On the eve of an American presidential election fought principally over Iraq, let us set aside the arguments over that overseas adventure and ignore the implausibility of George W. Bush's spin on it. Consider instead two propositions from a historical perspective:

Are there parallels between the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (1979-'90), and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Plenty.

Given that, are there some broad conclusions to be drawn?

Yes.

Here are the comparisons between those two colonial ventures, both of which had their own geopolitical imperatives:

• Moscow thought it was in its strategic interest to expand the Soviet empire southward.
  
  Washington wanted to secure Iraqi oil to reduce dependency on Saudi oil, and establish a military footprint to compensate for the planned withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia, since accomplished.
  
  The Kremlin's regional agenda was to warn Iran, which had just had its Islamic revolution.
  
  The Bush administration's regional agenda was to frighten Iran and Syria into toeing the line; weaken the negotiating hand of Palestinians against Israel; and ostensibly set a democratic example for autocratic Arab neighbours.

• The Soviets ruled Afghanistan through puppet presidents in Kabul who ruled from a fortified palace. Two were murdered.
  
  America came to Iraq with its own satrap, Ahmad Chalabi and, when he was discredited, Ayad Allawi, a former CIA employee who rules from an American bunker in Baghdad.

• Both occupations quickly ran into local resistance and turned brutal.
  
  The Soviet tactics included blanket bombings and the laying of millions of mines that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and uprooted millions from their homes and modest pastoral living.
  
  Americans claim to have been more targeted in their attacks in Iraq, yet have killed 16,000 civilians, so far. They have failed to fix the crumbling infrastructure, which had deteriorated long before the invasion, due to the American-led economic sanctions. And they are presiding over mass unemployment.
  
  Soviet troops in Afghanistan committed some of the worst human rights violations of modern times. The sins of American soldiers in Iraq are minuscule by comparison. But Abu Ghraib is only part of the story, which is yet to be fully told.

• Afghans, like Iraqis, have long been divided, along denominational, tribal, linguistic and regional lines. But they united against the foreign occupier. Similarly, Iraqis are uniting against the common enemy, contrary to widespread Western predictions of an imminent civil war.

• The Soviets, proselytizers of communism, ended up Islamizing the Afghans. The Americans, out to spread secular democracy, have strengthened the mosques and other religious institutions.
  
  This is not surprising.
  
  Israel, especially under the last two Likud prime ministers, has ended up Islamizing the historically secular Palestinian resistance movement whose stalwarts included Christians and Marxists.
  
  India, under Indira Gandhi in the 1980s, turned the mostly regional demands of the Punjab province into a secessionist and religious struggle for Sikhs.

• The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan attracted about 35,000 volunteer fighters from abroad, mostly Arabs.
  
  Occupied Iraq has attracted foreigners as well — again, mostly Arabs, whose numbers no one seems to know for sure.
  
  In Afghanistan, the anti-Soviet forces were glorified and funded by the Americans. Ronald Reagan insisted they not be called "guerrillas" but "the mujahideen," freedom fighters. He funnelled $5 billion to them in what became the CIA's biggest covert operation ever, aided by such allies as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
  
  In Iraq, the anti-American insurgency is mostly indigenous but it's not clear who is financing the foreigners, if they are paid at all.

• Soviet Afghanistan spawned terrorism, as the mujahideen mutated into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. American Iraq is already a den of terrorists.

• The Afghan misadventure made the Soviet Union unpopular among Muslims, discredited communism, killed the small leftist movements in the Muslim world.
  
  In fact, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Reagan administration's ideological mobilization of Islam to counter "the Communist evil" may have revived Islamic fundamentalism. That's what a Columbia University professor, Mahmood Mamdani, hypothesizes in his new book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War, And The Roots Of Terror.

With the Iraq invasion, America is now almost universally reviled. Bush's war against the "evil of terrorism" draws derision, and not just in the Muslim world.

More relevant to our argument here, Iraq is clearly the best recruitment poster for Osama bin Laden or those inspired by him.

Finally, Afghanistan proved to be the straw that broke the back of the Soviet empire. There is no such imminent danger confronting the world's lone superpower.

But this much is clear: America does not seem to have learned any lessons from the tragic legacy of the last battle of the Cold War.

© 2004 Toronto Star

###