrorist atrocities. If we want imprisoning al-Megrahi to mean more then we should extradite men like Orlando Bosch to face trial immediately. But no, Bosch and his friends remain free while we expect standards of justice to be upheld in our case. It is hypocrisy in the most literal sense of the word, we extend standards to others which would not extend to ourselves.

Related Links:

al-Megrahi was Framed

US and UK in standoff over Senate's Lockerbie Investigation
Grounds of Appeal 
BP admits to 'lobbying UK over Libya prisoner transfer' 
BP Oil Spill: US politicians accuse BP over Lockerbie terrorist

Raping and Pillaging in Mesopotamia.

"I believe freedom is the future of all humanity." - George W Bush

Despite massive opposition around the world, the US led the invasion of Iraq with the expressed intent of removing Saddam Hussein - a vile and brutal dictator - from power, to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. Everyone knows that Iraq is a major oil producing nation, second only to Saudi Arabia, and many members of the Bush administration had worked in the energy industry. Oil, the black gold that flows below Iraq's sand and dirt, is the reason most often cited by the public for the invasion today. We now know that 80% of Iraqi oil has gone to American and British energy corporations. But there is another side to the invasion that is often ignored. The Coalition Provisional Authority initiated a wave of radical economic reforms known as "shock therapy". These reforms included the mass-privatisation of state industries and public services, followed by deregulation of the markets and a 30% cut in corporation tax. These same corporations were also permitted to transfer their profits out of Iraq 100% tax free.

The aim of this "shock therapy" was to create the ideal market economy. On which a flimsy brand of democracy would be predicated, as the power of the state had been largely handed over to the private sector. The corporations that were soon dominating Iraq's economy, were fed a diet of no-bid reconstruction contracts by the US government. For example, Bechtel received a $35 million contract which also covered costs up to $680 million. But Halliburton is the most infamous case, a company once run by Dick Cheney, as it received $10 billion worth of contracts through executive agreements. Halliburton was suspected of overcharging, using the money of American tax-payers to cover it's costs, but only $10 million of the $250 million contested costs were not covered by the US government. In a sense, the private sector consists of tyrannical organisations, known as corporations and businesses, in which leaders are unelected and answer to no one, except their shareholders. They act to maximise profit and minimise cost, regardless of the needs and wants of the Iraqi people.

It is these corporate tyrannies that stand in the way of the Iraqi people in pursuing goals that are rooted in traditional politics like nationalism and socialism. The brand of democracy, perhaps more appropriately labelled polyarchy, introduced to Iraq will most likely stifle any attempt at radical or progressive change. As the real power lies in concentrated wealth in Iraq and these corporations will give support to the politicians most hospitable to their needs and wants. We have already seen this in the form of the Constitution of Iraq, which was written by men chosen by the provisional government. This is the reason that the only piece of legislation remaining from the years under Saddam is that which restricts workers from unionising. Initially, it appeared that the Bush administration were aiming to install an iron-fisted government to rule Iraq that was probably not much different to the regime led by Saddam Hussein. In reaction to this there were mass-demonstrations orchestrated by Ali al-Sistani and his followers. The US government was trying to avoid a truly democratic Iraq and ignored the demonstrations, as a result the insurgency began.

These are the real reasons that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, the pathetic liberal cop-outs that deem the war a "military blunder" are insufficient to condemn the war in it's depravity. The Nuremberg tribunal held aggression, in the form of invasion, as the supreme international crime. Under this umbrella falls all subsequent crimes, like the use of white phosphorous and other chemical warfare in Fallujah which has left hundreds of thousands horribly deformed. Let alone the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion, which is now over 1 million, and those who have been driven from their homes, who number around 4 million. If we want to continue to hold up the war against fascism as the great moral battle of the 20th century, we should at least have the decency to ensure that the Nuremberg principles are not trampled. For that reason, Bush and Blair should both be tried at the Hague. But also reparations should be made, Iraq should be reconstructed in accordance with the needs of the Iraqi people in mind - not in accordance with some utopian capitalist vision.

War Pigs and Chickenhawks.

"First of all, I want to say that the soldiers, and the families, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. We've got brave, courageous, dedicated professional people risking their lives and in some cases losing their lives in Afghanistan." - Gordon Brown

A major issue is the war in Afghanistan, an invasion which was originally orchestrated to defeat al-Qaeda. But for some reason that never happened. Possibly, because Bush refused to negotiate with the Taliban when they offered to turn over some of the wanted terrorists (including Osama bin Laden) to a third-party. The invasion turned into a war against the Taliban, and an exercise in state craft, after it became apparent that al-Qaeda were not in Afghanistan. The way the war is often talked about in the Western media is often in relation to the number of British troops killed, as well as the quality and the amount of equipment they have been allocated. The real reasons for the war are almost never discussed in the media. Afghanistan is valuable to the West in strategic terms, close to the main energy providers in the Middle East and Central Asia, and could be used against disobedient states like Iran. China and India are potential superpowers in waiting, maintaining control of energy resources is a way for the US government to maintain power in future decades. The conflict over who will control energy in Central Asia has yet to "conclude".
 
Despite all of this, there is no mention of the immoral nature of the invasion in the media, the commentary is effectively focused on the well-being of "our lads". This is down to the widely accepted assumption of the war in Afghanistan, that we are fighting against terrorism. "If we don't fight them over there, we will be fighting them over here." This is an old argument, now used by the chickenhawks of Washington and London. President Johnson once said of the Vietnamese communists: "We have to stop the communists over there [Vietnam] or we'll soon be fighting them in California." The implication of this commentary is that the war and the invasion is fine, the only thing wrong are the deaths of British soldiers. It wouldn't matter that just a few months ago 90 Afghan children were blown to bits, and it wouldn't matter if 9,000 more were blown up. So long as "our lads" are doing fine and have the best weapons money can buy, so they can keep on killing and keep on living. Would we have accepted this kind of commentary from the Soviets during their invasion of Afghanistan? The obvious answer is a resounding "No."

Even a child can see past such a transparently warped logic. The majority of people British and American forces are killing are not defenders of Osama bin Laden, they are the victims of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Back in the 80s, Afghanistan was torn apart by Soviet troops and the Mujahideen, which consisted partly of religious fanatics and some of the future leaders of al-Qaeda - Afghanistan is where Ayman al-Zawahiri met Osama bin Laden. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, also known as "Bandar Bush", recalls meeting with bin Laden in Afghanistan, bin Laden thanked Bandar for helping to bring the US to support the Afghans against the Communists. The Mujahideen were backed by American and British politicians among others. The Soviet Union was defeated in this conflict and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was founded. This led to probably the worst period of Afghan history, during which the Mujahideen killed each other over opium, committed mass rapes and slaughtered 50,000 people. When the Taliban turned up many Afghans supported them because they wanted to see the madness stop.

"You've got to ask yourself the question all the time: is this the right thing for a country like ours to do? My answer has got to be 'Yes'. Because the security of our country, and every country, depends on the ability to deal with a terrorist threat." - Gordon Brown

Now the majority of the forces that used to serve as part of the Mujahideen, who fought the Russians before tearing apart Afghanistan, are known as the Northern Alliance. Now they are an ally of the US and the UK in the war in Afghanistan. In case you've been living on the moon for the last 15 years, the Taliban are a reactionary group with an extremist interpretation of the Qu'ran, possibly the most extreme of extremist, that originates in Pakistan. The Taliban were supported all the way by the US government and the Saudi Royals once they seized power in the mid 90s. They received $6 billion from the Clintonites and the House of Saud, as the Taliban were overseeing the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline to the Caspian Sea. The rise of the Taliban was due to years of war and conflict internal of Afghanistan. It was the distribution of "jihadist manuals", most of which had been printed at the University of Nebraska, throughout Pakistan in the early 80s that provided the ideological backdrop for the Taliban to seize power.

It wasn't until the politicians in Washington decided that the Taliban regime was too unstable to maintain the oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was not backed by the United Nations Security Council and 34 out of 37 nations, surveyed by a Gallup poll, were totally opposed to the war. The invasion was carried out with the full knowledge that the consequences could be the deaths of millions of Afghans. It was estimated that there were around 5 million Afghans on the verge of starvation in 2001, it had been predicted that as aid agencies fled the number of Afghans facing starvation could rise by 2.5 million. Thankfully, that has not happened, but that does not change the conditions under which the choices were made. As Chomsky recently emphasised, some party hacks in the Soviet Union might have said it was fine to put missiles in Cuba because it didn't result in a nuclear war, but that doesn't vindicate the decision to do so.
 
According to US intelligence, most of the so-called Taliban are actually localised tribal terrorists who are reacting to the occupation. Much like the term "Viet-Cong", which became an all-encompassing derogative word for any opposition within Vietnam, "Taliban" is similarly being applied to all terrorists in Afghanistan regardless of their reasons or affiliations. Though, clearly the authorities are aware of the reasons and affiliations of many of the terrorists, as they are currently looking to pay many of them off. In the eloquent words of George Orwell "It's not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. A hierachical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against it's own subjects. And its object is not victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

Some interesting links:
For Britons, the Party Game is Over by John Pilger
Welcome to Orwell's World 2010 by John PilgerConservations with History - Tariq Ali Brown and Karzai Debate in 2010