Biden’s Decision to Allow U.S. Weapons Against Russia Harkens Back to Reagan’s Role in Saving Afghanistan

 

By Wahab Raofi

President Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to use American weapons for strikes inside Russia could significantly hinder Russian military's advances, much like President Ronald Reagan's decision to supply Afghan resistance fighters with Stinger missiles, which turned the tide against the Red Army in the 1980’s.

Reluctance and hesitance had been Washington’s approach on supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles capable of striking targets within Russia, stemming from concerns that such actions might provoke President Vladimir Putin to retaliate, potentially attacking a NATO member state or escalating the war.

This reminds me of the debate during the ’80s, following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, about whether to supply the resistance with advanced weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles. This would challenge the Soviets’ previously uncontested dominance of the skies.

But a major turn-around by Biden allowed Ukraine to cross his “red line” against Russia. The White House this week said it moved at “lightning speed” to allow Kyiv to use U.S. weaponry to strike limited targets inside Russia, 17 days after Ukraine had come begging for the capability.

In effect, Ukraine can now use American-provided weapons, rockets and rocket launchers to shoot down Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv. This decision empowers Ukraine to better defend itself and push back against Russian aggression.

 Following the 1980’s Russian invasion in Afghanistan, I spent a year with the Afghan resistance and made several visits in the ensuing years to see my parents and other relatives. The Afghan resistance received financial and military aid from the U.S. but also from much of the free world, including China, to weaken the Soviet Union.

However, the resistance faced major problem: they were helpless against the Russian MiG-21 attacks. These aircraft roamed the skies unchallenged, causing fear and destruction among the resistance, which had almost no defense against them.

There was a belief among some officials in Washington that providing advanced weapons to the Afghan resistance would provoke Soviet leaders to escalate the war, as has been the case in Ukraine.

According to The New York Times, For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries, so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance. They could maintain that the guerrillas had captured the weapons from the Afghan Government or from Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

Stansfield Turner, the Director of Central Intelligence under President Carter, said some intelligence professionals believed the United States would be putting money into ''a hopeless cause.”

Fred C. Ikle, an Under Secretary of Defense from 1981 to February of this year, said that in the first three or four years of the Reagan Administration, ''there was a general shyness and hesitation, a reluctance to make a more concerted effort, to provide more instruments and tactics to freedom fighters in Afghanistan.''

A turning point came in April of 1985, when President Ronald Reagan signed a classified order clarifying the goals of the covert operation. One goal was to get the Soviet troops out of Afghanistan ''by all means available.'' That declaration eventually cleared the way for the C.I.A. to supply Western-made weapons to the guerrillas.

The first Stinger was used in Afghanistan on Sept. 26, 1986. Three Soviet MI-24 helicopters were destroyed by the new weapons on the first day of their use in Afghanistan. Since then, according to American officials, the guerrillas have shot down at least 270 Soviet aircraft.

''We were startled by the success of the Stingers,'' Charles Wilson, a Republican congressman from Texas, said. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey added, ''It's rare that one weapon can transform a situation so radically. If we have learned anything from the war in Afghanistan, it is that aggression should not be rewarded. Instead, we must firmly confront threats from adversaries and clearly communicate that violations of international norms are unacceptable.”

However, those golden rules were ignored when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, taking control of Kyiv, a major city. Instead of confronting Putin's aggression, then-U.S. President Barack Obama informed his security team that Ukraine was not a priority.

As Fred Kaplan wrote for Slate.com, “Barack Obama rejected the urgings by his advisers (including then-Vice President Joe Biden) to send Ukraine anti-tank missiles after Putin annexed Crimea and made his first incursion into eastern Ukraine—because, as Obama put it in a National Security Council meeting, Ukraine mattered more to Russia than it did to us, so Russia would match anything we did militarily, plus some.”

It is possible that Putin thought he could get away with invading all of Ukraine in 2022 because he got away with invading a chunk of it in 2014.

Allowing Ukraine to utilize long-range weapons could have a significant impact, similar to the way Stinger missiles aided insurgents in Afghanistan during the 1980s, ultimately forcing the Soviet Red Army to withdraw.

Afghan folklore has a story about a farmer who lost a chick and asked his children to look for it. The children ignored him. Later, the family lost a goat, and the father asked his children if they had found out who had stolen the chick. Afterward, they lost a cow, but each time, the old man would ask his children if they had discovered who had stolen the chick. The children were frustrated by the old man's persistent concern about the chick, not the ox or the cow. The old man explained, "Had you found out who stole the chick, you would not have lost the others.” The moral: Solve the problem before it escalates.    

Biden's decision, though perhaps a bit delayed, reflects an act of statesmanship rooted in his extensive public service. He understands that the United States' power derives not only from its military and economic strength, but also from its role in safeguarding the global order. He recalls, as I do, that if the U.S. had allowed the former Soviet Union to remain in Afghanistan, the Kremlin would not have stopped at Afghanistan's borders.

Similarly, had President Obama taken a firm stance against Russia's initial incursions into Kyiv, Putin might never have invaded Ukraine. Arming Ukraine, just as arming the Afghan resistant movement to defend itself, will compel Putin to negotiate and deter further aggression by other countries, such as China and the like, to think twice before posing a threat to peace in the region.

This strategy sends a clear message that any act of bullying against neighboring nations will be met with unwavering U.S. support for maintaining global order and protecting freedom and its allies.

 

# # #