By Jennifer Parker

Dec 3, 2009 11:22am

Secretary Gates and the Zen Master

On February 15, 1989, the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan and the US — which had been arming the mujahideen fighters who defeated the Soviet Empire – largely walked away from Afghanistan. The vacuum allowed the rise of the Taliban and a safe haven for the 9/11 plotters. President Obama’s decision to have 98,000 US troops in Afghanistan evolved in no small way from the decision of previous presidents to walk away from Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates assailed that decision, saying that the US “will not repeat the mistakes of 1989, when we abandoned that country only to see it descend into chaos and into Taliban hands.”

He made a similar reference this morning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This meme, in the hands of others in the Obama administration, has been in some ways a pushback against former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticisms of President Obama and his handling of foreign policy.

Not only is the current mess in Afghanistan due to the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration under-resourced the Afghanistan war, the argument goes, when Cheney was Defense Secretary for President George HW Bush from 1989 until 1993, the inaction of the Bush-Quayle administration helped open the door for the Taliban.

Tuesday night, President Obama referred to the Taliban as "a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

And earlier that day, National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough said "if you go back to…the early 1990s when then Vice President Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, we made a very grave mistake when we walked away from Afghanistan and Pakistan."

But for Secretary Gates, the mistake is a little more personal.

“I feel a certain sense of personal responsibility,” he testified before the House Armed Services Committee in December 2007.

“I was deputy director of CIA and then deputy national security advisor during the period when the Soviets did withdraw from Afghanistan, and the United States essentially turned its back on Afghanistan,” Gates said. “And five years later came the first attack on the World Trade Center.  And so, you know, one of the lessons that I think we have is that if we abandon these countries, once we are in there and engaged, there is a very real possibility that we will pay a higher price in the end.”   

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell says that Gates at the time was focused on the collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact.

Gates in early 2008 at the Munich Conference on Security Policy said that “September 11th was a galvanizing event – one that opened the American public's eyes to dangers from distant lands. It was especially poignant since our government had been heavily involved in Afghanistan in the 1980s, only to make the grievous error – of which I was at least partly responsible – of abandoning a destitute and war-torn nation after the last Soviet soldier crossed the Termez bridge.”

At a press conference in Pakistan in February 2007, Gates said, “after the Soviets left, the United States made a mistake. We neglected Afghanistan, and extremism took control of that country. And the United States paid a price for that on September 11th, 2001. We won't make that mistake again. We are here for the long haul.”

As George Crile, author of Charlie Wilson's War, wrote, by 1990 “the Afghan freedom fighters had suddenly and frighteningly gone back to form, re-emerging as nothing more than feuding warlords obsessed with settling generations-old scores. The difference was that they were now armed with hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of weapons and explosives of every conceivable type….What now seems clear is that, under the umbrella of the CIA's program, Afghanistan had become a gathering place for militant Muslims from around the world.”

Crile wrote that the presumption at the CIA “had been that when the United States packed its bags and cut off the Afghans, the jihad would simply burn itself out. If the Afghans insisted on killing one another, it would be a shame but not America's problem. Perhaps that policy would have worked out had it been only weapons that we left behind. But the more dangerous legacy of the Afghan war is found in the minds and convictions of Muslims around the world. To them the miracle victory over the Soviets was all the work of Allah not the billions of dollars that America and Saudi Arabia poured into the battle, not the 10-year commitment of the CIA that turned an army of primitive tribesmen into technoholy warriors. The consequence for America of having waged a secret war and never acknowledging or advertising its role was that it set in motion the spirit of jihad and the belief in surrogate soldiers that, having brought down one superpower, they could just as easily take on another.”

This all paved the way for 9/11, Crile wrote.

"By the end of 1993, in Afghanistan itself there were no roads, no schools, just a destroyed country — and the United States was washing its hands of any responsibility,” wrote Crile. “It was in this vacuum that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden would emerge as the dominant players. It is ironic that a man who had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Red Army, Osama bin Laden, would come to personify the power of the jihad."

Some of this was captured in the movie version of Charlie Wilson’s War, when CIA agent Gust Avrakotos tells then-Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, about a National Intelligence Estimate that shows the pending problem.

“I'm about to give you an NIE that shows the crazies are rolling into Kandahar,” Avrakotos says.

Inside Wilson’s Watergate condo, folks are celebrating the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan. Avrakotos isn’t so sure.

“There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse,” Avrakotos tells Wilson. “And everybody in the village says, ‘How wonderful. The boy got a horse’ And the Zen master says, ‘We'll see.’

“Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, ‘How terrible,’” he continues. “And the Zen master says, ‘We'll see.’ Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight… except the boy can't cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, ‘How wonderful.’”

Says Wilson: “Now the Zen master says, ‘We'll see.’”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said yesterday that “during the '70s and the '80s, I had the privilege of serving with Congressman Charlie Wilson in the House of Representatives.”

Nelson told Gates he was “so happy to see in your statement, and I quote you, ‘We will not repeat the mistakes of 1989, when we abandoned  the country only to see it descend into civil war and then into Taliban hands.’ And it was Charlie Wilson at that time — who singularly had been in large part responsible for us getting in, in the first place –  that fought us getting out.  So thank you for stating the United States policy as strongly as you have.”

Later in the hearing, Gates repeated his pledge.

“We will not repeat the mistake — we must not repeat  the mistake of 1989, and turn our backs on these folks,” said the defense secretary. “And when we've got the security situation with them under control, then the civilian and the development part must be the preponderant part of our relationship far into the future.”

 - jpt

User Comments

Mistakes of 1989, that would make it under Mr. Bush 41. How about the subsequent 8 years of Mr. Clinton 42? Any mistakes there? Seems like this administration’s story is that everything bad is a Bush problem. Let’s see 1989-1991, seems like there was a lot going on in those days, collapse of Soviet Union, Desert Storm/Desert Shield/ rapid draw-down of US Military power, the media-democrat urged entry into Somalia, the first black president elected….

Posted by: Terry | December 3, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm

Never bite the hand that feeds you….No matter what Uh Gates…

Posted by: Parallex View | December 3, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm

So Bush 41 dropped the ball on Afghanistan and Iraq in 1991.
Then there was a pause in history when nothing could be done.
Then Bush 43 sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
And now Obama has to continue dealing with this history, but feels he must point fingers backward 20 years.
Also, Charlie Wilson was a Congressman. So apparently people in Congress and in the Senate can do things, too.
Was there anyone, say, in the Senate involved in foreign relations who was fighting for what so *obviously* needed to be done to correct Bush 41′s errors?

Posted by: MayBee | December 3, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm

Then there was a pause in history when nothing could be done.
Then Bush 43 sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
MayBee | Dec 3, 2009 1:00:48 PM
If you honestly recall history, there was Clinton’s cruise missile attacks on several Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps. You’ll also recall Republicans taking to the floor of Congress and *condemning Clinton for attacking Bin Laden*! Clinton was cowed by Congress into no further attacks on Bin Laden.
The documented history is that in what you call a pause, it was more important to Republicans in control of Congress that Clinton be completely engrossed in the Republican impeachment jihad than Clinton attack the infrastructure of terror growing in Afghanistan. I wonder if the Republicans still think those “Monica Missile” soundbites were worth it.

Posted by: jhw539 | December 3, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm

I don’t really think there was a pause, jhw. I’m saying the Obama team rhetoric skips over the Clinton years when they are pointing fingers.

Posted by: MayBee | December 3, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm

jhw539 –”If you honestly recall history, there was Clinton’s cruise missile attacks on several Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps. You’ll also recall Republicans taking to the floor of Congress and *condemning Clinton for attacking Bin Laden*! Clinton was cowed by Congress into no further attacks on Bin Laden.”—–
Once again, you have it wrong sir, Clinton was not condemned for the attacks, he was condemned requesting the actof force through the UN in advance. He affectively “tipped off” Bin Laden through the UN and made the missile attacks worthless and everybody knew it. Clinton had 4 chances to Bin Laden to justice with the assistance of the Afgan freedom fighters. His decision not to take action when he had the chance and the element of surprise ultimately cost the lives of several hundred Afgani FFs and crippled our ability to work form the inside. Just as we are doing now, the philosophy was not to take any pre-emptive action without N approval and to treat most terorist acts as issues of common lawlessness not terror (sound familiar?). Clinton WAS critized, but it was for his lack of action or his incorrect actions – not simply because he took action.

Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm

I love the irony in all this..throughout the Last republican administration, we heard Reid and Murtha wail on how the war was lost and that we needed to leave before anymore Americans were killed or injured. Now that we have a democrat pushing troops into Afganistan, its being spun as necessary because the republicans left the job unfinished in 89.
Lets see, Republicans failed in Afganistan because they did not stay and help the Afgan Rebels defeat the taliban. Then they failed in Iraq because they stayed and helped the Iraqi government stand strong enough to prevent terrorists from replacing the fallen Hussain Regime.
Let me get this straight — If Republicans leave before a new regime can stand on its own two feet, they are at fault, if they stay til a new government can stand on its own two feet they are at fault. And the Dems are never at fault, since they can blame all their decision on teh previous decisions of the republicans..

Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm

Posted by: arkie vet | Dec 3, 2009 4:11:52 PM
It’s not the difficult to understand. The Bush administration let Afghanistan simmer on the back burner for 7 years while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and got stronger.
They did that in favor of their neo-con wet dream to attack Iraq. The numbers of troops in each country attest to that.
Fine, except for the situation in Afghanistan (where the 9/11 and other al Qaeda terrorist attacks in London, Spain, etc. were originated) was left to drift. Bin Laden and the al Qaeda were NOT captured.
Thus we face the continued mess in Afghanistan today.

Posted by: tierra | December 3, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm

tierra — I was actually in the country of Quatar and saw how each war was waged. There were very different, but it is incorrect to say that Afganistan was back burnered. While the defeat of Sadam’s regime in Iraq required a high level of manpower, the skirmish style fighting in Afganistan did not. We sent just as many sorties to each country, even though the ground fighting was very different. Alot like the differences between the way the South Pacific campaign was fought in WW2 compared to the way that the European conflict was fought in the same war. It true that Bin Laden was not captured, probably our last chance ot do that was waisted by Clinton in 94. Bin Laden is a figure head. Capturing him will not “win” that war, only by dismantling the Al Queada network can the war be won, we have made a lot of progress over the last few years in doing that.

Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

tierra — Its also incorret to say that AlQuaida regrouped and grew stronger while we were in Iraq. In the height of the Iraq war we captured or killed over 50 prominent members of Sadamm’s regime. During that same time frame, we captured or killed over 100 prominent members of Al Quaida in Afganistan, including 4 of Bin Laden’s “leutenants” which affectively cut off major portiond of his network and forced him into hiding.

Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

Brezinski and Gates created al Qaeda. Pakistan is run by the ISI which was created and still run through the office of the CIA. We are not fighting terrorists. We are fighting contractors who are paid to commit acts of terror, to justify invasion or occupation, as to guarantee access and control of their natural resources for our own purposes. (Namely cutting Russia and China out from acess to cheap oil)
If this was about bin Laden, they would have provided evidence to the Taliban that they asked for, and the Taliban would have handed him over, like they stated the day after 911. Our response was to bomb them and invade Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Does that sound like we just wanted bin Laden and had no interest in controlling the resources of the region, and push through the pipeline that the Taliban was negotiating with the US for, until the Taliban broke off negotiations just prior to 911.
I mean Iraq was “Operation Iraqi Liberation”, O-I-L… It’s not like they are even trying to hide this…

Posted by: jafo | December 3, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm

only by dismantling the Al Queada network can the war be won, we have made a lot of progress over the last few years in doing that.
Posted by: arkie vet | Dec 3, 2009 4:41:08 PM
______________________________
I don’t believe the ‘progress’ for one second. Both the Taliban and al Qaeda have apparently been allowed to grow stronger and stronger since the invasion.

Posted by: tierra | December 3, 2009, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm

We often forget what happens to the countries involved after war. My sister in laws family was murdered in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge after Vietnam.
There are always consequences for the decisions our country makes. Hopefully we will look to our history so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Posted by: wow | December 4, 2009, 2:40 am 2:40 am

arkie vet writes, ” It true that Bin Laden was not captured, probably our last chance ot do that was waisted by Clinton in 94.”
_______________________________________
so you just blatantly choose to ignore the reports that the Bush Administration didn’t go after Bin Laden in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in 2001 or are your opinions just conveniently selective?
The funny thing about the whole Tora Bora thing is that I read a report in the New York Times in the early stages of the war that insinuated the exact same thing. It stated there were 2 mountain passes out of the region into Pakistan and we bombed one closed and left the other open which let Bin Laden and company pass freely. Funny how a year after Bush is out of office that the story surfaces again……..but that’s the liberal media for ya!!

Posted by: dk | December 4, 2009, 4:38 am 4:38 am

Nice post, Jake. Very thoughtful. More of this type of commentary is helpful.

Posted by: Jack | December 4, 2009, 8:15 am 8:15 am

Let’s face it, there is a lot of blame to go around regarding this war. I am not in favor of the war, especially the one in Iraq because we did not need to be there…we were led to believe it was for our protection i.e weapons of mass destruction when in actuality, those in power knew they were not there. We bombed their towns and villages and created a problem for their country and ours. That being said, we are now trying to get out of Iraq gracefully. We don’t have to win there as some believe…we just need to leave. As to Afghanistan…now, there is where we needed to be. Here is where the real terrorists are and we need to control them. However, I still feel we do not have to have another Viet Nam and I don’t think this president (who is not a war president) will keep us there any longer than necessary. He has a plan with an exit policy. It remains to be seen if this is achievable. I also think if the plan needs to be adjusted, he will do so. He is no fool and listens to those who know. I think it is time to get behind our president as we did did in the past and forget whether we are democrats or republicans. We are all Americans and Americans are fighting this war so I say let’s unite for the sake of the troops.

Posted by: talmag | December 4, 2009, 9:07 am 9:07 am

This is a first-rate post with information I haven’t encountered anywhere else. Great reporting.

Posted by: EM | December 4, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am

Jake,
Excellent work. I think the piece should have ended: ‘And the Zen Master said “we’ll see.’”
I work on this issue up close and personal. As one of our Training Commanders is famous for saying “this is hard.”
One more thought brought to us by some US Marines: “The Marines are at war; America is at the Mall.”

Posted by: Dan Mosqueda | December 6, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am

The non-ceasing liberal bias of ABC and other failing television networks continues despite the growing sense of irrelevance it is creating among viewer. Many of us do not watch network television, not just their news, because of their foolish Progressive agenda. Now, I will hope to avoid more of their display online as I have wandered across here. Goodbye must flee tv.

Posted by: DB | December 12, 2009, 1:03 am 1:03 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.