The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Centre for Research on Globalization | 15-21 January 1998

[RussianConservative]

According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The URL of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.

[RussianConservative]

Whoops, left policy with slight draw back....1.5 billion psychopaths.

[Cicero]

Well, I'm not usually an apologist for Jimmy Carter. But there was a very different situation back then. The main enemy of the United States was the Soviet Union, so the Russian push into Afghanistan was correctly seen as an attempt to expand the Soviet empire into a new area, which threatened India and the Middle East.

I knew Sbigniew Brzezinski as well, because he was my roommate's tutor when I was at Harvard. I have mixed feelings about him, just as I have about Kissinger, but he was not a total loser before he got in bed with the clintons.

Relations between Russia and the United States have changed since the days of the USSR, hopefully.

[speedy]

Exactly. The nature of the enemy is constantly changing. I don't remember anyone of any stature back in the 1970s, liberal or conservative, challenging the fight against the USSR on the grounds that it would unleash an Islamic fundamentalism hostile to the US. There were plenty of people reluctant to take on the Soviets, but it was because of the usual squishy Liberal relativism. And we should never apologize for our role in helping to dismantle the USSR, anymore than we will ever have to apologize for fighting Islamic extremist. There will ALWAYS be an enemy, but the shape it takes on will change from time to time. We fight that which presents the biggest current danger.

[TomB]

I bet you're great at predicting yesterday's football scores.

[marron]

I agree with the other posters. It is not unusual to support one force against another. We supported Stalin against Hitler, even though both were horrendous dictators, and both were guilty of mass murder. Once Hitler was gone, we still faced 40 more years of conflict with the Soviet Empire, but that doesn't make it wrong to have supported them against the Nazis.

The enemy of your enemy may still be your enemy, but it may still make sense to help him at times.

Similarly, we supported Saddam against the Ayatollah, right up until the moment he invaded Kuwait. Not because he was one of the good guys, but because he was the enemy of our enemy.

I am no fan of Zbigniew Brzezinski, precisely because he and Carter thought replacing the Shah of Iran with the Ayatollah was a great first step in bringing down the Soviets. His reasoning was that Islamic fundamentalists were natural anti-communists, so a fundamentalist Iran would be our natural ally. To that end, they brought down the Shah who really was our natural ally.

That led to all the rest, the Iran-Iraq war, and our temporary alliance with Saddam, the terrible bleeding of Iran, and a generation of clerical mis-rule there. Brzezinski was an idiot. However bad the Shah was, he was at least a modernist and pro-West.

Still, you have to remember the times. The Soviets had been very successful at using Arab nationalism against us, and had formed very close relations with Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and were backing a number of Arab terrorist groups. Brzezinski and others looked at the map, realized that the Soviet underbelly was all muslim, and reasoned that if we could sell ourselves as the principal allies of an Islamic movement we could foment insurgencies all across Central Asia and take the Soviet Union apart piece by piece.

It seemed like a great idea at the time. And there was nothing wrong with helping the Afghans against a pro-Soviet government, and nothing wrong with helping the Afghans against the Soviet Army.

But the fallout from our Islamic strategy has been messy. We didn't realize how quickly our "allies" would become our attackers.

We also were completely surprised by the speed of the end of the Soviet Union. American workers and businessmen operating in Russia and Central Asia saw very quickly that the Islamists were a threat to us as well, but it took several more years before our government got the message.

In the early nineties there was a tendency to continue supporting the Islamists for two reasons; one, to make sure the Soviet Union could not reconstitute itself, and two, because we were still very wedded to the Saudis, we were letting them guide us in our dealings with the Muslim world. Thus, Clinton's unwavering support for the Chechens, for example, and his refusal to arrest Bin Ladin even after his early attacks on the US. Clinton and the US State Department were very much influenced by the Saudis, unnaturally so I would add.

And they, by that time, had developed ambitions of their own in Central Asia. The average American understood very quickly that the muslim terrorists were very bad people, but our alliance to the Saudis rather blinded our diplomats and politicians to what was happening until quite late in the game.

Bush understood, though, and his embrace of Putin was the first signal that we were re-directing our policy. 9/11 sealed the deal. The Saudis failed to support us, and Russia was first in line to help. Few muslims anywhere stepped forward in support of us, not even American muslims. And Saudi support for our attackers became impossible to ignore.

So it is a new day. I don't regret the passing of the Soviet Union, and I will not regret the passing of muslim fascism. If Russia wants to help, we will appreciate all the help we can get.

[Mr. Mojo]

Bravo, marron.

[browsin]

Isnt hindsight a wonderful thing?To go even further,if the UK did not side with Russia in WW2 and instead sided with Germany as Hitler wanted,Communism never would have spread beyond Russia's borders,Europe would be 100% European,all of Asia would be as prosperous as Japan,the whole Islamic world would have remained under the rule of princes rather than nutjobs,North Korea and China would not be threats to anyone.

Downsides?The US would not have had the chance to enter WW2 and therefore not claimed the spoils that made it a superpower,Israel would never have existed,France would not exist,and although Europe would be 100% 'European',it would be so in the 'Aryan' sense,ie,100% Anglo,Nordic and Germanic.The whole slavic race from Poland to Russia to Yugoslavia would have been easily wiped out by a combined British and German army and resettled by Aryans as was Hitlers plan.

[marktwain]

I don't remember anyone of any stature back in the 1970s, liberal or conservative, challenging the fight against the USSR on the grounds that it would unleash an Islamic fundamentalism hostile to the US.

I remember talking to a Friend of mine in graduate school, at the time. We discussed the situation and its possible effects and outcomes. He said that we should be careful, because of the possibility of a Muslim threat in the future. I also recall reading about the possibility of an Islamic threat in military publications.

It was discussed, but we all agreed that the Soviet threat was the biggest one, and that the risk was worth it.

[RussianConservative]

Downside: Poland empty of poles since it Lebenroumen. Russia enslaved. Jews exterminate. Germans become Islamic anyway since Hitler wrote many letter where he believed to Islam as religion of choice since Christianity very weak.

Asia under Japanese Iron rule and many peoples exterminated (maybe you forget slaughters of Chinese?).

[RussianConservative]

If not for damned Germans, Bolshavik not power in first place...since damned Kaiser give then 50 million gold mark. Oh and National Socialism was Bolshavism light...some improvment. Don't salvate too much.

[RussianConservative]

You see, falicy was US inability to understand reality. In Soviet Union, since 71, most knew ship sinking, only matter time. US not know. When it collapse CIA think it super strong and last forever. Thus, weapon to beat on dieing giant became weapon that now beat on all, including creator. Soviet system not capable of survival. If Nazies not come, new revolution happen by mid 50's. WW2 give Soviets 30 years more life. Islam, on other hand, has force to live long. What amazing about article is last 2 questions: this disbelief of threat of Islam in 1998!

[RussianConservative]

See #12.

[marktwain]

In Soviet Union, since 71, most knew ship sinking, only matter time. US not know.

That is not the way it looked from the West. From here, the Soviets won the Great Patriotic War, they spread communism to China, fought us to a standstill through their proxies in Korea, had client states in Cuba, Asia, Africa, the mid east, and a huge fifth column within our own media that lost us the war in Vietnam. In 71, I thought freedom was dying and that the Soviets would eventually cause America to become a totalitarian state.

I resolved to keep fighting anyway, so that I could look myself in the eye each morning.

It is true that many factors lead to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, but no one knows how long it might have taken without Afghanistan, Star Wars, and the rebuilding of American military power under Reagan.

It also seems clear to me that it was Soviet interventionism and support for the communist party in Afghanistan that led to the downfall of the relatively progressive monarchy that existed there before about 1972 or so.

The rise of fundamentalist Islam seems much more the result of Saudi petro dollars than the Afghan war. And, Saudi petro dollars are again a result of the cold war, where the U.S. sought to keep the Saudi oil fields from falling to the Soviet sphere.

[RusIvan]

If not for damned Germans, Bolshavik not power in first place...===

May be yes maybe no. How we can know that? Germans did undermining thier enemy in the war. Czar goverment could kill Lenin and his party leadership if they was vigilant.

[RusIvan]

It is true that many factors lead to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, but no one knows how long it might have taken without Afghanistan, Star Wars, and the rebuilding of American military power under Reagan.==

Forever. You may not beleive me. I was on other side at that time. And I can tell you what I felt at that time. That Afgan war and Reagan star war wasn't big impediments for USSR. Everyone knew that star wars was bluff. Noway americans could at that time create and deploy battle lasers in space. It is impossible even now.
The biggest impediment of Soviet Union was Gorby and will of millions of russians which he fullfilled.

[RussianConservative]

Actually monarchy destroyed by Pakistan who want Islamic state as indepth defense/allie against India. They assassinate king and replace with mallable cousin.

[speedy]

I agree -- there was a more or less academic argument about the problems of unleashing Muslim fundamentalists, but I don't think most people saw them as a direct immediate threat to the US back then. And surely the Soviets at that time still had the air of invincibility which started to erode with Afghanistan. A generation from now, with Islamic fundamentalist beaten into a retreat, we will likely be facing an entirely different threat.

[gipper81]

Everyone knew that star wars was bluff.

"For the first weeks, that announcement seemed a little bit fantastic. But then it started to come to the minds of the leaders that there might be something very, very dangerous in that [SDI]." - Alexksandr Bessmertynkh

SDI was a "bid to disarm the Soviet Union. Should this conception be converted into reality, this would actually open the floodgates to a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive." - Yuri Andropov

SDI could lead "to the development of a whole line of new technologies in the United States that were not completely devoted to defending against a strike from the Soviet Unions but to a certain degree still constituted an anti-missle defense. This was the danger of the program." - General Nikolai Detinov

SDI put the military "in a state of fear and shock because we understood that this could be realistic due to the economic and financial capabilities of the United States." - General Vladimir Slipchenko

Sorry Ivan. You're full of Stoli. Again.

[RusIvan]

I don't know none of your citation authors except Yuri Andropov. But what he said is just SDI opens new era in arm race. WHo doubted it?
This arm race did its toll on United States and USSR. But USSR spent less much less.
Consider this. United States has now almost 7 trln dollars of debts. It is debts which was raised in Cold war. They wasn't repayed and they continue to rise now.
Russia went out of destruction of USSR with about 70 billions of debts. Almost 100 times less.
It is toll of Cold war of USSR. And Russia still has enough nukes to destroy the world. Same as USA.
What that? I'd say that russian designers could do it for much less money and more effectively.
Don't take me wrong. I'm glad that USSR is gone. And I'm first for its gone. Because the hardship which it caused on me and my ansestors.
But my point is. That the best thing which Ronald Reagan did was not SDI. But his help to Gorby when Gorby started his policy of 'perestroika' which accually was dismantle of USSR.
If instead of Gorby there was another guy say Andropov then today Soviet Union was there as it is. But United States may run herself in to bankrupcy with her SDI.