Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

War In Afghannistan
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: War In Afghannistan
    Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:51

I find funny that you might seriously think about Putin's role in it.

And I can repeat again that in order to conquer Afghanistan, the Soviet Army should have turned the whole country in a desert and perhaps sent most of the male population older than 12 to the concentration camps or may be stay there for 20 more years.

And this wasn't done.
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 16:54
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:18
Originally posted by Sarmat12

I find funny that you might seriously think about Putin's role in it.
 
You brought Putin into this discussion, not me.
 
And I can repeat again that in order to conquer Afghanistan, the Soviet Army should have turned the whole country in a desert and perhaps sent most of the male population older than 12 to the concentration camps or may be stay there for 20 more years.
And this wasn't done.
 
The Soviets did their best to do that, it was the skill and bravery of the Afghani fighters that defeated them. 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:33
Originally posted by DukeC

The Soviets did their best to do that, it was the skill and bravery of the Afghani fighters that defeated them. 
 
LOLLOLLOL
 
It is not worth arguing with a diletant like you. You better continue discussing ducks, the only topic you are proficient in.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 17:33
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:48
Wait there's a topic about ducks on here? I can't believe I missed it.

I personally don't see the American war in Afghanistan ending differently than the Russian one. We, as Americans, have mostly forgotten about the war in Afghanistan. It's very unfortunate actually since we should have waited until all objectives in Afghanistan were met before going into Iraq. However, this is another topic for another time.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:55
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
LOLLOLLOL
 
It is not worth arguing with a diletant like you. You better continue discussing ducks, the only topic you are proficient in.
 
Laugh all you want, it doesn't change the fact that poorly armed guerillas defeated the most powerful land army in the world at the time. Men with rifles and improvised rockets went up against MBTs and Hind helicopters and while many died, they eventually drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Sounds pretty skillful and brave to me.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:01

The thing is that. Nor Soviets in Afghanistan nor Americans in Vietnam were MILITARY defeated. Both armies always performed their tactical tasks and no major battle was lost.

But they were not able to win either. You can't simply put the country under control by defeating its army, if the whole population hates you utterly.

You either should reeducate all the population or simply terrorize or genocide it to the extent when nobody would be willing to resistant the foreign invaders.

Nor US nor USSR were able to perform the latter task. And they simply were not willing to do it.

 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:09
Originally posted by Sarmat12

The thing is that. Nor Soviets in Afghanistan nor Americans in Vietnam were MILITARY defeated. Both armies always performed their tactical tasks and no major battle was lost.
 
This is such a stupid argument, the whole point of guerilla warfare is to atrite the enemy until they leave. The Afghanis exactly achieved their aims by wearing down the Soviet forces.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

You either should reeducate all the population or simply terrorize or genocide it to the extent when nobody would be willing to resistant the foreign invaders.
 
Any government that engaged in such actions would lose any justification for it's existance.
 
You sure are bloody minded.


Edited by DukeC - 07-Jul-2007 at 18:24
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:23
Soviet army could stay there for 2 more centuries, should they willing to. It had more than enough resources for that. That war simply lost all its appeal to the USSR after perestroika had started and the cold war had ended.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:44
Originally posted by DukeC

 
Any government that engaged in such actions would lose any justification for it's existance.
 
You sure are bloody minded.
 
That's why SU stopped this war. However, I believe you would probably drown all the enemies in blood, if you were the leader of the invaders.
 
Your posts bertray your violent nature and narrow mind. 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 19:22
Originally posted by Sarmat12

[
 
That's why SU stopped this war. However, I believe you would probably drown all the enemies in blood, if you were the leader of the invaders.
 
Your posts bertray your violent nature and narrow mind.
 
Obviously you've never really read any of my posts.


Edited by DukeC - 07-Jul-2007 at 19:22
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 20:23
Originally posted by DukeC

Obviously you've never really read any of my posts.
 
The question is whether you read your own post. Poorly armed guerrilas started to win after they became better armed:
 
 

By the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, receptive to assistance from the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, China, and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The US viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani secret services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[25][26]
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 20:32

OK, if we have started referring to this wiki article, I give the reference which totally supports my point.

In fact, guerillas didn't win in battles with the Soviet Army
 
 
The inability of the Soviet Union to break the military stalemate, gain a significant number of Afghan supporters and affiliates, or to rebuild the Afghan Army, required the increasing direct use of its own forces to fight the rebels. Soviet soldiers often found themselves fighting against civilians due to the elusive tactics of the rebels. They repeated one of the American Vietnam mistakes by winning almost all of the conventional battles, but failing to control the countryside.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Jul-2007 at 20:35
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252 		  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 21:38
Originally posted by Laelius

 
The US can't win this war decisively but it can slowly wear down the resistance movement through low intensity warfare inside Afghanistan with the help of renewed Pakistani offensives in Waziristan. 
 
 
Low intensity warfare suits the mujaheddin not the US.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

And I can repeat again that in order to conquer Afghanistan, the Soviet Army should have turned the whole country in a desert and perhaps sent most of the male population older than 12 to the concentration camps or may be stay there for 20 more years.

And this wasn't done.
 
 
^Quite true, except that the Russians were out played, not that they didn't try. It was fairly common for families to enlist one son with the communists(a kind of insurance) while others would fight for the mujaheddin. Guess, what would happen if your village was about to be attacked!Wink.  Russian policies were not far from the 'air control' towards the end of the 100 year war between Afghans and British. Who realized the same thing and resorted to destrtuction of villages and complete decimation of the crops, only to stiffen the resolve of their foes. The RAF men were so despised that their 'blood chits' were called 'goolie chits'. Afghans just don't like 'air control'.
 
American help was not available from the outset, but only materialized when it became apparent that the Russians were not going to get anywhere quick. American Saudi and Pakistani help had an immediate effect. It gave the mujaheddin the ability to increase the intensity and bite of their operations.
 


Edited by malizai_ - 07-Jul-2007 at 21:39
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 22:30
Originally posted by Anton

 
The question is whether you read your own post. Poorly armed guerrilas started to win after they became better armed:
 
 

By the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, receptive to assistance from the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, China, and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The US viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani secret services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[25][26]

Another member of the neo-Soviet block is heard from.LOL
 
More modern weapons did begin to arrive as the struggle went on, but they were mostly man-portable systems that were often as much of a threat to the guerillas as the Soviets. Most of the weapons tended to kick up a lot of dust when fired like the recoilless guns and AT-missiles, the Brits didn't refer to their recoilless weapons as VC(Victoria Cross) guns for no reason.
 
Weapons like the .50 Barret sniper rifle that was developed for the Afghanis were more effective however but were still talking about a force that needed to be in visual range of heavily armed Soviet forces with air support to engage. The Hind alone was one of the most fierce weapon systems of the war, able to deliver an entire squad to the battlefield to cut off escape and support it with rockets, automatic cannon and all this with armor that stopped most groundfire.
 
All the support from outside did was increase the rate of atrition of Soviet forces, the Afghanis and foreign Mujahedeen still took heavy casualties fighting a force that had them outgunned at almost every encounter.
 


Edited by DukeC - 07-Jul-2007 at 22:33
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 22:52

Another quotation from a professional article from a very serious academic journal. It clearly says that Afghan mujahedeen didn't defeat the Soviet Army.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/miredinmount.htm

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home. 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:02
Guys why don't you calm down a little?

Regarding your debate, please remember that the SU lost several millions soldiers in WWII and was left traumatized by the experience. The government knew the public opinion was not ready to take heavy losses. After it became clear that fulfilling the objectives would take ages quite literally, they decided to pull back.

The death rate of soviet soldiers was fairly comparable with the one endured today by the US in Iraq
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564 		  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:35
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Another quotation from a professional article from a very serious academic journal. It clearly says that Afghan mujahedeen didn't defeat the Soviet Army.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/miredinmount.htm

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.  
 
The Mujahedeen wasn't trying to destroy the Soviet military just drive it out of the country, which it suceeded in doing. The war was having the same destructive effect on Soviet morale and discipline as the Vietnam War had on the U.S. military. It wasn't worth the monetary and human cost to continue the conflict, which is the whole point in this kind of warfare.
 
Back to the present which is the topic here, the same thing is happening once again with a probable similiar outcome. The Karzi government lacks the credibility and authority to survive without the presence of foreign forces which will only stay as long as public support stays high enough. As soon as it becomes a political liability to support the war in the NATO countries the troops will come home. It's already happening here, the Harper government lost a lot of credibility over the issue of turning captives over to the Afghan government which has a long record of human rights abuses. It's finally willing to have an honest debate in the House over the mission.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 11:49
Originally posted by DukeC

Another member of the neo-Soviet block is heard from.LOL
 
 
Clown
.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728 		  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 12:00
Low intensity warfare suits the mujaheddin not the US
Are you kidding me? Why do you think the Afghan militants are using the same tactics in Iraq now? Every firefight engagement, even with the militants having a number advantage have lost. They're using IED and ambush tactics learned by the Iraq war now where in they setup up to attack the small squads of US troops.
Do you know what Low Intensity Warfare is? It's whats been used for along time now, and it's usually a policy set by the nation itself, not some widely accept terms that everyone follows. And it usually comes with the tag, atleast this day and age, as counter-terrorism.
I personally don't see the American war in Afghanistan ending differently than the Russian one. We, as Americans, have mostly forgotten about the war in Afghanistan. It's very unfortunate actually since we should have waited until all objectives in Afghanistan were met before going into Iraq. However, this is another topic for another time.
It will end differently because it is different now. Remember the reports of the Spring offensive? We killed their one competent military leader, and suddenly the whole thing falls apart. And even when he was alive, it never made any head way. And that was their only real bid for a 1 on 1 face to face fight, and now they're just back to the tactics used in Iraq.
The out come is, we may leave, but if so, it's only because it will be like Iraq in where the new government can't pull itself together and just becomes a money pit. It's the civilians that suffer the most in this conflict in that the enemy is targetting them to cause unrest.
The Soviets left because of Casualties and Economic problems, not to mention is wasn't very well liked at home, it was a 9 year war. Right now, the US has the economy to support the war and has had far less casualties then the SU(over 14,000| US-408), and this October, the US would will be there for 6 years. I have a feeling we won't leave this war but will likely leave Iraq.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
CHAUDRY View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote CHAUDRY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 00:04
Off-topic
 
Originally posted by pekau

Originally posted by Sparten

5 Million Afghans did not end up in Pakistan (a country they hated like poison) becoz the Russkies were kind. Scorched earth policies were used by the 40th Army since the beginning.
 
I know it's off topic, but why do the Afghans hate Pakistan? Confused
 
Bottom-line:

Relations have never been good, due to an old enmity, starting from day #1 Pakistan came into existence=>

Territorial claims, afghanistan has on Pakistan. 

 

Pakistan ended up incorporating chunk of ex-afghan land into the newborn, "pakistan".

For pakistan this piece of land (and the people who come with it) has always been een integral part of the country:

Pakistan (acronym)=> p-for punjab  a-for afghan k-kashmir s-for sindh.

U can think of pakistan as an multi-ethnic union, consisting of people with different ethnic backgrounds (like punjabi's and afghani's (pakhtun)

Without the 'a', Pakistan would never have been "pakistan".

 

Kabul has never been able to digest this fact.

(i am not saying rightly so, or wrongly so)
no comment
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.