Has America fallen into a bear trap?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I was reviewing some theories behind the fall of the Soviet Union and came across something interesting. A theory I subscribe to supposes that the reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of a strategy Reagan employed during the Cold War.

Reagan stretched the Soviets by using American influence in regions that bordered the Soviet Union. This kept opening up new "fronts" that the Soviets had to respond to, and forced them to spend great amounts of money to expand and maintain their military. The final nail in the coffin was when the Soviets went into Afghanistan and the US managed to train the mujahideen in very effective guerllia war tactics that continued to chip away at the invading army. This spread the military too thin, and forced the country to spend so much money, that their economy began to fail. This brought on the fall of the Iron Curtain as the Soviets could no longer afford to look after the masses. It was either let the people go, or have another bloody civil war. Cooler heads prevailed.


So using this as a template, could al Qeada, the old mujahideen, have learned their lessons well and have taken advantage of an administration with delusions of grandeur and an imperialistic dream? Would the PNAC's plan, published is 1997, have given bin Laden the basis for his plan to bring down America? Could these guerllia tactics be employed on a global level and work in such a way that America will spend billions of dollars chasing the terrorist threat around the globe until the United States is left with no allies, has taxed the economy to the point of failure, and is spread so thin that they are subject to a crippling blow that brings the whole "empire" down on itself leading to potential civil war or dramatic ideological change?

The irony of this possibility is the fact that America gave this strategy to the mujahideen and trained them. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a plan devised to defeat America's greatest enemy used to defeat America itself? Just a thought. Comments?

[CaramonLS]

I see the theory that you are using, its a republican theory of the followers of Reagan, that he over spent the Soviets into the ground (which I think is complete and utter horsesh*t to be honest).

I don't know if it would be possible for any president to spend the economy into ruin, as I see it there are too many checks and balances... no matter how stupid the man is running the country.

As there are free votes in the house of reps/senate, there would be moderate republicans rejecting certain budgets and spending plans outright and siding with the democrats - I just don't think that the president could manage to pull the wool over the eyes and completely spend the economy into ruin.

Thats not to say they could burn America's war chest, but the real question is, how much does America have that they could donate to the war? I think they have more money than Al Queda could ever dream of hoping them to burn.

[Cowperson]

that America will spend billions of dollars chasing the terrorist threat around the globe until the United States is left with no allies,

They're more likely to gain allies than lose them in that scenario.

We know Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were only paying lip service to fighting terrorism until recently when Al-Quada tried to assassinate President Mushariff in Pakistan and a series of deadly bombings occurred in Saudi, threatening the rule of the royal family. Now those two countries appear to be genuinely hunting the evil in their midst and have had success.

Similarily, an American foe on the Iraqi question, Russia, is definitely in the anti-terror groove after Beslan and a few other attacks.

As well, while Iraq might be a one-country show (sorry Brits, just making a point), Afghanistan is a genuine multi-national effort with a UN mandate.

And NATO is now training soldiers and police in Iraq I believe.

Working for your theory Lanny is the observation that al-Queda is attempting to open places like Africa and Indonesia as fronts and I saw an article the other day indicating that a target may be global oil production with places like Nigeria and obviously Arabia as targets for insurgency and sabotage.

The latter makes some sense to me in terms of a credible strategy.

Just my observations.

As to Afghanistan, the Soviets were effectively winning until the Americans supplied Stinger missiles to the insurgents which negated the advantage of Russian air power, particularly assault helicopters.

Our military experts on the board might disagree, and I will bow to their judgement, buts that the way it looked to me.

The insurgents in Iraq seemed to have something going in that regard about a year ago but their surface to air capability has disappeared.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting concept with the Soviet loss in Afganistan. Cow you a partially right, the introduction of Stinger missiles completely neutalized the Soviet air advantage as far as low ground support is concerned.

The second thing that caused the failure of the Soviet Army in Afganistan was the fact that in the second year of that war the Afghans went from a more conventional strategy to one where they forced the Soviet Army to fight them in mountain passes causing the Soviets to lose the advantage of vehicle mobility.

The third impact on the Soviets was the destruction of the moral of the average Soviet Soldier. Between the treatment of soldiers by the Afghans, to the poor support from the homefront, to the poorly trained officers and the fact that thier seargents were no better trained then they were (goofy soviet ranks system) it destroyed thier will to fight.

The fundemental poor performance of Soviet armour and frontal aviation units caused the battle to become a man against man battle instead of a modern army against a primitive insurgency. The advantage always go to the home team in that kind of situation.

And Afghanistan was a big factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union

as was the fact that the Star Wars defense project caused the Soviets to spend billions to try to develop a mirror system.

The American build up of conventional naval and army forces in Europe forced the Soviets to spend a bucket full of money to maintain thier 5-1 numbers advantage

The continued poor performance of the agriculture and resource based industries.

The very public quashings in Poland and other warsaw pact nations caused the wall to come down.

The fact that while externally East Germany looked like a fraternal socialist country, they were basically at war with the Russians over policy and security and the Soviets never trusted them, caused them to lose a grip on Germany.

The whole folding of communism in Russia is a interesting study because everyone knew it was coming, but nobody predicted the speed and lack of resistance that was initially witnessed.

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I think the propaganda war played the biggest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that economic factors, and military spending weren't important factors too, but I downplay their role.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant. If anything, it only made things worse for a while as it created and perpetuated the "good-guy/bad-guy" theme of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev made concessions to the liberal movement in Russia, it couldn't be controlled until communism fell.

[Displaced Flames fan]

What role do you think the desire for personal freedom played for Russians FA? Or were they just all brainwashed by Western propoganda?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 1 2004, 03:30 AM
Personally, I think the propaganda war played the biggest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that economic factors, and military spending weren't important factors too, but I downplay their role.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant. If anything, it only made things worse for a while as it created and perpetuated the "good-guy/bad-guy" theme of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev made concessions to the liberal movement in Russia, it couldn't be controlled until communism fell.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant.

The introduction of the desktop computer in the early 1980's, which helped breach the information barrier with a closed society, was probably significant as well in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

China is trying to control that by blocking access to tens of thousands of external websites but its a full time job requiring a gigantic bureacracy and its obviously a lost cause.

However, I do agree the arms race did eventually bankrupt the Soviet Union and agree the convincing myth of the Star Wars project pushed them over the edge.

But the free flow of information was critical.

Who can forget when the Berlin Wall went down and the ensuing days saw hordes of East Germans wandering stunned through glittering Berlin, realizing they had been lied to about their system and seeing the evidence in such an obvious and blunt manner?

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 1 2004, 03:30 AM
Personally, I think the propaganda war played the biggest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that economic factors, and military spending weren't important factors too, but I downplay their role.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant. If anything, it only made things worse for a while as it created and perpetuated the "good-guy/bad-guy" theme of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev made concessions to the liberal movement in Russia, it couldn't be controlled until communism fell.

I don't disagree with this at all. And it makes a lot of sense. However do you really think blue jeans and rock and roll really had an impact on the average Soviet that had to stand in line for an hour or more to buy a loaf of bread.

I honestly figure that one of the biggest factors was that the members of the Politburo

1) Believed the lies that they were getting on production, and when it came time to count on those figures, and they weren't there the economy collapsed.

2) The Politburo completely lost touch with the people that they served, and were convinced to the last days that the people were happy, well fed and warm, and were in no position to correct the problems when they came to a head.

Yes Western Propoganda probably had a place in the scheme of thing, but I don't really know how much of it really got through to the people, because Perostroika (sp?) or not, the media was still controled by the government, so in reality the main thrust of the propaganda came from the government itself.

Just my thoughts

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 30 2004, 09:30 PM
Personally, I think the propaganda war played the biggest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that economic factors, and military spending weren't important factors too, but I downplay their role.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant. If anything, it only made things worse dor a while as it created and perpetuated the "good-guy/bad-guy" theme of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev made concessions to the liberal movement in Russia, it couldn't be controlled until communism fell.

Unfortunately for the Soviets, blue jeans and rock music were a legitimately good alternative to, umm, not blue jeans and not rock music.

On a related note... a friend of mine grew up in Pilzn (Czech) and to hear her tell it, the only people that bought into the system, as opposed to just paying appropriate lip service to it, were mocked and ridiculed (including her own grandfather). With that kind of attitude in the "member states", it was doomed no matter how many times Bon Jovi was allowed to play in Moscow.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 1 2004, 03:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 1 2004, 03:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Oct 1 2004, 03:30 AM
Personally, I think the propaganda war played the biggest role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Not that economic factors, and military spending weren't important factors too, but I downplay their role.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant. If anything, it only made things worse for a while as it created and perpetuated the "good-guy/bad-guy" theme of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev made concessions to the liberal movement in Russia, it couldn't be controlled until communism fell.

The U.S. and west in general, promoted itself and convinced almost a whole generation of young Russians that "blue jeans and rock music" (American images in general) were good things. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and had to modernize, and I personally don't think the arms race was all that significant.

The introduction of the desktop computer in the early 1980's, which helped breach the information barrier with a closed society, was probably significant as well in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

China is trying to control that by blocking access to tens of thousands of external websites but its a full time job requiring a gigantic bureacracy and its obviously a lost cause.

However, I do agree the arms race did eventually bankrupt the Soviet Union and agree the convincing myth of the Star Wars project pushed them over the edge.

But the free flow of information was critical.

Who can forget when the Berlin Wall went down and the ensuing days saw hordes of East Germans wandering stunned through glittering Berlin, realizing they had been lied to about their system and seeing the evidence in such an obvious and blunt manner?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I'm not so sure about that Cow. I'm not positive that the Personal Computer in the early 80's was the information conduit that it is now. IIRC the Personal computer didn't really enter into the Soviet Union (beyond the very favored) until the late 80's to early 90's.

I'm sure it had a factor due to BBS, but with the primitive phone systems at the time you have to wonder if most russians really had access to it.

I read a book about a Soviet Defector from 1985 and he thought the CIA was lying to him when they offered him a PC, this gentleman didn't believe that the average person could afford it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just to be clear, the "blue jeans and rock" statement was in quotes because I only meant it as an analogy to the ideal of personal independence and expression. They wanted in on that culture. It became a desired theme, and understandably since the old system ran its course. A lot of people forget that Russia and other Soviet Republics were the last feudal holdovers in Europe. It's not hard to see why totalitarian regimes were supported there for so long. In general though, the people in eastern Europe come from the same Judeo-Christian stock as the west, they just had about 150 years of industrial and political catching up to create a climate for a liberal democracy.

The 70s and 80s really started to globalize capitalism to the point that people in the USSR couldn't ignore it any more. The same thing is happening with China now.

BTW Dis, propaganda does not mean brainwashing. Propaganda does not have to be false information. It can also be the promotion or exclusion of true information. It's really just a promotion of doctrine, or spreading information for a cause. If I told someone living in a communist country that capitalism allowed me the freedom to be independent and self-employed, it would be true, but at the same time it would be a form of propaganda.

[Hack&Lube]

I think one of the most popular theories is simply that Reagan spent so damn much on military, science, and industry that the Soviet Union realized it just couldn't keep up. Even just in STARWARS, which was never successful (and perhaps US scientists realized it was a pipe dream), the Soviets believe the US believed it was possible and actually spent MORE than the US trying to come up with a system that could combat it. Of course, Reagan is responsible for much of the debt that the US owes today.

In the late 80s, the Soviet Economy was so wrecked and in such poor shape that many higher-ups and Gorbachev realized the Soviet Union could nolonger compete without the drive of capitalist innovation.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I'm surprised how much weight is being given to the military spending.

I have no doubt that accelerated the fall of the Soviets, and maybe thats the point, but the fall itself was inevitable.

That kind of command economy just can't keep up, whether they chose to produce guns or butter it wouldn't have mattered. Long before Regan they became one giant Enron that was doomed to fail no matter what.

To Lanny's idea, the American's might be engaging in some bad foreign policy and you can argue that Bush's deficits are bad economic policy somewhat linked to Iraq, but the american economy is not based on smoke and mirrors and if the US wakes up one day to find they actually have nothing it won't be becasue of Iraq.

[Looger]

whoever thinks SDI was an american ploy to accelerate the slide of the USSR should look at who started such development.

the soviet union, in the 70s, had hunter-killer satellites operational, and many projects on the go for strategic defense.

the united states was merely trying to catch up.

as to the topic at hand, the mujahadeen are NOT the 'old al-quaeda'

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Looger@Oct 1 2004, 10:40 PM

as to the topic at hand, the mujahadeen are NOT the 'old al-quaeda'

No, but al Qaeda is made up of mujahideen veterans. At least this is what the paper trail has shown.

[Looger]

the mujahadeen, or 'soldiers of god', were an unorganized rabble of farmers with homemade .303 rifles.

they are descendents, genetically and spiritually, of the untamed and untamable central asians which the british, persian, and russian empires gave up ruling and set aside a large lawless zone for.

when the godless soviet union began to try and annex this dead land, the warring tribes put aside some of their differences for the common good - slipping out from under the yoke of the 'forward-thinking' kabulites that wanted to rule all the countryside with help from their friendly marxist neighbours to the north.

these tribes started enlisting some support from rich arabs that tended towards some of the more extreme views. this was a war against islam, a pogrom, and money, weapons, training sites etc. were bought and paid for by these arabs and their rich uncle sam. pakistan was all the more willing to help, and the taliban became a reality.

the money, so to speak, is where al-quaeda comes from.

al-quaeda spawns from the dream that america sold them - that with faith and a little money a superpower can be defeated.

afghanistan's unstable and tortured history was starting to come under one yoke again, this time from the west-backed taliban. the civil wars were over, and the relentless raiding and pillaging was greatly reduced in the parts of the country controlled by the taliban.

the taliban was starting to rub the whole mideast the wrong way. iran took great issue with them, on many selfish grounds, as well the moderate arab world in general was horrified in 200 and 2001 when the taliban started blowing up ancient hindi monuments and priceless archeological digs.

the taliban and its al-quaeda buddies had pretty much run out of goodwill with the established regimes running the mideast, their only friends were the money of anti-establishment extreme and extremely rich arabs (ie. osama and his ilk), wahabbism cloaked as charitable donations, and of course your average american taxpayer.

the last payment of $250 000 000 was made from the US government to the taliban in april 2001 or so.

the mujahadeen, for the most part, have gone back to opium farming, goat wrestling, and dodging authority.

i really don't see this whole sitution as a thorn in the side of america, i see it as a carrot held in front of the masses.

in conclusion the situation is a little more complex then sending a checque in the mail to blow up the soviets, and suddenly have a bunch of guys taking planes into buildings with that support.

many things are involved.

and it has very little to do with afghanistan.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 30 2004, 11:21 PM
I was reviewing some theories behind the fall of the Soviet Union and came across something interesting. A theory I subscribe to supposes that the reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of a strategy Reagan employed during the Cold War.

Reagan stretched the Soviets by using American influence in regions that bordered the Soviet Union. This kept opening up new "fronts" that the Soviets had to respond to, and forced them to spend great amounts of money to expand and maintain their military. The final nail in the coffin was when the Soviets went into Afghanistan and the US managed to train the mujahideen in very effective guerllia war tactics that continued to chip away at the invading army. This spread the military too thin, and forced the country to spend so much money, that their economy began to fail. This brought on the fall of the Iron Curtain as the Soviets could no longer afford to look after the masses. It was either let the people go, or have another bloody civil war. Cooler heads prevailed.

I wonder how many people suffered and died as a result of the collapse of the USSR's economy, and the poverty and civil war that followed?

Gives Reagan's legacy a whole new meaning, doesnt it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Oct 2 2004, 02:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Oct 2 2004, 02:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 30 2004, 11:21 PM
I was reviewing some theories behind the fall of the Soviet Union and came across something interesting. A theory I subscribe to supposes that the reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of a strategy Reagan employed during the Cold War.

Reagan stretched the Soviets by using American influence in regions that bordered the Soviet Union. This kept opening up new "fronts" that the Soviets had to respond to, and forced them to spend great amounts of money to expand and maintain their military. The final nail in the coffin was when the Soviets went into Afghanistan and the US managed to train the mujahideen in very effective guerllia war tactics that continued to chip away at the invading army. This spread the military too thin, and forced the country to spend so much money, that their economy began to fail. This brought on the fall of the Iron Curtain as the Soviets could no longer afford to look after the masses. It was either let the people go, or have another bloody civil war. Cooler heads prevailed.

I wonder how many people suffered and died as a result of the collapse of the USSR's economy, and the poverty and civil war that followed?

Gives Reagan's legacy a whole new meaning, doesnt it? [/b][/quote]
Now your going to blame America for deaths caused by the collapse of a brutal and destructive form of government.

thats rich

Deaths caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and thier system of government have no impact on Reagan or the States.

In fact since they ended up emasulating the KGB, and caused some serious court and human rights reforms they probably saved lives.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Oct 1 2004, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Oct 1 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 30 2004, 11:21 PM
I was reviewing some theories behind the fall of the Soviet Union and came across something interesting. A theory I subscribe to supposes that the reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of a strategy Reagan employed during the Cold War.

Reagan stretched the Soviets by using American influence in regions that bordered the Soviet Union. This kept opening up new "fronts" that the Soviets had to respond to, and forced them to spend great amounts of money to expand and maintain their military. The final nail in the coffin was when the Soviets went into Afghanistan and the US managed to train the mujahideen in very effective guerllia war tactics that continued to chip away at the invading army. This spread the military too thin, and forced the country to spend so much money, that their economy began to fail. This brought on the fall of the Iron Curtain as the Soviets could no longer afford to look after the masses. It was either let the people go, or have another bloody civil war. Cooler heads prevailed.

I wonder how many people suffered and died as a result of the collapse of the USSR's economy, and the poverty and civil war that followed?

Gives Reagan's legacy a whole new meaning, doesnt it? [/b][/quote]
I'm not one to champion the legacy of Ronald Reagan, but that is quite a reach.

If I can use a cheap hockey analogy (which apparently I'm going to), what you are suggesting is like me saying Wayne Gretzky's legacy is tainted because of what he did to Flames fans in the mid 80's.