WI: Carter Doesn't Aid the Mujahedeen

In the late 1970's, the Carter administration gave covert military aid and arms to the Afghan mujahedeen to support it's fight against Communism. What if Carter decided not to aid the Mujahedeen - which later morphed into the Taliban? How would Afghanistan and the Cold War turn out differently? Would this impact the War on Terrorism thirty years later?
 

kernals12

Banned
In the late 1970's, the Carter administration gave covert military aid and arms to the Afghan mujahedeen to support it's fight against Communism. What if Carter decided not to aid the Mujahedeen - which later morphed into the Taliban? How would Afghanistan and the Cold War turn out differently? Would this impact the War on Terrorism thirty years later?
If Carter didn't start it, Reagan would.
 
Then Reagan gets to aid the Mujies in the '80's instead, you want to stop him, Carter was a trinkle, Reagan was a Dam bursting.
 
Category 5 Hurricane Allen devastates Houston in August 1980. As a result, Charlie Wilson is extremely busy for the next term getting disaster relief for the Upper Texas Coast, and never gets around to helping the Mujadeen.
 
So what do you think would happen if the US never started the program in the first place?
The Russians probably win through genocide and ethnic cleansing, the most hostile groups sent fleeing to Iran and Pakistan, the potential of the war spilling into Iran and Pakistan increases, as does the potential of a larger war between the USSR, India and China as a result.
 
The Russians probably win through genocide and ethnic cleansing, the most hostile groups sent fleeing to Iran and Pakistan, the potential of the war spilling into Iran and Pakistan increases, as does the potential of a larger war between the USSR, India and China as a result.

The Russians were already pretty brutal towards Afghan civilians in OTL (some estimate they killed upwards of 1 million), and there's no evidence that aiding fanatic thugs in that region helped to prevent further atrocities. The Soviets lost because, unlike in Eastern Europe, they got themselves stuck in a quagmire fighting in unfamiliar desert terrain against a highly skilled and morally galvanized native force that rightfully hated Communist rule.
 
The Russians were already pretty brutal towards Afghan civilians in OTL (some estimate they killed upwards of 1 million), and there's no evidence that aiding fanatic thugs in that region helped to prevent further atrocities. The Soviets lost because, unlike in Eastern Europe, they got themselves stuck in a quagmire fighting in unfamiliar desert terrain against a highly skilled and morally galvanized native force that rightfully hated Communist rule.
This is about them winning though, I can see them doing those things to win
 
This is about them winning though, I can see them doing those things to win

Well, as the OP I have to point out that the purpose of the thread really isn't to envision a Soviet victory in Afghanistan. It's moreso to explore whether or not the Taliban is still powerful enough to take over Afghanistan after the war and how this could potentially have ramifications vis a vis 9/11 and the War on Terror. Bin Laden could end up staying in Saudi Arabia and never move to Afghanistan for example, he moved there originally in the 1980s to fight in the "holy war" against the Communists which had been increasing in strength thanks to outside aid.
 
The baseline is that it’s not, and no 9-11, no war on terror.

But the catch here is that 9/11 was planned by Al-Quaeda, not the Taliban. Without the Taliban Bin Laden wouldn't have received government protection in the 1990s and into the 2000s. Butterflies could mean that Bin Laden ends up dead (Clinton came very close in 1998) and 9/11 never happens at all. Or Bin Laden is killed and his followers execute some version of 9/11 anyway.

Either way, if Carter and Reagan never supported the Mujahedeen then Al-Quaeda and Bin Laden would have been a lot less powerful in the 1990's. If 9/11 still happens (which is a lot less likely in this scenario), then Bush wouldn't need to invade Afghanistan if the Taliban doesn't take power. Instead we'd probably see a joint US-Afghan operation to get Bin Laden in September/October 2001.
 
Without the aid, 40th Army wins Afghanistan by 1983 at the latest. Even IOTL, ISI and CIA were expecting them to win by 1985, with mop up finishing in 86/87.
 
Without the aid, 40th Army wins Afghanistan by 1983 at the latest. Even IOTL, ISI and CIA were expecting them to win by 1985, with mop up finishing in 86/87.

According to Carter's NSA Advisor, the biggest reason they directed the aid in the first place was to provoke the Soviets to invade in order to trap the Communists in a Vietnam-style quagmire. Without the aid, it's a lot less likely that the Soviets invade to begin with.
 
Top