All right, SPQR...I may have overstated the direct linkage.

Here's an article (yes I know it's from the Guardian, but it's comparing the strategy of the Taliban with the preceding Mujahideen)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/afghanistan-mujahideen-taliban

As in the Mujahideen that was supported and armed by the US.

Btw, your comment "..and will perhaps one day soon to a suburb near you." is entirely reminiscent of "Reds under the Bed".

Some things never change : )

Poirot,

Yes in hindsight the US was foolhardy to support the Mujaheddin.But let's not forget on the other side of the ledger the socialists and communists supported Khomeini in Iran. Much to the cost of both themselves (many were later executed) and the rest of the world.

<<Btw, your comment "..and will perhaps one day soon to a suburb near you." is entirely reminiscent of "Reds under the Bed".
Some things never change : >>

No the reds were UNDER the bed.
The fundamentalists are IN bed with the lefties.

But when the fundamentalists get on top they will kick the lefties out of the bed and bring in their four wives.

SPQR,

I suppose it all depends on how far back we go.

Like to 1953, when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah...knock on effect...and at the end, up pops a Khomeini.

Perhaps the West should keep it's nose out of the region.

SPQR, the problem with that theory is that Australia is a wealthy country with a strong legal system and well-developed parliamentary democracy (which obviously isn't perfect, going on recent evidence) and a well-developed integration between social and economic structures. Even fundamentalists get the dole

fundamentalists of any religion rely on being able to offer something better, so they become powerful in societies like the US, where there is deep poverty and social disconnection to cause resentment, or in Afghanistan, where they can offer the help of god in a secular struggle.

The only way fundamentalists can get a hold in a place like Australia is with direct cooperation from government and business, as happened with fundamentalist Feminism, which was able to colonise the media and bureaucracy thanks to the economic policies that encouraged affirmative action as a way to increase consumerism and that allowed a positive feedback of "progressive" Feminist input into policy making and the emergence of a whole new bureaucracy that was exclusively for ensuring policies were sufficiently Feminist.

It's not going to happen with fundamentalist Islamicists, because they've got nothing to offer.

Poirot,
<<...depends on how far back we go.Like to 1953, when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah...knock on effect...and at the end, up pops a Khomeini.>>

Why go back that far?

All that we needed to do was when, that peace loving refugee by the name of Khomeini fled to France seeking asylum and a lifestyle full of Western values --was tell him to piss off.

(I wonder how many Khomeini wannabes Oz is currently rubber stamping?)

<<Perhaps the West should keep it's nose out of the region>>
So when the anti-Gaddafi forces cried "help" you would have told them --Nah! we're staying out of this
When the anti-Assad rebels in Syria ask for aid you'd say --Nah! things will sort themselves out without our intervention :)

Why stop there, SPQR?

Take Iraq, for instance. We damn well gave 'em our help whether they wanted it or not.

Of course, one has to keep in mind that leaders in the region tend to go in and out of fashion as far as the power-brokers in the West are concerned...so Saddam was a good ol' bloke when he was thumping the Iranians and firing a bit of gas in their direction, but not such a boon later on.

Gaddafi was not so hot - then he was welcomed back into the fold - but then he wasn't so hot again

It's hard to keep up sometimes, but we should remember that none of this relies on ethics, it's concerned with international resource and power strategies.

..........

Nice analysis, Anti.