$70mil in US aid to Afghanistan in 1997

September 14, 2001 8:51 AM

$70mil in US aid to Afghanistan in 1997 Per the CIA's very informative world factbook web site, in 1997 the USA provided "about $70 million in humanitarian assistance in 1997". I have a feeling that $70mil is a drop in the ocean to what may be spent on Afghanistan in the near future, though perhaps not in a manner to their liking.
posted by daragh (11 comments total)

What we mean by "humanitarian assistance" and what the CIA means are two different things.
posted by username at 9:08 AM on September 14, 2001

Username...what do YOU think the CIA mean by "humanitarian assistance"?
posted by daragh at 9:13 AM on September 14, 2001

No matter how you define "humanitarian assistance", we gave the Afghans $70MM. I can oly assume that what Americans mean by "gratitude" and what bin Laden and the Taliban mean are two different things.
posted by lenticular at 9:18 AM on September 14, 2001

I don't know anything about how the CIA classifies their budgets for public consumption except "humanitarian assistance" is awfully vague.

Personally, I think putting the heads of the Taliban leaders up on pikes around the perimeter of Kabul would be humanitarian assistance.
posted by username at 9:25 AM on September 14, 2001

CIA's humanitarian assistance means, assistance to the members of the loose alliance of Afghan opposition to Taleban government called "The Northeren Alliance". Headed by Ahmed Shah Masood (now said to be killed), it is this Alliance which is America's Intelligence into the affairs of Afghanistan.

Thankyou CIA for sufficiently funding the actual people who took away all human rights from the Post-Soviet Union Afghanistan.
posted by adnanbwp at 9:29 AM on September 14, 2001

I seem to recall hearing they sent 70 cruise missile into Afghanistan a few years back to hit OBL. The managed to kill 12 people. A cruise missle runs about 1 million a pop. Coincidence?
posted by thirteen at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2001

We also protected, raised and educated Timothy McVeigh.
posted by tomplus2 at 9:42 AM on September 14, 2001

What do any of us actually know about the CIA or what "humanitarian assistance" really meant? I mean, I could make up the worst possible reading and expect no one to refute it, but what good would that do?
posted by argybarg at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2001

Here's some humanitarian assistance alright.
posted by dagny at 10:01 AM on September 14, 2001

thirteen:

Out of the 70 cruise missiles, atleast five of them malfunctioned and dropped in Pakistani territory. Although two of them did blow up and killed Pakistanis, three failed to do so.

It is widely believed in Pakistan that these missiles were then taken to Pakistani Labs and studied for reverse engineering. Aleast one of the missiles was given to Chinese authorities for similar purposes. Taleban have also put those missiles up for sale. The ones that didnt work I mean.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:43 AM on September 14, 2001

We just gave the Taliban $43 million in May. This LA Times op-ed piece discusses the Bush ties, the connection with our drug policy [the acting drug czar is one appointed by Clinton; Bush didn't get around to nominating one until May, and the official site doesn't indicate that the nominee has been placed yet], Afghanistan's horrendous human rights record [general heinous mistreatment of women, especially; you've probably received those chain e-mails that have made the rounds over the past few years]. There's an in-depth 1999 article in The Nation that traces Afghanistan's recent political history, our involvment, where the money went. Interesting reading.
posted by gwenzilla at 12:15 PM on September 14, 2001