The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Russian Hypocrisy on Afghanistan

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Russian Hypocrisy on Afghanistan

By Ross Kaminsky on 4.19.12 @ 10:43AM

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious:

Russia, which is helping Iran develop its nuclear capabilities, which is supporting the murderous Bashar al Assad in Syria, and which suffered its most ignominious and embarrassing military defeat in Afghanistan, is criticizing NATO for pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

Perhaps Russia thinks that after a decade of fighting, America hasn’t yet failed quite as badly as the Russians did (even though we’ve now been there longer than they have). Perhaps they want to see our military embroiled and distracted and spending money for years longer so that we don’t have the resources to deal with the truly dangerous regimes Vladimir Putin is supporting.

Putin is an unreformed KGB Cold Warrior. As long as he remains in power, Russia should be considered an enemy of the US.

Russia is offering the use of Russian territory to set up a logistics base so the US can more easily transport materiel into the Afghan theater. They may actually want to help, not wanting Afghanistan — which borders three mostly-Muslim former Soviet Socialist Republics — to return to being a training ground for terrorists who might inspire Islamic radicals in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

But the hypocrisy/irony of their boosting two of the world’s worst regimes, in the same general region, should be lost on nobody.

Here’s my answer: Tell the Russians that if they care so much about keeping the Afghans in line, they can go do it themselves. Putin and Karzai and the Taliban deserve each other.

In the meantime, I remain comfortable with getting our troops out and letting Afghan warlords know that if any harm befalls Americans anywhere which can be traced back to a region under the warlords’ control, the retribution will be biblical in scale.

J.C.Eaton| 4.19.12 @ 1:48PM

Ross, good call on Putin's character, an easy one but good nonetheless.Since at least the times of "Realpolitik", American "statesmen" have deemed that the appropriate way to deal with these types of well-suited criminals and killers of startling scale was to consider them as equals in heirarchical terms and cut one accommodation after another. This never had any lasting positive effect viz. America and was/is venal in any case. Deal with them as you would any bad guy: make life as painful for them as possible. If they need something we've got make the price hurt so bad they can't have it without weakening themselves in some significant way. Only emotions they understand are fear and pain.

Sean| 4.19.12 @ 12:42PM

So Syria now is worse than Saudi Arabia? Syria is the same as all our so called allies in the Middle East. They will kill the opposition. What do you think would happen in any country in that region if there were armed opponents? The government would kill them. Look at Jordan, Bahrain, ect. In fact the USA government would kill protesters also if those protesters were killing police.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich | 4.19.12 @ 2:56PM

Where should I start to pick apart this column? First of all before you Kaminsky and your US State Department points your fingers at Russia for supporting Syria you should remember that your country supports very oppressive regimes throughout the world and in very close proximity to Syria including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen. Now as for Afghanistan. It should be duly noted that Afghanistan did not have an Islamist problem until the U.S.(Charlie Wilson), Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI got together and decided to start an Islamist movement of Mujahadeen to fight the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the late 70's and throughout the 80's. Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and all the major Sunni Islamist players in the world were in some way or another involved in the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Heroin flowing from Afghanistan through Cental Asia and into Russia has exploded since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban is the monster that the US, Pakistan and their Wahhabist Saudi financiers created to fight the Soviet Union. Russian concern over Afghan based Islamists gaining a foothold in the former Soviet Central Asian republics (the Stan's) is a very legitimate concern. I agree that we need to leave Afghanistan, but I also believe the Russians have every right to criticize us because an Islamist re-conquest of Afghanistan effects the Souther Caucusus and former Soviet Central Asia and the Taliban is the bastard child of American foreign policy.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.19.12 @ 5:51PM

Dmitry,

I agree that US foreign policy and history of supporting unsavory characters is worth of some criticism.

And you're right to a large degree about the Taliban as well.

But that's not contradictory to my point.

Each of these is quite different from giving Assad the weapons with which to murder thousands of his own people as they are struggling for freedom.

By the way, we armed the people, many of whom became Taliban, because of the Russian invasion, as you note. So even there, Russia is part of the problem as those people are every bit as much the result of Soviet policy as American policy.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich | 4.20.12 @ 12:23PM

Why did the Russian's invade Afghanistan Ross? For the same reasons the United States invaded Korea and Vietnam. The Russian's invaded Afghanistan at the height of the Cold War to prop up a socialist government that was being threatened by anti-communist insurgents. How is that any different than the U.S. invading Vietnam to protect the South Vietnam government from the Communist Vietcong supported by Hanoi and Moscow.

As for Assad I support him and I will explain why. Since the very beginning of the largely Sunni uprising in Syria their slogan has been "CHRISTIANS TO BEIRUIT, ALAWITES TO THE WALL". Ross the Syrian opposition is not some pro-democracy, pro-Western, peace loving movement and you know it. Some hardened Sunni Islamist/Wahhabist fighters are amongst their ranks including Al Qaeda.Why do you think Assad's forces have continued fighting during the ceasefire? They are being fired upon by the opposition who is taking advantage of the ceasefire however they can. If Assad goes so does Syria's Christians, Alawites and Druze. I support Assad. May God grant him victory over the Salafist/Wahhabist types with American intel and Saudi/Qatari financing. Last but not least Ross it shoulc be remembered that Assad took in Assyrian and Chaldean Christians who were ethnically cleansed from Iraq in the wake of the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime when the U.S. was busy securing oil pipelines while Iraqi Christians were suffering under the Islamist sword.

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?