The moment that changed Afghanistan

[laststeamtrain]

The moment that changed Afghanistan

The problems ailing Afghanistan began with America's decision to intervene in the country following the Soviet invasion in 1979

Stephen Kinzer
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 December 2009 11.00 GM


This week marks the 30th anniversary of the fateful decision, little noted at the time, that drew the US into its Afghanistan quagmire. If the current Afghan crisis can be said to have begun at any single moment, it was in the last week of 1979.

<snip>

One way for the US to have reacted to the Soviet invasion would have been to cheer the Soviets' stupidity and wait patiently for Afghan resistance fighters to do their duty to history. This would have been a prudent, restrained policy, one of limited ambition and risk. It would have kept the US out of a dangerous place where it had not previously been entangled and which it did not know well.

Instead the US chose the opposite path: hyperactive engagement. The CIA launched its biggest operation ever, pouring billions of dollars into the Afghan resistance, matched dollar-for-dollar by Saudi Arabia. This operation contributed decisively to the Soviet defeat, culminating in the Red Army's retreat back across the Amu Darya in 1988.

America's decision to escalate this war also had other effects that only became clear later. It brought tens of thousands of foreign fighters, including Osama bin Laden, to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. With them these outsiders brought harsh forms of Islamic fundamentalism that had been little known in Afghanistan. Their influence – Wahhabi fanaticism preached to Afghan resistance fighters in a war paid for by the US and Saudi Arabia – gave birth to the Taliban. Pakistan served as eager midwife and quickly turned the Taliban into its proxy force in Afghanistan. Once in power, the Taliban offered a safe haven to al-Qaida, which prepared the September 11 attacks there.

America's decision to plunge into Afghanistan 30 years ago also made the US an ally of Pakistan's reactionary military dictator, Muhammad Zia al-Haq. The CIA needed bases for its anti-Soviet army, and therefore required Zia's cooperation. No one seemed to care that he had recently hanged the elected prime minister he overthrew, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, or that his two transcendent goals for Pakistan were creating a "pure Islamic order" and building nuclear weapons.

Thanks to the marvels of declassification, we now know precisely when America's engagement in Afghanistan was set in motion. It was on 26 December 1979, just two days after the Soviet invasion. President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, sent him a memo entitled "Reflections on Soviet intervention in Afghanistan". Carter endorsed it, and soon the CIA was funnelling huge amounts of money through Pakistan to fundamentalist warlords. A year later, after Ronald Reagan replaced Carter, American involvement further deepened.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/28/afghanistan-1979-america-intervention

[NJmaverick]

1. Talk about a poor interpretation of history

the failure was not in helping the fighters to topple the USSR invaders. The failure came when Reagan abandoned them, like they were nothing more than pawns.

[laststeamtrain]

3. Talk about reactionary, knee-jerk babble. You're repulsive. Go get your war somewhere else.

Isn't there a hawk thread somewhere else on DU?

Rah rah sis boom bah & all that jazz.

[NJmaverick]

6. I wasn't going to be that insulting to your ill conceived opt, but if you want to put down your

own work go right ahead. I have a rather good understanding of the history of the region from a great deal of research while debating righ wingers. Go ahead though cling in ignorance to any piece of trash that supports your destructive agenda.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I finally got around to watching "Charlie Wilson's War" last night.

To the extent that what the movie depicts is true, it looks like our failure was disinterest in providing support post-Soviet defeat.

Willingness to build schools, restore infrastructure, etc., would have been money very well spent.

:donut:

[NJmaverick]

7. EXAXTLY! It was all about the neglect after the victory

[StarfarerBill]

5. That was the only purpose the mujahadin served: as fighters in yet another proxy war.

Once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Reaganites and their Congressional enablers ceased to care. It was never ever about helping the Afghan people themselves, just as it isn't now.

[NJmaverick]

8. Had Reagan not abandoned them and helped them to rebuild

The is a very strong chance history would be very different.

[StarfarerBill]

9. Again, there was never that possibility in the Reaganites' minds, as far as I know;

so it's a moot point, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Besides, there was a very good chance that the mujahadin would have simply seen us as the new boss, and resisted accordingly. Afghans have shown historically that they're not very welcoming of outsiders meddling in their country.

[pocoloco]

2. The CIA took over in late1963.