34. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (Carlucci) to the President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Aaron)1

SUBJECT

  • Covert Action Options Paper on Afghanistan

1. Forwarded herewith (Tab A) is a first cut of a covert action options paper on Afghanistan, which outlines alternative programs of varying costs and risks.

2. The Chief, Near East and South Asia Division, who has been advised of the National Security Council’s interest in Afghanistan, is [Page 86] currently in the field, conferring with concerned station chiefs regarding their capabilities to implement the programs described in the attachment. We intend to draft a formal proposal for submission to the Special Coordination Committee when he returns on 12 February. On the other hand, if a paper is desired more urgently, we can solicit his views by cable and submit our proposal within the next few days.2

3. You may have already noted State 014844 (Tab B), which reports a request by the Afghan National Liberation Front for U.S. support of its activities against the Afghan regime:3 and Kabul 0528 (Tab C), which warns that overt contact with Afghan dissidents would be harmful and recommends that CIA therefore handle such relationships. We are working with State on this.4

All portions of this document are SECRET.

Frank C. Carlucci5
[Page 87]

Tab A

Paper Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency6

SUBJECT

  • Some Covert Action Options in Afghanistan

Background:

On 27 April 1978 leftist military forces staged a successful coup in Afghanistan, replacing the government of President Daoud with a Soviet-oriented “Democratic Republic”. Prime Minister Taraki and other government leaders all are members of the “People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan”, which is Soviet-style communist party in a Stalinist mode. The new regime has placed a high priority on consolidating its control of government organizations and the armed forces, and has had considerable success in this. It has been greatly aided by an influx of Soviet advisors who have been placed in almost all departments of the government and throughout the armed forces. The situation in the countryside is different. Afghan governments traditionally have had little control in the rural, tribal areas; this government is no exception. Its problems stem particularly from its pro-Soviet, communist orientation, which offends many deeply religious, conservative Afghans. Afghans tend to be nationalistic, and many are conscious of, and resent, the growing dominance of the USSR in their affairs.

A tribal rebellion has been underway for several months in Afghanistan’s eastern provinces, and the government is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain public order in other outlying areas of the country. Outside Afghanistan, emigre dissidents claim to have several thousand trained fighters, including a few hundred former military officers, in and around Peshawar and the Pakistan frontier. The principal Afghan rebel group in this area is the Afghan National Liberation Front (ANLF), although there also are other significant groups which rival the ANLF. Thus far the Government of Pakistan (GOP) has turned a blind eye to this Afghan dissident activity. The rebels are reported to be receiving support from individual Afghans living abroad, and also from Saudi Arabian sources (The latter is not confirmed nor whether the alleged support comes from private or official sources.).

[Page 88]

Assumption:

Afghanistan’s importance lies in the destabilizing effect its communist government could have on the region—particularly on Pakistan. Further afield, the Afghan situation is having an adverse psychological impact on many Third World countries. It tends to bolster the thesis that the Soviet way is the wave of the future, and that the U.S. will make no effort to stem Soviet encroachments in the Middle East. Therefore, it is in the U.S. interest to have the Taraki Government fall and be replaced by a non-communist regime. Currently the USG is seeking to influence Afghan policies by conventional diplomatic means, including the continuation of AID programs. Our ability to exercise economic and political leverage is limited, and efforts to date have been largely successful. Conversely, given its geographic proximity, existing close economic and military relationships, and common political philosophy, the USSR has been able to move quickly to consolidate and strengthen its already considerable influence.7 Nevertheless, an anti-communist coup d’etat is still possible, and the Soviets would probably feel obliged to accept such an event without resorting to military intervention, assuming it was carried out quickly and decisively. On the other hand, a gradually accelerated insurgency would carry a greater risk of countermeasures, both overt and covert.

Our intelligence indicates the insurgency is going to continue, no matter what position the U.S. adopts in respect to it. We cannot at this time predict how it will develop, nor whether it will succeed. But we do see it hurting the Taraki Government and, in particular, having a divisive impact on the armed forces. The soldiers, mainly rural draftees, are being required to use their weapons against their fellows from the countryside. The officer corps, although purged of suspected anti-Taraki elements, could well become increasingly embarrassed and angry at being obliged to impose an unpopular regime on their own people. A possible scenario: the continuing insurgency would lead eventually to the active disaffection of a sufficient number of officers into blaming the country’s problems on Taraki, who would forcefully overthrow his regime. Finally, there is the fatigue factor. The Taraki Government is narrowly based and thinly staffed. A sustained insurgency would undoubtedly drain scarce managerial and leadership resources the government can ill afford. While it is possible that the government will fall very quickly (viz, in a lightning coup), it seems more likely that Taraki will be overthrown as a result of his continuing inability to deal with the insurgency. We also believe that the Afghan [Page 89] rebels will need some outside assistance if they are to sustain the insurgency at its present level. The USG could increase the prospects of the Taraki regime being overthrown through a variety of covert action techniques, ranging from propaganda support to clandestine arms supply. The risks to the U.S. would be largely dependent upon the type of techniques adopted.

Covert Action Options:

(1) Generate a worldwide media campaign publicizing the regime’s problems, exposing Taraki and his colleagues as pawns of the Soviet Union. Condemn Taraki for attempting to force an atheistic philosophy on a sincerely religious population, and for violating their basic human rights. Such a campaign would be virtually risk free, but probably would have little impact within Afghanistan itself. It would, however, establish the groundwork for additional CA proposals, including influencing Saudi Arabian and other prospective donors of aid to the rebel cause.

(2) Expand the above program to include radio broadcasts in Dari beamed into Afghanistan from neighboring countries. This would almost certainly require the cooperation of the Governments of Pakistan and/or Iran, either of which might be difficult to secure. In the past the GOP has beamed propaganda into Afghanistan from a radio station in Quetta. If relations between the two countries deteriorate, the GOP might resume such broadcasts. [less than 1 line not declassified] shortwave broadcasts also reach Afghanistan, and we could explore the possibility of putting our message on this medium.

(3) Encourage and assist Afghan rebel groups with representation outside of Afghanistan to oppose the regime. CIA officers currently are in contact with a small number of Afghan exiles who at this time are being exploited only for intelligence collection purposes. Other potential exile leaders have been identified and could be approached in due course. One of these is an Afghan, long resident in the U.S., who already is believed by emigre leaders to have some form of secret U.S. support. Some of these individuals could be used as conduits of funds and material support to rebel groups operating from the Peshawar area. We also might establish connections with a member of the ruling family of Chitral, the Pakistan princely state which lies just across the border from Nuristan where most of the guerrilla activity is taking place. This could give us the possibility of utilizing the natural smuggling routes through Chitral to support the rebels directly, thus bypassing the emigres. Saudi Arabians, who may have some connections with the dissidents, might be asked to front for us in supporting the insurgency. Any proposed material assistance to dissidents would have to be carefully weighed from the policy standpoint. Aside from [Page 90] spending funds for intelligence collection, and supplying material aid on humanitarian grounds (viz, medical supplies), selection of this covert action option would indicate a clear-cut U.S. Government decision to attempt to overturn the current Afghan Government.

Risk vs. Gain:

An intensified propaganda program against the Afghan regime, particularly one which involved radio broadcasting, would come to Afghan and Soviet attention. It might be blamed on the USG, or CIA in particular, although it would technically remain nonattributable. However, in view of the current volume of Soviet propaganda against the U.S., particularly with regard to neighboring Iran, we doubt that Soviet reaction to such a program would adversely affect U.S. interests in the area. It would increase the hostility of the government towards Americans in Afghanistan, but this is not a vital consideration. A successful propaganda program would make the world more aware of the nature of the Afghan regime, but it probably would do little to weaken it. On the contrary, it might induce the government to tighten its grip and become even more dependent upon the Soviets. Propaganda of the type envisioned could provide marginal encouragement to the insurgents, but overall would have little effect on them.

Although thus far we have refrained from doing so, we have the capability to explore with Afghan exiles the possibility of joint action against the regime. If, however, there is no intention to follow through, it would be inadvisable to embark on such a course of action. Raising the expectation of these exiles and then refraining from taking any action, would do more harm than good.

GOP support, or at least quiet acquiescence, would be almost essential for the success of any program designed to assist the Peshawar-based rebels. Although we could smuggle small quantities of material to them unilaterally, tacit GOP agreement would be required if larger quantities are involved. We have one unconfirmed report that Saudi sources are sending equipment to the rebels via Karachi, and that the GOP has turned a blind eye to this. If true, this suggests that should we become involved in a supply program, we might consider working with the Saudis in view of the influence they can bring to bear on the GOP.

There are several competing factions among the rebels. Some are royalist, some are Islamic fundamentalist and some are both. If we elect to support the dissidence, considerable care will be needed to ensure that our aid gets to the proper place; that it is not squandered on political infighting. We believe this is a manageable problem, because we should be able to keep fairly close track of activity in the dissident movement through a number of separate, compartmented sources.

  1. Source: National Security Council, Carter Administration Intelligence Files, Box I–047, Afghanistan: 8 May 1978–7 Dec 1978. Secret. Attached but not printed is a covering memorandum from Inderfurth to Brzezinski and Aaron, February 1, which forwarded Carlucci’s memorandum and attachments. Inderfurth asserted that the CIA paper’s call to expose Afghanistan’s problems and its status as a Soviet pawn would be “counterproductive” because it contradicted another part of the paper that noted the negative psychological impact of Soviet influence on the region. Bringing more attention to the situation, he argued, would only exacerbate the problem. In response, Henze wrote at the bottom of Inderfurth’s memorandum: “Well you have to generate some waves to make progress.” Brzezinski wrote at the top of Carlucci’s memorandum: “Let planning proceed. ZB.”
  2. See Document 38. Brzezinski underlined “returns on 12 February,” and wrote: “OK” and initialed “ZB” in the left margin.
  3. Tab B is attached but not printed. In a memorandum to Brzezinski, January 22, Henze responded to Brzezinski’s January 19 request for comment on telegram 14844 to Kabul, January 19. Both the request and the telegram are attached to Henze’s memorandum. In the telegram, the Department stated that former Afghan Ambassador to the United States Karim met with Saunders on behalf of the Afghan National Liberation Front, during which Karim requested U.S. support for the Front’s activities against the DRA. Karim also asked if the United States would consider receiving former Afghan General Abdul Wali. Henze described the political situation in Afghanistan as “very fluid” and urged that maintaining contact with groups opposed to the Taraki government was in the interest of the United States. On the question of how the United States might assist such opposition, Henze noted both difficulties and opportunities: “Without some adjustments in the procedures for reporting this sort of thing to just about everybody in Congress, I doubt whether we could mount a program of any size or duration that could have an impact. CIA’s NE division chief, Alan Wolfe [text not declassified] knows Afghanistan well—the least we could do would be to charge CIA with learning as much as possible about opposition attitudes—I am intrigued by the Islamic aspect of all of this—it could prove to be Achilles heel for the Soviets, for I am coming across increasing evidence of a real Islamic underground in the USSR and resurgence of Islamic cultural/political identity beyond what we have already known.” (National Security Council, Carter Administration Intelligence Files, Box I–047, Afghanistan: 8 May 1978–7 Dec 1978) Telegram 14844 is also in the National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790027–0586)
  4. Tab C is attached but not printed. In telegram 528 from Kabul, January 23, the Embassy assessed that “we stand to lose more than we might gain by receiving Abdul Wali in the U.S.” The gesture would “inevitably be read by the Taraki regime as U.S. Government support for the Afghan National Liberation Front (ANLF).” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790033–0855)
  5. Carlucci signed “Frank” above his typed signature.
  6. Secret.
  7. Henze drew a line from the word “close” and wrote in the top margin: “unsuccessful!”