You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Taliban financers based in Persian Gulf: Holbrooke
2009-07-22
[Iran Press TV Latest] Richard Holbrooke, the United States' special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, says some fundamentalists based in Persian Gulf states are financing the Taliban.
Who'da ever expected that?
Some official sources in Pakistan estimate the budget for Taliban forces -- stationed on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- to be between three and four billion dollars, BBC reported. Holbrooke says such a huge amount of money could not be acquired only through illegal drug trafficking.
If they don't have intel saying precisely where in the Persian Gulf the money's coming from I'd like to know what the intelligence community's been doing for the past eight years...
Like which country, or like which bank and account? Would Ambassador Holbrooke say anything before the accounts were frozen?
Ahmed Ghani, the governor of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, also says that it is clear that the money comes from outside of Pakistan because Pakistan does not give the money to the Taliban.
Not at the moment, anyway. At least not to all of it...
No, no, of course not. The ISI gives money, and training, and senior liasons. And Pakistani individuals and groups give money, and their sons -- sometimes even of their own free will. Or so I've heard.
After the September 11 attacks in the US, some Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, froze bank accounts that were used to finance fundamentalists but the move was not effective in halting their activity, the BBC report said.
It would have only been effective had they wanted to make it so. They were still thinking "strategic depth" until the monster got away. Every time it looks like they might get it back under control they go back to it, at which point the monster starts eating their children again.
Only in 2008, the US-led coalition forces spent over $16 billion on the war in Afghanistan, which shows that the Taliban must be receiving a huge amount of financial support.
I'm confused.Because the Coalition wages war with expensive equipment and highly trained troops instead of masses of cannon fodder, therefore the Taliban must spend an equal amount for reversing the formula?
Posted by:Fred

#6  Why not make all this revenue subject to US federal tax? That'll chill down any activity and make recovery impossible for Taliban revenues.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-07-22 11:23  

#5  So why are we pouring more and more money into AfPak w/ the Pakis raking $ off each shipping container and tanker? Instead we should be working to crash the price of oil. But that would require, you know, a sensible domestic energy policy.
Posted by: ed   2009-07-22 11:17  

#4  Besides producing 93% of the world's opium, the region has lots of gemstones they have been mining. Free trade in illicit goods, arms for drugs, has quite a market(FARC, deodorant in the Maghreb, etc) and plenty of banks to launder the $$$$$$$$$. Holbrooke either wants to deflect attention from the dirty truth or is truly a dipwad puppet, or both.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2009-07-22 10:33  

#3  Take a start at the countries who supported the last Taliban Govt ie Pakistan,Saudi and UAE!!!!
Posted by: Paul2   2009-07-22 09:48  

#2  Richard Holbrooke, the United States' special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, says some fundamentalists based in Persian Gulf states are financing the Taliban.

How much are we paying this genius each year to come up with news flashes such as this?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-07-22 07:52  

#1  coalition forces spent over $16 billion on the war in Afghanistan, which shows that the Taliban must be receiving a huge amount

Fairness is important. If the coalition gets $16 billion then the Taliban should get $16 billion, and if they don't have it then we should provide it for them. (Position statement that may soon be released by the western 'progressives'.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-07-22 07:42  

00:00