| |
|
A sort of reverse-order addressing of points here...
But to suggest, as Ray did, that Osama Bin Laden was trained 'against the encroaching Soviet dictatorship' is to evade a world of machination and soi-disant realpolitik. The US did not act for Afghanistan.
Nick, I think you're reading an attribution of altruism in America's actions that I never suggested. My statement, as alluded to in the topic abstract is this: America chose to involve themselves in Afghanistan, propping up the battle against the Soviet Union (in your argument, they caused the battle). The question: was this to Afghanistan's benefit or detriment?
America's actions were purely tactical. This we agree upon. What, exactly, their actions were - there we seem to differ in opinion.
But not strictly by the facts though - there's no disputing the hard stats and names and dates - what we seem to be arguing over is the how and why. That brings us back to our differing views on the question at hand.
...the extremely heavy price it has paid for an aggressive doctrine of "encirclement" - for which read, as Stalin did in the translation, "strangulation" - and the stamping out of a possible alternative to the US/Free Market system.
Interesting that our discussion (as you noted in the chessboard analogy earlier) involves two superpowers applying an aggressive "encirclement" strategy - but your comments seem to focus only on America's. Let us not forget that while America's involvement was hardly altruistic, the Soviet Union was pursuing an aggressive annexation/invasion plan.
You suggest that the US, uninvolved, would have seen Afghanistan fall to total Soviet rule. All we can say for certain is that the US funded the Mujahaddin to the tune of five hundred million dollars and extensive training in professional terror warfare, shattering the possibility of a left-reformist government in Afhganistan, and making a civil war - another one - absolutely certain.
That's not all we can say for certain. We can also say that the Soviet Union was preparing to take Afghanistan - by coercion or by force - and without outside interference, were likely to succeed. This is made clear from both CIA and KGB analyses of the territory.
You must understand, as I pointed out earlier, that the Mitrokhin documentation clearly states that the left-reformist government would not be allowed to stand. The Soviets had every intention of subverting, subsuming, or destroying it.
Your contention that there was no 'progressive regime' is as far as I can ascertain simply wishful on your part. Can you offer anything in support of it?
I refer to the above comment when I speak of the absence of a progressive regime. Let me say it this way: What progressive government was in early formation was immediately doomed by the involvement of the superpowers - whether by American or Soviet aggression: that is open to interpretation. Personally, I say both.
What is certain is that those backed by the US were considerably less palatable.
I'm not sure we can be certain of that. Granted, the brutal treatment the citizenry's been subject to would seem to make your point for you, but do keep in mind the treatment newly absorbed nations tended to receive at the hands of the politburo. Under Soviet rule, the Afghanis could look forward to a round of "counter-revolutionary" purging, the forceful elimination of a religious infrastructure, and the directed redistribution of resources to serve the Soviet military-industrial hierarchy.
That the KGB was active in Afghanistan - as you note, operating against everyone in sight - is not a defence of the funding of the Mujahaddin and its noted bastards, such as Hekmatyar, known for opium trading and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
On this point, I must concede. That funding is morally indefensible - especially because they didn't make sure it was put to purely military use. We are now in the murky "enemy of my enemy" territory - one where America has made some significant historical mistakes. The Mujahadeen are typical of mercenaries - distasteful, violent, and only useful in conflict.
Once again, the central question is raised: America trained, armed, and funded the Mujahadeen, directing them against the Soviet forces. Did this help or hurt the Afghani people? Was it better or worse than leaving them alone?
The anger which solidified the Mujahaddin and which the US exploited was directed at reform.
Yes. It just so happens that those policies of reform were being exploited by the Soviet Union.
Maybe we should re-word the issue: Did Afghanistan ever have a chance? With the Soviet Union pushing on one side and America on the other, could there ever have been any kind of genuine progressive reform? Nick, you seem to believe that the Soviets would have been happy simply backing the anti-free-market government. Obviously, I disagree - based on KGB reports, and based on the pattern of Soviet involvement in central asia.
And since the treaty between Afghanistan and the USSR which allowed the Kabul government to require direct military assistance if the need arose was signed in 1978
One final point: the mujahadeen was already active in Afghanistan before America provided military assistance. KGB reports indicate that the Soviet Union was preparing to invade before this treaty was signed. I think we can safely state that Soviet entry into Afghanistan was likely whether or not that $500 million came down the pipe. What it did was make the conflict a lot bloodier, a lot longer, and keep the Soviets at bay.
In essense: Arming and training Afghani rebels against the encroaching Soviet dictatorship. |
|
|
