Since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, it has failed to consolidate the rule of its Marxist client in Kabul. Although there are occasional reports that the government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) has increased its control, events over the last year confirm an overall lack of progress and the growing strength of the Afghan resistance. The Soviet-sponsored regime has made few political gains and its administrative and combat performance has not greatly improved--a record that led to the abrupt resignation of Afghan leader Babrak Karmal on May 4, 1986. The mujahedeen resistance, on the other hand, is more capable than ever, boosted by increasing firepower, operational and political cooperation and international support. It is slowly but steadily evolving into a powerful military force.
Craig M. Karp is a State Department political analyst for the Near East and South Asia. This article is adapted from the authors Afghanistan: Six Years of Soviet Occupation, United States Department of State Special Report No. 135, December 1985. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Eliza Van Hollen, Peter Colm, Paul Trottier, Lisa Carty, Ron Lorton, Desiree Millikan, John Zerolis and, on Soviet internal developments, Paul Goble. The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of State.
Since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, it has failed to consolidate the rule of its Marxist client in Kabul. Although there are occasional reports that the government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) has increased its control, events over the last year confirm an overall lack of progress and the growing strength of the Afghan resistance. The Soviet-sponsored regime has made few political gains and its administrative and combat performance has not greatly improved—a record that led to the abrupt resignation of Afghan leader Babrak Karmal on May 4, 1986. The mujahedeen resistance, on the other hand, is more capable than ever, boosted by increasing firepower, operational and political cooperation and international support. It is slowly but steadily evolving into a powerful military force.
The Soviets, however, are looking to the long haul. Facing increasing losses in the field, as well as the beginnings of dissent at home, Moscow has responded with marginal military adjustments and hints of diplomatic flexibility. Nevertheless, the costs to the Soviet Union seem manageable, and there is no evidence that it is willing to withdraw until its proxies are confirmed in power. Afghan tenacity and international pressure could someday force Moscow to change its calculations. But, at best, this will take years.
II
Two years ago, Soviet forces failed in a massive assault to eliminate the resistance in the Panjsher Valley. Since then the resistance has increasingly taken the military initiative. The overall level of combat has steadily intensified, even during the customary winter lull, when the focus of combat shifts to the south and west. Every summer the pace of fighting escalates as the mujahedeen take the offensive. The Soviet and DRA militaries have been forced to respond to these attacks with increasing force in order to stave off major losses. Were Soviet troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Kabul regime could not long hold off the mujahedeen.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
When Gorbachev came to power, the influence of the military had declined somewhat from its highest point in the early 1970s. It was tainted with the blunders of SS-20 deployment, Afghanistan and the shooting down of the Korean airliner (later, the Mathias Rust flight supplied a fourth blunder). Notes in some detail changes of personnel, which have tended to reduce military influence, as has the greater assertiveness by the Party. The military have generally supported Gorbachev's arms control policy but the shift in doctrine from parity to reasonable sufficiency has been argued more by civilian than military analysts. Notes that technological imperative transcends the military-civil divide. Gorbachev needs to continue to control personnel, to enjoy some economic and arms control success and to avert upheaval in Eastern Europe.
Discusses (1) the size of Soviet military forces (nuclear, naval, air and ground) (2) the ideological drive behind Soviet defence policy (3) possible future doctrinal developments. Since the late 1970s, changing technology has stimulated doctrinal change, giving rise to concepts of multi-front operations. But the doctrinal vision is at the moment unrealisable, and the Soviets may thus be seeking to reduce nuclear arsenals, so as to make defence of the rear easier in wartime. Concludes that, in the light of the continuing ideological basis of Soviet doctrine, the West must be careful not to underestimate the danger which lies behind the undermining of deterrence through badly-conceived arms control measures. Director, National Security Agency, 1985-88. Very useful analysis, recommended.
Overview of the Cold War era, assessing its phases, US-Soviet strategies and tactics, and opportunities missed by both sides. The West faces the collapse not merely of Soviet power, but of "the great Russian empire, which laster for more than three hundred years". The West's objectives should now be to encourage the emergence of a "truly post-imperial Russia" and the "stable consolidation of the newly-independent non-Russian states".
