Taliban vs. USSR

[Hitchabrut]

Painful choice, but I'd go with the Taliban.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Soviets. The puppet regime wouldn't have lasted anyway, it would've collapsed along with the Eastern Bloc, and the Afghan people would be far better off today. The US would be as well. We might even have the World Trade Center standing.

[MaC]

funny no matter how Republicans answer they're gonna be ridculed in this post.  Either for being Anti-Reagan and supporting the USSR or being Anti-W and supporting the Taliban.  Whew, tough call.

[Jake]

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s, at least not as anywhere near a major part of the Mujhadden.

[dazzleman]

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s, at least not as anywhere near a major part of the Mujhadden.

Bingo.  It was not a choice between the Taliban and the USSR.  The mujaheddin consisted of a number of different elements, one of which eventually became the Taliban.

The real mistake in Afghanistan was to abandon it after the Russians withdrew.  Had we nursed them along and helped them develop a stable government in the aftermath of war, the Taliban may never have developed when it did.

But we were definitely right to support the mujaheddin.  We had no choice but to resist a potential Russian move toward the Persian Gulf, with all the potential that held for economic strangulation and a much larger war, or worse, our collapse, if the Russians were able to do it in such a way that we could not effectively resist without a massive nuclear war.  Even such luminous hawks as Jimmy Carter saw this danger, and resolved to resist.  Let's not forget that assistance to the mujaheddin started under Carter, not Reagan.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats who answered this poll would have supported a sworn enemy of the US in making a move toward a region from which much of the oil on which the west's economy was and still is dependent comes from.  That's basically what I thought about Democratic grasp of geopolitics, and concern for the national interest.

Yes, the mujaheddin were in a way the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes that is the choice you get.  It wasn't at all clear then that the Soviets would collapse the way they did.  In fact, many liberals at that time were extolling the economic superiority of the Soviets, so it wasn't clear to liberals then either.  But had the Soviets prevailed in Afghanistan, and been able somehow to stave off economic collapse, we'd have been facing far worse problems than the collapse of the Twin Towers.

[phk]

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s, at least not as anywhere near a major part of the Mujhadden.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats who answered this poll would have supported a sworn enemy of the US in making a move toward a region from which much of the oil on which the west's economy was and still is dependent comes from

Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country. Its economic growth is and still is largely fueled by heroin exports.

Nearby you have Iran which wouldn't sell oil to us anyway (yet continued selling oil to the Euro-zone and Latin America, unless they don't constitute "West" for some reason) and Pakistan which doesn't produce oil. So explain how exactly the USSR would "boogey" through Afghanistan, through Iran and into major OPEC countries?

If Bush doesn't want to invade Iran with a major push toward military-defense-Keyensianism, the USSR wouldn't and couldn't have either.

You might as well learn a geography lesson while you're at it, Afghanistan is apart of Central Asia, much like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are NOT the Middle East which Iran and Saudi Arabia are apart of.

Try-again.

Likely what would have happened is the installation of a Soviet puppet, which becomes independent in 1989-1992 once again and would be much similar to a former Soviet Central Asian country.

Only countries that would have problems are Iran and Pakistan due to refugees.

[dazzleman]

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s, at least not as anywhere near a major part of the Mujhadden.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats who answered this poll would have supported a sworn enemy of the US in making a move toward a region from which much of the oil on which the west's economy was and still is dependent comes from

Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country. Its economic growth is and still is largely fueled by heroin exports.

Nearby you have Iran which wouldn't sell oil to us anyway (yet continued selling oil to the Euro-zone and Latin America, unless they don't constitute "West" for some reason) and Pakistan which doesn't produce oil.

You might as well learn a geography lesson while you're at it, Afghanistan is apart of Central Asia, much like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are NOT the Middle East which Iran and Saudi Arabia are apart of.

Try-again.

Maybe you should look at a map.  Occupation of Afghanistan brought the Soviets much closer to the Persian Gulf.  With Iran in turmoil, as it was at the time (and still is), occupation of a country right on Iran's border could have put the Soviets in a good position to seize Persian Gulf oil, or conduct more subtle blackmail of the oil producing states.

It matters not whether Iran was selling oil to the US.  The idea would be to interrupt and control the world oil supply or a significant portion thereof, which could have led to economic collapse in the west, regardless of whether Iran sold the US oil or not.

Maybe you should try again with your faulty reasoning.  You obviously have no understanding of how markets work, or of geopolitical realities.  I would expect no less, given the name you have picked.

[phk]

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s, at least not as anywhere near a major part of the Mujhadden.

It's interesting to see that the Democrats who answered this poll would have supported a sworn enemy of the US in making a move toward a region from which much of the oil on which the west's economy was and still is dependent comes from

Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country. Its economic growth is and still is largely fueled by heroin exports.

Nearby you have Iran which wouldn't sell oil to us anyway (yet continued selling oil to the Euro-zone and Latin America, unless they don't constitute "West" for some reason) and Pakistan which doesn't produce oil.

You might as well learn a geography lesson while you're at it, Afghanistan is apart of Central Asia, much like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are NOT the Middle East which Iran and Saudi Arabia are apart of.

Try-again.

Maybe you should look at a map.  Occupation of Afghanistan brought the Soviets much closer to the Persian Gulf.  With Iran in turmoil, as it was at the time (and still is), occupation of a country right on Iran's border could have put the Soviets in a good position to seize Persian Gulf oil, or conduct more subtle blackmail of the oil producing states.

It matters not whether Iran was selling oil to the US.  The idea would be to interrupt and control the world oil supply or a significant portion thereof, which could have led to economic collapse in the west, regardless of whether Iran sold the US oil or not.

Maybe you should try again with your faulty reasoning.  You obviously have no understanding of how markets work, or of geopolitical realities.  I would expect no less, given the name you have picked.

But exactly how would they do it? They WEREN'T economically capable of it. Much like how Bush is resisting invading Iran because he's fully aware were not economically capable of it.

Your reasoning would be correct if the USSR was actually expanding into the Middle East and not just consolidating its Central Asian holdings.

We could divide the word assume, into ass-u-me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

M-L-M, culturally, Iran has a number of connections with Central Asia.  More so than with the Arab states.  The idea of using Afghanistan as a domino to topple Iran into the Soviet sphere is near-fetched, especially in the context of the early 1980’s.  Socialism and Islam are no more inherently antagonistic towards one another than Socialism and Christianity are.  If the Soviets could have propagandized a success in Afghanistan, they might have been able to take advantage of the turmoil of the Iran-Iraq War to gain influence in Iran.

[phk]

M-L-M, culturally, Iran has a number of connections with Central Asia.  More so than with the Arab states.  The idea of using Afghanistan as a domino to topple Iran into the Soviet sphere is near-fetched, especially in the context of the early 1980’s.  Socialism and Islam are no more inherently antagonistic towards one another than Socialism and Christianity are.  If the Soviets could have propagandized a success in Afghanistan, they might have been able to take advantage of the turmoil of the Iran-Iraq War to gain influence in Iran.

They wouldn't have gone that far, they'd largely have caused a bigger mess than they'd realized.

Theplan to dominate Iran, if it was ever concieved, was probably aborted much earlier than many people think.

Which should have been taken out before the Islamists had knocked off the Leftists so early in the revolution, and would have provided a great help to the Soviets and then used Iran as a trojan horse to bring Communism straight into the Middle East.

But darn Khomeini had to make his flight home back from Paris.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree, with benefit of two decades of hindsight, that the Soviet misadventures in Afghanistan were not part of some master plan.  However, people don’t have the benefit of hindsight, only historians.  Only time will tell what mistakes are being made right now, but they probably aren’t the ones people are thinking about right now.  In terms of what was known in the early 1980’s, our efforts in Afghanistan were a logical response to Soviet imperialism.  That is the point I ws making.

[phk]

In terms of what was known in the early 1980’s, our efforts in Afghanistan were a logical response to Soviet imperialism.  That is the point I ws making.

Sure, I agree; Soviets were our enemies, were obviously supposed to be working against them.

But tend to go with the line of thought that if Afghanistan was allowed to become a puppet-state, we'd have largely curbed the rise of Wahhabism into the mainstream in these countries in the long-run.

Prevented  Embassy bombings, first WTC attack, U.S.S. Cole, 9/11, thus preventing Iraq-Afghanistan.

[dazzleman]

I agree, with benefit of two decades of hindsight, that the Soviet misadventures in Afghanistan were not part of some master plan.  However, people don’t have the benefit of hindsight, only historians.  Only time will tell what mistakes are being made right now, but they probably aren’t the ones people are thinking about right now.  In terms of what was known in the early 1980’s, our efforts in Afghanistan were a logical response to Soviet imperialism.  That is the point I ws making.

I agree completely with your point.  We can't assume that policymakers in the early 1980s had access to the hindsight we have today, because they did not.

[opebo]

Obviously the USSR was far preferable to any Islamic.  The sad thing is that we mistook our enemy.  We supported Bin Laden, who destroyed the USSR, when they should've been our secularist ally against relgion.  Now he is destroying the last remaining superpower, with help from the Fifth Column.

[Jake]

Obviously the USSR was far referable to any Islamic.  The sad thing is that we mistook our enemy.  We supported Bin Laden, who destroyed the USSR, when they should've been our secularist ally against relgion.  Now he is destroying the last remaining superpower, with help from the Fifth Column.

We did not support Bin Laden. That's like saying we support Hamas just because we want peace in Palestine.

[phk]

Obviously the USSR was far referable to any Islamic.  The sad thing is that we mistook our enemy.  We supported Bin Laden, who destroyed the USSR, when they should've been our secularist ally against relgion.  Now he is destroying the last remaining superpower, with help from the Fifth Column.

We did not support Bin Laden. That's like saying we support Hamas just because we want peace in Palestine.

It was largely indirect, we saw the "freedom-fighters" as a way to hurt the Soviet Union and we did; but we didn't think about its future implications too much.

[J. J.]

In terms of what was known in the early 1980’s, our efforts in Afghanistan were a logical response to Soviet imperialism.  That is the point I ws making.

Sure, I agree; Soviets were our enemies, were obviously supposed to be working against them.

But tend to go with the line of thought that if Afghanistan was allowed to become a puppet-state, we'd have largely curbed the rise of Wahhabism into the mainstream in these countries in the long-run.

Prevented  Embassy bombings, first WTC attack, U.S.S. Cole, 9/11, thus preventing Iraq-Afghanistan.

Well, the problem with this logic is that you are only looking at one set of events.  The Soviet Union might well still be in existence without our aiding the mujaheddin.  This still strong empire could have dominated Pakistan and Iran.  We could be confronting an enemy armed with nuclear weapons and a mass delivery system; it very possibly could have been used. 

That's far worse than 9/11.

[phk]

In terms of what was known in the early 1980’s, our efforts in Afghanistan were a logical response to Soviet imperialism.  That is the point I ws making.

Sure, I agree; Soviets were our enemies, were obviously supposed to be working against them.

But tend to go with the line of thought that if Afghanistan was allowed to become a puppet-state, we'd have largely curbed the rise of Wahhabism into the mainstream in these countries in the long-run.

Prevented  Embassy bombings, first WTC attack, U.S.S. Cole, 9/11, thus preventing Iraq-Afghanistan.

Well, the problem with this logic is that you are only looking at one set of events.  The Soviet Union might well still be in existence without our aiding the mujaheddin.  This still strong empire could have dominated Pakistan and Iran.  We could be confronting an enemy armed with nuclear weapons and a mass delivery system; it very possibly could have been used. 

That's far worse than 9/11.

I believe the Soviet Union was in self-destruct mode already, it would have just been happened a few years later.

[The Duke]

No surprise that someone with three Communist revolutionary leaders in his sig would have had us take a soft approach with the USSR.  I support the guy who has anti-Soviet Pope John Paul II in his sig, thanks.

The poll question, as has been pointed out, is fatally flawed by the fact that one party, the Taliban, did not exist at the time.

I support the Jamiat Faction, by the way, as my answer of who I'd have supported.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Given more choices, I would've supported the anti-Soviet communist rebels. But I would never support a Muslim group under any circumstances

[phk]

No surprise that someone with three Communist revolutionary leaders in his sig would have had us take a soft approach with the USSR.  I support the guy who has anti-Soviet Pope John Paul II in his sig, thanks.

It really wouldn't have mattered how hard you banged your drums, they were already faltering.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does anyone honestly believe the Soviet Union could've lasted through the 90s?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does anyone honestly believe the Soviet Union could've lasted through the 90s?

Yes, but at a minimum such an event would have required a different leader than Gorbachev.  A different outcome in Afghanistan could easily have butterflied who led the Soviet Union after Brezhnev.  Peristroika was not inevitable, nor the coup against Gorbachev in 1991.  The existance of a Soviet Union today that happened to be about as Communisy as the government in Beijing is quite thinkable had the Soviets chosen different leadership.

[opebo]

Obviously the USSR was far referable to any Islamic.  The sad thing is that we mistook our enemy.  We supported Bin Laden, who destroyed the USSR, when they should've been our secularist ally against relgion.  Now he is destroying the last remaining superpower, with help from the Fifth Column.

We did not support Bin Laden.

Ah, I think that is far from conclusively demonstrated.  Besides, I use 'Bin Laden' as an umbrella term for all political Islam.  Not political christianity, which is a similar though greater threat.

[J. J.]

Does anyone honestly believe the Soviet Union could've lasted through the 90s?

Yes, with different people in the leadership.  Communism was faultering in the mid-1950's, but that didn't stop it from expanding.

Beria, before he was killed, advocated a change to a capitalist system in 1953.

In the period from 1970-80, the USSR was expanding its influence worldwide.  Internally weaker than the US, it was a match, and for a few years superior, externally.