Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Absolutely, yes. Women saw freedoms and education for the first time under brief Communist rule in Afghanistan. America only cared about it enough to stop the spread of communism.

Support broadly, though there were plenty of criticisms that could be made regarding the conduct of the conflict, both from an Afghan and a military perspective

Yes, the afghans called for help in the first place, it would be ignorant to let a communist and primarily progressive regime to fall apart under CIA-backed terrorism.

I really don't see how one can claim to be a Communist, and not support the involvement of Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The only purported Communists I know of who'd vote no in the poll, would be Maoists, as they considered it to have been social imperialism. The PRC even aided the mujahedin. But I feel that in order to both secure a friendly socialist republic, and contain the spread of militant radical islamism, it was justified.

Yes and it's a shame that Gorbachev abandoned Najibullah and left him to the Taliban. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was the best regime to ever exist in the country before it was destroyed by Wesern-backed Mujahideen.

Yes... absolutely!!!

Man In Grey wrote:

America only cared about it enough to stop the spread of communism.

American foreign policy in Afghanistan has been a monumental tribute to stupidity and ideological obsession. It's a shame that the American's (and other nationals) that are risking (and losing) their lives over there now aren't the ones who made the mess in the first place - that would seem more appropriate.

Quote:

Freedom Fighters

What a bloody mess they've made of it all!

I wonder if the Americans had the gift of hindsight whether they would still have pursued that line.
Are they happier with militant Islamicists as their enemies than they were with Communists?

Quote:

American foreign policy in Afghanistan has been a monumental tribute to stupidity and ideological obsession.

Right, because when the Soviets pulled out the Americans didn't give two shits about the war torn state of Afghanistan they just didn't want Communism to spread. They supplied and trained the very same people that they're fighting against now. Whereas if the Soviets succeeded, we wouldn't have to be dealing with this garbage now.

Quote:

I really don't see how one can claim to be a Communist, and not support the involvement of Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

Agreed. Now, who are the three (so far) that voted no? Speak up.

No

The situation at that time like it is today was an internal Afghan affair. The socialist government were fighting anti-communist Islamic resistance. It was not for any outsiders to intervene, rather the Afghans should have been left to their own devices. Why should we oppose the NATO presence in Afghanistan but then be more than happy to support the Soviet invasion there? If anything the Soviet occupation did little to strengthen socialism in Afghanistan because it further delegitimised the government in Kabul. I have even heard an Afghan say that they would like for foreign interests to stop interfering in their country's internal affairs. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, no invasion can end well there.

Quote:

Why should we oppose the NATO presence in Afghanistan but then be more than happy to support the Soviet invasion there?

Because its the establishing of a Socialist govt. for the betterment of the lives of the people living there??? The Soviets came because the Afghan communist govt. asked them too...and it was to maintain a People's government. Even the Soviets were reluctant to intervene but they did, and rightly so.

I voted no.

The Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty and its materialization in the Afghan intervention were imperialistic in its nature. The imperialism of USSR represents one of the pillars of the revisionism implemented in Moscow after Stalin's death alongside peaceful coexistence, liberal reforms, decentralization, etc... What is usually referred as "De-Stalinization" I call it "De-Leninization".

I agree with Political Interest, if we accept the USSR intervention in Afghanistan we are implicitly legitimate USA military interventions since they are both similar in its nature. However, by saying this I'm not in any way saying that the Socialist Government in Afghanistan was bad or worst than what followed it, on the contrary. They never enjoyed so much freedom in their History as they did under the socialist regime. But if we are gonna take this argument to defend the USSR intervention, the Americans can do the same about the Iraq for instance.

PS: I'm M-L, not Maoist, very far from it. Maoism is even more revisionist.

This is one of the issues where i disagree with most MLs.
I think that a pro-Soviet Afghanistan was still objectively better and more progressive than a feudal Afghanistan under the Taliban, which is why i support the Soviet intervention there.

Loz wrote:

This is one of the issues where i disagree with most MLs.
I think that a pro-Soviet Afghanistan was still objectively better and more progressive than a feudal Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I think that nobody will disagree with this but the question is if this is enough to legitimate a military intervention in a foreign country or there were other ways of helping the Afghan government beyond the military intervention?

The Taliban were supported by the West, China and some Muslim countries. The Taliban got "reinforcements" from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, so why wouldn't Kabul seek help from their neighbour?

That is not what I am questioning but instead the nature of the support. They could have provided help without a military intervention.

Political Interest wrote:

No

The situation at that time like it is today was an internal Afghan affair. The socialist government were fighting anti-communist Islamic resistance. It was not for any outsiders to intervene, rather the Afghans should have been left to their own devices. Why should we oppose the NATO presence in Afghanistan but then be more than happy to support the Soviet invasion there? If anything the Soviet occupation did little to strengthen socialism in Afghanistan because it further delegitimised the government in Kabul. I have even heard an Afghan say that they would like for foreign interests to stop interfering in their country's internal affairs. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, no invasion can end well there.

Afghanistan was within the geopolitical sphere of influence of the U.S.S.R.. And also, as I mentioned in my prior post above, the jihadists threatened not only the security of the government in Afghanistan, but also that of the surrounding soviet socialist republics, that were also predominantly Muslim. I believe that had the Soviets won the war, the Russians wouldn't have to be fighting in Chechnya now. So I feel that the Soviet Union had shared interests in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Because its the establishing of a Socialist govt. for the betterment of the lives of the people living there??? The Soviets came because the Afghan communist govt. asked them too...and it was to maintain a People's government. Even the Soviets were reluctant to intervene but they did, and rightly so.

Yes. In all honesty I do not blame Moscow for intervening especially considering Afghanistan was a border state unlike in the case of NATO where none of those countries share a border with it. In Soviet strategic thinking it would be very uncomfortable for them to have a pro-US Afghanistan. At the end of the day it is always best to let peoples decide on their own course of action when from outside their civilisation. It was an Afghan affair in which one party in the conflict invited outsiders in to aid them. How would we feel if the Islamic opposition had invited American soldiers directly in (as unfeasible as this would have been)? It was an internal affair of Afghanistan and the wider Islamic world, the Soviet Union should not have involved itself. If anything they gained nothing by intervening because by losing they placed themselves in the minds of the Afghans as an enemy. Iran had already had a revolution in 1979 which replaced a secular government with a religious one. If the Soviets were worried about their Muslim republics becoming influenced by pan-Islamism as is often presented as an excuse for intervention in Afghanistan, why did they not instead do the same in Iran? There were many leftist elements who participated in that revolution but the Soviets never intervened there.

As the Americans learnt in Vietnam, a course of history cannot be forced on a people. If they do not want to have a socialist or capitalist economic and political system, they cannot be forced to have them no matter how much outside actors would like for them to adopt them.

Quote:

The Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty and its materialization in the Afghan intervention were imperialistic in its nature. The imperialism of USSR represents one of the pillars of the revisionism implemented in Moscow after Stalin's death alongside peaceful coexistence, liberal reforms, decentralization, etc... What is usually referred as "De-Stalinization" I call it "De-Leninization".

Stalin was also imperialistic. Look at the Soviet Invasion of Xinjiang as one of several examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Xinjiang

Quote:

I agree with Political Interest, if we accept the USSR intervention in Afghanistan we are implicitly legitimate USA military interventions since they are both similar in its nature. However, by saying this I'm not in any way saying that the Socialist Government in Afghanistan was bad or worst than what followed it, on the contrary. They never enjoyed so much freedom in their History as they did under the socialist regime. But if we are gonna take this argument to defend the USSR intervention, the Americans can do the same about the Iraq for instance.

It is good we agree. I also agree that if that if it is acceptable for the Soviet Union to intervene then American intervention also becomes more acceptable.

Quote:

Afghanistan was within the geopolitical sphere of influence of the U.S.S.R.

Yes, I agree this does say something. At the same time South America is within the US sphere of influence, should we think it is acceptable for the United States to intervene there?

Quote:

And also, as I mentioned in my prior post above, the jihadists threatened not only the security of the government in Afghanistan, but also that of the surrounding soviet socialist republics, that were also predominantly Muslim.

As mentioned above, why did the Soviets not intervene in Iran in 1979? Iran was in its early days against the whole world.

Quote:

I believe that had the Soviets won the war, the Russians wouldn't have to be fighting in Chechnya now. So I feel that the Soviet Union had shared interests in Afghanistan.

Why do you say this? The Chechens have a long history of fighting against the Russians, from the nineteenth century and 1940s to the 1990s. do you really believe that winning in Afghanistan would have changed their aspirations for independence? Furthermore, you should not forget that the early Chechen nationalists were largely secular. Also many former Muslim Soviet-Afghan war veterans were inspired by the Afghan Muslims. It was also the era of Islamic revival from the 1970s onwards, it was limited more or less to nowhere. As soon as the 1980s came and people could gain outside ideological and intellectual influences in the Muslim republics they would be influenced by the revival.

Quote:

The Taliban were supported by the West, China and some Muslim countries. The Taliban got "reinforcements" from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, so why wouldn't Kabul seek help from their neighbour?

There was no Taliban at this point. Yes, they received assistance but the Pakistanis never occupied Afghanistan, neither did the Chinese unlike the Soviet Union. War will often radicalise people. Is it any surprise that the Taliban emerged after the war?

Political Interest wrote:

Stalin was also imperialistic. Look at the Soviet Invasion of Xinjiang as one of several examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Xinjiang

Skirmishes in the Sino-Soviet border are far from being consider imperialistic. We had it before and after this episode. How can you consider it imperialistic when the subject of the dispute was a mere Chinese Province in the Sino-Soviet border?

Quote:

Skirmishes in the Sino-Soviet border are far from being consider imperialistic. We had it before and after this episode. How can you consider it imperialistic when the subject of the dispute was a mere Chinese Province in the Sino-Soviet border?

Because the Soviets intervened to support their warlord there. It was done to secure the Russian position in Central Asia and China. Mind you I do not think the Chinese have much of a claim to Xinjiang (East-Turkestan) either.

I voted yes and I couldn't have done it more emphatically. Afghanistan was the testing ground from which Muslim socialism could be displayed and eventually exported to its neighbors. This is why the mujahideen formed and was so dead-set on defeating the DPRA.

Political Interest wrote:

The situation at that time like it is today was an internal Afghan affair.

Comparing the US invasion with USSR intervention is a fallacious analogy. The DPRA requested the presence of soviet troops to help them defeat an internationally supported band of rebels. As opposed to the Taliban government which was intensely unpopular and only exists as a group today because of the American invasion.

Political Interest wrote:

The socialist government were fighting anti-communist Islamic resistance. It was not for any outsiders to intervene, rather the Afghans should have been left to their own devices.

The Soviets were the last nation to throw their weight around in Afghanistan. Saudis, Americans, and Maoists had been assisting these terrorists for years before the Soviets finally helped the DPRA. If they hadn't dragged their heels we'd perhaps be talking about the DPRA today as an existent nation.

Political Interest wrote:

Why should we oppose the NATO presence in Afghanistan but then be more than happy to support the Soviet invasion there? If anything the Soviet occupation did little to strengthen socialism in Afghanistan because it further delegitimised the government in Kabul. I have even heard an Afghan say that they would like for foreign interests to stop interfering in their country's internal affairs. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, no invasion can end well there.

It's all easy to blame the Soviets but the Soviets aren't the ones who came in to frag with Afghan development. The Soviets came in as a response to this foreign intervention.

Political Interest wrote:

As the Americans learnt in Vietnam, a course of history cannot be forced on a people. If they do not want to have a socialist or capitalist economic and political system, they cannot be forced to have them no matter how much outside actors would like for them to adopt them.

This is a complete mischaracterization of the DPRA and Soviet intervention. The analogy to Vietnam is insane. America created South Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh won the national elections. The DPRA was a popular government which was under attact by international reactionaries and anti-Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden. The DPRA was desperate for Soviet aid and if anything the Soviets are to be blamed for not intervening soon enough.