Blowback of the Third Kind

[JCWisc at aol.com]

In a message dated 09/30/2002 11:18:26 PM Central Daylight Time, 
qualiall at union.org.za writes:

> 've been thinking about the "blowback" argument against
>  war, and I really don't see how it can be taken seriously.

Well, here's the way I see it.  The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to 
assist their ideological comrades-in-arms, Afghan commies who had managed 
somehow to take state power.  The Afghan commies' intentions were to 
modernize their country--get some industry started, break down the old tribal 
stucture of authority, and so on.  The Afghan commies, especially once they 
whistled up their Soviet allies,  met with armed resistance from the old 
feudal society, and the latter found a willing ally in the US, who, in order 
to stick a finger in the eye of the USSR, supplied the war lords with 
munitions and money and training beyond their wildest dreams.  The US 
deliberately supported the most radically fundamentalist elements because 
they were the most fanatical.  US aid was extended not just to the nascent 
Taliban, but also to like-minded individuals and groups from around the 
Muslim world, such as OBL and AQ.  These people always had their own agenda, 
though.  They were happy to accept US aid so long as it suited their purposes 
and so long as the US was willing to give it, but they had about as much use 
for the US as they did for the USSR.  Once they had won their war against the 
USSR and the Afghan commies, they turned their gaze on their former patrons, 
who had by that time angered them by stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and 
for a host of other reasons.  Taking advantage of the training they had 
received from the US, they set out to strike a blow against their own former 
masters--only it was American workers who took the hit.

The US power elite didn't intend for their Afghan anti-Soviet adventure to 
turn out the way it did, but it happened nevertheless.  Unintended 
consequences. Blowback, man.

"Blowback" isn't an argument one way or another for or against war, whether 
in Afghanistan or Iraq.  It's an attempt to explain how 9-11 happened--what 
was the chain of events that led to this?  It's also to some degree an answer 
to the question, "why," though the "why" question admits of deeper, more 
abstract analyses.

Jacob Conrad