4 ms·

Well, in this case, the collapse started mostly with the USSR as far as I know. So, what "we" may mean in this context I do not know.

potatolicious 13y ago
Afghanistan's troubles, sadly, predate the Soviets by quite a wide margin. The USSR was just one more interloper in a long line of interlopers. They weren't the first, and clearly they weren't the last. A good book on this subject is "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East" by Robert Fisk. Agree or disagree with his stance (particularly re: Israel), but his understanding of the history and context of the Middle East cannot be ignored. tl;dr summary: Before the Soviets Afghanistan was played as a border state by the British, seeking to use it as a buffer state to protect India against perceived Russian aggression.
- smsm42 13y ago
  This appears to be the same Robert Fisk whose numerous factual errors gave birth to a special term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking I'm not sure if it is a good source to rely on. His stance is not what would be worrying me most, his accuracy and his ability to correctly represent facts and make conclusions would be.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    I've heard of Fisking, but I haven't read the original article that inspired the term until now. I don't think "factual errors" is a correct representation here, considering that the original article[1] made no accusations of factual impropriety. Nor was there question w.r.t. the facts as Fisk represented them. The original rebuttal centered purely on alleged reverse racism on Fisk's part - that he received a beating at the hands of Afghan refugees and chose to blame their circumstances rather than the individuals. The event itself and the facts surrounding it were not questioned - only Fisk's stance on it. The main thrust of the article does not dispute any facts, or representation of facts. Fisk's piece is criticized as "leftist pathology", and the opening of Fisk's article is described as "one of the defining quotes of the idiotic left". This does not strike me as a "fact-based, point by point rebuttal". I'm familiar with the argument-form that fisking refers to, but the article that inspired the term seems to be a shockingly poor example of it. Anyways, considering that Fisk is an unapologetic member of the far Left, and Sullivan an unapologetic member of the far Right, I'm not convinced that "fisking" is a credible criticism of Fisk himself. If anything, Sullivan's original article that criticizes Fisk shows that his facts are on the money, it's his stance on them that's problematic. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_12_09_dish_archive.html#7786744 http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsulli...
    - smsm42 13y ago
      >>> the original article that inspired the term It's not one article. There were many others. The term was coined exactly because Fisk produced a lot of content that resulted in well deserved debunking, not just one questionably racist article. On top of it, the guy seems to be a proponent of Internet censorship[1] - which of course doesn't make his ME dispatches wrong, many other factors do - but add to the portrait. >>> Sullivan an unapologetic member of the far Right Err, how exactly a person that publicly supported John Kerry, Barack Obama and Democratic Party and identifies with them on many issues - from same sex marriage to Middle East policy - qualifies as "far right"? He calls himself conservative, but I can call myself the Pope - it wouldn't make me one. He's a moderate liberal with some libertarian leanings, nowhere near "far Right". [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-comments-are-as-pathetic-as-the-anonymous-sources-that-contaminate-gutless-journalism-from-the-new-york-times-bbc-and-cnn-8446788.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-commen...
a-nikolaev 13y ago
The soviet war in Afghanistan was a part of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, all major powers were heavily involved there. http://terrorism.about.com/od/warinafghanistan/ss/AfghanistanWar_2.htm http://terrorism.about.com/od/warinafghanistan/ss/Afghanista...
- beat 13y ago
  It was also a buffer between the USSR and the Iranian revolution. The US got involved because it could inexpensively play the freedom card (with someone else's blood) against both communism and Islamic fundamentalism.
  - a-nikolaev 13y ago
    thanks, I didn't know.

potatolicious 13y ago

Afghanistan's troubles, sadly, predate the Soviets by quite a wide margin. The USSR was just one more interloper in a long line of interlopers. They weren't the first, and clearly they weren't the last. A good book on this subject is "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East" by Robert Fisk. Agree or disagree with his stance (particularly re: Israel), but his understanding of the history and context of the Middle East cannot be ignored. tl;dr summary: Before the Soviets Afghanistan was played as a border state by the British, seeking to use it as a buffer state to protect India against perceived Russian aggression.

smsm42 13y ago
This appears to be the same Robert Fisk whose numerous factual errors gave birth to a special term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking I'm not sure if it is a good source to rely on. His stance is not what would be worrying me most, his accuracy and his ability to correctly represent facts and make conclusions would be.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  I've heard of Fisking, but I haven't read the original article that inspired the term until now. I don't think "factual errors" is a correct representation here, considering that the original article[1] made no accusations of factual impropriety. Nor was there question w.r.t. the facts as Fisk represented them. The original rebuttal centered purely on alleged reverse racism on Fisk's part - that he received a beating at the hands of Afghan refugees and chose to blame their circumstances rather than the individuals. The event itself and the facts surrounding it were not questioned - only Fisk's stance on it. The main thrust of the article does not dispute any facts, or representation of facts. Fisk's piece is criticized as "leftist pathology", and the opening of Fisk's article is described as "one of the defining quotes of the idiotic left". This does not strike me as a "fact-based, point by point rebuttal". I'm familiar with the argument-form that fisking refers to, but the article that inspired the term seems to be a shockingly poor example of it. Anyways, considering that Fisk is an unapologetic member of the far Left, and Sullivan an unapologetic member of the far Right, I'm not convinced that "fisking" is a credible criticism of Fisk himself. If anything, Sullivan's original article that criticizes Fisk shows that his facts are on the money, it's his stance on them that's problematic. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_12_09_dish_archive.html#7786744 http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsulli...
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>> the original article that inspired the term It's not one article. There were many others. The term was coined exactly because Fisk produced a lot of content that resulted in well deserved debunking, not just one questionably racist article. On top of it, the guy seems to be a proponent of Internet censorship[1] - which of course doesn't make his ME dispatches wrong, many other factors do - but add to the portrait. >>> Sullivan an unapologetic member of the far Right Err, how exactly a person that publicly supported John Kerry, Barack Obama and Democratic Party and identifies with them on many issues - from same sex marriage to Middle East policy - qualifies as "far right"? He calls himself conservative, but I can call myself the Pope - it wouldn't make me one. He's a moderate liberal with some libertarian leanings, nowhere near "far Right". [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-comments-are-as-pathetic-as-the-anonymous-sources-that-contaminate-gutless-journalism-from-the-new-york-times-bbc-and-cnn-8446788.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-commen...

a-nikolaev 13y ago

The soviet war in Afghanistan was a part of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, all major powers were heavily involved there. http://terrorism.about.com/od/warinafghanistan/ss/AfghanistanWar_2.htm http://terrorism.about.com/od/warinafghanistan/ss/Afghanista...

beat 13y ago
It was also a buffer between the USSR and the Iranian revolution. The US got involved because it could inexpensively play the freedom card (with someone else's blood) against both communism and Islamic fundamentalism.
- a-nikolaev 13y ago
  thanks, I didn't know.