Ahmed Shah Massoud

Ahmed Shah Massoud was perhaps the most capable leader in Afghanistan on September 9th, 2001. He supported women's rights to a decent extent and ws capable of controlling his troops and weeding out corruption. (link)

Lets say he wasn't killed on September 9th, as in OTL. Perhaps his would-be assassins are more thoroughly searched and their bomb is found, or something similar. The September 11th attacks still take place as OTL, but when the Northern Alliance begins to take over Afghanistan with US help, they have a capable leader. Massoud will almost certainly be tapped by the US to become President of Afghanistan. What then? Will Afghanistan be better off today? Will the War on Terror overall go better?

Some things to consider; Massoud was a Tajik. The ethnically Pashtun Taliban may fight harder against him than they do against Karzai, especially since he was their Enemy No.1 for all the years they were in power.
 
Ahmed Shah Massoud was perhaps the most capable leader in Afghanistan on September 9th, 2001. He supported women's rights to a decent extent and ws capable of controlling his troops and weeding out corruption. (link)

Lets say he wasn't killed on September 9th, as in OTL. Perhaps his would-be assassins are more thoroughly searched and their bomb is found, or something similar. The September 11th attacks still take place as OTL, but when the Northern Alliance begins to take over Afghanistan with US help, they have a capable leader. Massoud will almost certainly be tapped by the US to become President of Afghanistan. What then? Will Afghanistan be better off today? Will the War on Terror overall go better?

Some things to consider; Massoud was a Tajik. The ethnically Pashtun Taliban may fight harder against him than they do against Karzai, especially since he was their Enemy No.1 for all the years they were in power.

Wasn't he killed by AQ as a way to justify the 9/11 attack? I mean, that might actually suspend it (though then again, probably not).

If he lives, he'll almost certainly become President of Afghanistan. It's hard to say whether he'll be any better though, I mean, ruling a country is far more complicated than leading a revolution, and he's still up against the same problems the present government has.
 
It's never been conclusively proven that his death was connected to 9/11, or even that the two men who killed him were AQ agents (though its extremely likely). It's also likely, though again not proven, that his assassination was planned to be in conjunction with 9/11.

I think a good leader makes all the difference in the world. Karzai is corrupt and his brother runs the a good deal of the drug trade in Afghanistan. Massoud doesn't have these problems. He also has a fair deal of experience with governance; he was Defense Minister in a previous Afghan government.
 
I think a good leader makes all the difference in the world. Karzai is corrupt and his brother runs the a good deal of the drug trade in Afghanistan. Massoud doesn't have these problems. He also has a fair deal of experience with governance; he was Defense Minister in a previous Afghan government.

IIRC, Massoud had one thing against him: he was Tajik, which means he's less likely to be supported by the southern Afghans, which are mainly Pashtuns. Other than that, he does seem like the the best choice, given what little I know about the Afghan mess.
 
Karzai is Northern Alliance as well, but he's Pashtun. - Massoud was a very capable field commander - that doesn't necessarily make him a good politician.
And yes, a Tajik president would force all Pashtuns on the side of the Taliban and their allies.
 
Karzai is Northern Alliance as well, but he's Pashtun. - Massoud was a very capable field commander - that doesn't necessarily make him a good politician.
And yes, a Tajik president would force all Pashtuns on the side of the Taliban and their allies.

I just woke up and saw this, so I thought I'd throw in my $.02.

A Tajik president isn't going to make all Pashtuns fight for the Taliban:rolleyes:

Ethnic differences have meaning, but it isn't why Afghanistan is violent. Him being Tajik doesn't help, but it isn't going to create an ethnic insurgency.

The insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Pashtun, but it isn't a "Pashtun" insurgency.

No matter who the president is, Pashtuns are going to play the largest role in government.

That being said, I think Massoud wouldn't make a good president. He might play a better role in a different government position.
 
I just woke up and saw this, so I thought I'd throw in my $.02.

A Tajik president isn't going to make all Pashtuns fight for the Taliban:rolleyes:

Ethnic differences have meaning, but it isn't why Afghanistan is violent. Him being Tajik doesn't help, but it isn't going to create an ethnic insurgency.

The insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Pashtun, but it isn't a "Pashtun" insurgency.

No matter who the president is, Pashtuns are going to play the largest role in government.

That being said, I think Massoud wouldn't make a good president. He might play a better role in a different government position.

I agree with all this. The fact that Massoud is Tajik DOES NOT mean that all the Pashtuns in Afghanistan are going to immediately leap up and join the Taliban, in the same way that the election of President Obama DID NOT mean that all whites in this country are against his administration. It may cause problems with a few hardliners, but the Taliban hated Massoud enough already; he'd been fighting them longer than anyone else.

What government position would you suggest? Remember, the Northern Alliance fought most of the ground war in Afghanistan. Massoud, as their leader, is going to want something.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Karzai is Northern Alliance as well, but he's Pashtun. - Massoud was a very capable field commander - that doesn't necessarily make him a good politician.
And yes, a Tajik president would force all Pashtuns on the side of the Taliban and their allies.
Karzai is not Northern Alliance. he was the leader of a anti- Taliban militia that operated from Quetta, Pakistan.
 
Ahmed Shah Massoud was a skilled commander, but a terrible politician, at least according to some books I'd read about the Afghan Civil War (pre-Taliban).
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Suppose Massoud is not made President, but defense minister? This would certainly result in a much more effective and corruption-free Afghan military.
 

Cook

Banned
Consider Zahir Shah being reinstated as King of Afghanistan with Karzai as prime Minister and Massoud as Defence Minister.
 
Would the US really set up a monarchy in Afghanistan? That would be without precedent in US history (oh wait...Iran). But still, in the modern era, in the Bush Presidency, for him to topple the Taliban to replace it with a constitutional monarchy... that would be a little ASB. Still Massoud as Defence Minister makes more sense than Massoud as President, from what I'm hearing. Is there no more capable leader than Karzai to be President?
 
Would the US really set up a monarchy in Afghanistan? That would be without precedent in US history (oh wait...Iran). But still, in the modern era, in the Bush Presidency, for him to topple the Taliban to replace it with a constitutional monarchy... that would be a little ASB. Still Massoud as Defence Minister makes more sense than Massoud as President, from what I'm hearing. Is there no more capable leader than Karzai to be President?

The U.S. did not install the Shah of Iran, but engineered the removal of the Shah's Prime Minister who had forced the Shah to flee the country.

(Or at least acted in such a way to cause the Shah to panic and bolt rather than deliberately exiling him.)

The Pahlavi dynasty took power IIRC in the early 20th Century.
 

Cook

Banned
Would the US really set up a monarchy in Afghanistan? That would be without precedent in US history (oh wait...Iran). But still, in the modern era, in the Bush Presidency, for him to topple the Taliban to replace it with a constitutional monarchy... that would be a little ASB. Still Massoud as Defence Minister makes more sense than Massoud as President, from what I'm hearing. Is there no more capable leader than Karzai to be President?

Funnily enough I made a similar point:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=175055

The problem wouldn’t be in having the king return, it would be selling the idea to Americans.
 
Since Operation Ajax removed an elected government and replaced it with the Autocratic regime of the Monarch, Ganesha’s remark is pretty valid.
There's a difference between installing a king and taking away a PM.
At least to this American's perspective. ;)
 

MarioLuigi

Banned
I wonder if Abdullah Abdullah could become Afghan President if Massoud survives? Abdullah was half-Pashtun, so he'd appeal to Afghanistan's largest ethnic group, and he was a close friend of Massoud's, so he could appeal to the Tajiks and allow Massoud to run things behind the scenes.
 
Top