| | Ethan:
Back in the 80s there was a war against Communism. Who did we use as our proxy to fight against those damned communists in Afghanistan.
I was waiting to hear this one.
The assistance to the mujahadeen in the 80's may very well have resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union, a hostile aggressor nation gobbling up nations left and right with enough nuclear arms to destroy the free world. There was an obvious net benefit, and no way are we facing the kind of threat today that we did during the Cold War, I'd say we are WAY better off for what the CIA did. The Soviet Union was bankrupting itself trying to fight the CIA backed Afghans, and it was worth getting rid of the greatest threat to human civilization man has ever known. Also you can't morally hold people responsible for not being omniscient, and not to mention the Taliban was only ONE faction of the Mujahadeen. The Taliban was fighting other mujahadeen factions (Northern Afghan Alliance) so libertarians that attack U.S. foreign policy for supporting the "Taliban" are simply picking and choosing which mujahadeen group they want to talk about.
A lot of libertarians claim the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own because of it's centrally planned economy and that aiding the mujahadeen was unnecessary. When the United States finally started giving the Afghan rebels stinger missile and other high tech weaponry the Soviet Union was experiencing a tremendous drain on their resources. A 100,000 dollar stinger missile would bring down a 10 million dollar Soviet aircraft. The Soviet Union with only 1/10 of the American economy was spending 60% of its GDP on military spending, compared to the United States that never went over 6% of its GDP on military spending. The Soviet Union had definitely suffered horrendous economic problems throughout its existence undoubtedly stemming from its centrally planned economy, but it had been in existence since 1917, and there have been many regimes that have lasted through national famine and abject poverty only to linger around for decades longer. They were also obviously economically proficient enough to invade a Middle Eastern country in 1980 (63 years into its existence) with the hopes of eventually threatening the rest of the Middle Eastern oil supply with access to warm ports (undoubtedly they would have continued their aggressive conquests had the United States not stood up to them). The Soviet Union between the years of 1976-1980 was economically proficient enough to bring about the conversion of 10 countries into the communist orbit either through invasion or surrogate support: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan.
The financial black-hole that was Afghanistan for the Soviets and the dramatic escalation in the arms race brought about by Reagan and his Strategic Defense Initiative program undoubtedly precipitated the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1987, TWO YEARS later the Soviet Union collapsed.
Would the Soviet Union have collapsed on its own without the United States actively trying to bankrupt them? Most likely yes, but there was no telling how long that would have took, and the alternative would have been prolonged bloodshed, with the continued existence of a hostile nation with enough nuclear arms to destroy the free world. A situation that was simply untenable that morally required the free world to do everything in its power to precipitate the demise of an over-whelming threat to its existence. And what would have happened to an unchallenged Soviet Union after an invasion of Afghanistan? Why would they stop there if they had the power to continue on unchallenged in its aggression?
Libertarians first pretend like we should have never been there in the first place, and then pretend that it was our fault that Islamo-Facism rose to power because, what, we didn't stay there long enough and build schools and hold hands singing songs?
|
|
