I was parodying the one-sidedness of what you wrote.
It didn't come across that way, and doesn't seem especially helpful instead of just trying to make your point here.
You don't seem to understand the context of what I wrote, leading to your reaction.
What you seem to think I was writing was 'the history of these issues'. What I was actually writing was 'here's some things missing from your version of the history showing you have a very inaccurate summary'. The things I mentioned were intentionally for the purpose of contrasting his points that the US were never doing anything wrong.
That explains your reaction - but it was a mistake.
I am suggesting that you, at the very least, are relying on highly partisan sources for your history.
No, I'm not.
Where should I start? Will a single issue due?
Not really - I'd appreciate your listing any disagreement you have with each (after all, I went through each of his - even agreeing with a couple).
Let's take Afghanistan, where you have the US not just arming the Mujahadeen, but actually being responsible for the rebellion there and hence the subsequent Soviet invasion. Let me be careful to not mischaracterize what you wrote.
You start off by claiming that Afghanistan had a "decent, socialist government...." In fact, that government tried to enact a number of socialist reforms very quickly in a country with a very conservative, religious populace, and most importantly, when the people initially protested the reforms quite angrily, the regime brutally suppressed the opposition, killing some 20,000+ citizens, most executed as political prisoners. This - the radical reforms enacted too quickly and most importantly, the regime's bloody suppression of opposition to said reforms - is what caused the rebellion there.
The allegation that the US drew the Soviets into a trap was IIRC based on an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski some time back in the 1990's if memory serves. Brzezinski denied that he said that, but his denial is not so important as the fact that Carter administration documents were subsequently declassified and clarified the issue. The real truth is that the US did support the idea of destablizing the regime to draw in the Soviets. However, our role in the matter was minimal prior to the actual invasion. We supplied no arms until after the invasion, and what propaganda we did contribute started well after there was already open rebellion. The principle parties responsible for that invasion were the Afghan regime, the Afghan rebels, and the USSR. Your version magnifies the US role to portray the US as principle architects of the entire thing. The real truth is that although we may have been more than happy to see the USSR get bogged down there, we had very little do with it.
- wolf
First I appreciate your comments, and think you might have some points. It has nothing to do with 'biased sources'. You're right, I'm relying largely, not entirely, on Brzezenski's interview - I'm concerned to hear from you he disputed it, I hadn't heard that in seeing a number of things about it over the years; and it does place the US is a larger role than you suggest they had. It has the US secretly deciding to back the rebels and antagonize the government to destabilize the regime and draw the Soviets in.
Now, you did infer some things that I was somewhat careful not to say, because in part off the top of my head I don't recall the details.
One of those was the US being the 'primary sponsor'; I did not say that, though I did imply the larger role consistent with the alleged Brzezenski interview. Another is you saying I said the US provided arms to the rebellion. I said they "aided" the rebellion, but not how - arms? propaganda, as you suggest? intelligence? training? I didn't say. Another is your claim I said the US started the rebellion. I didn't say that, either. I said started to aid people to undermine the government - which is perfectly consistent with starting to aid the rebels already doing so.
I don't recall the history you mentioned about a period of brutality of the government, and I accept your version; I'll need to re-look at that, to form some opinions about how justified or unjustified it was (with a bias towards it being unjustified). Sometimes new government go through a period of 'purging enemies', right or wrong, and sometimes that leads to a period of peace and freedom, others to tyranny. I've seen reports things were a lot better under that government than under the Taliban, but there's plenty for me to check on. It sounds like you have seen some declassified things I haven't, which helps.
My intent wasn't to provide a detailed history, but merely to point out that the other post was not complete. But I intend what I do say to be accurate.
Taking your feedback about the interview being disputed into consideration, I will back off the version I posted until I can check more carefully on the history.
It has had me curious for a while, that interview, the smell test gives off an odor, and now the odor is a lot stronger with your comments.
So, thanks for your feedback - some of which I agree with, some of which I do not, and I'll watch for you to comment on each topic - or withdraw the implication they're all wrong.
Hopefully my clarifying the context that it was one-sided for a reason helps clear that up. I take offense to how you reacted, but understand it was based on a misunderstanding.
If you had been correct (if I'm correct about your motivation) that my post was a 'neutral summary' of the history, it would have deserved serious criticism.
Facebook
Twitter