In hindsight, did Reagan err in backing the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 80s?

[jeltz25]

With all the recent talk about the rebels in Syria being affiliated with AQ, I got to thinking about the "rebels" against the Russians back in the 80s.

Now, AQ didn't exist back then, but they were clearly the forerunners of AQ and many of them grew into AQ and other terrorist movements. If you look back many of the folks the CIA backed back then(working hand in hand with the Wahabbis in Saudi and the ISI in Pakistan) were not exactly the salt of the earth.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but just wondering how folks feel about that now. You could argue that beating the USSR was the bigger issue(although you could also say Iran is the bigger issue here).

The situations seem pretty similar to me in many respects.

[ansel12]

There was a non-trivial chance of the USSR taking over the world, or that its attempts to do so would end only in WWIII. Doesn’t anybody remember the claims that only our disarmament could avert Armageddon?

No kidding, it was real, and we were on the edge of it, but when the Soviet Union was killed off, the media instantly went into erasing mode.

There are decades of history almost gone from memory, the military budgets, the wars, the training deaths and massive militarys, Air Forces, nuclear armaments, great military exercises moving 10s of thousands of troops overseas for winter exercises, a time of history that helped make America a land of 25 million veterans, erased, laughed off, described as a scare, an illusion.

[Sherman Logan]

Yup.

The other thing I remember is the constant claim that the USSR was only defending itself against our aggression, that if they dropped their guard we would destroy them. That the conflict was both sides’ fault. The old moral equivalency.

Then USSR fell apart and there was zero aggression from the West against them. In fact, a general tendency to want to be of assistance. IOW, the only cause of the conflict was the antagonism of the commies. When that went away, there was no conflict.

Yet somehow nobody ever seems to use this indisputable evidence to point out how totally wrong leftists were about the cause of the Cold War.

[RedStateRocker]

“There was a non-trivial chance of the USSR taking over the world”

The only people who believe that are over 50 and/or Freepers. :-(

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Reagan did the right thing. By defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan (the Stinger missiles turned the tide), he helped really speed up the fall of the Soviet Union.

However, an unexpected result was the unemployment of thousands of Islamic fanatics, who then went to work for whoever paid them, including Bin Laden and his affiliated terrorist groups in other countries.

We may find out that some Arab countries also paid the fanatics to stay away from them, by siccing them on Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mali, etc.

[ansel12]

The other thing I remember is the constant claim that the USSR was only defending itself against our aggression, that if they dropped their guard we would destroy them. That the conflict was both sides’ fault. The old moral equivalency. Then USSR fell apart and there was zero aggression from the West against them. In fact, a general tendency to want to be of assistance. IOW, the only cause of the conflict was the antagonism of the commies. When that went away, there was no conflict. Yet somehow nobody ever seems to use this indisputable evidence to point out how totally wrong leftists were about the cause of the Cold War.

What a pure and accurate description, you really know and remember this history.

[ArtDodger]

In Hindsight, did Nixon err in going to China?

[Harold Shea]

I remember pictures of those booby-trapped teddy bears

that the Russians would drop for kids to play with.

At the time it made me mad.I approved at the time of us

sending those Stingers to take out the Hinds

Don`t thnk we really knew at the time how really bad the

muslims were

[FreedomPoster]

Also a Texas Congressman, Charlie Wilson, had a lot to do with funding the muj against the Soviets. Here’s an obit that talks about that:

http://archives.dawn.com/archives/8944

and there’s a book on the subject called Charlie Wilson’s War that would be worthwhile for anyone wanting to get more fully up to speed on the subject. Just reading the summary and comments on the book at Amazon would probably be worthwhile.

People attribute anything hat happens during a President’s Administration to that President, when the reality is much more complicated, especially for anything as big as the US gov’t.

[FreedomPoster]

There were a lot of Cold War casualties stretching back to 1945. Quite a number of sites discuss this and try to tabulate incidents.

http://membership-americancoldwarvets.org/cold-war-casualties

[exPBRrat]

It turned out to be a key move in ending the Soviet Union.

[big'ol_freeper]

No

[antiterrorist77]

No. Totally different situation. Russian imperialism was a threat to the United States. That was a fight for survival in the face of an existential danger - a fight that was won.

Obama is consciously abetting terrorism, a variety of which directly threatens this country. It would be like Carter bombing the Shah out of power in favor of the mullahs (which really isn’t too far from what he did, come to think of it).

[SunkenCiv]

Here's the passage at issue:

In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.

Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.

Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]

[angcat]

The right thing to do now is bring all our soldiers and equipment home and throw out illegals and put up a wall isolate ourselves along with getting Obama out. I sound like Ron Paul.

[RaceBannon]

It didnt start with reagan, It started with Carter

Reagan did do more, undeniably, but it started with Carter

[ontap]

NO!!! Reagan was dismantling the USSR....Afghanistan was merely the vehicle.

[ontap]

President Reagans biggest blunder was picking Geo. Bush for his vice president!!!

[Zhang Fei]

thoughts?

No thought necessary. The Soviets were advancing everywhere (Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, et al in 1970's alone) and significant communist guerrilla movements were being trained, funded and equipped by the Soviets in Colombia, El Salvador and various other countries around the globe, merely waiting for a moment of weakness to administer the coup de grace. The Soviets caused us 100K dead in Korea and Vietnam, and were responsible for the Communist victory in China that led to those wars. Payback was a long time in coming and nowhere near what they inflicted on us. Every single time I hear of a Muslim terror attack in Russia, I smile, because of the butcher's bill they made us, and the countries they converted to Communism, pay - death tolls that amounted to tens of millions dead. I suspect animus regarding what the Russians did during the Cold War informs the kinds of decisions older GOP pols are making about Syria - the thinking here is that these evil and bloodthirsty scumbags don't get to have a say.

[Jimmy Valentine]

He did not let. Remember the DemocRATS had the house. They pissed away all of the revenue that Reagan’s tax cuts generated

[entropy12]

Correct but Reagan should have used more Vetoes. If they overrode the vetoes, fine. But he should have tried.