Lighter, the USSR had selfish motives also, but the US was arming the Mujahideen at least six months before the Soviets went in. And shipping in schoolbooks that taught Wahhabism and jihad. Religious fundamentalism was seen as the best way to turn the masses against socialism, just like in Texas, and the Talibs grew up on those books. After winning their proxy war against the Soviets, the US declined to rebuild from the devastation, leaving a vacuum for the Taliban to step into. That's been interpreted as a mistake, a penny-wise but pound-foolish decision, as though the pocket change it would have cost was too great a financial burden for the US. Most US imperial actions are interpreted at the time as mistakes, as though the federal government were run by the Keystone Cops, and yet US power has steadily increased through two centuries of such blunders. But in fact the Taliban would have looked like a good idea in formerly progressive and socialist Afghanistan, based on the standard imperial tactic of divide and conquer. And their views were in close alignment with those of the US puppets who control Saudi Arabia.

Charmion, the same could be said of tax-averse US. It's another good place for multinationals to root and rut. But then most nations would be glad to play host. The US and UK are preferred for their ability to impose corporate will on the reticent. The squaddies are more willing to lay down their lives if they think it somehow benefits their own country.