Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The USSR objective was first of all to NOT to have a radical muslim state on its border, since the USSR had sizable population from former Islamic countries, that bordered Afghanistan.
Russians might have achieved their goal, if not for a friendly help of Americans that supplied weapons ( and consultants I'm sure) to the *freedom fighters* like Osama Bin Laden.
So if anyone had to learn a lesson from the Russian war in Afghanistan, you'd think they would be Americans, but look at Syria today...
Yeah lots has been written about how we created Al Queda from our support of the Mujiheden against the Soviets but it's really not that simple:
you have to seperate the Soviet-Afghan war from the Afghan civil war that followed it. I mean really, Osama Bin Laden and his "afghan-arabs" got involved only in the last phase of the battle with the Soviets in order to get there street cred, and their impact was minimal. The US support was to the Mujahedin, not Osama since he wasn't even around, given mostly to the warlords in the Northern Alliance, which were NOT the same as the Taliban and Al Queda. To them, the Mujahedin, these guys were outsiders, they weren't liked then, they weren't liked under the Taliban, they aren't liked now. When the Soviet's left unfortunately they were the only group that had there sh*t together, all these other alliance elements split back into fighting themeselves and growing opium, and thus the Taliban were easily able to assume control over Afhiganistan.
Syria again, not that simple. On one side it's a proxy war between Sunni and Shiite, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia. On another side you have ISIS and the terrorist element. On another side you have the battle for hegemony in the area between US and Russia. The US has contributed to the insurgency but it was to little and too late. Mostly we have supported the Kurds, which indeed are a reliable group, moderate and western alighned (some of there troops were trained by IDF, and they love Americans such that there sons are named George Bush). Unfortuntely every country out there hates them - Turkey, Syria, Iraq, etc).
Yeah lots has been written about how we created Al Queda from our support of the Mujiheden against the Soviets but it's really not that simple:
you have to seperate the Soviet-Afghan war from the Afghan civil war that followed it. I mean really, Osama Bin Laden and his "afghan-arabs" got involved only in the last phase of the battle with the Soviets in order to get there street cred, and their impact was minimal. The US support was to the Mujahedin, not Osama since he wasn't even around, given mostly to the warlords in the Northern Alliance, which were NOT the same as the Taliban and Al Queda. To them, the Mujahedin, these guys were outsiders, they weren't liked then, they weren't liked under the Taliban, they aren't liked now. When the Soviet's left unfortunately they were the only group that had there sh*t together, all these other alliance elements split back into fighting themeselves and growing opium, and thus the Taliban were easily able to assume control over Afhiganistan.
Before you proceed with your "make believe" stories, you need to look up the meaning of such word as "Mujaheen" whom Americans definitely supported against the Russians.
Here is it is for you -
"Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين mujāhidīn) is the plural form of mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد), the term for one engaged in Jihad (literally, “struggle”).
Its widespread use in English began with reference to the guerrilla-type military groups led by the Islamist Afghan fighters in the Soviet–Afghan War, and now extends to other jihadist groups in various countries."
You need to understand the nature of Islam; wherever the "jihad" ( i.e. the fight for Islam and Islamic values) pops up, the rest of the * Islamic brothers* are rushing in to fight, sponsored usually by Saudi and American money. Osama bin Laden is one of such "mujaheddins," and whence your assurance that he "get involved only in the last phase"- I have no idea.
The credible sources in Wikipedia state that (Commins, David (2006).) "In all, perhaps 35,000 Muslim fighters went to Afghanistan between 1982 and 1992, while untold thousands more attended frontier schools teeming with former and future fighters."
So as you can see, the rest of "Islamic bros" ( i.e. mujahedeen) rushed to the area already from the beginning of the conflict. And that's whom Americans supported INITIALLY in this war.
Now when it comes to the "Northern Alliance," (that consisted mostly of Tadjics - i.e. same ethnicity that comprised part of the Soviet Union,) - it were the RUSSIANS that supported it against the radical Islamists - i.e. mujahedeen/Taliban gov.
But since the fight of the "Northern Alliance" against Taliban government was unsuccessful, ( by 2001 they controlled less than 10% of the country,) and Afghanistan was already a cesspool of "Islamic jihaddists," full of training camps for them, the US invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 events. After that the "Northern Alliance was dissolved as members and parties joined the new establishment of the Karzai administration." The one that Americans supported.
And there you have it.
Quote:
Syria again, not that simple. On one side it's a proxy war between Sunni and Shiite, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia. On another side you have ISIS and the terrorist element. On another side you have the battle for hegemony in the area between US and Russia. The US has contributed to the insurgency but it was to little and too late. Mostly we have supported the Kurds, which indeed are a reliable group, moderate and western alighned (some of there troops were trained by IDF, and they love Americans such that there sons are named George Bush). Unfortuntely every country out there hates them - Turkey, Syria, Iraq, etc).
Nope, it's pretty simple as far as I can see.
On one hand you have a secular leader that stomps out all kinds of Islamists, whining about the "absence of freedom," the leader who lets all kinds of religious denominations live in peace side by side, be that Christians or muslims or anything in-between, and then you have an American state, that is not happy that this particular leader provides support to its nemesis - namely Russia.
And so the usual script goes ahead - the "freedom fighters" that rush from the rest of Islamic world to help their "bros," sponsored as usual by Saudi money and American politicians. It's just part of these "Islamic bros" are particularly vile out in the open ( namely Isis,) and other part are devil in disguise. That's about it - that's the way I see it. I have pretty much black and white vision after Beslan events, where the same "freedom fighters" were involved, Arabs including.
So to answer the question "did America learn from the Soviet Union mistakes," I'd say Soviet Union didn't make any mistakes in this respect. And neither did Tzarist Russia earlier.
Because if you will look back into history, Tzarist Russia was literally involved into genocide of Islamic population, conducting the expulsion of them into other Islamic countries.
" This expulsion involved an unknown number of people, perhaps numbering hundreds of thousands. In any case, the majority of the affected people were expelled. The Imperial Russian Army rounded up people, driving them from their villages to ports on the Black Sea, where they awaited ships provided by the neighboring Ottoman Empire. The explicit Russian goal was to expel the groups in question from their lands.[7] Only a small percentage (the numbers are unknown) accepted resettlement within the Russian Empire. Circassian populations were thus variously dispersed, resettled, or in some cases killed en masse.[8] An unknown number of deportees perished during the process. Some died from epidemics among crowds of deportees both while awaiting departure and while languishing in their Ottoman Black Sea ports of arrival. Others perished when ships underway sank during storms.[9] Calculations including those taking into account the Russian government's own archival figures have estimated a loss of 90%,[10][11] 94%[12] or 95%–97%[13] of the Circassian nation in the process.
During the same period, other Muslim ethnic groups originating in the Caucasus also moved to the Ottoman Empire and Persia.[14]"
And the main reason for that, is that Russians didn't believe in any possible "conversion" of this particular people. ( Those they've considered "benign" in this respect, they've left alone.)
I mean Russia was/is CONSTANTLY on the front lines of subduing Islam in her back yard and the neighboring countries, historically so, ( Afghanistan was not an exclusion,) and this role of hers is constantly overlooked. Unfortunately it's difficult to separate history from politics here.
Before you proceed with your "make believe" stories, you need to look up the meaning of such word as "Mujaheen" whom Americans definitely supported against the Russians.
Here is it is for you -
"Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين mujāhidīn) is the plural form of mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد), the term for one engaged in Jihad (literally, “struggle”).
Its widespread use in English began with reference to the guerrilla-type military groups led by the Islamist Afghan fighters in the Soviet–Afghan War, and now extends to other jihadist groups in various countries."
You need to understand the nature of Islam; wherever the "jihad" ( i.e. the fight for Islam and Islamic values) pops up, the rest of the * Islamic brothers* are rushing in to fight, sponsored usually by Saudi and American money. Osama bin Laden is one of such "mujaheddins," and whence your assurance that he "get involved only in the last phase"- I have no idea.
The credible sources in Wikipedia state that (Commins, David (2006).) "In all, perhaps 35,000 Muslim fighters went to Afghanistan between 1982 and 1992, while untold thousands more attended frontier schools teeming with former and future fighters."
So as you can see, the rest of "Islamic bros" ( i.e. mujahedeen) rushed to the area already from the beginning of the conflict. And that's whom Americans supported INITIALLY in this war.
Now when it comes to the "Northern Alliance," (that consisted mostly of Tadjics - i.e. same ethnicity that comprised part of the Soviet Union,) - it were the RUSSIANS that supported it against the radical Islamists - i.e. mujahedeen/Taliban gov.
But since the fight of the "Northern Alliance" against Taliban government was unsuccessful, ( by 2001 they controlled less than 10% of the country,) and Afghanistan was already a cesspool of "Islamic jihaddists," full of training camps for them, the US invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 events. After that the "Northern Alliance was dissolved as members and parties joined the new establishment of the Karzai administration." The one that Americans supported.
And there you have it.
Why do people get so defensive when they answer here? You and the other guy that got mad because he disagreed with me using the term "invade" by the Russians.
Anyways, no disagreement on the term mujaheddin, my usage here was just to seperate those native Afghans fighting vs. those foreign fighers that came. I understand the relationship to jihad. Here is what I have, allow me to quote liberally since you think it's "make beleive"
"The term Afghan Arabs (also known as Arab-Afghans) refers mostly to Arab and other Muslim Islamist mujahideen who came to Afghanistan during and following the Soviet-Afghan War to help fellow Muslims fight Soviets and pro-Soviet Afghans" That I think we agree on.
On the late arrival of Afghan Arabs and Bin Laden in particular: "...most foreign Muslim jihad volunteers did not arrive in Afghanistan until the mid-1980s. By 1986 the Soviets were talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan." "Sometime after August 1988, Azzam was replaced as the leader of the Arab Afghans in Peshawar by Osama bin Laden."
On the lack of effectiveness of the Afghan Arabs: "Consequently, most of the "Afghan" Arabs arrived to fight the Soviets when they were least needed. ...Some Saudi tourists came to earn their jihad credentials. Their tour was organized so that they could step inside Afghanistan, get photographed discharging a gun, and promptly return home as a hero of Afghanistan."
On the number that came, subject to some dispute: "Estimates of the number of Muslim Afghan Arab volunteers that came from around the world came to fight in Afghanistan include 8,000, 20,000 and 35,000." Nevertheless, if it was other Arabs going there to take a few pictures, who cares.
On the conflict between native Afghan mujaheddin and the Afghan-Arabs: "These later expatriate volunteers included many sectarian Salafi and Wahhabi who alienated their hosts with their aloof manner and disdain for the Sufi Islam practiced by most Afghans. While the first Arab Afghans were "for the most part" welcomed by native Afghan mujahideen, by the end of the Soviet-Afghan war, there was a great deal of mutual antagonism between the two groups. The Afghan mujahideen resented "being told they were not good Muslims" and called the expatriate volunteers "Ikhwanis" or "Wahhabis", and this resentment is thought by some (Marc Sageman) to have played a role in the relatively easy manner in which the U.S. overthrew the (also very strict) Taliban in 2001"
There is no comparison to the Soviet invasion in regards to strategy, tactics, or desired outcome - with the Soviet objective to seize power and turn Afghanistan into a puppet state. The is quite the opposite to the US and Allies objectives. Actually the Soviet's were supposed to learn from America's mistake in Vietnam. That's the comparison.
The "war in Afghanistan" essentially ended in 2014, now our presence there is mainly a training and support role. At one time there were almost 150,000 western troops there, now it's about 10,000. With that, it's probably as good as it will ever get in Afghanistan - a functioning government in the urban areas with the rural areas controlled by various warlords and remaining elements of the Taliban. Our strategy seems to be "whack-a-mole" - when one insurgency group gets too powerful we send a couple drones over to kill their leaders. Regardless, they are not there planning how to bring down the next World Trade Center anymore.
This is the correct answer to Rocko’s question.
Just keeping the extremist Islamist scum off balance to stew in their own cauldron seems to be a satisfactory objective.
Why do people get so defensive when they answer here? You and the other guy that got mad because he disagreed with me using the term "invade" by the Russians.
"The government's Stalinist-like nature[36] of vigorously suppressing opposition, executing thousands of political prisoners and ordering massacres against unarmed civilians, led to the rise of anti-government armed groups, and by April 1979 large parts of the country were in open rebellion.[37] The government itself experienced in-party rivalry, and in September 1979 Taraki was murdered under orders of his rival and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hafizullah Amin, which soured relations with the Soviet Union. Eventually the Soviet government, under leader Leonid Brezhnev, decided to deploy the 40th Army on December 24, 1979.[38] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,[39] killing president Amin and installing Soviet loyalist Babrak Karmal from a rival faction.[37] The deployment had been variously called an "invasion" (by Western media and the rebels) or a legitimate supporting intervention (by the Soviet Union and the Afghan government)[40][41] on the basis of the Brezhnev Doctrine."
"Anyways, no disagreement on the term mujaheddin, my usage here was just to seperate those native Afghans fighting vs. those foreign fighers that came. I understand the relationship to jihad. Here is what I have, allow me to quote liberally since you think it's "make beleive
"The term Afghan Arabs (also known as Arab-Afghans) refers mostly to Arab and other Muslim Islamist mujahideen who came to Afghanistan during and following the Soviet-Afghan War to help fellow Muslims fight Soviets and pro-Soviet Afghans" That I think we agree on.
On the late arrival of Afghan Arabs and Bin Laden in particular: "...most foreign Muslim jihad volunteers did not arrive in Afghanistan until the mid-1980s. By 1986 the Soviets were talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan." "Sometime after August 1988, Azzam was replaced as the leader of the Arab Afghans in Peshawar by Osama bin Laden."
On the lack of effectiveness of the Afghan Arabs: "Consequently, most of the "Afghan" Arabs arrived to fight the Soviets when they were least needed. ...Some Saudi tourists came to earn their jihad credentials. Their tour was organized so that they could step inside Afghanistan, get photographed discharging a gun, and promptly return home as a hero of Afghanistan."
On the number that came, subject to some dispute: "Estimates of the number of Muslim Afghan Arab volunteers that came from around the world came to fight in Afghanistan include 8,000, 20,000 and 35,000." Nevertheless, if it was other Arabs going there to take a few pictures, who cares.
On the conflict between native Afghan mujaheddin and the Afghan-Arabs: "These later expatriate volunteers included many sectarian Salafi and Wahhabi who alienated their hosts with their aloof manner and disdain for the Sufi Islam practiced by most Afghans. While the first Arab Afghans were "for the most part" welcomed by native Afghan mujahideen, by the end of the Soviet-Afghan war, there was a great deal of mutual antagonism between the two groups. The Afghan mujahideen resented "being told they were not good Muslims" and called the expatriate volunteers "Ikhwanis" or "Wahhabis", and this resentment is thought by some (Marc Sageman) to have played a role in the relatively easy manner in which the U.S. overthrew the (also very strict) Taliban in 2001"
There you have it.
You don't see the forest behind the trees. Yes, there were differences between the various fractions of "mujahedeen," yes they might disagree with each other on what form of Islam is "better," but at the end, as long as they are engaged in the "holly war" in the name of Islam, the area of action becomes the breeding ground for all kinds of Islamic believers.
Even if in the very beginning the CIA was helping to "Sufi" Afghan "freedom fighters," did it stop assistance when Wahabi fighters (Osama Bin Laden et al,) joined in?
I don't think so.
The Soviets went in as part of a coup d'etat within the Afghan communist party as well as to shore up the government against a broader populist counterrevolution one year after the communist Saur revolution.
Quote:
The first two presidents of post-revolutionary Afghanistan and leaders of the Khalq faction of the PDPA, Noor Mohammad Tarakai and Hafeezullah Amin, had little faith in the bureaucratic regime that prevailed in the Soviet Union and were bitterly against any foreign intervention, including by the Soviet Union. Tarakai was killed earlier on and it is highly probable that the KGB or the pro Moscow faction of the PDPA assassinated Hafeezullah Amin on the eve of the Russian intervention.
It would not be wrong to point out that Saur Revolution was imposed from the top in a revolutionary military uprising with organisational and political weaknesses - it was not a classical socialist revolution from a Marxist standpoint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
