The Soviet Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan and the United States' Reaction - Dominic Young

For my topic I researched the impact the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union made upon the United States. To more thoroughly understand this topic I interviewed three of my family members, each a different age, to get an idea of the United States’ perception of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union during this time period. All three of my interviews mainly touch on the same sort of things, although some of the responses are quite different.

Interview of Clarence Young, my Grandfather

Dominic: What do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

Clarence: Yes. What I thought was that it was again the Soviet Empire trying to take control of the economy of an area of the world. Vietnam was still fresh in my mind. It was very clear as I had studied all about the conflict in Southeast Asia. The United States stepped in over Frances' position in trying to take over the Soviet encroachment.

Dominic: So, the Soviet invasion and the following occupation were very clear to you?

Clarence: Yes, because the United States was going to have to commit money and troops back to that area of the world. We were going to have to take our gross national product and commit it just like today for our current occupation in Germany, the Middle East, South Korea, etc. The United States still today has air and army bases in Germany. A lot of the planes out of Iraq come out of Germany. From the Second World War we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Okinawa, and the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan).

Dominic: For what reason do you believe the Soviet Union eventually withdrew?

Clarence: What was going on in Russia that made them pull out of Afghanistan? Ronald Reagan was trying to outspend them and spent them into oblivion. Perestroika had a huge effect too. Gorbachev became Premier and spent a lot of time and money to stop the occupation. Grandma and I met Gorbachev in 2007 when he was in Seattle. We got a signed copy of his book and got to shake his hand.

Clarence: Anyway… Concern was we were going to commit all of our assets to another war. Doing so takes away from programs that need to happen like agriculture, the space program education, etc. What we did to stop Soviets had to happen. That culture is not something we want to spread, even Gorbachev agreed. If the United States didn’t react like they did, it was going to lead to a nuclear war.

Dominic: So, how you think the United States in general reacted to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as 1989 approached? Jimmy Carter considered the invasion "the most serious threat to peace since the Second World War."

Clarence: I agree because it would lead to nuclear confrontation. They reacted very cautiously. The United States boycotted the Olympics and was right in doing so. The Soviets were going to continue on after Afghanistan. They weren't going to stop. The most highly educated country in that area of the world was Pakistan. Iran was highly educated. Iraq was also highly educated. Carter did the right thing by implementing the Olympic boycott. The Soviets in turn also boycotted LA Olympics. The United States eventually had to get the United Nations involved. Our Senator, from the St. of WA, Henry "Scoop" Jackson. He was a dem[ocrat] and a hawk. He believed in strong diplomacy and advocated the United Nations’ involvement.

Dominic: Did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

Clarence: There was serious concern about nuclear buildup. It was in the paper all the time. The Jews were trying to get out of Russia because of the suppression of free speech and the United States was using their pressure for accepting immigrants. A lot went to NZ, Canada, and Israel. The Soviets were allowing the Jewish immigrants to leave and they were the educated and went into the education system. All these things were interconnected and happened at same time and opened up a dialog. No country can survive without trade. The Soviets needed to sell raw materials, hardware, natural gas, etc. and they were all being embargoed.

Dominic: So why do you think the invasion occurred?

Clarence: Laying the groundwork to control the Middle East. Also, to control that area of the world. The Soviets would establish military bases. The United States does that too today.

Dominic: I heard in other sources that the Soviet Invasion was mainly about securing the USSR’s borders. What do you think of this opinion?

Clarence: There were no resources in Afghanistan. It was just a stepping stone. Maybe they knew of resources but they didn't have the capital to process minerals (building processing plants). It was a stepping stone to control that part of the world. The Soviets needed bases for nuclear weapons.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

Clarence: The general perception was they were encroaching and this was going to be another Vietnam. This was 13th or 14th century culture and they [Afghanis] didn't have the means to fight. It was pretty evident that they [Soviets] weren't going to stop there. They were going to move on. The whole invasion was used to show their brute force (The Russian Bear).

Dominic: So you believe that the invasion caused a huge change in United States-USSR relations?

Clarence: If they hadn't done that, it would have been totally different. Maybe the Jewish people wouldn't have been able to emigrate. Reagan came in after Carter and outspent them.

It was a big change in relations. Major. From an old country boy from NE.

Dominic: Well, thank you for your insightful interview.

Interview of John Young, my Uncle

Dominic: So, what do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

John: I was 10 years old. My first reaction was "where is Afghanistan and why does this matter?” But I also remember thinking in my young mind that this just shows how evil the Russians are and that they are threatening.

Dominic: Why did you perceive the Russians to be so "evil?"

John: That's a good question.

John: Um, I guess it was just assumed that the Russians were evil and were not to be trusted. I don't remember reading the news as a kid, but I do remember having this mistrust of the Russians. I guess it came through osmosis and the rhetoric of the time. I remember the 1980 election and some of the rhetoric around that time. But I guess that came after the invasion, huh?

Dominic: Well, the invasion occurred in late 1979, and the occupation lasted until 1989

John: Yeah - I guess I would equate 1979 more with the Iranian Hostage situation more than the invasion of Afghanistan. I guess my emotions toward the Russians pre-Invasion were the product of the messages about Russia I got in TV shows and movies (like James Bond movies). Certainly nothing concrete meeting an actual Russian.

Dominic: Well, to expand on that, how do you think the media reacted to the invasion/occupation, compared to other events such as the invasion of Iraq?

John: That's kinda hard for me to answer, as I was a just a kid and media was so different then.

John: There would be video of Russian tanks rolling. I think I remember rhetoric denouncing then US Foreign policy as being weak on communism. This is tied in with Iranian hostage situation and Carter's failed rescue mission, that the US had gone soft, and therefore, there would be no repercussions. It certainly wasn't a 24 hour news blitz like we experience today.

Dominic: Interesting, but did the invasion ever directly affect you or your family?

John: Not really. The net effect was more of a lingering fear. The invasion was just evidence that we had something to fear. It made the possibility of World War III seem more real, and almost inevitable. One had this feeling that one day, it was going to happen. In fact, I remember having a dream wherein I was walking near my house and seeing the fighter planes overhead and having an understanding that all was lost. Maybe not as a direct result of the invasion but certainly of that time.

Dominic: That's very interesting, how different things felt at the time.

John: Yeah - I don't have the same fear of terrorism that I did of total annihilation.

Dominic: Your brother Patrick told me that he felt somewhat unconcerned with the invasion following the initial fear of 1979-1980. Was this also true with you?

John: I guess after the initial shock of the invasion, it just became another line on the network news, sort of the way Afghanistan is with us today. We don't hear much about it. Plus after Brezhnev died, the Soviets didn't seem as threatening. Their rhetoric seemed less palpable.

Dominic: Well, overall, how do you think the Reagan handled the invasion and occupation compared to Gorbachev and his actions toward ending the war?

John: You mean in regards to ending the occupation?

Dominic: Right

John: I recall the word Mujahedeen being mentioned a lot. I didn't know what that meant until much later. It was understood that we were doing something in Afghanistan, but nothing overt. Afghanistan seemed more like a term of 80's cold war rhetoric, than a real place. By the time Gorbachev came to power, one could start to feel the threat of World War lifting.

Dominic: So Gorbachev felt like a good guy at the time, even as a Russian?

John: He felt less threatening, like he could be trusted. He was different than the rest. I don't think I have any more on that though.

Dominic: Alright, did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

John: I don't think so. I think the general reaction was one of relief, a sign that one of the great fears of our lives was lifting. I don't remember having any thoughts about what would happen to Afghanistan until I remember hearing the word Taliban. The failed occupation of Afghanistan was symbolic of the failure of the Soviet Union. Kind of a reverse domino effect, as Cuba began to seem less threatening; communism in Central America seemed untenable.

Dominic: Interesting

John: So it was more about world politics rather than Afghanistan.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

John: You mean how Americans perceived the USSR?

Dominic: Yes, over time

John: Kinda how I was saying earlier: after Brezhnev, the Soviets seemed leaderless, lacking that fear-mongering figurehead. Think Kim Jong Il, except less comical and sitting on top of a huge nuclear arsenal. Whether or not that was the reality is impertinent. We thought they didn't care about their people and that they would risk it all. By the end of the occupation, they seemed feckless and inept. By 1989, they seemed stuck in another time: technologically, culturally, and economically. The cold war literally thawed over the 80's.

Dominic: Wow, very insightful

John: I was just talking about Kim Jong Il today and the jokes about the North Korean soccer team. We used to joke like that about the Russians.

Dominic: So do you believe that the overall invasion was a futile attempt and that no real major events occurred that could affect the United States at the time?

John: I think initially the thought was that "wow, the soviets are still willing to unilaterally invade other countries under shaky pretense" (kinda like what we do know). I think that it was an attempt to grab natural resources. It's the same old story of controlling oil and distribution.

Dominic: So do you think there are a lot of parallels between US & USSR invasions?

John: I think there are a lot of parallels. The difference here is the pretense for war. When we invaded Afghanistan, the world saw it as a necessity, as a response to Taliban harboring of criminals. So this had been a long time coming. But historically, occupations of Afghanistan don't seem to work out. I don't think we'll be any more successful. The current reason for our effort in Afghanistan is to secure natural resources. The defense lesson of World War II was that controlling oil means controlling the fuel of mechanized infantry. The Axis powers really lost the war when they lost stable fuel supplies. Control of the Middle East is about controlling the energy for military mobilization.

Dominic: That's an interesting perspective…well, thank you for such an insightful interview.

Interview of Patrick Young, my Father and John’s older brother

Dominic: What do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

Patrick: The immediate reaction from everyone was fear. There was a great deal of anxiety that this could be the beginning of World War III, that this was just a first step toward a larger war. But that did not last too long once it was clear that the US was not going to retaliate or defend Afghanistan.

Dominic: What was the initial reaction of yourself and your family following the invasion?

Patrick: Initially there was fear, but then that dissipated and quite frankly the story generally faded into the background. My father made the comment that he was very relieved that there was no longer a draft, unlike during Vietnam.

Since the US was not getting involved militarily and there was no immediate danger for anyone in our family the whole war faded into the background until the boycott of the Olympics

As a 13 year old, the boycott of the Olympics is still the part of the story that had the strongest impression on me.

Patrick: I was absolutely shocked that we were actually going to boycott the Olympics. In fact, that summer we attended an exhibition basketball game of the US Olympic team vs. an NBA all star team at the Kingdome.

Patrick: The Olympic team was doing a national tour because they had nothing else to do. There was a deluge of stories in the media about Olympic athletes that had their dreams destroyed because of the boycott. At that time and at my age that seemed like a very big deal.

Patrick: A random memory about that exhibition basketball game: Jack Sikma was one of the stars for the Sonics, who had won a championship just one year earlier. He was on the NBA all star team that played the Olympic team. He had been a straight haired, extremely pale tall dude. Well he showed up for this exhibition with an extremely dark tan and a curly perm. He looked really bizarre.

Dominic: Really? Sounds interesting. So would you say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan directly affected you and your family?

Patrick: Yes in the sense that it affected us all by steering world events. But I did not really understand why the war was occurring until I was much older. On an immediate level, not really. It was discussed, and we were frightened at first. But as it dragged on and on it became clear that this was becoming the USSR's Vietnam. And in the context of Reagan's America that fact became one of many building blocks of an overall "rebirth" in American pride that happened in the '80s.

But that's more an observation after the fact.

Truthfully, my strongest impressions are about the Olympic boycott and Jack Sikma's perm.

Dominic: Well, that sounds interesting. Do you think that the Olympic boycott was a direct result of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

Patrick: Yes. That's not a belief that's a fact. President Carter literally said it was.

It was an unpopular decision, and many cite it as one reason that he lost the '80 election. That and the hostage crisis.

Dominic: How do you feel President Reagan handled the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan after his election in 1980, compared to how Carter handled the Invasion?

Patrick: I can't really identify any specific action that Reagan took. My primary memory is that the war dragged on, the USSR wasn't winning.

After the first year or so, the story faded into the background.

Kind of like us and Afghanistan now.

We have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

Dominic: Well, how you think the United States in general reacted to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as 1989 approached? Jimmy Carter considered the invasion "the most serious threat to peace since the Second World War."

Patrick: You mean 1979

Dominic: No; 1979-1989, the occupation ended in 1989

Patrick: I think the reaction was mostly rhetoric and show. Bold statements and empty gestures.

Dominic: Well, to rephrase my question, did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

Patrick: No, not really. In 1989 I was mostly discouraged and disillusioned with American government because of the election George Bush I. I remember him taking some credit for it and that pissed me off. In retrospect, he may have been right!

Actually, now that I think about it....

By 1989, we had already seen some major changes happen in the USSR. Glasnost and Perestroika. Gorbachev was absolutely making anything seem possible. I would say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan seemed to be a natural step in the progression that eventually led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall. It was not shocking at all.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

Patrick: The perception of the USSR at the time of the invasion was consistent with the overall perception since 1946. The ultimate endgame for the USSR was to spread communism throughout the globe. Since the end of the Vietnam War, there had been a softening of this stance. A belief that peaceful co-existence was possible (detente). The invasion demonstrated how futile this was. During the occupation, there were many comparisons between the USSR/Afghanistan situation and the US/Vietnam. During the majority of the '80s this was the primary narrative. By the end of the decade, Gorbachev had completely changed what we considered was possible with the Soviet Union. By 1989 it was clear that these changes were real and permanent. Anything seemed possible. The withdrawal from Afghanistan seemed inevitable and felt like one piece of a larger story: The collapse of the Soviet Union.

Dominic: So you believe that the overall invasion was a futile attempt and that no real major events occurred that could affect the United States at the time?

Patrick: That sums up how I felt from about 1982 on. 1979 I was a little concerned. 1980 I was irritated that the Olympics were boycotted. 1981 I wasn't thinking about Afghanistan.

Dominic: Well, thank you for your time in helping me better understand the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Patrick: You're welcome