Emphasis added. Nobody of significance gave a rat’s ass about Islamic extremism in 1979. I’d say that the Afghan War put it on the the map, except for most in the West I don’t think it really filtered into the consciousness until after the Taliban took Kabul and media reports of their draconian policies began filtering out.
As if Americans give a crap about “horrible things” happening to people in far flung lands (see, e.g., Iraq). The US wanted to poke a stick in the Soviet’s eye and drain its resources. And it was pretty successful at doing that.
Painting with that broad brush again I see. Some Americans definitely DID ‘give a crap’ about what the Soviets were doing (just like, ironically, some Soviets undoubtedly were concerned about things Americans had done in Vietnam)…they were, you know, pretty extreme. They were also fairly well known at the time, at least some of them. Was this just an excuse for the US to use to give aid to the rebels? Certainly. Doesn’t mean no one cared though.
But, since you have brought up Iraq you obviously automatically win the thread! So, no point continuing.
Did you cheer on the Iraq war like it was a football game? Did you vote for war criminal George Bush in 2004? Are you opposed to fixing global climate change? If your answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then you are exactly the type of American I am talking about. And if your answer to all these questions is “no,” then you should be agreeing with me. Spare me your false indignation.
Do you beat your wife? Do you fuck the dog? Do you torture squirrels? Since your answer to these are all ‘yes’, you should stop building strawmen and spare me these bullshit replies. If you answered ‘no’, of course, then maybe both of us should stop assuming we know the others answers…
Do you shove dead dog’s penises up your ass and in your mouth? Do you smear your own feces on your ice cream?
Sorry you can’t actually deal with reality.
Other than the leader of the Soviet Union, quoted in October 1979?
So, you go with asking me a bunch of over the top strawmen questions then get bent out of shape when I do the same and decide, hell, let’s go nuclear? 
One of us certainly has a problem dealing, no doubt about that.
Do you put squirrel cum in your nostrils? Do you use buffalo testicles as a facial treatment.
You go to “fucking dogs” and then want to cry about it when I do the same thing? Nope, you don’t get to have one set of rules for you and another for everyone else. You want to go gross, I will do the exact same thing, and I’ll do it far better than you can. Take your double-standard someplace else.
Point taken, I suppose you could take Khomeini as a jumping off point. However I suspect it was an isolated one insomuch as Iran stood in such an odd position vis-a-vis the rest of the Muslim world.
But I’m still skeptical that the threat of creeping Islamic extremism was any sort of priority that prompted the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. If anything it was the wellspring of their problems in that regard.
I can’t remember. Weren’t the Soviets warning the US at one point about rising Islamic extremism in Afghanistan post-invasion but before their pullout? I thought I’d read that somewhere.
Let’s just start watching the warnings, roll.
Warning issued. Don’t insult people in Great Debates.
And another warning!
Don’t do it again.
Aaand I’m going to extend this to everyone but XT and BnS you should pay special attention.
Keep it civil or…well…consequences!
Hindsight is 20-20. In 1979, that was not known to decision makers. And as bears repeating, intentions change in 7.5 seconds, capability remains. It is now known the Sovs had no intention of invading W Europe or Chinese West either. Does that mean that planners should continue to relay on “good intentions”?
As it is the US (and even Pakistan) did not go all in to support the Muj until 1982-83, when it became clear that they were a credible threat. Possibly, the Russians would have lost anyway.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
And I don’t see that they had the capability either. Maintaining a logistical train through Afghanistan to subdue a population the size of Pakistan simply wasn’t in the cards. And on top of that, the US would have certainly responded to a Soviet invasion of Pakistan far more directly than Afghanistan, and the Chinese probably would have indirectly come into the action as well. Maybe if they had Indian support, they could maintain the logistical train, but the Indians would have likely been completely opposed to a Soviet invasion of Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
With troops in theatre, no. With reinforced troops from the West? Sure they did. And India would have done nothing nor could they have they had their own major problems, chiefly Sikhs at the time.
I’m pretty sure they were, though how sincere said warnings were in that late Cold War period ( as opposed to “hey, we were justified here” propaganda ) is of course an open question. They were right of course, but I wonder if even they would have predicted the explosion of Islamism as a serious issue in the 21rst century.
And of course they must bear a sizeable share of blame for the enforced radicalization of a chunk of Afghanistan’s population and by extension the U.S.'s support for SA’s program of exporting religious ideology. It’s all a a huge interlocking web, but no Soviet intervention in that semi-forgotten backwater ( which it was at the time ) and world history may have been somewhat different.
What do you mean from “the West?” Do you mean the Soviets sending large numbers of troops from the European theatre? Because if that’s what your saying, we already had those troops occupied with our own deployment in the European theatre. The Soviets weren’t going to move those troops, so that’s a non-starter. Unless you mean something else.
India, of course, wouldn’t have intervened (why would they want the headache), but they could have denounced the Soviet invasion (and the Soviets did tend to be kind of sensitive to international publicity issues, particular when it came to their allies) and they could have denied Soviets refueling or basing opportunities during a Soviet-led invasion. Why would the Soviets want to piss off an ally to attempt something that would certainly be a military disaster for them. These arguments aren’t persuasive to me.
I’m telling you that a possible Soviet invasion and conquest of Pakistan was not a significant issue at the time for formulating US policy. Fear of the US looking weak? Yes, huge issue. Opportunity to make the Soviets bleed? Yes, huge issue. Fear of more assertive Soviet aggression elsewhere, especially in Africa after the embarrassing Ogaden and Angola events? Yes, big issue.
But the Soviets conquering a warm water port? No, it was not a significant issue.
I know the history of the Soviet navy’s troubles. But what you’re asserting is akin to people thinking that the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because it has trillions in mineral wealth that is unexploited. Yes, Afghanistan does have such wealth, and yes, in there are Americans who would like to exploit it, but that isn’t why Bush overthrew the Taliban.
I do not know much about international politics of wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. What I have studied very well is that these wars were a tragedy for populations of these nations.
Both USA and USSR engaged in inhumane warfare.
That isn’t a salient point. ALL wars are inhumane.