4 ms·

Honestly? Afghanistan's a really difficult region to unify politically; it's only happened a handful of times in history. On top of that, the global trend in th

Honestly? Afghanistan's a really difficult region to unify politically; it's only happened a handful of times in history. On top of that, the global trend in the last ~100 years has been towards nationalism and away from consolidated, sprawling empires. Due to the geography and ethnic composition of Afghanistan, it's highly unlikely that the Soviets would have been able to do exercise much control over it in the long-run with any semblance of stability[0]. So I'd be very skeptical of the idea that it would have turned into anything resembling North Korea. In all honesty, it would probably look relatively similar to what it does today. In that alternate universe, it wouldn't necessarily be the Taliban itself that came to power, but the group that occupied that role would be similar in ideology and effect to the Taliban that exists in this universe. [0] ignoring the pending collapse of the USSR, of course, but since this is all speculation anyway, we can take some liberties.

mahyarm 11y ago
Would a balkanized afghanistan be politically stable eventually then?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  We're talking about a country that's been used essentially as a pawn by the major imperial powers of each era for the last 200+ years. (This situation is not unique to Afghanistan - which is why many other countries have similar problems - but Afghanistan's geography compounds the effect). The British, Russians, US, Ottomans, Mughals, Safavids - all of them have spent significant time and effort (not to mention military power) trying to secure the region for "their" side. All of them struggled with it, to the point where it's debatable whether any of them ever succeeded. This situation continues on today - so no, I don't think Afghanistan can ever be politically stable as long as it continues to hold this role in global geopolitics[0]. Perhaps circumstances will change and we'll start to see a more stable regime emerge there, but it's kind of hard to force that when one of the major causes for instability in the last two centuries has been external influence in the first place. EDIT: Unrelated to the answer, but I find the use of the word 'balkanized' particularly amusing given the etymology (it refers to the fragmentation of parts of the former Ottoman empire into many states that compete with each other for regional influence). Afghanistan is not part of the Balkan peninsula, but it did have its own fascinating power struggle with the Ottoman empire, and the breakup of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century was a major turning point that influenced the current state of Afghanistan today. [0] I'm not sure any country really could be, for what it's worth, but we're talking about Afghanistan.
sampo 11y ago
> it would probably look relatively similar to what it does today. So, speculatively, even without the US supporting the mujahideen in the 80s, the Soviets would have eventually left, Taliban or something similar would have kind-of-won the civil war, and Afghanistan would be about the same chaos as it is now. So why is US blamed for "destabilizing Afghanistan" and "unintended consequences", if the area would probably be similarly unstable even in this alternate timeline? And if bin Laden and such are anti-American in our universe, even after having received American support in the 80s, they surely would be anti-American in the alternate timeline, too? So if the US meddling didn't change anything for the worse, why all the blame?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > why is US blamed for "destabilizing Afghanistan" and "unintended consequences", if the area would probably be similarly unstable even in this alternate timeline? if the US meddling didn't change anything for the worse, why all the blame? Well, first, I didn't say that the US "didn't change anything for the worse". I just said that it wouldn't have resulted in a more stable regime, ceteris paribus. Stability is not the only axis on which to evaluate whether the result would have been better or worse[0]. And we're just talking about the US's actions. The US and the USSR are both responsible for the current situation; the "blame" doesn't have to be assigned unilaterally to one single entity. [0] I'm also deliberately not defining "stability", because that's already an incredibly hefty topic when discussing middle eastern history and politics.

mahyarm 11y ago

Would a balkanized afghanistan be politically stable eventually then?

chimeracoder 11y ago
We're talking about a country that's been used essentially as a pawn by the major imperial powers of each era for the last 200+ years. (This situation is not unique to Afghanistan - which is why many other countries have similar problems - but Afghanistan's geography compounds the effect). The British, Russians, US, Ottomans, Mughals, Safavids - all of them have spent significant time and effort (not to mention military power) trying to secure the region for "their" side. All of them struggled with it, to the point where it's debatable whether any of them ever succeeded. This situation continues on today - so no, I don't think Afghanistan can ever be politically stable as long as it continues to hold this role in global geopolitics[0]. Perhaps circumstances will change and we'll start to see a more stable regime emerge there, but it's kind of hard to force that when one of the major causes for instability in the last two centuries has been external influence in the first place. EDIT: Unrelated to the answer, but I find the use of the word 'balkanized' particularly amusing given the etymology (it refers to the fragmentation of parts of the former Ottoman empire into many states that compete with each other for regional influence). Afghanistan is not part of the Balkan peninsula, but it did have its own fascinating power struggle with the Ottoman empire, and the breakup of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century was a major turning point that influenced the current state of Afghanistan today. [0] I'm not sure any country really could be, for what it's worth, but we're talking about Afghanistan.

sampo 11y ago

> it would probably look relatively similar to what it does today. So, speculatively, even without the US supporting the mujahideen in the 80s, the Soviets would have eventually left, Taliban or something similar would have kind-of-won the civil war, and Afghanistan would be about the same chaos as it is now. So why is US blamed for "destabilizing Afghanistan" and "unintended consequences", if the area would probably be similarly unstable even in this alternate timeline? And if bin Laden and such are anti-American in our universe, even after having received American support in the 80s, they surely would be anti-American in the alternate timeline, too? So if the US meddling didn't change anything for the worse, why all the blame?

chimeracoder 11y ago
> why is US blamed for "destabilizing Afghanistan" and "unintended consequences", if the area would probably be similarly unstable even in this alternate timeline? if the US meddling didn't change anything for the worse, why all the blame? Well, first, I didn't say that the US "didn't change anything for the worse". I just said that it wouldn't have resulted in a more stable regime, ceteris paribus. Stability is not the only axis on which to evaluate whether the result would have been better or worse[0]. And we're just talking about the US's actions. The US and the USSR are both responsible for the current situation; the "blame" doesn't have to be assigned unilaterally to one single entity. [0] I'm also deliberately not defining "stability", because that's already an incredibly hefty topic when discussing middle eastern history and politics.