No US Support For Anti-Soviet Afghan Resistance

If there's already a thread on this, my apologies, you can close this one.

What if Jimmy Carter's administration had decided that the Soviets were not making a run for the Indian Ocean, but were propping up an allied government on their border? Carter also decides that there are no viable, long-term pro-US actors in Afghanistan and that giving weapons to Islamic fundamentalists might have some "blowback" for the USA.

With massive Soviet assistance, could the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan have prevailed against a nation-wide insurgency? If so, then what?
 
With massive Soviet assistance, could the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan have prevailed against a nation-wide insurgency?
With massive Soviet assistance, DRA prevailed (or at least held it's own) against American-supported insurgency in 1989-1991 and they fell once said assistance dried up (it might be even argued that Kabul government fell, as what was to become "Northern Alliance" was effectively DRA regime keeping control over non-Pushtun areas, plus loner Ahmad Shah Massoud joining DRA warlords in alliance of convenience). Without American nurture and support mujahedeen would likely still receive financial assitance from Muslim world (likely more of it ITTL), but it would not be nearly enough to prop guerilla to it's OTL strength in numbers as well as in weaponry.
If so, then what?
I would suspect that Soviet Army would leave Afghanistan sometimes in 1984-1985 and it would likely be OTL until mid-1990s there (DRA would fall or cut a deal with more moderate part of mujahedeen in 1991 and country would continue to slip into lawless warlordism). There would be serious butterflies from 1995 until today, related to Al Quaeda and Taliban. Osama would likely still go to Afghanistan to fight and act as a link between Saudi money and mujahedeen warlords. He would likely still create his Organization, but it would be leaner and more radical than IOTL. Taliban is likely to appear and gain control over weak Afghanistan too (although this might be butterflied away, as Pakistani ISI would be in no position to inject as much funds into Taliban without Americans pumping monies into Pakistan itself). And unholy alliance of those two radical movement is likely to start it's "counter-crusade" earlier and wage it using more radical means.
 
So how does Osama and his supporters feel in this TL about the US simply standing by idly in the face of Soviet brutality in Afghanistan?:p

There might also have been a minor problem with one of the first Soviet actions in support of their allied government being the murder of the then-head of state.;)
 
So how does Osama and his supporters feel in this TL about the US simply standing by idly in the face of Soviet brutality in Afghanistan?:p
Osama and his ilk would be mightiliy disappointed with Western inaction and that, coupled with continuing American meddling in ME and Gulf affairs (no way to butterfly away either, they weren't related to Afghan events in any way), would set his anti-American mood earlier and boil it to higher concentration, so to speak. Exactly what I meant by "earlier and more radical war against West".

There might also have been a minor problem with one of the first Soviet actions in support of their allied government being the murder of the then-head of state.;)
Soviets meddling into fractious dispute within DRA was their grave mistake but what did it change? Daoud was begging Soviets to come to help him too...
 
With massive Soviet assistance, DRA prevailed (or at least held it's own) against American-supported insurgency in 1989-1991 and they fell once said assistance dried up (it might be even argued that Kabul government fell, as what was to become "Northern Alliance" was effectively DRA regime keeping control over non-Pushtun areas, plus loner Ahmad Shah Massoud joining DRA warlords in alliance of convenience). Without American nurture and support mujahedeen would likely still receive financial assitance from Muslim world (likely more of it ITTL), but it would not be nearly enough to prop guerilla to it's OTL strength in numbers as well as in weaponry.
I would suspect that Soviet Army would leave Afghanistan sometimes in 1984-1985 and it would likely be OTL until mid-1990s there (DRA would fall or cut a deal with more moderate part of mujahedeen in 1991 and country would continue to slip into lawless warlordism). There would be serious butterflies from 1995 until today, related to Al Quaeda and Taliban. Osama would likely still go to Afghanistan to fight and act as a link between Saudi money and mujahedeen warlords. He would likely still create his Organization, but it would be leaner and more radical than IOTL. Taliban is likely to appear and gain control over weak Afghanistan too (although this might be butterflied away, as Pakistani ISI would be in no position to inject as much funds into Taliban without Americans pumping monies into Pakistan itself). And unholy alliance of those two radical movement is likely to start it's "counter-crusade" earlier and wage it using more radical means.

Why would the Soviets leave? If the fighting is drying down, why not keep the forces there?

Although the Soviets may not have been planning a "drive to the gulf" the complication offered to the US of their presence there would be great.
 
If there's already a thread on this, my apologies, you can close this one.

What if Jimmy Carter's administration had decided that the Soviets were not making a run for the Indian Ocean, but were propping up an allied government on their border? Carter also decides that there are no viable, long-term pro-US actors in Afghanistan and that giving weapons to Islamic fundamentalists might have some "blowback" for the USA.

With massive Soviet assistance, could the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan have prevailed against a nation-wide insurgency? If so, then what?

IMO the impact of the defeat of Afganistan (combined with the rise of Solidarity ) shattered the myth of Soviet invunerability.

Lessening that would have increased the possiblity of Gorbechev maintaining political control despite economic liberalization.

I seem to remember a oil spike hike not long after the collaspe of the Soviet Union. If the crisis is even delayed, good economic news could have had tremendous impact.

Still might need a little more POD to save the Soviet Union, but could lead to more strength in the old regime to resist.

Civil War anyone?:confused:
 
If I recall correctly there was some US support for those fighting the previous regime in Afganistan before Soviet troops went in. If that had not happened might Afganistan have remained a bit more stable.
 
With massive Soviet assistance, DRA prevailed (or at least held it's own) against American-supported insurgency in 1989-1991 and they fell once said assistance dried up (it might be even argued that Kabul government fell, as what was to become "Northern Alliance" was effectively DRA regime keeping control over non-Pushtun areas, plus loner Ahmad Shah Massoud joining DRA warlords in alliance of convenience). Without American nurture and support mujahedeen would likely still receive financial assitance from Muslim world (likely more of it ITTL), but it would not be nearly enough to prop guerilla to it's OTL strength in numbers as well as in weaponry.

US cut a deal with Saudis where Saudis would provide funds for muj and US will sell them high-tech weapons like F-15s and AWACS. If there is no official US support there might be something else. Like original help which was to send weapons that couldn't be traced to US such as Chise copies and stuff captured by Israelis in Lebanon. So CIA might still act as a go-between, coordinating saudi money and Chinese arms going in through Pakistan.

And there were other countries that sent help, like europeans, sending not-so-flashy stuff but still improtant (mines, ATGMs, radios). this could be stepped up, specially if Saudis pay for it, and include their MANPADS.

Why would the Soviets leave? If the fighting is drying down, why not keep the forces there?

because that was their plan anyway. Invade, remove leadership, install frienfly one, rpovide support for DRa army to fight, pull out. Mujs complicated things
 
Why would the Soviets leave? If the fighting is drying down, why not keep the forces there?

Although the Soviets may not have been planning a "drive to the gulf" the complication offered to the US of their presence there would be great.
Afghanistan is landlocked, so USSR wouldn't obtain mythical "war sea port" by staying there. Although I'm sure that initial plans were "get in, install friendlies in power, get out", even USSR staying there wouldn't significantly change anything, if Afghan guerilla is successfully contained. Besides, Soviets had good intel on Afghans and were aware of fiercely patriotic attitude, setting them against any invader. So they did try to get out as soon as possible and don't steer hornets more than necessary.

IMO the impact of the defeat of Afganistan (combined with the rise of Solidarity ) shattered the myth of Soviet invunerability.
Communist system fell due to internal problems, not external interference (OK, external pressure did play a role, but it tends to be greatly exaggregated; there're plenty of potential PODs which could lead to surviving ComBloc, external pressure be damned). On the top of that, every Soviet citizen, raised on stories about heroic partizans of WWII, knew that it almost impossible to win a war against guerillas. So, once liberalization of media let Soviet people know that they're trying to deal with popular uprising in Afghanistan, nobody considered "getting the hell out" a loss. That's why I said matter-of-factly that early withdrawal from Afghanistan would not change anything in TL leading to ComBloc's breakup.
Still might need a little more POD to save the Soviet Union, but could lead to more strength in the old regime to resist.
Yes, like saying that an ant trying to pull Chevy Suburban might need a little extra help from tow truck to move the damn thingy :)

If there is no official US support there might be something else
There's simply no alternative scheme leading to muj being as well feed, armed and clothed as they were IOTL. Any change would lead to weaker guerilla and USSR installing competent DRA regime earlier.
 
There's simply no alternative scheme leading to muj being as well feed, armed and clothed as they were IOTL. Any change would lead to weaker guerilla and USSR installing competent DRA regime earlier.

as I said, help could come from different sources. China, Israel, European countries. There will not be Stingers but there will be other things and Stinger-like weapons
 
...

Communist system fell due to internal problems, not external interference (OK, external pressure did play a role, but it tends to be greatly exaggregated; there're plenty of potential PODs which could lead to surviving ComBloc, external pressure be damned). On the top of that, every Soviet citizen, raised on stories about heroic partizans of WWII, knew that it almost impossible to win a war against guerillas. So, once liberalization of media let Soviet people know that they're trying to deal with popular uprising in Afghanistan, nobody considered "getting the hell out" a loss. That's why I said matter-of-factly that early withdrawal from Afghanistan would not change anything in TL leading to ComBloc's breakup.
Yes, like saying that an ant trying to pull Chevy Suburban might need a little extra help from tow truck to move the damn thingy :)

...

I admitt that I am not an expert on the makeup of either the soviet forces of WWII or their propaganda, but

that is a slant on this I have not heard before. Were the soviets really that reliant on guerrilla forces on their front? Were paritizans really that big a portion of their forces?

But regardless, still let us not underestimate the impact of a lost war.
 
I admitt that I am not an expert on the makeup of either the soviet forces of WWII or their propaganda, but

that is a slant on this I have not heard before. Were the soviets really that reliant on guerrilla forces on their front? Were paritizans really that big a portion of their forces?

But regardless, still let us not underestimate the impact of a lost war.
The Red Army was helped by the partisan activity but it was not a war-winner.
It's just propoganda and popularisation, like tales about the (American) West in the USA.
 
The Red Army was helped by the partisan activity but it was not a war-winner.
It's just propoganda and popularisation, like tales about the (American) West in the USA.

That's interesting. I am curious at that reasoning behind that.

I would think city fighing and the massive tank battles would be heroic enough.

I worked with a russian jew who's father was at Stalingrad as a young teen. Never got that insight, though we did not discuss it in detail.

Some of my other co-workers were so ignorant that it was embarassing to have any real conversation.

One fool asked her if she thought the the cliqish behaviour of jews led to anti-semitism.

Another (a black ) tried to tell this woman, one generation removed from the freakin holocaust, about discrimination.:eek::(:eek:
 
I think that the anti-Soviet resistance would have been lost without American support. The only country that would have dared arm them without a US seal of approval would have been China, and I can't see that they could have provided anything substantial enough to matter.

For Afghanistan, I wouldn't envision a paradise of socialist healthcare and advanced freedoms for women, but I would see a more stable society and the avoidance of the bloodbath that occurred when the Mujahedeen began to fight with one another, bringing on the Taliban to bring order to the country.

the USSR was already a walking corpse. without the debacle of Afghanistan, they might have lasted another couple of years, perhaps there would have been a more orderly dissolution.
 
Top