Afghan Background

“I've been reading up on the history of Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. With respect to US policy, a number of things stand out. Here is the first:

The US was aiding Afghan Islamist fighters prior to the Soviet invasion. Indeed, Carter signed the first directive for clandestine aid in July 1979. National security adviser Brzezinski was hoping to force the USSR into invading in support of their puppet regime in the hope of trapping the Soviets into a losing effort. Indeed Brzezinski says he sent a cable to Carter on December 27, 1979 (the day of the Soviet invasion) which said: "Now we can give the USSR its Vietnam War."

(Source: interview by Brezezinski to Le Nouvel Observateur January 15-21, p, 76 I found this written up in the New York Review of Books and have seen it referenced elsewhere)

Whats interesting to me about this is #1: the Soviet invasion wasn't the big surprise that everyone said it was. The invasion didn't happen because Carter was "too soft" on communism, but happened at least in part because of hostile actions the US took which they knew would increase the possibility of an invasion.

#2: It marks the start of US attempts to build up a core of Islamist fighters in that part of the world witht he hope that they would take on the Soviet Union on a number of fronts.”

“True ped, it was a necessary evil that was needed to topple communism, and it worked. However, there were a few flaws, which we are subject to today.”

“The sins of the father are revisited to the son
the children are made to pay for the mistakes the father has done
it`s not an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth
did we swallow the lie and now choke on the truth
that`s how it`s always been, or so they say
now with the lives of our children they want us to pay”

“Soooo... it was Carter that won the cold war? I knew it.”

“Interesting topic. I have been waiting for a thread like this to mention the stuff below:

My Department Head is a Religious Muslim originally from Afganistan. He has lived here for 30 years but is still connected to the old regime from before the war. He has provided a lot of insight. His father and father-in-law were both generals in the Afgan army that fought against the Russians. They were both fortunate enough to survive the war, only to be flee in fear of the extremist government that formed after the war.

1. Regarding the Russians, they were cruel and inhumae. They seemed to like to bury their captives alive...especially so others could watch. His father-in-law witnessed this personally.

2. Afganistan was a much more modern society under the former government. Women went to college and wore mini-skirts if they wanted to. There was a fairly sophisticated and educated citizenry that supported the prevailing government.

3. According to my friend, we blew it by not helping the right government solidify after the war with Russian. We abandoned Afganistan and that left it open for bin Laden to come in with his money and set up the Taliban and control them. Bin Laden is Saudi and speaks Arabic. The Afgans speak Farsi and generally don't understand Arabic unless they studied it for religious reasons. They have no real bond other than the relationship between fanatics.

4. My friend says the Northern Alliance and the other radical groups are a bunch of thugs also. If we support them, we are not going help Afganistan that much.

5. He says that there is a group of young leaders within the Taliban that are unhappy with the current conditions and that our best bet was to help them overthrow the Taliban and allow the old (non-radical) leadership to return. He wishes we hadn't started the bombing and would have instead worked patiently to overthrown the Taliban. He says it would have been fast and easy because of the quality of the young leadership that is unhappy with things now.

6. My friend's relative was the guy who tried to approach the Taliban a week ago carrying money ($18 Million?) to try to get them to change their minds. They hung him. My friend said that he and other relatives heard about what he was trying to do on the news and they called him to try and stop him. They couldn't get through.

Anyway, just some insights that you don't hear on the news. My department head is very astute and peaceloving. I have known him and his family intimately for about 13 years. We eat lunch together about 3 days a week. Our group is a mixture of religions and backgrounds and we talk about all kinds of topics. Very interesting.”

“Phil: I have the same impression about the regime which was overthrown in the early 70's. It sounds like the country was in a transition towards a constitutional monarchy (England has one). The King's cousin staged a coup in '73 and sought backing from the Soviets and, in '78 whenhe tried to get rid of the communists he was overthrown and killed. Within months of the '78 overthrow 12,000 people were killed including a good portion of the educated non-communists. I think these kinds of mass killings help to erode the social fabric of a society.

When we talk about how US policy excesses and failings help set the stage for present day Afghanistan, we have to remember that it was the Soviet's and their allies who visit the greater brutality against the Afghani peoples.

Afghanistan was certainly one of the many sad victims of cold war politics, and in its ruins has emerged a desperate and hateful force which has brought avage violence to both of the cold war super-powers.”

“PedXing - Thanks for the additional info. I am going to ask my friend for a history lesson.”

“Phil: thats great. I'll be hoping for a history report from you.”

“The Soviets were not happy about having to help the Afghan socialist regime. They felt that the Afghans were trying to push their reforms too quickly and this ultimately led to armed conflict with people who resisted. On the positive side, I know a lady who got a good education as an engineer and said life was pretty good under the socialist system compared to the previous regime or the Taliban which followed.”

“GS: I'm not sure what you mean by "not happy to help the Afghan socialist regime." I am not sure what time period or what event you are referring to. Politboro records have become available (some reprinted in the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Volume 17). These suggest that the Soviet Union fully backed the Communist coup in Kabul, 1978, but felt that the Khalq (one faction of the Afghan communist party) was too fanatical and brutal in imposing "reforms." This has led to army mutinies and guerilla resistance (which the US began aiding in Mid '79 see the first post of the thread). According to the Politboro records, it was at this point that the Soviet leadership was very reluctant to intervene. Goaded in part by paranoia about US intentions, worrying that leadership of Afghanistan might ally with the US in a political about face, and responding to an army mutinies which entailed the killing of Soviet bloc advisers, the Soviets invaded killed the Khalq leader and installed a more pliant "moderate" of the competing communist faction. Is this roughly what you were referring to GS?”

“I should add that this is what I gather from my limited readings, and I am ready to be persuaded that I have missed key points or that I am mistaken in some ways. But if you do seek to persuade me, please show me evidence and references.”

“PedXing, I think you summed up what I was trying to say quite well.

I understood that The Soviet Union didn't want to commit any troops until the faction they were supporting was actually losing and begging for help.”

“GS: Do you know the point at which the Soviets backed the Parcham? I'm not yet clear on that. Was it before the communists overthrew Daoud in April 1978?

BTW: I also gather that the Soviet aid under the king, Zahir Zhah (the king who was ousted in '73) was fairly constructive. Land was irrigated, canals were built and so on. It was only after Shah was deposed by Daoud in '73 that the loval communist party really gained strength.

Anyway... I have read anything that tells me about the factional rivalry among the Afghan communists between '73 and '78.”

“What is interesting in modern Afghani history is that the Soviet Union was more interested in their own foreign policy agenda than in building the communist party. This was often a source of tension between the Soviets and communists in other countries. Where the interests of the local communists, including the communist party, collided with Soviet policy, the Soviet Union and their local allies put the Soviet Union first. Revolutionaries around the world criticized the Communist Party leaderships and the Soviet dominated communist international of betraying revolutionary struggles time and time again. Thus, the Soviet Union opposed the too aggressive collectivization of rural Afghanistan... pushing instead for a slowing of the "revolution." The man they installed in 1979 (Babrak Kamal) was more "moderate."

Please note: I don't have a dog in this fight. As far as I can tell Afhanistan was looking good in the mid to late 1960s under the King: elections, irrigation, women running for public office and an ostensibly free press.”

“The Soviets were called in to assess the deteriorating situation in August of 1979 and the sent troops in the end of December. The plan was to help by allowing the Afghani government troops to take the fighting to the rebels while they held the territory for them. Sounds very similar to Vietnam, the Afghani troops were trained and armed by the USSR. Naturally,Soviet troops were dragged further into the conflict as Afghani forces weren't getting anywhere.”

“GS: This account is missing one detail: The troops that the Soviet Union sent in Dec '79 attacked the palace of the then leader of Afghanistan (Amin of the Khalq faction) and killed him. Now this leader had himself taken over in a coup and was certainly guilty of excesses.

Of course the US in Vietnam staged their own coup to install a new leader in South Vietnam. The Vietnam analogy is telling, if imperfect. I was not objecting to your analogy, but to the all too clean phrase "sent troops in." I try not to be too tolerant of language that covers up the brutalities of foreign policies whether it is US policy, Soviet policy or any other countries policies.”

“It's a matter of perspective, one side's invasion is another's reinforcement. Certainly the general populace was not thrilled but they had the Afghan army's support.

I can't judge the Soviets to harshly because this area was always a little under their influence from the times of the Csars. The Afghans were pawns in super power moves between the British and the Russians in the 19th century. Also, blood is clearly on our hands when it comes to bloody coups and assinations as well, for example the killing of Allende and following coup in Chile, 1973.”

“The fact is that the Soviets overthrew a government and killed its leader. Yes, elements of the army supported them.. but other elements were dramatically opposed. When you sound like you are trying to make excuses for what the USSR did you weaken your case about US policy. In fact, South America has been a traditional area of US influence and the Chilean military not only supported but executed it... by your standards we can't judge the US too harshly either.



The Allende coup was”

“The US also has a history of overthrowing regimes in Islamic countries. The US clearly and decisively backed the 1953 coup which 0overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran after the government tried to nationalize the oil industry. The excesses of the CIA supported Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, for the next 1/4 century created the environment in which the Ayatollah Khomenei's radical fundamentalist Islamic revolution took over.

This combined with the CIA backed military coup which overthrew a democratically elected government in Syria clearly put the US on the side of the dictators in the Middle East.”

“Ooops rhetorical excess there. The US opposed some dictatorships and supported some democracies, they were not "clearly on the side of the dictators."”

“America is on the side of whomever best suits the needs of America, regardless of the political system. It was basically the same with the Soviets.

I don't support either side's meddling in the affairs of other countries. It's major reason why super powers are hated and not the much vaunted envy that our shortsighted patriots would like to believe.”

“Thats more like it GS. Except I'd say the US did as it felt (or what suited its perceived needs), I don't think US foreign policy necessarily did what best suited its needs, or even what best served the needs of American capitalism.

I have no problem with criticizing US foreign policy. But when we do, we shouldn't be apologists for some other country.

The cold war tango between the US/NATO and the Soviet Bloc meant a lot of countries got stepped on. Time will tell how much world wide damage the current global struggle causes.”

“Here is an interesting document that details our policy toward the Taliban not too long ago.

Foreign policy is often a trail of unintended consequences that are easy to second guess on Monday morning.

I'd be very interested to hear more of your department head's perspective Phil.”