The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

[Loknar]

Well now that the shit has hit the fan there I am forced to ask my self...should we just have let the soviets conquer Afghanistan? I am, convinced now that we should have. of course at the time, our actions made perfect sense...the soviets were the enemy and we were afraid of them conquering the middle east and Pakistan in particular would be caught between India and Russia (Russia and India had a good relationship).

When the reds went into Afghanistan, they were in essence fighting Islamic fundamentalism (if I‘m not mistaken they even claimed that). They were committing warcrimes (heavy death toll among the civilian population) and they even used chemical weapons (in caves). But, at least when the soviets were invading they were building he place up and killing the fundamentalists. If they had been given a free hand perhaps Afghanistan wouldn’t be a shit hole today. (my opinion on this also goes for the west when it invades places like Africa...at least the built it despite the evils of colonialism).

[Lord Testicles]

If im not mistaken, im sure that the Russians invaded Afghanistan because the national communist party had a "successfully" revolution and the Russians were there to stabilise the situation. (Correct me if im wrong)

I do however agree with you, if America and other countries had left Russia invade Afghanistan it will definitely be more industrialised than it is not and it certainly wont have warlords, but on the other hand there might be a corrupt "democracy" or a dictatorship there now, but I don’t see how that would be any worse than the Taliban.

EDIT: Spelling.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well, interestingly enough, im currently reading a book about this....Russia invaded Afghanistan for a simple reason, when the soviet allie president Taraki was killed by his fellow party member Amin, the KGB suspected that Amin was friends with the CIA, since Amin (now the new leader) had studied in America, and was rumored to be in contact with the CIA, the KGB under Andropov was paranoid, and didn't know what the hell was happening , and so they sent memos to Brezhnev explaining the possibilities of Amin being a CIA puppet, and of course this was really unacceptable for the Russians .....so they made the decision ONLY to remove Amin from power, NOTE! THAT WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE! in fact the first thing that happened was KGB paramilitaries dressed as Afghans stormed the presidential palace in Kabul and killed Amin..... and ironically the CIA knew nothing of KGB's suspicion of them helping Amin, so the CIA THOUGHT that the Russian invasion was a push for the Persian Gulf, which in the American eyes was obviously unacceptable, so in fact the Afghan invasion was an act of really bad intelligence and presuming by both parties...

[Janus]

When the reds went into Afghanistan, they were in essence fighting Islamic fundamentalism
No. The Soviet invasion pushed Afghanistan into fundamentalism due to the holy war that occured as a result. Most of the troops that the Soviets originally used were Muslims from the republics bordering Afghanistan.


If im not mistaken, im sure that the Russians invaded Afghanistan because the national communist party had a "successfully" revolution and the Russians were there to stabilise the situation
Yes, relations between Amin had also soured as Amin had rejected a lot of Soviet advice on stabilizing the country. Brezhnev believed that Amin's ouster would end the factional power struggle within the PDPA and also reduce Afghan discontent. And since the USSR and Afghanistan had signed agreements of aid, the Soviets didn't consider it a true invasion.


If they had been given a free hand perhaps Afghanistan wouldn’t be a shit hole today.
They pretty much had a free hand and they practically drove the population against them. They are responsible for causing the civil war that erupted later and there was no way that they could've defeated the mujahideen with only 120,000 troops and with control only in the cities.

[Red Rebel]

should we just have let the soviets conquer Afghanistan?

Could the Soviets have conquered Afghanistan? The Communist Afghanistan regime was not really liked by most Afghans. The US support helped, but nationalism is very hard to defeat, espically with the military.

[overlord]

I'm with the commies on this one. The Soviet Union is possibly the only thing which could have at least started development of that rotten country and remove some of their feudal religious idiocy. Then once the S.U. collapsed we could have a decent country for world business to invest in instead of that hell on earth it is today.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

No. The Soviet invasion pushed Afghanistan into fundamentalism due to the holy war that occured as a result. Most of the troops that the Soviets originally used were Muslims from the republics bordering Afghanistan.

actually no, the fundamentalism was already in place and it wasn't from the Soviet invasion, it was from the communist regime that had been implemented and with obvious Soviet aid....Afghanistan was a rural and theologic country not ready for communism as the Soviets later found out just before the invasion, all of the turmoil let them know this..and it was of course the fundamentalism...when the Communists took over the USSR thought Afghanistan would become like other Islamic countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc.. in which pastoral Islamic societies turned into godless police states....but Afghanistan was not to be at least for a while...so when the Marxists in Kabul launched terror campaigns against religious and social leaders who might be a challenge, obviously this was not welcomed by the population, in fact about 12 thousand political prisioners had been jailed....and the first anti-communist revolt happened in the city of Herat, after communists announced that girls were to be taught to read....and so Herat was where the fundamentalism stareted, specially since during the time Iran had had it's Islamic revolution with Ayatollah Khomeini and so Herat got the Iranian ideals .......also Herat was attacked after the people there had called a jihad,so this of course was just the final straw of the ever mounting tensions with fundamentalism, so then of course Amin took power, and then the USSR was suspicious of him, because he like Janus said, didn't really pay attention to the KGB advisors etc...

and actually Janus i don't know if these Soviets were actually Muslim Tajiks or Uzbeks im not really sure about that, but i do know that yes the initial wave was Russian forces that were stationed in the bordering countries of Afghanistan, something which the CIA had detected before the actual invasion...

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12 2006, 09:07 PM

should we just have let the soviets conquer Afghanistan?

Could the Soviets have conquered Afghanistan? The Communist Afghanistan regime was not really liked by most Afghans. The US support helped, but nationalism is very hard to defeat, espically with the military.
I agree, the Russians didn't seem to have a grasp of the history of the area either...hell...they even had "forbiden money".

Ic an't find a picture now, but it had a person's face on it...a big no-no in Islamic culture I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Loknar]

Of course dare I say this, I believe the world should have been fighting Islamic extremism years ago. Iran should have been the first step. Britain should have occupied their oil wells and held a gun to the Ayatollahs head.

IN Afghanistan, I am not excusing the crimes committed against the people by the red army. I just think that, at least when the reds were there the place was being developed. Just like Africa....when Europe was the railroads were being built, pipes laid ect now look at what they did with their independence...Of course, the political boundaries play a large role but at least under Empire they were stable.

In Afghanistan, we opposed the red army, and allowed Pakistan a free hand….this was a huge mistake. At least the people in power before the Taliban were somewhat decent. Islam is a major problem….they’re stuck in the mindset of a 12th century Christian. Really, we should have let the reds take Afghanistan and we should have occupied Iran and since the Russians had India we could take Pakistan (as an ally). I believe it would have been a perfect solution

[Purple]

One glorious aspect of communism; the defiance against religion. When religion is starting to take over the politics in a country, thats the point where the population will be screwed. But still I do think that the only excuse for a war would be of an imminent threat to the citizens of the nation, or an external nation.

"Britain should have occupied their oil wells and held a gun to the Ayatollahs head."

I would rather say that they should have held a gun to Ayatollah's (that damn idiot's) head, shot him, arranged a democratic election, and then go back to pretty lil' Britain, and left the oil all alone.

[Janus]

actually no, the fundamentalism was already in place and it wasn't from the Soviet invasion
The invasion definitely strengthened it. Perhaps Soviet intervention would be a better word as this would cover 1978 and 1979 as well.

[Monty Cantsin]

From what I’ve read of the history the afghan communist party had its support in the urban areas while the bulk of the country in the rural areas was fundamentalist Muslims. The igniting factor from the material I read was the communist party’s support of women’s rights, a direct contradiction to the theology of rural Afghanistan.

On the semantics of intervention over invasion, I think you should look at the Vietnam War. If you consider the early involvement of the USA as intervention then so was the soviet early actions in Afghanistan or if you consider the former an invasion you also consider the latter one also.

[fernando]

Isnt Afghanistan just another example of Soviet imperialism? (oh...I know I will piss off some leftists with this!)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Afghanistan is a major reason why the Soviet Union collapsed. They ended up spending so much money waging war that they didn't have anything left to put on the shelves of stores. The people than got pissed.

[fernando]

The USSR's only way to exist was through conflict...look at the military spendings until the fall of the USSR, they were huge! The USSR needed war to survive.

[Publius]

How does the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan differer, fundamentally, from the US invasion of Iraq?

[MKS]

How does the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan differer, fundamentally, from the US invasion of Iraq?

There is no difference. Both nations were and are trying to impose their world (socio-economic) views on a sovereign nation. Both nations used and still use armed conflict to bolster their economies and strengthen their positions of power. And both nations seek to oppress and control the people.

What is the difference between Islamic tyranny and soviet tyranny? Tyranny is tyranny whether it flies the sickle and hammer or the crescent and star.

The soviet invasion of Afghanistan polarized the developing nation causing many 'moderate' citizens to seek defense amongst the more radical Islamic elements within the nation.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:18 AM

How does the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan differer, fundamentally, from the US invasion of Iraq?

There is no difference. Both nations were and are trying to impose their world (socio-economic) views on a sovereign nation. Both nations used and still use armed conflict to bolster their economies and strengthen their positions of power. And both nations seek to oppress and control the people.
Almost correct. Your 1st, 3rd, and 4th sentences are true. There was no difference. The USSR would have plundered the country (hyperdeveloped one portion, looted the rest of it, bribed the necessary lackeys as needed, etc.) and used it as an imperialist satellite just as the U.S. is trying to do right now (and failing as well).

With regards to competing socio-economic views, I don't think that was the case. The USSR's and U.S.'s socio-economic views were pretty much the same in broad terms (capitalism complemented with copious imperialism), although the details, forms, and rhetoric that it all took differed widely in each country. In the U.S. you had market capitalism cloaked in rhetoric of "democracy," and in the USSR you had State-monopoly capitalism cloaked in rhetoric of "socialism" or "communism."

Afghanistan was really caught between a rock and a hard place. Which imperialism would have been better? Maybe the USSR's by a hair, because the USSR wasn't quite adept at plundering its satellites (even running a deficit with places like Cuba), and it might have been a secularizing influence. But the difference was negligable. I think Afghanis have made the correct choice--being the puppet of neither imperialism.

It is unfortunate, though, that anti-imperialism in Afghanistan had to come hand-in-hand with Islamism, but the sooner Afghanistan can develop on its own independently, the sooner it can flush that medieval crap out of its society.

[CrazyModerate]

The Soviet Union was an imperialist power. The war in afghanistan was an act of aggression in the same vein as the American invasion of Iraq and Vietnam. The Afghan "Communist" government was a puppet government much like the American backed government of South Vietnam.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The USSR's only way to exist was through conflict...look at the military spendings until the fall of the USSR, they were huge! The USSR needed war to survive.

err well I guess you could say that, but the large spending was due to the arms race against the US, and the fact that part of what kept moral up was that they were a great military might.

I think if Gorbachev used the same policies like glasnost in the 60's or 70's the Soviet Union might still be here today.

[fernando]

err well I guess you could say that, but the large spending was due to the arms race against the US, and the fact that part of what kept moral up was that they were a great military might.
The military morale was the only thing that kept the USSR from existing at a certain point...


I think if Gorbachev used the same policies like glasnost in the 60's or 70's the Soviet Union might still be here today.
But then we had Breznev if I remember correctly...military spendings were more important than spendings on the economy and social situations...

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:53 PM
Well now that the shit has hit the fan there I am forced to ask my self...should we just have let the soviets conquer Afghanistan? I am, convinced now that we should have. of course at the time, our actions made perfect sense...the soviets were the enemy and we were afraid of them conquering the middle east and Pakistan in particular would be caught between India and Russia (Russia and India had a good relationship).

When the reds went into Afghanistan, they were in essence fighting Islamic fundamentalism (if I‘m not mistaken they even claimed that). They were committing warcrimes (heavy death toll among the civilian population) and they even used chemical weapons (in caves). But, at least when the soviets were invading they were building he place up and killing the fundamentalists. If they had been given a free hand perhaps Afghanistan wouldn’t be a shit hole today. (my opinion on this also goes for the west when it invades places like Africa...at least the built it despite the evils of colonialism).
The Soviets never had the intension of conquering Afghanistan. That was not the plan. Contrary to the Western lie, the Russians and their Afghan comrades agreed that the occupation was to be temporary. this was a truly progressive move by the Soviet Union to not only defend their borders from imperialist funded Islamic cutthroats, but to defend the Revolution in Afghanistan, i.e the social gains.