DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing the U.S. and Soviet Experiences in Afghanistan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing the U.S. and Soviet Experiences in Afghanistan MAY 2009 . VOL 2 . ISSUE 5 Comparing the U.S. and country had been used as a base for violently opposed to the new occupation the 9/11 attacks on the United States. and its atheist ideology. Soviet Experiences in The U.S. goal, endorsed by the United Afghanistan Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty In contrast, polls show most Afghans Organization (NATO), was self-defense have supported the coalition forces By Bruce Riedel against a government that had allowed that overthrew the Taliban, although its territory to be used for an act of that support is now dwindling as the a country rarely fights the same war war against another state. From the coalition has failed to provide law and twice in one generation, especially from beginning, the United States has had no order and reconstruction.4 The Taliban opposite sides. Yet that in many ways ambition to dominate or subjugate the are not widely popular either; support describes the U.S. role in Afghanistan Afghan people, or to stay in Afghanistan for the Taliban is mostly restricted today. In the 1980s, the Central once the threat posed by al-Qa`ida to the Pashtun belt in southern and Intelligence Agency, working from a and the Afghan Taliban is defeated. eastern Afghanistan. It has virtually no safe haven in Pakistan, engineered the President Barack Obama reiterated this appeal to the 60% of Afghans who are largest covert operation in its history to fact in his speech outlining the new U.S. not Pashtun. Therefore, the Soviets’ help defeat the Soviet 40th Red Army in policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on most difficult battlespace—the famous Afghanistan.1 Today, the United States March 27, 2009.2 Panjshir Valley, home of the legendary is fighting a Taliban-led insurgency in Ahmad Shah Massoud (the Lion of the Afghanistan that operates from a safe The Soviet invasion in 1979 was a Panjshir)—is today quiet and devoid haven in Pakistan. Many suggest that different matter. It is now understood of Taliban because it is an exclusively the outcome will be the same for the that Moscow blundered into Afghanistan Tajik area. United States as it was for the Soviet with little appreciation of the difficulties Union—ultimate defeat at the hands of it would face.3 Its goal was to shore up In short, while the Soviets faced a the insurgency. Pakistan’s role as a safe a communist regime that was on the national uprising, the U.S.-led coalition haven is remarkably consistent in both edge of collapse in the face of a national faces a minority insurgency that is conflicts, but focusing exclusively on uprising. The Soviet leadership wanted segregated from much of the country. that similarity misses the fundamental an Afghanistan that would be similar Moscow’s task was much more difficult differences between the two wars. This to other Soviet satellite states and than the one facing NATO today. article will address those differences, under virtual Soviet imperial rule with and will also assess how Pakistan’s only the façade of independence. The Tactics and Support role is impacting the United States’ Soviets may also have had ambitions The Soviets responded to Afghan possibilities for success today. to use Afghanistan as a base to project opposition with a ferocity and brutality authority further south. that made the situation even worse. At Goals and Objectives least 1.5 million Afghans were killed, The first and perhaps most critical The Soviet invasion and the attempt another five million or so fled the difference between the two wars is to impose communism on a rural and country to Iran and Pakistan (one out over goals and objectives. The United largely illiterate Islamic country with of three Afghans), and millions more States intervened in Afghanistan a history of xenophobia produced the were displaced inside the country. A in 2001 on the side of the Northern predictable result: a mass national country that began the war as one of the Alliance to topple the Taliban Islamic uprising. With the exception of small poorest in the world was systematically Emirate of Afghanistan only after the pockets of the urban middle class and impoverished and even emptied of its a few minority regions—most notably people. The Soviet Air Force carpet 1 The story of the first Afghan war has been told from the Uzbek province of Jowzjan where bombed cities such as Kandahar, where many angles. George Crile’s Charlie Wilson’s War: The a tough local warlord, Abdul Rashid the population fell from 250,000 to 5 Extraordinary Story of how the Wildest Man in Congress Dostum, raised a pro-Soviet militia— 25,000. Millions of land mines were and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of our Times virtually the entire country was planted all over the country, with no underplays Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Casey’s role but records kept of where they had been laid. is full of insights into the U.S. side of the war. Robert 2 In his March 27, 2009 speech, President Obama said: Nothing even approaching this level Gates’ memoirs From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s “We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or of horror is happening in Afghanistan Story of Five Presidents and How they Won the Cold War has to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront today. a more balanced view. Also important is Milt Bearden’s a common enemy that threatens the United States, our two books on the war, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and In part because of that brutality, the of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB and The Black Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of vio- Soviet invasion was condemned by Tulip: A Novel of the War in Afghanistan. Bearden was the lent extremists. So I want the American people to under- virtually the entire world except for CIA chief of station in Islamabad at the end of the jihad. stand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, its client states. The campaign to assist The Soviet side of the war has long been neglected but fi- dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghani- nally received attention from Gregory Feifer in The Great stan, and to prevent their return to either country in the 4 Anthony Cordesman, “Afghan Public Opinion and the Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. Most important is future.” See “President Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan Afghan War: Shifts by Region and Province,” Center for the Pakistani version, written by the ISI commander of and Pakistan,” U.S. News & World Report, March 27, Strategic and International Studies, April 13, 2009. the battle, Mohammad Yousaf, with Mark Adkin in The 2009. 5 On the cost of the war, see Robert Kaplan, Soldiers of Bear Trap: Afghanistan’s Untold Story in which the CIA is 3 Gregory Feifer, The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Af- God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan a duplicitous and timid partner for the ISI. ghanistan (New York: HarperCollins, 2009). (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), pp. 184-188, 223. MAY 2009 . VOL 2 . ISSUE 5 the Afghan insurgency, the mujahidin, used military power, especially its air Even more ironically, Pakistan serves enjoyed the backing of countries around force, to intimidate Pakistan. as the major logistical supply line for the world including China, the United NATO forces in Afghanistan. More Kingdom, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Zia insisted that outside support for the than 80% of the supplies U.S. and Iran and others. mujahidin had to flow through Pakistani other coalition forces depend on arrive hands, principally via the Inter- via Pakistan from the port of Karachi. NATO forces in Afghanistan today have Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate Geography effectively precludes another the support of the United Nations and of the Pakistani Army. The ISI sought alternative unless the alliance is willing operate under a UN Security Council exclusive access to the mujahidin. to rely on Russia or Iran to control its mandate. The International Security Outside players had little choice but supply lines. Moreover, the ISI is also Assistance Force (ISAF), created to accept Zia’s rules. Consequently, a key partner in the struggle against al- by the United Nations in 2001, has Pakistan served as the safe haven for Qa`ida. The ISI has helped capture or troops from 41 countries currently in the mujahidin, its logistical supply line kill several senior al-Qa`ida operatives, Afghanistan, including U.S. forces, and its advocate on the world stage. despite declining ISI assistance since NATO contributions, and troops from the early years after 9/11. Without non-NATO states such as Australia, Ironically, today Pakistan again acts as Pakistan’s cooperation, many operations Sweden and the United Arab Emirates. the safe haven for Afghan insurgents against al-Qa`ida would be much more Efforts are underway to get more states, and their logistical supply line. The difficult today. especially in the Muslim world, to send ISI is again the instrument by which troops. Pakistan maintains its links to the Therefore, Pakistan has unusually Afghan Taliban and other extremist strong leverage on both sides of the Much of the hardest fighting in the organizations.7 This should come as war in Afghanistan. President Obama’s current war has been conducted by little surprise since in the 1990s the new policy explicitly recognizes the non-American troops. The British in ISI was a critical factor in the creation critical role played by Pakistan and Helmand Province, the Canadians in and development of the Taliban; it elevates the importance of working Kandahar and the Dutch and Australians only reluctantly agreed to distance with Pakistan to shut down the safe in Uruzgan have been fighting for the itself from the Taliban after 9/11 under havens in Balochistan and elsewhere last several years in the heartland of enormous U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Does Nato Work?
    WHAT IS NATO? Visit our website : www.nato.int #WEARENATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the These countries meet to cooperate in the field of world’s major international institutions. It is a political security and defence. In this respect, NATO provides and military alliance that brings together 30 member a unique link between these two continents for political countries from Europe and North America. and security cooperation. PROTECTING PEOPLE COMBATING NEW THREATS We often take it for granted that we can walk around freely in As the nature of threats changes, so must the methods a safe and economically stable environment. Security in all of preserving peace. NATO is reorienting its defence areas of everyday life is key to our well-being. capabilities towards today’s threats. It is adapting forces and developing multinational approaches to deal with terrorism, FORGING PARTNERSHIPS failed states and other security threats such as weapons of mass destruction. Establishing dialogue and cooperation is crucial for peaceful relations and deeper international understanding. BUILDING PEACE & STABILITY NATO provides a unique opportunity for member and partner countries to consult on security issues to build trust The benefits of stability can be enjoyed simultaneously by and, in the long run, help to prevent conflict. many parties. Through practical cooperation and multilateral initiatives, It is crucial to stabilise regions where tensions pose security countries are facing new security challenges together. threats. This is why NATO takes an active role in crisis- management operations, in cooperation with other international organisations. WHAT DOES NATO DO? NATO is committed to protecting its members efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to through political and military means.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO-Afghanistan Relations
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization www.nato.int/factsheets Media Backgrounder June 2021 NATO-Afghanistan relations Opening of a new-chapter NATO and Afghanistan will now open a new chapter in their relations, as the process of withdrawing international troops contributed to the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions is ongoing. NATO Allies are committed to continue to stand with Afghanistan, its people and its institutions in promoting security and upholding the hard-won gains of the last NATO Secretary General Jens 20 years. Stoltenberg and President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan NATO will continue to provide training, as well as financial support to the Afghan National Defence and Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, Security Forces, including through the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. November 2018. It will retain a Senior Civilian Representative’s Office in Kabul to continue diplomatic engagement and enhance our partnership with Afghanistan. The Office of the Senior Civilian Representative will engage with a range of actors, including from Afghanistan, countries in the region, the International Community and NGOs representatives. Also, in light of the importance of an enduring diplomatic and international presence, NATO will provide funding to ensure continued functioning of Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Furthermore, NATO will step up dialogue on Afghanistan with relevant international and regional partners; and all NATO Allies will continue to support the ongoing Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process towards a lasting, inclusive political settlement that puts and end to violence, safeguards the human rights of Afghans – particularly women, children and minorities – upholds the rule of law, and ensures that Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for terrorists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Endgame of the Reagan Doctrine: Democratic Transition in Nicaragua and Chaos in Afghanistan
    Democratic Transition in Nicaragua and Chaos in Afghanistan 19 Chapter 2 The Endgame of the Reagan Doctrine: Democratic Transition in Nicaragua and Chaos in Afghanistan John-Michael Arnold Introduction1 This chapter examines what happened, during the waning years of the American-Soviet struggle, in two conflicts that were part of the “global Cold War.”2 In both Afghanistan and Nicaragua through- out the 1980s, Soviet-supported Marxist regimes had fought Ameri- can-aided insurgencies. The United States’ support to the Afghan and Nicaraguan guerillas was central to what became widely known as the “Reagan Doctrine,” a term coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer in 1985 and which he defined as “overt and unashamed American sup- port for anti-Communist revolution.”3 While President Reagan became associated in many people’s minds with the American counter-offensive against Marxist regimes, it fell to Reagan’s vice-president and successor in the Oval Office, President George H.W. Bush, to preside over the endgame of the “Reagan Doc- trine.” The following analysis demonstrates three major things about the Bush administration’s record in that regard. First, in the midst of continuing competition with the Soviet Union, the Bush administration wanted settlements to the wars in Nicaragua and Afghanistan, pref- erably with the departure of the Soviet-aligned governments in those countries. Second, during the Bush administration’s term—which ran from January 1989 until January 1993—there was a narrowing of ideo- logical differences between the superpowers when it came to “regional conflicts,” with Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union sharing similar ideas to the United States about the need for political settlements and even democratic elections as the way to end proxy wars.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of Grass-Roots Terrorism: Why Osama Bin Laden Still Matters
    The Myth of Grass-Roots Terrorism Why Osama bin Laden Still Matters By Bruce Hoffman From Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-first Century . Marc Sageman . University of Pennsylvania Press , 2008 , 208 $24.95 Summary: Marc Sageman claims that al Qaeda's leadership is finished and today's terrorist threat comes primarily from below. But the terrorist elites are alive and well, and ignoring the threat they pose will have disastrous consequences. BRUCE HOFFMAN is a Professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and a Senior Fellow at the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. He is the author of Inside Terrorism. Since Rudy Giuliani's early exit from the Republican presidential primary, the issue of terrorism has barely been mentioned by any of the candidates in either party. Given its absence from this year's U.S. presidential campaign, it is easy to forget how prominent a role terrorism played in 2004. Many observers believe that Osama bin Laden's dramatically choreographed videotaped appearance on October 29, 2004, may have tipped the vote in President George W. Bush's favor by reminding Americans of the horrors of 9/11 and instilling a fear of future attacks. And although terrorism has largely been ignored as a campaign issue thus far, bin Laden and al Qaeda may deliberately raise its visibility once again. The publication of Leaderless Jihad is therefore timely. Its author, Marc Sageman, brings unique credentials to the study of terrorism. European-born but American-educated, Sageman holds a doctorate in political sociology and is a practicing psychiatrist.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Enlargement & Open Door
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet July 2016 NATO Enlargement & Open Door NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”. NATO enlargement has helped increase stability and prosperity in Europe. It is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy and common values. Free choice NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance. This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to. Process of Accession European countries that wish to join NATO are initially invited to begin an Intensified Dialogue with the Alliance about their aspirations and related reforms. Aspirants may then be invited to join the Membership Action Plan, a programme which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Participation does not guarantee membership, but is a key preparation mechanism. To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Chapter in NATO-Afghanistan Relations
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Media Backgrounder February 2016 A new chapter in NATO-Afghanistan relations NATO’s engagement in Afghanistan has started a new chapter. As of 2015, NATO’s support to Afghanistan has consisted of three inter-related components: a NATO-led Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions; a contribution to the broad effort of financial sustainment of the Afghan security forces; and the enhanced NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership, which is being developed jointly with the Government of Afghanistan. Resolute Support Mission Resolute Support is a NATO-led, non combat mission. It was launched on 1 January 2015, following the conclusion of the previous NATO-led ISAF mission, and the assumption of full security responsibility by the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF). It is designed to help the Afghan security forces and institutions develop the necessary capacity to continue defending the country and protecting the population in a sustainable manner. It carries out training, advice and assistance activities at the security ministries and national institutional levels and at the higher levels of the army and police. This new mission has several functions. These include, amongst others: • Supporting planning, programming and budgeting; • Assuring transparency, accountability and oversight; • Supporting the adherence to the principles of rule of law and good governance; • Supporting the establishment and sustainment of processes such as force generation, recruiting, training, managing and development of personnel. Resolute Support currently has approximately 13,000 personnel from NATO Allies and partner nations. It operates with one hub (Kabul/Bagram) and four spokes (Mazar-e-Sharif in the north, Herat in the west, Kandahar in the south, and Laghman in the east).
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Greek Coup of 1967
    Were the Eagle and the Phoenix Birds of a Feather? The United States and the Greek Coup of 1967 by Louis Klarevas Assistant Professor of Political Science City University of New York—College of Staten Island & Associate Fellow Hellenic Observatory—London School of Economics Discussion Paper No. 15 Hellenic Observatory-European Institute London School of Economics Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/hellenicObservatory February 2004 Author’s Note: The author wishes to thank the Hellenic Observatory of the London School of Economics for its generous support in the undertaking of this project. The author also wishes to thank Kevin Featherstone, Spyros Economides, and Dimitrios Triantaphyllou for comments on a previous draft. In the summer of 2004, Greece will host the Olympic Games. Americans attending the games and visiting traditional tourist stops in Athens are sure to be greeted with open arms. But for those who delve a bit further into the country-side seeking a taste of average Greek life, some are sure to hear some fascinating tales flavored with a strong hint of anti-Americanism. To many foreigners that visit Greece these days, it might seem like the cradle of democracy is also the cradle of conspiracy. Take these schemes, for example: (1) Orthodox Serbs, not Muslims, were the true victims of the slaughters in the Balkans during the 1990s—and the primary reason that NATO intervened was so that the United States could establish a military foothold there;1 (2) the U.S. Ambassador played a tacit role in the removal of the Secretary- General of Greece’s ruling political party;2 and (3) the attack on the World Trade Center was a joint Jewish-American conspiracy to justify a Western war against Muslims—with reports that no Jews died in the September 11 attacks.3 All of these perspectives have numerous subscribers in Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • The 9/11 Commission Report
    Final1-4.4pp 7/17/04 9:12 AM Page 108 4 RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 4.1 BEFORE THE BOMBINGS IN KENYA AND TANZANIA Although the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate had warned of a new type of terrorism, many officials continued to think of terrorists as agents of states (Saudi Hezbollah acting for Iran against Khobar Towers) or as domestic crim- inals (Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City).As we pointed out in chapter 3, the White House is not a natural locus for program management. Hence, gov- ernment efforts to cope with terrorism were essentially the work of individ- ual agencies. President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem,not just a law enforcement issue.They reinforced the author- ity of the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate domestic as well as foreign counterterrorism efforts, through Richard Clarke and his interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). Spotlighting new concerns about unconventional attacks, these directives assigned tasks to lead agencies but did not differentiate types of terrorist threats.Thus,while Clarke might prod or push agencies to act, what actually happened was usually decided at the State Depart- ment, the Pentagon, the CIA, or the Justice Department.The efforts of these agencies were sometimes energetic and sometimes effective.Terrorist plots were disrupted and individual terrorists were captured.But the United States did not, before 9/11, adopt as a clear strategic objective the elimination of al Qaeda. Early Efforts against Bin Ladin Until 1996, hardly anyone in the U.S.government understood that Usama Bin Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Things You Need to Know About NATO
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet July 2016 10 things you need to know about NATO 1. An International Security Hub: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of the world’s major international institutions. It is a political and military Alliance of 28 member countries from Europe and North America. The Alliance takes all its decisions by consensus. Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in discussions and decisions. Member states are committed to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are at the heart of NATO’s transatlantic bond. 2. Collective Defence: The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend NATO’s territory and populations. Article 5 of NATO’s founding charter, the Washington Treaty, sets out the Alliance’s collective defence commitment. It states that an attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO’s history, on 12 September 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks on the United States. 3. NATO’s Command Structure: NATO has a permanent, integrated military command structure where military and civilian personnel from all member states work together. The Alliance has two top-level Strategic Commands (Allied Command Operations, in Mons, Belgium, and Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, United States). Under these Strategic Commands are two Joint Force Commands (in Brunssum, Netherlands and in Naples, Italy) that can deploy and run military operations. The Command Structure also includes one air command (Ramstein, Germany), one land command (Izmir, Turkey) and one maritime command (Northwood, United Kingdom).
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO's Largest Members
    ANALYSIS PAPER July 2012 The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO’s Largest Members Clara Marina O’Donnell (editor) Contributors: Andrew Dorman, Bastian Giegerich, Camille Grand, Adam Grissom and Christian Mölling The Brookings Institution is a private non-profit organization. Its mission is to conduct high- quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. Support for this report was generously provided by the German Information Center USA. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides to any supporter is in its absolute commitment to quality, independence and impact. Activities sponsored by its donors reflect this commitment, and the analysis and recommendations of the Institution’s scholars are not determined by any donation. Copyright © 2012 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 www.brookings.edu The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO’s Largest Members 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 Clara Marina O’Donnell, Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings Institution, and Research Fellow, Centre for European Reform I. Trends within the European Union...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of the Iran Hostage Crisis
    GETTING THE AYATOLLAH WRONG: PERCEPTIONS AND MISPERCEPTIONS OF IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP DAVID PATRICK HOUGHTON DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE P.O. BOX 161356 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA ORLANDO, FL 32816 USA EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: (407) 823-6025 FAX: (407) 823-0051 Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Diego, CA, April 2012. Abstract Relations between Iran and the West have long been plagued on both sides by misunderstandings and misconceptions of the motivations and beliefs which drive the behavior of foreign policy elites. This paper focuses in particular on script-driven misperceptions of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and on how and why these changed over time. Why in particular did the Carter administration get Khomeini so wrong? It is argued here that a ‘cult of the Shah’ left the American intelligence community singularly unprepared to deal with any new regime after Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s fall, and that the prevalence of the Cold War strategic script in particular led many to downgrade the importance of the Iranian clergy. Perceptions of Khomeini, it is suggested, passed through three stages: he was initially viewed as a figure of irrelevance by many in the West, or as someone who could not possibly influence the course of events in Tehran. This misperception then gave way by late 1978 to another: the notion that Khomeini was a ‘Gandhi-like’ figure with whom American leaders could bargain, but ignorance about Khomeini’s background and aims within the White House and other elements of the administration led to a disastrous attempt to court his moderate allies within the provisional government.
    [Show full text]
  • Kelly Mcfarland on Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and The
    Bruce O. Riedel. Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States since FDR. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2017. xv + 251 pp. $25.99, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8157-3137-5. Reviewed by Kelly McFarland Published on H-Diplo (March, 2019) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, The City University of New York) In his latest work, Kings and Presidents: Sau‐ very different countries. America is a superpower di Arabia and the United States since FDR, the democracy that aspires to be a tolerant home to a Brookings Institute’s (and longtime government diverse multiethnic and multireligious popula‐ analyst and policymaker) Bruce Riedel focuses on tion, all of whom are equal in the eyes of the law. the US-Saudi relationship since 1945. Riedel’s Saudi Arabia is the world’s last absolute monar‐ book comes at a rather precarious time in the re‐ chy and also is a theocracy with a fundamentalist lationship’s history. Congressional and public out‐ religious faith, dominated by a Wahhabi clergy cry over Riyadh’s ongoing war in Yemen and the that is intolerant and suspicious of outsiders” (p. October 2018 killing of Washington Post journal‐ xiii). The contradictions in the relationship have ist Jamal Khoshoggi inside the Saudi consulate in been ever-present. Riedel points out that this book Istanbul—which Saudi crown prince Muhammed is “not a diplomatic history of the relationship or bin Salman probably sanctioned according to the a comprehensive study of all their interactions,” Central Intelligence Agency—have put the part‐ but instead uses specific “case studies of interac‐ nership on notice.
    [Show full text]