4 ms·

It's worth noting that the CIA effectively created Al-Qaeda, and also likely had some hands in Putins rise to power (https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/how-a

It's worth noting that the CIA effectively created Al-Qaeda, and also likely had some hands in Putins rise to power (https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/how-america-helped-make-vladimir-putin-dictator-for-life https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/how-america-helped-mak...). However, the big issue is that you can't argue the values of liberal democracy, the rule of law, elections, freedom of speech, but at the same time overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments and keep people believing you. I believe that the CIA has done more to destroy the trust in democracy and promote the rise of totalitarian regimes that we are seeing now, than any other single entity. Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO.

arp242 1y ago
I don't know that much about Putin, but "some hands in Putins rise to power" is not really substantiated by your article. It just claims that the US knew some things and didn't act on them, and provides some weak evidence for it. In general I think the hope was always that Russia would see the benefits of liberal democracy and would slowly shift in that direction. Jumping on every incident wasn't really worth it, so they were willing to forgive them. That shift to liberal democracy obviously didn't happen. "Created Al-Qaeda" is certainly far too simplistic. There are unforeseen consequences to everything you do (or don't do). The alternative of leaving Afghanistan to their fate after the Soviet invasion also wasn't appealing. If you want to blame someone for Al Qaeda, then start with the Soviet Union and Pakistan. These two examples also conflict by the way: in one instance they had to do more, and in the other less. It's easy to sit here in judgement decades after the fact, but at the time a lot of this was less clear.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 1y ago
  They did knowingly supply weapons, not just to any random mujahideen groups, but specifically to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar predominantly, with full knowledge of what the guy and his forces are doing with that money, on the basis that it was the most efficient way to hurt the Soviets. I don't think this can be chalked down to "unforeseen consequences". More a case of "the ends justify the means".
HaZeust 1y ago
>"Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO." What's always been funny to me about the CIA is if they didn't even do these things: >"overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments" There probably would have been less - if any - of those terror attacks to worry about in the first place. It always existed to provoke and to force varying degrees of military response from nations we antagonized. It was ALWAYS to justify a status quo propped by a military industrial complex - and to overstay the luxuries given to us by Pax Americana. We could have pulled off a peaceful era without bullying, I'm sure of it.

arp242 1y ago

I don't know that much about Putin, but "some hands in Putins rise to power" is not really substantiated by your article. It just claims that the US knew some things and didn't act on them, and provides some weak evidence for it. In general I think the hope was always that Russia would see the benefits of liberal democracy and would slowly shift in that direction. Jumping on every incident wasn't really worth it, so they were willing to forgive them. That shift to liberal democracy obviously didn't happen. "Created Al-Qaeda" is certainly far too simplistic. There are unforeseen consequences to everything you do (or don't do). The alternative of leaving Afghanistan to their fate after the Soviet invasion also wasn't appealing. If you want to blame someone for Al Qaeda, then start with the Soviet Union and Pakistan. These two examples also conflict by the way: in one instance they had to do more, and in the other less. It's easy to sit here in judgement decades after the fact, but at the time a lot of this was less clear.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 1y ago
They did knowingly supply weapons, not just to any random mujahideen groups, but specifically to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar predominantly, with full knowledge of what the guy and his forces are doing with that money, on the basis that it was the most efficient way to hurt the Soviets. I don't think this can be chalked down to "unforeseen consequences". More a case of "the ends justify the means".

HaZeust 1y ago

>"Even if they prevented some terror attacks (and as we know they failed spectacularly to prevente several), that's not a price worth paying IMO." What's always been funny to me about the CIA is if they didn't even do these things: >"overthrow democratically elected leaders, torture innocents, run vile ph psychological experiments" There probably would have been less - if any - of those terror attacks to worry about in the first place. It always existed to provoke and to force varying degrees of military response from nations we antagonized. It was ALWAYS to justify a status quo propped by a military industrial complex - and to overstay the luxuries given to us by Pax Americana. We could have pulled off a peaceful era without bullying, I'm sure of it.