War on Terror with a surviving USSR

The PoD is not really important although I'm assuming saner economic policy on the part of Gosplan and reforms by an Alexei Kosygin that manages to get power instead of Brezjnev, leading to the USSR and the Warsaw pact surviving. Assuming that radical islam still takes root, what would a WoT analogue look like. I'm assuming the Soviet Union will still prop up the communist regime in Afghanistan, leading to organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban who will hate the USSR's guts, more so since it's an atheist state and my guess is that the Red Army will pull out of Afghanistan like the Americans pulled out of Vietnam. Al Qaeda and the Taliban probably won't like the US either because of their presence in the Middle East.

How will Muslim terrorism play out in this otherwise strictly bipolar world if it ever gets to rear its ugly head? Will old OBL focus on the Soviets or the Americans or neither, leaving him a regional player in Afghanistan and Pakistan and perhaps India? Could he pull a 9/11 ITTL?
 
If Islamic Terrorism does rear it's head as the major issue it is in the OTL today, it could be something that brings the superpowers together in unity. And I've always had the opinion that with a stable USSR, the War on Terror would go better because you have a superpower to monitor the Eastern world and aid in combating terrorism.

However, if regimes begin to be toppled ala Iraq and Afghanistan, the s**t will hit the fan on what government will replace it since I think the Soviets will try to promote installing a Communist government while America will try to install a democratic one.
 
The Soviets will likely be Al Quaedas main target and unless the Soviets develop morals they're in for a world of hurt.
 
War on terror is impossible in Cold War-like world, as it were Americans who nurtured and fed fundamentalist groups across the region for half-century as their natural bulwark against "Communism" and pink "Arab Socialism". From Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt against Nasser (I can really trace it back even farther, to covert British support for Basmachi in Central Asia, but we're talking about Americans) to Yemeni imams against Nasser and and pink Yemeni revolutionaries to Shia in Iraq to Algerian islamists to Afghanistan. Bin Laden was a CIA agent and Al Quaeda started as an organization to channel American monies and supplies to muj. All in all, at least 50 years of of unwavering support. So, would Cold War continue, USA and Islamic militants would continue their cooperation, there's no need to break the bond.
 
Realistically, Osama and Company stand to lose a great deal. The Soviets will do something to Afghanistan, and a backroom deal probably happens if the Islamists are elsewhere.

That said, Moscow is probably Al-Q's major enemy, and the whole 1990s would play differently with Soviet Power still on the ground. Would this be a moderate left-wing dictatorship under Gorbachev? A hardline junta under another Andropov? Perhaps something else, like the Soviet Union switching into Nationalism and then Super Russia instead?

Given these changes, Al-Q's original motive--US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia--would probably be butterflied. That doesn't mean that they won't have a grudge against the West, but what is it?
 
War on terror is impossible in Cold War-like world, as it were Americans who nurtured and fed fundamentalist groups across the region for half-century as their natural bulwark against "Communism" and pink "Arab Socialism". From Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt against Nasser (I can really trace it back even farther, to covert British support for Basmachi in Central Asia, but we're talking about Americans) to Yemeni imams against Nasser and and pink Yemeni revolutionaries to Shia in Iraq to Algerian islamists to Afghanistan. Bin Laden was a CIA agent and Al Quaeda started as an organization to channel American monies and supplies to muj. All in all, at least 50 years of of unwavering support. So, would Cold War continue, USA and Islamic militants would continue their cooperation, there's no need to break the bond.

It's actually kind of ironic, when you realize that a lot of the factors which led to America being seen as an enemy by many muslims can be traced back to the cold war. The United States had rather good relations with the arabs for a time (certainly better than, say, the British or french), but things started going downhill when America became more focused on containing communism and installing pliable regimes. There wasnt exactly one cause, but a lot of events, such as the coup against mossadegh or the refusal to support nasser, soured the image of america in the muslim world and either directly (the coup in iran eventually leading to the revolution) or indirectly (Nasser goes to the soviets for weapons, US backs israel) were responsible for america's relativly bad image there today.
 
(I can really trace it back even farther, to covert British support for Basmachi in Central Asia, but we're talking about Americans)

The Basmachi have little to do with Al-Qaeda. They were to an extent "Islamist", but not of the modern kind codifed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood after the end of Basmachi activity. It should be pointed out that the political program of the Basmachi's Russian "Islamist" contemporary Musavat was full of references to Islamic freedom, solidarity etcetera, but it introduced universal female suffrage before Britain and America, so not every strongly Muslim political organisation is a bunch of fundamentalism whackjobs (modern Turkey ought to demonstrate that). The Basmachi revolt took place because the people of "Turkestan" had long been disconted by Russian policies such as demanding they grow cotton rather than the crops they actually wanted, allowing Russian and Cossack settlers in some areas (although that was more of a Kazakh issue, of course), and to cap it all imposing conscription in 1916. When Russian rule disappeared, they had no desire to go back under it, what with the new Russia beng a violent dictatorship, and arms and outside support were available, so many resolved to resist. What does that have to do with Sayyid Qutb and Osama bin Ladeb?
 
I woud have to guess that the USSR would help with the Coalition and use it's overwhelming nmbers to squash Iarq. Afghanistan, though, they would stay out of.
 
Well, it's hard to say about Afghanistan: the USSR pulled out, but under Gorbachev. A more hardline regime might keep up the support for their puppet government, which OTL held on for three years after the Soviets pulled out [1] and collapsed in part due to the refusal of the post-Soviet government in Russia to continue selling them oil at discounted prices. it's possible that with continued Soviet support the government might hang on through the 90's, never actually winning but not losing either, and possibly achieving a compromise of some sort with the warlords and mujhadeen, especially if the US loses interest in funding them at some point or drops them for some Soviet concession otherwhere.

The Taliban, who OTL began as a movement based in the refugee camps in Pakistan and did not begin major military operations until 1994 - well after the collapse of the Red government and the start of the civil war period - might end up cut out of the Afghan government entirely. As for Al-Queda, that's Osama's baby, and if the struggle against a Soviet-backed government goes on longer than OTL, he might end up as finely chopped hamburger at some point. So, it's quite possible we never get a war on terror in the first place.

So, what happens in Afghanistan? Do we get a shaky Soviet puppet still in existence in 2009? A "coalition" government excluding those Taliban wierdos? Eventual collapse, civil war, and a Taliban takeover as OTL? Each has some different implications. And as Blue Max said, there might be different versions of the USSR, and hardline-USSR would react differently from a moderate-left Gorbachev-type regime.

In any event, Osama's ability to hurt the USSR probably isn't that great: I suspect it would be just a little harder to get a bunch of Saudi citizens with boxcutters aboard a Soviet airlines flight, and given Russians, there's a good chance they just get carved up with broken Vodka bottles.

Bruce


[1] According to some reports, Afghan government troops actually performed rather better once the Soviets were no longer breathing down their necks
 
Last edited:
The Basmachi have little to do with Al-Qaeda. They were to an extent "Islamist", but not of the modern kind codifed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood after the end of Basmachi activity.
That is why I did not include them in the list but mentioned separately. However, they were a good example of Western support of backward Islamist (as opposed to Musavat, for example, and contemporary Tatar groups) movement. You see, although Basmachi sprung up from genuine grievances against Russian land grab, by mid-1920s (when British support piqued, although even at this point I wouldn't call British sponsorship a decisive factor) they turned into reliously fueled militant organization, preying on most medieval components of local social structure. Whatever educated local class was there either supported Reds (majority) or Whites, Basmachi were led by mullahs and tribal khans. So yes, in a sense it is an early example of using militant islam to hurt Soviets.
It should be pointed out that the political program of the Basmachi's Russian "Islamist" contemporary Musavat was full of references to Islamic freedom, solidarity etcetera, but it introduced universal female suffrage before Britain and America, so not every strongly Muslim political organisation is a bunch of fundamentalism whackjobs
Musavat was not RUSSIAN (it didn't even have sufficient base in Muslim areas of Russia proper, like Tatarstan and Bashkiria), it was AZERI. And they were not Islamist in modern sense too. More like Baath than early Al Quaeda.

I woud have to guess that the USSR would help with the Coalition and use it's overwhelming nmbers to squash Iarq. Afghanistan, though, they would stay out of.
I remember that noises about joining coalition were quite loud in Soviet political discussion in 1991. Although the support of USSR was almost zero at this point, so I'm not sure those ideas are not mutually exclusive. After all, Saddam was an old Soviet client and you don't betray old partners for no good reasons.

A more hardline regime might keep up the support for their puppet government, which OTL held on for three years after the Soviets pulled out [1] and collapsed in part due to the refusal of the post-Soviet government in Russia to continue selling them oil at discounted prices.
Even OTL Gorbachev regime propped up Najib to the very last day. So yes, any other more "pro-Soviet" regime would do at least as much.
it's possible that with continued Soviet support the government might hang on through the 90's, never actually winning but not losing either, and possibly achieving a compromise of some sort with the warlords and mujhadeen, especially if the US loses interest in funding them at some point or drops them for some Soviet concession otherwhere.
Yes, this is very likely scenario. I would dare to say that it is almost OTL development (what was known as "Northern Alliance" was a coalition of pieces of pro-Soviet pieces and some muj commanders) without keeping DRA badge and control over Kabul.
So, what happens in Afghanistan? Do we get a shaky Soviet puppet still in existence in 2009? A "coalition" government excluding those Taliban wierdos? Eventual collapse, civil war, and a Taliban takeover as OTL?
1st, this "shaky puppet" is more than Americans with their allies could achieve so far since 2001 (it is their piper dream to have Karzai as much in control of the country as Najib was). 2nd, I consider something between 1 and 2 most likely. Soviets started to draw "healthy elements within traditional Afghan society" (Soviet speak for groups which did not insist on public stoning of women for not wearing burqa and could tolerate infidels) in cooperation since 1983-1984, this tendention deepened by 1989 IOTL. So yes, I totally see somebody like Massoud sitting in ministerial office in Kabul under Najibulla.
In any event, Osama's ability to hurt the USSR probably isn't that great: I suspect it would be just a little harder to get a bunch of Saudi citizens with boxcutters aboard a Soviet airlines flight, and given Russians, there's a good chance they just get carved up with broken Vodka bottles.
You are right about hardships Osama would see in his attempts to strike USSR proper, but Russians with broken Vodka bottle isn't the main one. It was notoriously difficult for foreign agents to establish themselves in the USSR for a number of reasons, so Osama would have to rely on local groups (Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, you name it). However, unlike American situation, when immigrant Muslim communities are insulated from mainstream American society (making infiltration very problematic), Soviets coudl rely on more loyal Muslim KGB operatives than whole Al Quaeda times 10. Any plan would be busted early. Besides, Soviet planes flew with locked bulletproof doors between pilot cabins and passengers and pilots were armed with handguns and knew how to use them. Shit still happened, but chances of getting half-dozen Muslim foreigners on the same flight would be slim, and of them having arms - even less.
According to some reports, Afghan government troops actually performed rather better once the Soviets were no longer breathing down their necks
Yes, it happened. And, to tell you the truth, I think it is pretty natural. Would you risk your ass fighting if there are big brothers with big... toys propping you up?
 
Last edited:
That is why I did not include them in the list but mentioned separately. However, they were a good example of Western support of backward Islamist (as opposed to Musavat, for example, and contemporary Tatar groups) movement. You see, although Basmachi sprung up from genuine grievances against Russian land grab, by mid-1920s (when British support piqued, although even at this point I wouldn't call British sponsorship a decisive factor) they turned into reliously fueled militant organization, preying on most medieval components of local social structure. Whatever educated local class was there either supported Reds (majority) or Whites, Basmachi were led by mullahs and tribal khans. So yes, in a sense it is an early example of using militant islam to hurt Soviets.

I'm dubious about describing them as "Islamist". Musavat was Islamist, Al Qaeda is Islamist, in very differant ways, but the Basmachia lacked a political ideology besides not wanting Russian rule. Their conservative Islam entered into it, but not any moreso than any of the other reasons they resented Russian rule and wanted to prevent it from being restored. They weren't a coherant political movement at all, they weren't even very coherent as a military one, so we can't meaningfully ascribe to them a political ideology. Never mind one which, like fundamentalism Islamism, was largely invented in the 30s. And reading your post, there's a very strong contextual suggestion that the Basmachi were "fundamentalist".

Musavat was not RUSSIAN (it didn't even have sufficient base in Muslim areas of Russia proper, like Tatarstan and Bashkiria), it was AZERI. And they were not Islamist in modern sense too. More like Baath than early Al Quaeda.

Obviously, I meant "Russian" in the sense of "within the common polity of the Russian empire". The Basmachi weren't "Russian" in the strict sense either. That Musavat wasn't Islamist in the modern sense is precisely what I was saying, and I think the present Turkish government is a fairly good analogy: nationalistic, in favour of Islam but not baclward or fundamdentalist, with vague and confused notion of Muslim and Turkic solidarity.
 
Top