20 Years After the Fall of the Berlin Wall: Will Another Superpower Meet Its End in Afghanistan?

On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US is losing the war in Afghanistan, a country that indirectly contributed to the break-up of the USSR. Where coalition forces today battle the Taliban and al Qaeda, in the 1980s, the Soviets fought the Mujahedeen -- a Muslim army of volunteers that Moscow called terrorists. Fighting the anti-Soviet Jihad, a brutal war funded by the CIA and the Saudis, became too costly for bankrupt Moscow. In a painful and humiliating withdrawal, the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989, just a few months before the implosion of the Soviet System. Without that defeat we might not be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the end of the Cold War or a unified Europe today. Remarkably, the central Asian country of Afghanistan seems once again to be shaping our future.
It is paradoxical that the graveyard of one superpower should become a battlefield for the other. It is even more ironic that the US, the very nation that used the Mujahedeen and this deeply hostile country to defeat the Soviet Union, should now have fallen victim to this current ordeal.

The similarities between the two Afghan wars are countless. The Soviet generals kept requesting more men in order to gain control of this vast land, because its high-tech war machinery did not work against such evasive enemies. The US and coalition armies face the same problem: mainstream war tactics do not deliver the expected results. All victories turn out to be illusions. As the Soviet generals found out, winning a village is pointless because, the day after, the terrorists are back in control of its streets. The Taliban are as intangible as the Mujahedeen; they vanish into the hills at night and are back fighting in the morning. Both groups littered the main roads with hidden explosives, the Mujahedeen used anti-tank mines while the Taliban employ improvised explosive devices (homemade bombs) to blow up soldiers on patrol as well as civilians.

Even the geography of the wars is remarkably similar, with much of the fighting during the anti-Soviet Jihad taking place in the south, near the Pakistani border. The Mujahedeen took refuge from the Soviet army in Waziristan, where today the Taliban and al Qaeda have their headquarters. Most Soviet soldiers lost their lives in Kandahar and Helmand province: the troubled areas of this new Afghan war.

Perhaps the most remarkable similarity between the two wars rests on their final objective: to transform Afghanistan into a friendly country by turning into a replica of the political status of the invading superpower. Twenty years ago Moscow wanted it to become a satellite state of the Soviet bloc; today the US wants to turn it into a Western-style democracy. This strategy is a dangerous exercise in nation building.

Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US had been cautious in playing this game, which seemed to be more of a Moscow pastime. Two of Washington's prior attempts, turning defeated World War II enemies, Germany and Japan, into democratic countries, had been successful--even if it was only with the reunification of Germany 50 years later that the US finally completed its job. The fall of the Berlin Wall showed that democracy was transferable and that it was a remarkable force for bringing nations in line with the American vision of the world. Perhaps watching Europeans tear apart the Wall with their bare hands in order to reach friends and relatives across that Cold War divide had convinced the US that democracy was the most powerful weapon it possessed. That might explain why, after the end of the Cold War, nation-building became Washington's preferred pastime.

A 2003 Rand Corporation study shows that of the 55 peace operations mounted by the US since 1945, 41 came after 1989. Police intervention has always been followed by nation-building. And the record seems very poor. In 1993 Washington pulled out of Somalia at the first sign of resistance. In 1994 it opted to let an international force restore order in Rwanda. It hesitated before joining European troops in Bosnia and before committing itself to a military intervention in Kosovo. But each time it did go in, the "US-led intervention has been wider in scope and more ambitious than its predecessor," concludes the report.

George W. Bush criticized Clinton's attempts to spread Western democracy, but after 9/11 he ordered a massively ambitious nation building plan for Afghanistan and Iraq. None of the post-Cold War presidents, including Barak Obama today, has understood that nation-building is not primarily about economic reconstruction but rather about political transformation. Americans are making the same mistakes the Soviets did. The US has failed to install viable democracies in Somalia, Haiti, and Afghanistan because all three countries are divided ethnically, socio-economically or tribally. In Afghanistan, Western-style democracy may well be the wrong model to apply.

The Soviet Union crumbled when the economic and political model upon which it rested became obsolete; the Kremlin failed to modernize and the ill-fated war in Afghanistan exposed this failure. Moscow should never have gotten involved. Now Washington risks doing the same if it limits its modernization merely to the election of Barack Obama, the first black President, who campaigned on the promise of change. What is needed is a fresh, new approach to bringing peace and prosperity to countries fundamentally different from our own.

 

Comments

[UKOH]

Get out of Afganistan! NOW!

[namae]

I also am concerned that we will find ourselves wallowing in a political and military quagmire which lacks insufficient citizen endorsement to be successful. American lives and treasure are too important to risk in this endeavor.

[siegfried89]

What super power is that, Iran?

[yappnmutt]

general mcarthur is considered a hero to the japanese even today because he preserved the japanese culture even as the usa military occupied the country. japan was also allowed to set up its own .gov largely on its own terms. during this time the economy was unhindered.

this method has not been tried since.

people respond to opportunity. opportunity cannot be imposed. opportunity is taken depending upon the situation. that's why iraqis took money to plant ieds. that's the money they fed their families with. if there were other opportunities for money besides the military on both sides they would have(and eventually did) taken those opportunities.

afghanistan is the same. the usa is just as dumb there as they were in iraq. so far the usa has made every family in afghanistan mad at them. correcting that blunder probably means withdrawal is the best path and a do over with plenty of good opportunity and minimal military intervention.

[nezumi]

I could not agree more. 'Nation building' is quite an euphemism, when the people involved are treated like Untermenschen. And why should the US treat their enemies at war better than their own poor and criminal populations? Maybe they would like to act more productively like after WWII but cannot. Not before they rebuild their own nation.

[punk]

People wrongly assume that the Soviet Union fell because of Afghanistan. But it fell because of its flawed economic system and internal rot. Some propagandists even claim Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union and brought down the Berlin Wall. LOL. Even the CIA disagrees with this notion. Here's video of the former head of Soviet affairs at the CIA debunking the claim that Reagan "defeated" the USSR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWolDwBO1nM

[yappnmutt]

it failed because it was mired in debt and its credit lines were pulled. the same thing could happen to the usa. as it is china and japan has slowed their purchase of usa debt just when they need it most.

[CologneCitizen]

Yep, exactly.

Over here in Germany we live closer to the former Soviet Union. We always thought it was hilarious that Reagan claimed he defeated them and brought down the wall. He was too busy acting to be the president.

[Timwest31]

Don't be such a Cassandra Loretta. There are more things NOT similar than are, which you fail to point out.

You write:
"What is needed is a fresh, new approach to bringing peace and prosperity to countries fundamentally different from our own."

^ What IS needed.... Loretta, is a fresh approach that involves us NOT poking our noses into everyone's business. Read the pulse of the people.... Loretta, the American people are fed up with these foreign campaigns. The fresh approach should be for us to focus on our own problems FIRST.

[edgarcaycedoc]

As Henry Kissinger pointed out in Vietnam, when you fight insurgents you have to remember that if the insurgents do not lose, they win; while in a traditional army if you don't win you lose. We are losing in virtually every measurable quantity. And the Afghan war is a bitter harvest. The mujahadeen were sponsored by the U.S., and morphed into the Taliban, which is now tight with Al Quaeda. Irony of ironies!

[mysaaed]

The history repeats, but the world is not the same as it was during the Vietnam War. At the time there were a Vietnam War and only two superpowers, US and USSR. Now, there are several superpowers. And one of them, China, might lend us money to fight Al-Qaeda and gives Al-Qaeda and Taliban money to fight us. Remember that the USSR was out of money, now we are out of money. It may become our Vietnam if Russia and China begin to arm them with modern weapons.

We, the West, can bring democracy to Afghanistan if it is based on Afghan Culture. Karzai does not have the education, understanding, and ability to do the job. Those outsiders, who go to Afghanistan for a few days or weeks and come back as experts, can’t either. This can only be done by those who are experts on Afghan Culture and western democracy. This can be done if the West, Russia, China, and other neighboring countries cooperate.

[RMEdaps]

Afghanistan can never come close to defeating the USA. The liberals, socialists, communists, Marxists, and other 5th Column traitors inside the USA, both inside the government and out, might be able to.

[MilwaukeeDan]

Please tell us what "winning" in Afghanistan looks like and how it will be achieved. You probably thought Vietnam was "winnable" too. What exactly are you fighting for?

[Cosatjockomo]

They attacked us on our own soil, using our civilian aircraft loaded with our civilians to attack our institutions. "Winning" should have been a 20 minute "war" on 9/11 where all the population of Afghanistan was vaporized. The history we should learn from is that proportional responses only encourage the enemy. Ruthless, definitive actions deter future crazies. "You attack us on our soil, your whole country commits suicide." That's how we win these wars!

[martin2]

Show your support for this war by finding your way to the recruiting station.

[idest]

Myopic.

I have a feeling people in Russia said the same thing about Afghanistan.

And people in ancient Rome said the same thing about the Goths, Vandals, and Huns.

History has lessons for this nation to learn the same as any other.

[DanielBrunoSanz]

I couldnt agree more with this post. Final call for the US to really change

[erewon]

"Empires go to die" talking point has become fear-mongering clarion call of American isolationist' movement.

First, empires never fall because of some tiny region conflict. Empires fall because of inherent weaknesses.
Indeed, Britain Empire was in a very strong position in the late 19th century, regardless of how unsuccessful they were pacifying mountainous tribes of Afghanistan. British empire went bankrupt fighting the Nazis, much later.

Russian Empire didn't fall because they lost the war with Japan in 1905. The loss simply demonstrated the inherent weaknesses, entirely unrelated to that insignificant conflict. Ditto for Soviets.
Example--weak Russian state lost first Chechen war. A reconstructed Russia under Putin decisively defeat the same, only a few years later.

Secondly, the very same isolationists now trying to sway public opinion by stressing "empire is falling" talking point, would actually prefer if American empire would fall!
So there is a definite element of hypocrisy involved.

[Nomccain]

With their stated goal to break this nation ecomomically, I'd say that the Iraq war nearly did it and now with a quagmire in Afghanistan, it will eventually break us. No other nation spends the amount of money or commits as much manpower to these conflicts as this nation and it's not right or smart. Gorbachov is an intelligent man and Obama should listen to him and begin to widthdraw our troops from this pagan nation which is ruled by warlords and the Taliban. Yes, they are cruel to their people, but who appointed us as the policeman of the world and the rectifier of all wrongs. We must learn to protect our own interests at home and help our own people for a change. Sadly, I don't think it's gonna happen.

[alex61]

Remember-the Soviets went to Afghanistan for conquest-the spreading of the Soviet sphere. We helped the Afghans kick the Soviets out, which probably did contribute to the fall of the Soviet empire. We didn't just help liberate Afghanistan, we liberated countless million of Eastern Europeans. A worthwhile endeavor, I should think.

We did not go to Afghanistan for conquest. We went because we were attacked from Afghanistan-the al Qaeda ledattacks were based there. Our reasons for being in Afghanistan are far more justifiable that the Soviet presence. As to whether or not we will "come a cropper" there, one thing we can be sure of: We have no evil empire to implode. We will either be successful there, or we won't. Tha fate of America is not at stake.

[Hempy]

Democratic governments are not prepared for protracted conflicts.

We want quick and decisive victories. Once we've committed ourselves we feel a moral obligation to repair the damage we've done, e.g., Iraq. But alas! They didn't install a democratic government. Their constitution created an Islamic state, all with the blessing of Bush-Cheney.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: "There are two things which will always be very difficult for a democratic nation: to start a war and to end it."

That seems to be the predicament we've gotten ourselves into.

Another lost war is the war on drugs. It was essentially started in 1937 with the Marijuana Tax Act, and has proven to be an utter failure. Still, politicians can't seem to bring themselves to admit its obvious failure, even though its focus has been on recreational cannabis, AKA "marijuana." The government spends billions waging war mostly on non-violent marijuana users.

But, the war on drugs does fund the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to the turn of about $500 billion a year. So, the war on drugs has become the cornerstone of our foreign policy, and it is meeting with abysmal failure in Afghanistan as well as elsewhere.

The war on drugs has been lost here at home Its likely to be the cause of our downfall in Afghanistan, what with our meddling in their religious civil war and their poppy-growing drug cartel.

Al-Qaeda seems to have dropped out of our minds altogether.

[VANDERGRAAFK]

I disagree with your reading of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. From what I gather, the Soviets did not plan on the initial communist coup. Once it occurred, Moscow politicians sought to solidify it. They ordered in Soviet tanks. Russian generals, faced with the Muhajadeen, requested reinforcements, much as the US military did in Vietnam. It led nowhere, but did de-moralize Soviet armed forces.

US motivation was retaliation for 9-11 and led to the demolition of the Taliban government. After the loya yirga brought Karzai to power, the Bushidos "abandoned" Afghanistan in favor of folly in Iraq.

If you posit the decline of American empire on Afghanistan, you might have to await Obama's decision. As I expect, it will be a muddling through. My own preference is to get out and use drones to take out Taliban and al-Quaeda positions.

A more useful comparison might be with Britain. Britain was over-extended in terms of empire and neglected its industry sufficiently that it became unable to fund the expenses of empire. To what extent has the United States - in the Reagan era of unfettered financial capitalism - allowed its basic industries to wither away.? In its neglect of education - and obsession with test scores that measure what exactly - the US has a vast population programmed only to play video games and consume. For the best and the brightest, we depend on foreign students and a venture capital market that luckily has survived the destruction by Wall Street.