What is the problem, and who is to blame?

According to the IEA’s narrative, Afghanistan is today occupied by infidel forces (the U.S. and their allies) who are trying to destroy Afghan and Islamic values. The problem started when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, toppled the Taliban regime, and installed a puppet government whose sole purpose is to implement American policies in the country, rather than serving the interests of the Afghan people. This has led to the wide-spread corruption, insecurity, moral and material decay that the country has witnessed since late 2001.¹⁷⁷ After 2001, the IEA has consistently refused to accept America’s official reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan, namely that the Taliban regime protected Osama bin Laden and allowed terrorist training camps on its territory. Even in 2005, the IEA continued to insist that there is no evidence al-Qaida was involved in the 11 September attacks.¹⁷⁸ These statements follow in the same track as the

statements before 2001, when the Taliban regime continued to protect bin Laden under the pretext that there was no evidence against him.

173 Rashid, Taliban: Islam, oil and the new Great Game in Central Asia, 88.

174 Sullivan, “Rise of the Taliban,” Journal of Peace Research no.1 (2007): 101.

175 Giustozzi, Koran, Kalashnikov, and laptop, 12.

176 Wilson, Introduction to social movements.

177 See, for example, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, “Afghan national hardships,” 25 Dec 2007.

178 The Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate, “Communiqué from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [in Arabic],” 11 Sept 2005,

FFI-rapport 2010/00359 49

To counter the U.S. narrative of the invasion of Afghanistan, the IEA has frequently claimed that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan simply due to its hatred of Islam: A statement from Mullah Omar dated 4 October 2001 said that the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan because of the 11

September attacks, rather, “they want to finish off this Islamic state ... because it is Islamic.”¹⁷⁹ In later statements, a similar wording has also been used.¹⁸⁰ The invasion of Afghanistan is often seen in relation to other perceived attacks on Islam and Muslims carried out by the West, such as the occupation of Palestine, the invasion of Iraq, insults of the Koran and the Prophet

Muhammad, and so on.¹⁸¹ This fits nicely in with the rhetoric of the al-Qaida network, which describes America as the root of all evil and the whole Muslim world as being under attack by an American-led crusade. But also prior to 2001, the Taliban regime expressed sympathy with oppressed Muslims elsewhere.¹⁸² The significance of their “global rhetoric” should perhaps not be over-interpreted; it could simply reflect the fact that the IEA wishes to legitimate their struggle for an international audience and that it wants to attract the attention of Middle Eastern donors.

When explaining America’s behaviour, the IEA’s narrative echoes that of other anti-American currents across the Muslim world. American foreign policy is frequently described as being driven by economic interests, imperialist ambitions, and a desire to protect Israel. America’s imperialist ambitions include a desire to spread Western culture and the Christian faith, although this is not seen as a main driving factor.¹⁸³ Rather, security and economic interests stand out as the main reasons for America’s invasion of Afghanistan: In 2002 Mullah Omar stated:

“America wants only to fight Islam and to prevent the implementation of the Sharia, because it knows that Islam and its people is the biggest danger to America and the Jews ... America wants to control the world and to exploit the resources and properties of weak peoples, and by that live in total security.”¹⁸⁴

179 Mullah Omar, “Support, oh people of Islam [in Arabic],” 4 Oct 2001, (accessed 26 March 2009).

180 For example, in 2005, the Taliban stated that the invasion happened because the U.S. and their allies

“could not bear the Islamic Government in Afghanistan, and the rule of sharia...”See The Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate, “Communiqué from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [in Arabic],” 11 Sept 20

181 See, for example, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, “Statement from Mullah Omar of the Taliban,” 2006;

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, “The Israeli Holocaust in Palestine and the wavering of Islamic states,”

6 March 2008.

182 See, for example, “Second interview with the Islamic Emirate Magazine,” on Archive (Aug 2001). Here, Mullah Omar expresses sympathy with the Kashmir issue. He argues, however, that the conflict should be solved “by India and Pakistan” – in contrast to today’s rhetoric where individual Muslims are encouraged to fight un-Islamic regimes and “Crusader enemies” without seeking permission from anyone.

183 Statement from Mullah Omar, 2006: “The infidels in the West want to destroy our beliefs (‘aqa’id), our morals, and to spread corruption on our society, and to make our people agents for them.” See also statement from Mullah Omar, 2008: The goal of the enemy in Afghanistan has been to “remove the mujahidin, arresting Islamic leaders, finding a safe haven for them in Asia, controlling the central treasures of Asia, and promoting false faiths.” The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, “A message from the Leader of the Faithful, may God preserve him, on the occasion of ‘eid al-fitr”, 29 Sept 2008.

184 Mullah Omar, “Message to the Muslim Islamic Nation [in Arabic],” 30 March 2002,

50 FFI-rapport 2010/00359

In a statement from 2005, this was further elaborated:

“In Iraq, the main goal was to take control over the oil, and to provide security for Israel. In Afghanistan, the main goal was to get access to the mineral resources of Central Asia, and to establish a base in the area in order to be a starting point for occupying the countries of the region ... The truth of America’s attacks is that it wants to extend its colonial tentacles all over the world ... the goal of America is not simply to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, but to expand to the whole world!” ¹⁸⁵

In later statements, the IEA have expanded their rhetoric to include not only American

imperialism, but also a host of other murky reasons that the West had for invading Afghanistan.

In retrospect, the IEA described the Bonn agreement in December 2001 as aimed at:

“pressuriz[ing] Afghans to abandon Jihad and resistance, put aside their courage and beliefs, accept slavery, spread obscenity, send their sisters, mothers and wives to brothels under the cloak of Women’s Rights and freedom, open the way to invaders to destroy the national unity, preach Christianity and other expired religions at the expense of the preaching of the Holy Islam, and root out Afghan culture ...”¹⁸⁶

It can be noted that the IEA’s anti-American attitudes is not a recent phenomenon, but grew in strength already in the late 1990s as a result of U.S. policy towards the Taliban regime. A key event that seems to have worsened the relationship was the U.S. missile strikes on Afghanistan in August 1998, which the Taliban viewed as a gross violation of their national sovereignty. The relationship further deteriorated due to the increased pressure on the Taliban regime to eradicate opium production, improve the status of women and to expel the Saudi militant leader Osama bin Laden. When the Taliban finally took drastic steps to eradicate opium production in 2000–2001, they felt that they were not sufficiently rewarded by the international community. The Islamic Emirate sees the invasion of Afghanistan as a continuation of U.S. policies in the region, which started during the time of the Taliban regime:

“[Before 2001,] the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan in accordance with the Sharia ... the U.S.

could not stand this, so they forced, by way of the UN, economical sanctions on the Emirate.

When they did not achieve their goals that way, they fired Cruise missiles upon Afghan territory. When this also failed, they gathered all the corrupted parties and satanic troops under the banner of the Crusaders, and attacked the Islamic Emirate. After a horrible and evil air attack against its cities, then it occupied it. Then they came with the Afghan agents that they had fostered by their own hands, and the Afghan government is currently run by them.”¹⁸⁷

185 The Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate, “Communiqué from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [in Arabic],” 11 Sept 2005,

186 The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, “The Bonn Agreement and the six years old Afghanistan,” 12 Dec 2007.

187 “Interview with Mullah Muhammad Rasul [in Arabic],” al-Sumud 3, no.25.

FFI-rapport 2010/00359 51

The “symptoms” of Afghanistan’s problem is described as almost the same as in the 1990s, when the Taliban first came to power. Then, too, the country was ravaged by corruption, crime and lack of security. The solution back then was also to install an Islamic regime in Kabul. The difference in the IEA’s narrative now is that while in 1990s, corrupt Afghan warlords were responsible for the situation, today, a foreign aggressor is responsible.

One might ask whether there is any truth in the Taliban leadership’s version of history as presented through its propaganda. Is it possible, for example, that the United States had hidden motives for invading Afghanistan? Actually, it is not only the Islamic Emirate who has voiced such arguments, but also Western critics of the U.S. administration. The topic is beyond the scope of this report, but has been researched by Kolhatkar and Ingalls in Bleeding Afghanistan:

Washington, warlords and the propaganda of silence. The book, which otherwise does not shun criticising the U.S. administration, actually does not find any strong evidence that the U.S. had any “hidden agenda” in Afghanistan.¹⁸⁸ If Bush really wanted to invade Afghanistan, it would have been easy to find a pretext to do so, even before the 9/11 attacks. The lack of such attempts are taken as an indication that the U.S. administration invaded Afghanistan as a response to the 9/11 attacks, and not due to hidden economic or other interests.¹⁸⁹