Soviet and U.S. policy competition in Afghanistan during the Cold War

U.S.S.R and the UNITED STATES of AMERICAN

IN AFGHANISTAN: POLICY ANALYSIS

This work makes an examination of Soviet policy in Afghanistan as well as U.S. Policy in Afghanistan and how these two have affected and been affected by each other. The country of Afghanistan is one characterized by impassable land and yet, this land is the home to the most ancient of trade routes, specifically the Silk Road. Furthermore, Afghanistan is geopolitically important in terms of the oil market. It is easy to understand why the Soviet Union and the United States hold such great an interest in the future of the county of Afghanistan. Policy decision in the United States relating to Afghanistan has been historically affected by Soviet presence in the country and will continue to be in the future whether it be due to the presence of the Taliban, or the geopolitical strategy of the United States relating to Afghanistan.

THE U.S.S.R and the UNITED STATES of AMERICAN

IN AFGHANISTAN: POLICY ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work is to describe the geopolitical significance of Afghanistan before and during the Cold War and to analyze Russian and Soviet policy in Afghanistan. Finally, this work will look to the nature and limits of the United States role in the Afghan war.

INTRODUCTION

Afghanistan is a region characterized by mountains and desert terrain that are practically impassable and is a country that has been dominated by the culture of Islam since 882 a.D. The Soviet war that occurred in Afghanistan lasted approximately nine years and was a conflict that centered upon the Soviet military support of the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), the government of Afghanistan and the Mujahideen insurgents that were trying to overthrow the government in Afghanistan. The work of Singleton (1981) relates "Soviet-Afghan contacts began when Amir Amanullah Khan expelled British control during the Third Afghan War.

The work of Dr. Seth Singleton entitled: "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan" relates that the: "...foreign policy of the Brezhnev Politburo, consistent since 1965, has four major interconnected elements: detente with the West, defined as the pursuit of mutually beneficial trade and strategic arms control; consolidation and coordination of the Socialist community of communist nations under Soviet leadership; military growth of all types of forces; and expansion of Soviet and allied Socialist influence and presence in Asia and Africa as opportunity allows." (1981) Singleton explains that while the view of Americans does not acknowledge it to be so:...the first three elements have been considerably more successful than the last." (1981) the Soviet Union has led in Afghanistan since 1979 with the Taliban maintaining rule since 1996 until "its collapse in December 2001 at the hands of the U.S.-led military campaign."

I. GEOPOLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE of AFGHANISTAN

Hermann Kreutzmann writes in his work "Paper 2: The Significance of Geopolitical Issues for Development of Mountainous Areas of Central Asia" which was presented at an International Workshop in Dushanbe, Tajikistan during June 2005: "In the Central Asian context geopolitics have played a major role for socioeconomic development in the arena between different spheres of influence." (2005) Kreutzmann goes on to relate that at the turning of the 19th into the 20th century Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy in India, "identified the Central Asian countries and territories in his famous statement as 'pawns on a chessboard." (2005) the specific countries in question at this time were those of: "Transcapian, Transoxania, Persia and Afghanistan all located in what is described as the "landlocked are of Central Asia." (Kreutzmann, 2005) it is noted in this work as well that competition between Great Britain and Russia involved competition between both of these superpowers "for dominance on the valuable markets in the urban oases of the Silk Road such as Kashgar and Yarkand. The geopolitical of importance lies in the fact that Afghanistan is the "...crossroads of trade and energy routes." (Democratization and Security in Central Eurasia, 2007)

III. NATURE and LIMITS of the ROLE of the U.S. AFGHANISTAN

The role of the United States in Afghanistan has clearly been one of a proactive nature, which some researchers believe to be even in the nature of an 'alarmist'. For example, the work of Kuczewski (1984) relates that: "President Ronald Reagan's strongly worded statement that the U.S.S.R. is solely responsible for detonating the rockslide of revolution and turmoil throughout the Near East (Moscow "underlies all the unrest that is going on," is his exact comment) is the logical continuation of a Cold War stock-in-trade mentality which obsessively prefers "to concentrate upon the simplest explanatory factor, the Soviet threat." (Halliday, 1984; p. 23). In the period between 1999 and 2003 the United States provided $1 billion (U.S.) dollars in aid to Afghanistan. Kuczewski relates that the work of Halliday: "...finds no available evidence for this alarmist signal and contends that these scare tactics are merely clever devices aimed at subtly persuading a cost-conscious congress into reluctantly accepting increased public funds for military expenditure." Kuczewski (1984) does acknowledge that while the Soviet Union has not failed to take advantage of the developments this is still: "...quite different from claiming that the Soviet Union has stage-managed events...It also overstates the degree of current Soviet control over these countries and the benefit that Moscow derives from its alliances with them." (Halliday, 1984)

In a Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Working Group report on: Discourse, Dissent and Strategic Surprise: Formulating American Security in an Age of Uncertainly (Number 111) entitled: " the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979: Failure of Intelligence or the Policy Process" holds to light the events in Afghanistan stating that the divisions in U.S. policy view played a great role in policy of the U.S. In Afghanistan and specifically in relation to policy that included policy that impacted or was impacted by U.S. Soviet policy of that time. It is stated by the Institute of the Study of Diplomacy report as follows: "The Soviet invasion was the hope of one wing of our government and the fear of another." (2005) it is concluded that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan "does not seem to be one of traditional 'intelligence failure'. A reported observation in the CSR Report for Congress was that in relation to U.S. policy in Afghanistan and policy consideration that concerns ensuring the protection of freedom for American citizens that one is not required to "...have to await 'imminence' before addressing the indication that the contingency is on the table, and exploring what measures might be taken to prevent it from taking place, or whether to simply gamble that it won't happen. Waiting for proof of 'imminence' means waiting until the decision has been made, as is now known was the case in the Soviet Invasion." It seems perfectly apparent that this was the original policy of the U.S. In Afghanistan specific to the Soviet Union. The CSR Report for Congress entitled: "Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy" Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs writes that the policy objectives of the United States in Afghanistan have: "...long gone beyond establishing political stability and combating terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan." (Katzman, 2005)

IV. PRESENT U.S. INVOLVEMENT in AFGHANISTAN

Some of the areas targeted by the United States include: "...ending discrimination against women and girls, the eradication of narcotics production, and alleviating severe humanitarian difficulties, and promoting long-term economic development...with varying degrees of intensity." (2005) Further reported is landmine eradication and retrieval of some U.S. Stingers that are in the country. In relation to long-term economic development in the country of Afghanistan the $2.5 billion Central Asia Gas Pipeline immediately became a focus after the U.S. overthrew the Soviet-backed Taliban government in Afghanistan. While some continued involvement of the United States might be needed in the short-term future of the country of Afghanistan in relation to post- occupation and war requirements in view of political and economic stabilization, it seems likely the U.S. policy will continue to be impacted due to the geopolitical significance of the country of Afghanistan in relation to trade and goods, specifically oil and access to the market in the Silk Road region.