Pam’s argument is essentially arguing against Reagan arming the Afghan muhajadeen in the 1980s, which had far worse consequences for America
There was a big difference between arming the Afghan mujahedeen [which is what we did, originally with Dostum and Afghanistan’s defense chief Ahmed Massoud] and the Arab mujahedeen in Afghanistan [whom we did not arm, but whom various Islamic nations armed.]
Bin Laden made a point of not accepting US aid. Clinton later abandoned Massoud to go instead with the “strong horse” Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In spite of this Massoud remained true blue until al Qaeda assassinated him just days before 9/11, while Hekmatyar later turned and joined with al Qaeda.
That was done to irritate the USSR at the time, and was a proxy war..
As was the Russian experience in the same place..
Actually, it was less Reagan who armed them than Charlie Wilson and the Saudis. And in the context of a global struggle against a brutally totalitarian state with global ambitions heavily armed with thermonuclear weapons, one can understand using whatever allies were at hand at the time. Forgetting/ignoring/being ignorant of the context of the Cold War must not be allowed or allowable.
At that time taking down the USSR was more important. The ball was dropped in future administrations when we didn’t respond to Islamic terrorist strikes forcefully.