Question for my fellow freepers (regarding Afghan-Soviet 1980s war)

[MadIsh32]

I am sure many of you have read "Ghost Wars" by Steven Coll and saw "Charlie Wilson's War" or read the book

2 excellent sources for the Afghan-Soviet War in the 1980s and our involvement

The question is, based on what you have soaked in from those sources, and of course hindsight being 20/20, if you were in charge, would you have conducted the American role in the Afghan-Soviet war in the same fashion as we conducted it.

I.E we (The United States with matching Saudi donations) funneled money and weapons through Pakistan, to General Zia's ISI and into the hands of the Muhjadeen who were brought in from around the Arab world on a jihad to defeat the Soviets

The objectives of the 1980s were clearly met as the Soviets were handed an embarrassing and devastating defeat.

However Pakistan's ISI became a powerful and influential force in the region, the Taliban emerged from the Arabs and Pahtans in the region, and Al Qaeda formed in 1988 and Islamic terror mushroomed in the 1990s leading ultimately to 9/11

My answer is I would have fully funded the Afghans, and even used the language we used in the 1980s of jihad.

I would have however cut Pakistan out of the picture and used the CIA to give money and weapons NOT to the fundamentalist groups led by Hekymater but to the northern alliance led by Shah. We would have made him the most powerful warlord and a major ally of ours in Afghanistan once the war ended

[Dan(9698)]

20/20 hindsight.

Why weren’t you in charge?

[ritewingwarrior]

Wouldn’t it have been better to make a presence and build it up in Pakistan, while we sit and watch the Russians defeat the mujahadeen. Make sure Osama was quietly removed before he became ‘unfriendly’. The Russians were already in decay, but they would have been better than the alternative.

[MadIsh32]

Being a child in the 1980s, I am not sure anyone would have trusted my decisions :)

[MadIsh32]

That is an interesting thought

This would have prevented Zia’s Islamization efforts in Pakistan (prior to Zia Pakistan was fairly secular except in the tribal areas, and even they weren’t that religious just traditional) and this would have also prevented the ISI from becoming the force in the region that it is today

I think if the argument was correct, Zia may have permitted American troops in Pakistan

However, this would have been major sabre rattling as far as the Soviets were concerned, along with Reagan already talking SDI, they commies may have panicked leading to a greater conflict

[tallyhoe]

The problem was we left the country as soon as the Soviets were defeated, thus leaving a vacuum so that the muslim extremist were able to get a foothold. But the real problem was when We the United States got involved in Bosnia in the 1990’s. The Serbs were at war with the Muslim Extremist in Kosovo. We stepped into it and started a war with the Serbs, thus this allowed the drugs and Weapons to flow freely into and out of Afghanistan!

[ritewingwarrior]

Remember the Soviets were all bluff. We had already basically bankrupted them by that time. We could have had a presence as an ‘observer’ sanctioned by the UN if necessary. Can’t remember what the UN climate was like back then. They couldn’t get their missiles out of the silos and they knew it.

[iowamark]

I would have however cut Pakistan out of the picture

How would you have gotten into Afghanistan if not through Pakistan?

[smokingfrog]

Read this:
Massoud's Letter To The People Of America (1998)

Yeah. Maybe we did made some mistakes. But when it was clear that the Taliban were taking over Afghanistan and training terrorists there we did virtually nothing. (Clinton fired a few cruise missles at them - that's about it.)

[ggekko60506]

Thanks for creating a very interesting post.

To quote Palmerston: “Permanent interests, no permanent allies”.

In the book and the movie about Charlie Wilson it is alleged that he said that we “f....ed up the endgame” of the Cold War. I believe this view to fundamentally wrong along with idea that picking a different warlord would have blunted the emergence of radical Islamic terrorism with which we are now contending.

The roots of radical Islamic jihad activity run much deeper than particular factions in Afghanistan or the ISI in Pakistan. By way of analogy, picking a different, more moderate Red faction in Russia to support would not have stopped the upsurge of the Communist movement.

Islamo-Fascism has deep historical roots across multiple countries and has been emerging as as ideological force since the decline of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Islamo-Fascism is profoundly reactionary movement that is threatened as much by the rise of Modernity as by the ascendency of the West.

The current Islamo-Fascist movement is supported by oil money coming many sources in the Middle East not the least of which is Saudi Arabia. If these funding sources were to dry up the the Islamo-Fascist movement would die on the vine and degenerate into little small scale operations not capable of mounting serious attacks against Western interests.

One of the pernicious myths of the current situation is the idea that Islamo-Fascist groups are stateless actors who are capable of producing random terrorist acts. This myth has misled our intelligence agencies for the last twenty years.

It is state sponsors of terror that give critical logistical and financial support to the terror networks. Dr. Laurie Mylroie has done courageous work showing Iraq’s extensive support for the terror networks prior to the most recent Iraq war. Iran’s support of other Islamo-Fascist terror networks is massive and voluminously documented.

The reality of the situation is that the U.S. did not “f...k up the endgame” of the Cold War but we have only erratically opposed the the state sponsors of the Islamo-Fascist movement.

[MadIsh32]

I should have been more specific.

I would have cut them out of the weapons/money transfer process

The ISI picked out who they supported without any oversight from the CIA at all

This coincided with General Zia ramping up the Islamization movement in Pakistan, turning Pakistan from a relatively calm secular state (compared to other Muslim nations) into a nation beholden to the interests of the crazy mullahs

[MadIsh32]

One of the best posts in regards to the movement since the end of WW1 along with the oil issue

I don’t think we “fucked” up the end game either, however we quickly quickly got our asses out of there. A little investment in schools and roads could have made a big difference. Along with giving more support to Massoud Shah

[ScaniaBoy]

It is state sponsors of terror that give critical logistical and financial support to the terror networks. Dr. Laurie Mylroie has done courageous work showing Iraq’s extensive support for the terror networks prior to the most recent Iraq war. Iran’s support of other Islamo-Fascist terror networks is massive and voluminously documented.

True, but let us not forget Saudi Arabia.

[G8 Diplomat]

Interesting question. Hindsight is 20/20 though, so it’s hard to answer. Giving weapons and funds to the mujahidin helped lead to the creation of the Taliban and al-Qa’ida (which means “the base”—the name given to the mujahidin bases in the 80s, and it stuck). The Soviet Union was in decay and we were defeating them militarily (arms race) and economically. Another communist country would’ve been bad, but the creation of terror cells is just as bad. Both situations would’ve been undesirable.

Side note, what was up with calling mujahidin “freedom fighters”? Mujahidin does NOT mean “freedom fighters.” It means “ones who do jihad.” It comes from the j-h-d root, the same root that jihad comes from. The prefix mu- means “one who does,” and the -in on the end makes it plural.

BTW—I see your parents were Pakistanis. Do you speak Urdu? I’m trying to learn it :)

[occamrzr06]

Ah my friend, ISA an Hek only got part of the money.

What everyone fails to realize, is that when the barn was burning, everyone was looking to make a buck. ISI, Hekmaytr, Moussad, I think there may have been one or 2 more organization that got money too.

The US gave lots, but Saudi matched any money the US gave. I don’t recall who all this money went to.

Any possibilities that Islam is the problem?

[ggekko60506]

Thank you for your kind words.

“A little investment in schools and roads could have made a big difference. Along with giving more support to Massoud Shah”

I can’t speak to the idea of supporting Massoud Shah but it would not surprise me if we backed the wrong horse again in this region.

The State Department is filled with half-assed T. E. Lawrence “wanna bes” have made a series of catastrophically ill thought out diplomatic decisions in this part of the world.

The new breed of American Special Forces soldier who is able to speak the local language, understand the culture and assist moderate political elements to build successful social networks from the ground up are worth about twenty diplomats by my reckoning. I would trade all the overpaid blowhards at Foggy Bottom for a batallion of these amazing Special Forces soldiers.

[neb52]

I wonder how much the overthrow of the Shah of Iran influenced our decision regarding Afghanistan at the time. I would think if Shāh Pahlavi was still ruling we would of just sat back and further subsidized him. The importance of Afghanistan, as it was during the British Empire days, was as a buffer zone between Empires. British needed it to keep a space between the Russian Empire and India; and we needed it to keep a space between the Soviet Empire and our allies in the Middle East.

[Tainan]

War Games Afghanistan circa 1978 style

[Tainan]

Pakistan could not be removed from the picture, IMO. Needed supply points and arms bazaars were located in Pakistani cities. These were too important for Company people and others involved personages and organization to be effective in the operations going on in the AO.
It really wasn't ran all that badly considering the real and present wrenches being thrown at it by Democrats in Congress ad Senate at the time. For them it was viewed as part of and an extension of that messy little thing that was happening in Central America at the time - read:El Salvador/Nicaragua/Guatemala. The Demos didn't like having their buddies behinds handed to them and were out for blood at those who were part of the anti-Soviet actions that were happening.

How would I have handled it differently?
Hell Son...I would have moved more of the captured weapons from Iran-Iraq that were in Egypt over there to the mujahideenies and made it even hotter for the Soviets. And darn sure supported the Kurds. That was a blot on Americas history books. But thats just for starters.

[Cronos]

Yes, this was a mistake by the US. Post the killing of Bhutto, there should have been pressure to keep a democratic govt in Pakistan.