Tell me one thing...

[Asher]

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

[notyoueither]

The argument is that Afghanistan caused or hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think I see a connection.

[Asher]

I don't.

[notyoueither]

Maybe you're too young to see the connection.

I grew up and lived in a world where concern was common that the Soviets and Americans would fall into some sort of confrontation, something would go wrong and the missiles would fly. End of all stories. It's sort of depressing living with that always in the background. A bit worse if the fears were realised.

Sometime around the fall of the Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union those concerns went away. The Red Army and NATO were no longer facing each other across trip wires. The Red Army went home and the threat of global nuclear war between arsenals each capable of scraping civilisation off the maps of the world several times over was largely or wholely removed.

We've traded a confrontation with a non-zero chance of obliterating human civilisation for low level conflict that has a lesser chance of affecting any given individual in the West than lightning and airplane crashes.

Incidentally, there was low level conflict going on all the time during the Cold War as well. There were incidents with airliners, terrorists, wars, etc. All we've lost is the threat that there will be no tomorrow. I am happy about that. I am glad my niece lives in a world where she will never understand it.

[giblets]

Maybe you're too young to see the connection.

I grew up and lived in a world where concern was common that the Soviets and Americans would fall into some sort of confrontation, something would go wrong and the missiles would fly. End of all stories. It's sort of depressing living with that always in the background. A bit worse if the fears were realised.

Sometime around the fall of the Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union those concerns went away. The Red Army and NATO were no longer facing each other across trip wires. The Red Army went home and the threat of global nuclear war between arsenals each capable of scraping civilisation off the maps of the world several times over was largely or wholely removed.

We've traded a confrontation with a non-zero chance of obliterating human civilisation for low level conflict that has a lesser chance of affecting any given individual in the West than lightning and airplane crashes.

Incidentally, there was low level conflict going on all the time during the Cold War as well. There were incidents with airliners, terrorists, wars, etc. All we've lost is the threat that there will be no tomorrow. I am happy about that. I am glad my niece lives in a world where she will never understand it.

Nuclear war would be really bad... therefore Afghanistan made the Soviet Union collapse? You're nuts.

[notyoueither]

What?

Nuclear war would have been bad.

Afghanistan is supposed by some to have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the SU removed the main threat of nuclear war.

[Asher]

The missing connection is HTF Afghanistan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is no reasonable connection.

[giblets]

Yes, some people suppose a connection exists. That isn't much of a connection.

[notyoueither]

I think it helped speed things along.

[Asher]

How?

[DinoDoc]

Yes, some people suppose a connection exists. That isn't much of a connection.

It was a factor in the breakup in as much as it a) changed the perceptions of leaders about the efficacy of using the military to hold the empire together and to intervene in foreign countries and b) discredited the Red Army, created cleavage between the party and the military, and demonstrated that the Red Army was not invincible, which emboldened the non Russian republics to push for independence. But it was not the factor that tipped the balance if that was what you were referring to.

[notyoueither]

How?

I think the importance of Afghanistan is timing more than anything else. From our viewpoint it can be argued that the Soviet system was going to collapse anyway. However, that overlooks a couple of important points.

Reagan's programmes and the Soviet response to them are often credited with causing the economic collapse, but the strain of an unsuccessful, wasteful military campaign that festered for years had already helped to set the table. Also, the mystique of the Red Army and influence of its leaders were greatly diminished when they were defeated on their doorstep.

The argument that the SU would have collapsed anyway assumes that no effort at reform could have been successful. I don't buy that. Gorbachev and people like him could well have put the Soviet system back on a sustainable track except they ran out of time, and paradoxically, the reforms unleashed the forces that were already restive due to economic failures and military blunders like Afghanistan.

Not to mention that the timing of events that led to the collapse of the SU had to be about the best imaginable. Everything from the late 70's on clicked and when the end was imminent the old hardliners who could have pulled a Gadhaffi were a discredited and spent force. Were it not for the extra economic strain and the diminsihed stature of the armed forces it is easy to imagine the super power going out with a bang and not a whimper, or not going out at all. Look at how long a discredited totalitarian regime can hang on in places like Cuba and N Korea.

The way it turned out was near perfect, for everybody involved, and Carter's policy in Afghanistan was a major marker along the way.

[Lonestar]

You realize this is one of the main reasons Afghanistan is so ****ed up now, don't you?

How do you figure? Reagan is the one who got the Saudis to do matching funds, not Carter.

[Asher]

Arming the Taliban?

[Lonestar]

Arming the Taliban?

The Taliban existed in 1979?