Article

2007-01-18 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2007-01-18 09:10|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 according to "Charley Wilson's War" the US wasnt even wild about giving money to Hekmatyar, but he was the Pakis favorite. The US had to go around the ISI, at first using MI6 contacts, to give support to Ahmed Shah Massoud, whom Paki didnt like cause he wasnt either Pashtun or fundie.

Course y'all might not like the book, which shows how some Democrats were more stalwart to beat the Soviets in Afghan than the admin was - the admin thought they could beat the Soviets in Nicaragua.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-18 09:33|| 2007-01-18 09:33|| Front Page Top

#2 Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate

Doesn't make a bit of difference to the lefties. It's about truthiness not truth. It's about power not right or justice. It's about the greater picture not about facts. Just ask any lacrosse player from Duke.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-18 09:38|| 2007-01-18 09:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'

Still do and we need to implement this ASAP.

And somebody get this man a job in the NSA!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-01-18 09:49|| 2007-01-18 09:49|| Front Page Top

#4 some Democrats were more stalwart to beat the Soviets in Afghan than the admin was

Yeah, Funny how they were willing to take on an obvious Soviet move that at the ass-end of the earth, and not the 'home-grown Marxists' in their own hemisphere.

I guess one should be thankful Chris Dodd never made repeated trips to Afghanistan...

Stalwart, indeed

Posted by Pappy 2007-01-18 09:57|| 2007-01-18 09:57|| Front Page Top

#5 If the US created Osama we have an obligation to stop him. We are not responsible for his crimes anymore than a mother is responsible for the crimes of an adult child, but we have a responsibility if we showed him how to use a pistol.

If the US did not create Osama Bin Laden we have an obligation to stop him because he has killed over 3,000 Americans and nobody else in the world has the will or ability to do so.

So it's a wash. WE're obligated to whack the bastard.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-01-18 10:39|| 2007-01-18 10:39|| Front Page Top

#6 r: If the US created Osama we have an obligation to stop him. We are not responsible for his crimes anymore than a mother is responsible for the crimes of an adult child, but we have a responsibility if we showed him how to use a pistol.

Screw that responsibility stuff - if we showed him how to use a pistol and he turned it on us, we need to whack him to show that rank ingratitude will be punished. If you help someone and he turns on you - that's not an example of you creating a monster - it's an example of him deciding that the word "gratitude" is not in his vocabulary.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-18 11:42|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-18 11:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Since whacking him is the response in either case I'm not sure we have a disagreement.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-01-18 11:49|| 2007-01-18 11:49|| Front Page Top

#8 "Yeah, Funny how they were willing to take on an obvious Soviet move that at the ass-end of the earth, and not the 'home-grown Marxists' in their own hemisphere."

Made sense on several grounds - 1. In Afghanistan we were actually killing Russians, not a bunch of lame central American reds. 2. The Soviet rule over Afghanistan was brutal, and the resistance was fairly spontaneous, having grown tremendously before the CIA funded it in a big way. Nicaragua, OTOH, was no more dictatorial than lots of other Lat Am regimes we were Ok with, and Contras were virtually created by the CIA, from what I understand 3. A soviet victory in Afghanistan would change the balance in the region. A Sandinista win would have been easily contained - Nicaragua is so close to US air and naval bases, they would not have been very useful as a base. Nic was at most an annoyance and an embarrasment.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-18 12:44|| 2007-01-18 12:44|| Front Page Top

#9 The theories of Area 51'ers are typically easy to debunk. They usually follow a similar format. Such as: A + B = C, therefore (A + B) (A or B) = X, and therefore X is the Antithesis of C.
Of course, the problem with that logic is that sometimes, Y + (A or B) = C.

With that said, the authors of this article seem to go out their way to downplay the contribution of the Arabs and imply they were only bit players in the outcome of this conflict. However, the facts suggests otherwise. Its hard to refute that the funding they brought, the actual boots on the ground, and tenacity of their fight were enormous factors that resulted in the Soviet withdrawal. And obviously the CIA funding, weapons, and logistics provided to Mujahidin factions via Pakistan were also keys to that success. So there shouldnt be much argument that the triumph that resulted from the collaboration of indigenous and foreign fighters (And their benefactors) was the genesis for the eventual Taliban/AQ relationship. Now with that said, thats a far cry from saying the CIA created Bin Laden.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-01-18 12:47|| 2007-01-18 12:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Who says the CIA created Binny? Some left-leaning-liberal-loser in the liberal press?

John Kerry?

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-18 13:09|| 2007-01-18 13:09|| Front Page Top

#11 "Its hard to refute that the funding they brought"

But how DO you estimate the funding they brought? KSA as a govt gave massive funds, but that was based on KSAs own dislike of the USSR, their relations with Pakistan, their desire to show the muslim world they were at the forefront of jihad, etc. They didnt need stray arabs on the ground, they were happy giving the money to the ISI to give to Afghans. OBL may have added his own personal money, and gotten some money from individual Saudis, but how much was that?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-18 14:13|| 2007-01-18 14:13|| Front Page Top

#12 I thought we flushed this turd (story) months ago

Posted by Captain America 2007-01-18 14:38|| 2007-01-18 14:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Can anyone really explain to me why the Soviets invaded in the first place? The most common reason is the desire for a warm-water port which is crazy because they would still have to invade one of Afghanistan's neighbors to do that. Afghanistan has no oil either. I understand the desire to spread the Commie flag everywhere but the move into Afghanistan just seems daft and I must be missing something. Perhaps it had something to do with their own ethnic muslims?

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-01-18 15:07|| 2007-01-18 15:07|| Front Page Top

#14 reasons

1. Once they had a place they didnt like to give it up. Sets a bad precedent, ya know? Shows theyre weak. Gives folks ideas. They had kinda sorta been behind the previous Afghan king, and then behind the steadily more leftwing govts that succeeded him. By 79 afghan had a communist party in charge (divided into two factions, but thats another story) So by the Brezhnev doctrine, retreat was inconceivable. "failure is not an option"
2. The fact that it bordered on central asia made things worse. A fundie muslim regime, hell any unfriendly regime in Afghan, could lead to turmoil in the SSRs bordering Afghan. Better to squelch the thing first.
3. If it gave them a chance to flank Pakistan (a kinda sorta US/Chinese ally) , to flank Iran (not friendly to the USSR) and to maybe get in better position to take Baluchistan, and thus get to the Indian Ocean, so much the better, even if those were not the main drivers of the op.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-18 15:13|| 2007-01-18 15:13|| Front Page Top

#15 Reason #4 : the Russians, whether under Czar or Premier, had lusted for and fought for Afghanistan for 400 years, refer to Rudyard Kipling's Great Game.

Reason #5 : The KGB, GRU, and Ministry of the Interior Special Police were all getting reports of MAJOR dissatisfaction with Soviet rule in the Central Asian republics, and they needed a clear example of what happens to those who cause problems. Wrong example, it turns out.

Reason #6 : Jimmy Carter was an absolute punk and the Soviets were doing a worldwide expansion because of him : Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua; major increases in funding for Communist insurgent/terrorists in El Salvador, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, and Columbia.

Reason #7 : Soviet Army and GRU was justifying the latest set of equipment purchases and its expensive Spetsnaz units against KGB encroachments.

Reason #8 : Expansionist imperial Soviet Union's very nature required it to gobble countries when available - refer to Communist theory of historic inevitability of people's revolutions and republics.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-18 16:11|| 2007-01-18 16:11|| Front Page Top

#16 Reason #9 : military reformers in the Soviet Union were questioning the general effectiveness of mass Soviet attacks in regards to Western European and US weapons and tactics. Also, China's spreading influence and use of troops in Southeast Asia called into question Siberian safety. Needed an example to quell the Chinese.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-18 16:15|| 2007-01-18 16:15|| Front Page Top

#17 6. angola, Moz, and Nic were all targets of opportunity - the former two opened up while Ford was prez, thanks to the coup in Portugal. None of them required Russian troops (angola they used Cubans)

expansionist nature? Dunno. Seems sending in the Red Army implied a LACK of faith in inevitable revolutions. Maybe why they did more under Brezhnev, when the ideology was dying or dead, than under Krushschev, a true believer.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-18 16:52|| 2007-01-18 16:52|| Front Page Top

#18 Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: HE'S GOT A ROTTEN BRAIN! IT'S ROTTEN, I TELL YA! ROTTEN!
The Monster: RAAAAAAAA!
Igor: Ixnay on the ottenray.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-01-18 17:07|| 2007-01-18 17:07|| Front Page Top

#19 rjschwarz: Can anyone really explain to me why the Soviets invaded in the first place?

Richard Pipes explained that the threat from Soviet Russia had little to do with it being Communist and everything to do with it being Russian. Empire is simply part of the Russian identity. (I think there's something similar going on with Communist China).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-18 17:10|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-18 17:10|| Front Page Top

#20 Damn ShieldWolf! Word!

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-18 17:26|| 2007-01-18 17:26|| Front Page Top

#21 By the way, LH, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place on Dec. 25, 1979. The Chinese invasion of Vietnam took place in February of 1979 and ran through March/April of 1979 - fully 9 months earlier than the Soviet invansion. The Chinese got ground up by the Vietnamese in the first month and then the Chinese declared a "victory" and went home; the Soviets did whatever they wanted in Afghanistan for the first 3 years.
So the lesson to China was a big part of the Afghani war on the Soviet side.

Second, the only reason the Cubans got to Angola, Moz, and Nicaragua is that the Soviet Navy and Air Force transported them there. Plus, the massive amount of older armor and artillery used in the Southern African zone was issued from Soviet depots inside the Soviet Union, as well as stores kept in the Soviet bases in Cuba. The KGB had a large network of prepositioned equipment in Cuba, based on the NATO prepositioning setup in Europe - e.g., it is easier to marry up people with the stuff already in the country, than it is to transport it over in time of war.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-18 18:04|| 2007-01-18 18:04|| Front Page Top

#22 The SOviets were also heavily engaged in commodities trading to shore up their rigid economy and support national policies. When competing agz the likes of the USA = NATO + Japan, commodities is not enuff, hence pragmatic need to get close to near-abroad OIL NATIONS LIKE IRAN. The Soviets first priority is unto themselves, NOT THE PROBS, DESIRES, OR AMBITIONS OF THE LOCALS. Doesn't and didn't matter back then that both Shah- and post-Shah Iran were agz the USSR - thats what Gulags and Death Camps are for. As for my old friend Osama, etal. no one has said that the USA was the "sole source" of anti-Soviet Muslim groups fighting in Afghanistsan. That being said, he was dedicated to the anti-Soviet cause, was supplied and trained by the USA and fought alongside our proxies, so in Soviet eyes Osama was indeed "ours" since Osama wasn't for them. It won't matter to the Soviets and thier local allies that Osama, etal. had outside sources of funding, training or combat advice.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-18 22:01|| 2007-01-18 22:01|| Front Page Top

23:56 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:55 USN, ret.
23:47 USN, ret.
23:34 USN, ret.
23:19 C-Low
23:06 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Elmert Crosh5077
22:46 Glenmore
22:45 Glenmore
22:42 Shieldwolf
22:39 Swamp Blondie
22:32 Shieldwolf
22:21 Elmert Crosh5077
22:15 Shieldwolf
22:14 Jan
22:13 BA
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:08 CrazyFool
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:04 Frank G
22:02 KBK
22:01 JAB
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:56 Frank G