USSR in Afghanistan

[Stain]

What's the take on this? Was the intervention a good thing as some Marxists like Michael Parenti see it? Or was it an Invasion as the USA says it? Or was it social-imperialism as Maoists say it? Or something else? What stance should a revolutionary leftist have taken and stance should be supported now?

[RadioRaheem84]

Good and bad but mostly good from what I've read. Afghanistan was pretty backwards and the communists came in and did a lot of progressive things. Google photos of the DRA and see what kind of progress was going on. The extremists and warlords plus the US and Saudi Arabia ruined Afghanistan. USSR intervened to squash those reactionary elements.

[hashem]

it wasnt different from USA intervention. Afghan communists stood against this imperialist attack. USSR supporters had supported monarchy before the attack and since they had no popular support, they only relied on foreign soldiers and mercenaries. not surprisingly, their "progressive" slogans stayed on paper and in reality, a reactionary puppet government ruled and ruined the country.

[Comrade Jacob]

Imperialism is what it was.

[Queen Mab]

Far from the invasion being a progressive crusade against feudal Islam, the Soviets actually intervened to end the modernisation programme of the Afghan state. The 'Saur Revolution' lead to massive peasant resistance and the prospect of a civil war that could spill over into the Central Asian SSRs. By 1987 the two sides were more or less ideologically indistinguishable.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Good and bad but mostly good from what I've read. Afghanistan was pretty backwards and the communists came in and did a lot of progressive things. Google photos of the DRA and see what kind of progress was going on. The extremists and warlords plus the US and Saudi Arabia ruined Afghanistan. USSR intervened to squash those reactionary elements.

Regarding these progressive things, was the USSR involved with the opening of the first girls' school in Afghanistan in 1921 under Amanollah? Or did these "progressive things" only begin later?

Anyway, in most circumstances I'd reject the notion that an outside force needs to intervene to "protect Afghans from themselves" as blatantly colonialist. In the context of U.S. backing of religious extremists prior to the Soviet invasion, and considering the extent of long-term political relations between Afghanistan and the USSR, I'm inclined to think that calling it "imperialist" or "colonialist" goes too far, "puppet government" notwithstanding.

Afghanistan sure as hell would have been better off without covert backing of the Mujahideen. To the extent that Soviet intervention was a response to this (admittedly perhaps a response to a previously installed puppet government's call for help, akin to South Vietnam), I don't see it as a bad thing, even though I have no illusions about either world power having an altruistic goal of 'the best interests of the Afghan people' or somesuch.

[RevolucionAbril]

Don't mind my first post..I had to make a new account since I haven't been on this site in a while...but regardless this is a reply I had on a previous thread a few years back concerning the Afghan 1980's situation.


Before anything let me just say that the USSR had historically allied itself with Afghanistan even before the Saur Revolution of 1978. Since at least the 1950s the Soviets had been building roads for Afghanistan, which lacked railroads. On December 1955 the USSR had granted Afghanistan a $100 million long-term development loan which would be repaid through barter goods at a 2% interest over a 30 year period. This form of assistance started way back when Afghanistan declared its independence and leaned on Soviet economic and military aid to ensure that independence. Lenin accompanied his prompt recognition of Afghanistan as a sovereign state on March 1919 by sending a message to Amanullah Khan. In 1932, the USSR helped Afghanistan withstand the worst of the world depression by extending commercial relations on a favorable basis.

Now concerning the war...To me that was completely started by counter-revolutionary elements in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the U.S., Pakistan and other reactionary states who saw primarily a economic (and in some cases, a social) threat coming from the Saur Revolution. Afghanistan's big landlords and merchants quickly moved to oppose the reforms of the Saur Revolution. Many began to organize the counter-revolution due to the economic and social fear. Capitalists like Sayed Ahmed Gailani, the capitalist owner of a car dealership in Kabul, fled to Pakistan where he started the Afghanistan Islamic and Nationalist Revolutionary Council. Many of the reactionaries had studied in Egypt, and were members of the Muslim Brotherhood which promoted strict Islamic states. They were quickly backed by the Mullahs who were landowners themselves or were puppets of the rich. Landlords and Mullahs both wanted to maintain social "traditions", especially against women (of which the Saur Revolution had immensely favored). Some Afghanis had even joined the Mujahidden purely because of this reason!

The Mujahidden (or "Freedom Fighters as called by the U.S.) reactionaries attacked government offices, schools [especially co-ed schools] and clinics, primarily where land reforms were taking place. Literacy volunteers, teachers and state workers were murdered and tortured. Soviet officials, who were assisting the women's literacy program were also massacred.

The U.S. immediately moved to overthrow the Saur Revolution. All U.S. "aid" to Afghanistan was eventually stopped and the capitalist press attacked the Revolution as a "soviet-backed coup." Despite the fact that even Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State admitted that there were no evidence for such a claim. Washington had sent the Mujahidden $500 million at least 6 months before the Soviet intervention. Pakistan also served as a primary haven for the mujahidden and by 1979 the Pakistani state was already recommending Afghani rebel organizations for U.S. funding. In May 1979, the State Dept. reported that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates had been lined up to provide millions of dollars to the mujahidden.

The Soviets didn't "invade" Afghanistan, instead they were requested by Taraki due to the amount of urgency. The USSR only responded when it was pretty clear that it was a last resort to prevent a U.S. pawn in the region. Even after Soviet advisers were killed in Afghanistan the USSR agreed only to military supplies and additional Soviet advisers but no troops. It took more than 8 requests by the PDPA state in order for the Soviets to step in.

Until 1988, the U.S. had blocked any negotiation between the PDPA and the mujahidden, encouraging them to fight one more battle. After Soviet troops left Afghanistan and were in the process of leaving, the U.S. & Pakistan continued unabated with its funding for the mujahidden.

[Teacher]

Some interesting pictures of Kabul before the Mujahedin:

http://www.sabawoon.com/articles/index.php?page=women_right

Not all during the Soviet period it seems that it was actually a pretty cosmopolitan place even before the Soviets came. Very sad.

[Red_Banner]

I guess I support Soviet intervention but I am not thrilled that they favoured the Parchams over the Khalqs.

When they kicked out the Khalqs they alienated alot of Afghans that would have been willing to support the Soviets.

The Parchams didn't have near the support that the Khalqs did and the Parchams comprimised too much.
Too much to the point that they sold out by 87 to the religious fanatics by making the state Islamic thinking that would somehow win over the Mujahadeen.

But the Mujahadeen and Taliban didn't give a shit about those "reforms" that were to appease them and took control violently anyways.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What's the take on this? Was the intervention a good thing as some Marxists like Michael Parenti see it? Or was it an Invasion as the USA says it? Or was it social-imperialism as Maoists say it? Or something else? What stance should a revolutionary leftist have taken and stance should be supported now?

The traditional leftist take on it is this: good, progressive USSR-backed Afghan puppets wanted to drag the country out of it's backward mire and provide social equality for everyone, while the evil, USA-backed mujahedeen (basically politically equivalent to the Taliban who would come on the scene later, in this narrative) wanted to destroy everything that was progressive and good in Afghanistan.

There are some deviations from this narrative from assorted anarchist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Hoxhaist etc. positions but for some reason that explanation has been put up a lot on this site.

[milk]

I'll post up some reading recommendations later.

Short answer: From the Saur coup to the arrival of the Fortieth Army, 'Socialism' by decree came from a government in a city many didn't recognise as a legitimate authority in much of the country due in large part to the structure of Afghan society with its regional-tribal-clan networks and affiliations, and that fragmented society's relationship to a weak state. This, with an ill-thought out and executed program of social transformation which ended up alienating people further.

[Crabbensmasher]

Eh, I honestly don't know about this one.

On one hand, I think the conservative elements of the country would have proved resilient even without foreign backing. Trying to uproot centuries of very conservative social norms in one day is tricky. The same can be said with many countries, really.

Also, I think the Marxists really had the wrong way of viewing the situation. They seemed to view it as a real single-problem issue. "Let's force them to be progressive", when it's really a multi-faceted situation, demanding careful analysis (Funny, how most things in life are like that). Even though there's great images of gender-equality, promotion of the sciences, and progressive liberalization, we have to remember that was mainly Kabul. There was still the poor, illiterate farmer who worked his land for generations, the warlord who held sway over his territory for years, and plenty of other groups, who did, by no means want to usher in socialism. They were content living as they had for centuries, and this major upheaval of their lifestyle was just reason enough to fight against it.
Like, just the idea of saying "Let's force" anything to the Afghan people seems a recipe for disaster. As we've seen through the last few years in particular, they're resilient, and overall, they're fighters.

Actually, I guess I'm not really saying much apart from "It's complicated, guise".