War In Afghannistan
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20479
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 02:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: War In Afghannistan
Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Subject: War In Afghannistan
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 16:33
| The Russian Army with more than 100,000 soldiers was defeated and left the country in shame. American and NATO troops which now number approx. 60,000 are unable to defeat the Talibans, who recently swithched to guerilla tactics. My prognosis is unless more troops are sent in, victory will be hard to achieve. |
Replies:
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 22:58
| More than 100,000 then, since that didn't work ? I doubt there is a will to send that many more troops for a war that is increasingly unpopular..although then again, that didn't seem to stop the U.S. from constantly sending more troops to Iraq. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 00:26
|
I can't agree with that. It was anything but not a military defeat. Soviet army have won all the major military engagements and performed all the tactical tasks. The casualties after the 10 years of war were only 15 thous. KIA. While combined Afghan casualties were about a million with several hundred thousands mujaheddin military casualtues. The reason for withdrawal was simply the nature of the war. You can't win antiguerilla war, unless you are prepared for a very long military presence, scourched earth tactics and massive repressions against insurgents' supportive population. (actually this is now starting to happen in Afghanistan again) All this coincided with the Political cirsis in SU and the end of the Cold War.
Anyway, it was not a military defeat of the Soviet Army. I would say it was a strategic defeat of the Soviet Foreign Policy. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 01:06
|
I disagree they lost at Khost ,a whole Motor Rifle divison was cut off. The fact they inflicted heavier casualties on the Afghans is hardly conclusive, the Axis inflicted 3 times as many casulties on the Allies yet they latter still won. The Soviets failed in their mission, which was to make Afghanistan safe for communism. That was a defeat a militray defeat, militray force failed to achieve the politcal objects set for it. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 01:31
|
No. It was not a military defeat; the same as Vietnam was not American military defeat.
All the tactical tasks were succesfully performed by the Soviet Army. Some succesful ambushes by Afghan's didn't change the military situation in their favor.
However despite winning the battles, Soviets were not able to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, this is the real reason for the failure of the invasion. Afghanistan could be peacefied only by massive violent repressions with even more millions killed.
Soviet Union didn't want to do it and it simply couldn't afford it. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 03:19
|
The Soviets lost politically an not conventionally. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 04:11
Warfare is a political action., and an inherently strategic one. If the milittary fails to accomplish the political mandate and achieve the strategic goals set it then it is a militray defeat no matter whatever gloss you put on it. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 13:48
|
It is not healthy to make attrition comparisons without the inclusion of Afghan communists in the total Communist losses. Sarmat12, you seem to impart the impression that the Soviets 'didn't' try scorched earth policies, and massive repression. With all due respect, the 1.5 million Afghans didn't die from malaria, and another 5 million left 'because of the' scorched earth policies in the rural heartlands. To the Soviet's credit they didn't destroy the capital Kabul, that was due to the Muj infighting. In the end it was a battle of wills. The American situation is quite different, since the Americans are only engaging a very small segment of Afghan population. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 22:48
Only a tiny minority of Afghans participated in the fighting on the Soviet side. Their role and casualties were very insignificant. The schorched policies and repressions were small scale.
And again in this policies are not equal to military engagments per se. As for the military engagments Soviet army always prevailed, except for several succesful ambushes which were directed against Soviet supply units and not against main field fighitng units. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:09
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 23:34
I know it's off topic, but why do the Afghans hate Pakistan?  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 00:16
|
Yeh i was just thinking that myself. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 02:47
|
You should ask the Afghanis themelves. We have been asking that question since day 1. ------------- |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 00:12
|
Ethnic Tajiks And uzbeks seem to hate Pakistan with a passion to my understanding, but it seems that the Pashtun majority hardly recognize Pakistan as a seperate country.
That being said I don't believe the war in Afghanistan is lost, not by a long shot. Of course its obvious that victory has by no meants yet been achieved nor is it likely to be in the short run. What the US needs to do is cut its losses in Iraq and move to a containment strategy in the gulf which will allow the US to shift intelligence and military assets to Afghanistan. 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. Of course the US will need to shift its priorities here and provide Mr. Musharraf with the appropriate aid... and incentives. Essentially provide the nation of Pakistan with substantial amounts Economic and military aid.
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 12:03
Rewriting history again are we?
The Soviets used chemical weapons and intensive bombing of civilians to depopulate large areas of Afghanistan to deny support for the freedom fighters.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 14:52
You don't need to remind us that rewriting history is the favorite business of YOURS.
I didn't write they were not doing this, so your remark is pointless here.
But the best way for you to impress us of course would be a new story from Mr. Litvinenko about "how Putin was involved in creating of gas chambers in Afghanistan etc."  ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 15:31
|
Read Spartens post, millions of Afghanis didn't leave the country on a whim, the Soviets behaved in a truly brutal manner in an effort to back up the hopeless communist government they were trying to impose on Afghanistan.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 15:42
So what, what are you trying to prove I didn't see any new points. It is a well known fact that Soviet army behaved brutally in Afghanistan and hundred of thousands of civilians were killed.
Have you discovered this only recently? I'm really sorry for you... ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:17
This isn't an honest representation of the war, I'm merely pointing that out.  ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:22
The chemical weapons were deployed against civilians by helicopter and tactical air not in gas chambers. Not sure why you find that funny.  ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:18
You brought Putin into this discussion, not me.
The Soviets did their best to do that, it was the skill and bravery of the Afghani fighters that defeated them. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:33
 It is not worth arguing with a diletant like you. You better continue discussing ducks, the only topic you are proficient in. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: King John
Date 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. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:55
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:09
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.
Any government that engaged in such actions would lose any justification for it's existance.
You sure are bloody minded. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:44
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
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 19:22
Obviously you've never really read any of my posts. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 20:23
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement - resistance movement , receptive to assistance from the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War - Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan - Pakistani secret services, in a program called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone - Operation Cyclone . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#_note-HOW-THE-CIA-CREATED-OSAMA-BIN-LADEN - [25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#_note-1986-1992-CIA-AND-BRITISH-RECRUIT-AND-TRAIN-MILITANTS-WORLDWIDE-TO-HELP-FIGHT-AFGHAN-WAR - [26] ------------- . |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_in_Afghanistan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_in_Afghanistan
The inability of the Soviet Union to break the military stalemate, gain a significant number of Afghan supporters and affiliates, or to rebuild the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam - Vietnam mistakes by winning almost all of the conventional battles, but failing to control the countryside. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 21:38
Low intensity warfare suits the mujaheddin not the US.
^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!
 . 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.
------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 22:30
Another member of the neo-Soviet block is heard from.
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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 - 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
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date 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! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:35
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 11:49
 ------------- . |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 12:00
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 
|
Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 00:04
|
Off-topic
Bottom-line:
Relations have never been good, due to an old enmity, starting from day #1 Territorial claims, For U can think of Without the 'a', (i am not saying rightly so, or wrongly so) ------------- no comment |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 10:55
Not quite, the US can maintain the sort of military operations it has going on in Afghanistan indefinitely |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 12:17
|
Yes, one brigade is not that much. ------------- |
Posted By: nuvolari
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 13:00
It depends what army that brigade is from, amigo !
|
Posted By: nuvolari
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 13:03
Hmmmmm ! So you think so ? Is the US Military banning news reporters from airports when the body bags are flown in, then ? That was a large part of what determined jsut how the Vietnam war ended, my friend !
More's the pity !
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 15:05
Well dear,
First of all, I would like to tell you that it not only was a policy defeat to the Russian but also a military defeat, as we all know that in order to supress a guerilla warfare one has to spend much money along with a long term planning in placed and presence of military for a long time (at least 15-20 years).
And while Russia was having financial crisis within his own country, the demand for independence rose up in different states of it.
In these situations they had nothing else but to either leave the job unfinished and run or to fight.
Fight they chose due to which as others mentioned 5-6 million of Afghan populations (3 million to Pakistan, 1.8 to Iran, 0.2-1.5 to Rest of the world) migrated from the country and the ones who where left had no choice but to die or fight and they too chose fight.
Now the ending conclusion was, as Russians had suffered just in country skirts before, now they were put on fire from every section of the country.
The fights in South was mainlly led by Gen. Gul Agha's fighters, West was under the command of Gen. Ismail Khan's fighters, North under Commander Ahmad Shah Masood's and Gen. Dustom's fighters (who switched from communist party to freedom fighters), and East was under Gulbudeen Hekmatyar's fighters.
I am sure if you search for any of those names you will get to know alot more about the war, but any way now with the resistance and ambushes from every side, Russians suffered a huge personal lost while the supplies from Mascow also shortened as the financial and domestic crisis got its peak, due to these reasons they had nothing also but to escape the country that's when the then government of Dr. Najib intervaned and asked for a ceasefire in return for exit of Russia from the country which was then accepted and resulted in a defeat of Russian might against the guerilla warfare of Afghans.
Now the same conditions has just began again and what we are seeing is just a revise of our shortly passed history, the same guerilla warfare and the same losses of Foriegn soldiers.
If you look back to the history you will find that most of the time Afghans have fought an invasion they have lost more fighters but still they fight and mostly win a Pyrrhic Victory over enemy.
But everytime a fighter is killed two more gets motivated to defend the country that's why the numbers of insurgents always keeps going high and high.
And as far as the usage of the Chemicals is concerned surely Russia did use alot of it and the same is being done by America in their campaign over Afghanistan.
For Russian usage http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html#when - click here to get the prove.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 15:17
Perfectly answered ! You are absolutely right about the cause of the hate that Afghans has for Pakistanis.
Though as dear Laelius mentioned in his own post that ethnic Tajiks and Uzbaks do have that hate but the Pashtuns and Balochs has never tought it a separete country but of our own.
I is the same cause as is going on between India and Pakistan over Kashmir while it belongs to India, and Islamabad has never been able to digest this fact. -------------
|
Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 18:47
|
Oh please, no need to get all excited, i just answered to some one's quest for an answer. An answer u and i know, but many people may not. I don't agree entirely what Laelius said either, about the Pashtun: they (not all) may don't want to recognize It doesn't mean that they actually don't.
Btw, u don't have the right to judge wether kashmir belongs to ------------- no comment |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 13:15
|
Your are right CHAUDRY I don't have the right but I do have the right for my speech and my point of view. I don't say that what I say or you say or anyone else says is completely right but everyone has the right to say and express his/her expression, if you don't like it you also have the right to urgue.
And you are right I also didn't say that Pashtuns and Balochs(not all) do recognize Pakistan, but they don't differ between Afghanistan and Pakistan, they think it of both countries a single place where people live, if you are not getting what I am saying you may move to the border and see how easy is it to move from Afghanistan to Pakistan and vice versa it's the same as moving to Rawalpindi from Islamabad, I mean tell me how many countries are there in the world which has this kind of a regulation (leaving the Unions like EU, UAE and others a side, I mean Independent domains). -------------
|
Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 05:38
Everyone on this forum has the right for his speech, as do i, and as u pointed out, to argue for his/her view, and that is all i did. I think, perhaps, it's rather waste of time to notify eachother of these facts. Anyhow, i agree there is a rather, in a way, an interesting situation on the borderlands. But i can assure u it's not the custom of whole of baluchi population, or the entire pakhtun population of The vast majority baluch and pakhtun population on the pakistani side, considers On the afghan side, whole another issue. I personally think, the people of I don't think u can force 70% of total world pakhtun/pashtun population into some kind of coerced colonisation, for more than 60 years now. Wouldn't these people allready have had waged some dozens of independence wars, especially with support from THey did so, against the superpower ( Tell me how come, they didn't do so against the pakistani state, which holds 70% of pakhtun population "captive" (afghan interpret). Wild guess: they consider themselves pakistanis, and don't want to join afghanistan/kabul? => They do, thoroughly, recognise Imo, large proportion of In the country where i live now, i have met, and i know, a lot of afghanis. There is a big hazara representation here, also a lot of tajiks, and the smallest proportion would be that of pashtuns. About the pashtuns: the very rare educated ones (in But the pashtun, son of soils, from say: jalalabad, don't quite hold such views (characteristic "kabuli/tajik view"). They consider The hazaras u can split into 2 or even 3: heavily pro Bottom line, IMO, the afghan official "view" of p.s. And i am very much surprised, president musharraf hasn't kicked out complete karzai family out of ------------- no comment |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 09:22
Dear Chaudry,
I am an educated Afghan and still prise the role of Pakistan for supporting the Afghans for last 30 years and giving/sharing their homes with Afghans.
I myself have taken my higher education from Pakistan and always say that I have never thought that I was living in a foreign country, the people of Pakistan is dam soo cordial and friendly. I still have lots and lots of friends from Pakistan.
That's the point that I have already said that Afghans have never thought Pakistan a second country but their second home.
p.s. And i am very much surprised, president musharraf hasn't kicked out complete karzai family out of |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 18:54
I am sorry, but i respectfully disagree Gharanai, i have never read where any war is ever the same as the last one. Maybe too those who hold that false perception close to their hearts. Americans can be just as guilty as the rest by drawing so many comparisons of todays current efforts with the Vietnam war. It can be done, though we would be grabbing the wrong end of the stick!
Also, i beleive you are confusing home grown Afghani guerilla fighters with the current day Taliban made up of primarily Pushtun villagers/farmers from N. Pakistan in the heavily AQ controlled district of Warzistan. With perhaps some Pushtuns from and around the vicinity of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. I just haven't seen/read about regular Afghanistani people rising up yet against the multi-national efforts in helping Afghanistan. Though, i have heard of them greatly distancing themseleves from the Taliban, which if i understand correctly, is seen as a worse of an option, that is in regards to the subject of foreign occupiers!
As far as the Russians using chemical weapons several decades ago, i can't really honestly comment on that and be fair, seeing that so much of the he/she said rhetoric was tied up within the cold war itself.
As far as Americans using chemical weapons, i find that incredibly hard too believe. Seeing that the press would be all over that story in a heart beat if that was so! As proof of my statement, take for example of Abu Gharib, the program of rendition, Guataunamo and ect... The factual use of chemical weapons would be just too much of a career maker for any new hungry journalist too pass up!
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 20:37
|
The level of conflict in Afghanistan now is much lower than during the 1980s and instead of a mass exodus, millions have returned because of the stability brought by NATO. We are in a different time and world than the Cold War and who can say how the conflict there will play out. Things are starting to fall apart politically in Pakistan and that will have a huge influence on Afghanistan.
------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 20:56
Agreed! That is the very last thing i want to see happening in and to the individual Pakistani's and their nation. Not necessarily only because of the multi-national efforts in Afghanistan, but also because of the implications of a bloody civil war. No single individual sane person wants too see that happen!
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 20:59
| Oh yeah... and let's not forget their nukes! (No this wasn't an after thought, was just too darn quick in punching the reply button) |
Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 22:16
I don't see resulting it into civil war. I don't smell it in the air (as a pakistani), things have to go really really bad, would this have a slight chance of occurring. Right now totally impossible. (With the exception of some people with guns, running around hills, bordering Mostly pakistani's have supported Musharraf's 'strategic shift-moves'. Although it has met some opposition, mostly from right-wing extremist islamic parties, which are mostly supported in west-Pakistan. But even the people supporting musharraf have cited serious concerns over military action in the tribal areas, against fellow pakistanis. American targeted bombings which resulted in high casualties, have worsened the situation more. All over Even pakistani government understands this, and has continously repeated it's intention of not only military, but also political and economical engagement within the concerned areas. And i think, long-term wise it is smarter as well. I think americans should do the same in It would be unjust brushing off The americans and their allies haven't been popular in the east, from the beginning, things have worsened only from then on. Resulting into more taliban support from local population. Use of force is prooving to be massively counterproductive, time to switch to other tactics. Maybe an afghan friend, from east Force only, or more economic and political engagement? ------------- no comment |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 10:19
|
Most Afghans never wanted communism but most Afghans do want democracy. So NATO has more Afghans supporting them (or at least tolerating) and most Afghans dont want the nasty Taliban back. NATO needs to watch out though. Near indiscriminate attacks by the Soviets on the Afghan population guaranteed that the Soviets could not win. NATO air attacks on the Taliban resulting in civilian deaths have been tolerated as they have been accidental. But NATO is so dependent on air power. Because some NATO allies, although supporting democracy in With more troops, NATO can win because NATO and the Afghans (mostly) share the same goals. Although, for every Taliban killed, another dozen are produced in the Madrassahs of Pakistan. |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 17:45
To be honest it was something of a generalization, a helpful guide to understanding the different perspectives between Afghanistans different ethic groups. Of course I can hardly claim to be an expert on Afghanistan and its people.
You overestimate the American new media, believe me as an American that a few flag draped coffins aren't going to usurp Coke hound Lyndsay Lohan's position as America's main focus...
The effect on casualties on the American public have been greatly exagerrated. In engagements in places like Vietnam casualties were but one of a number of different factors. In Iraq for instances the greatest decreases in popular support occurred not because of casualties but rather from the revelations that the justifications for going to war were completely false and unsupportable. What's more the US is spending nearly 100 billion a year in operations and rebuilding projects in Iraq To put that number in perspective thats the annual GDP of Kuwait New Zealand Egypt and the Ukraine.
In the case of Afghanistan, on the other hand, the cost in finance and casualties has been miscule, around 300 deaths, 1/3 of that from accidents, after being involved for 6 years and guess what? American support has remained completely solid.
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 18:56
|
First of all dear Panther you don't have to be sorry as I really like criticism about my writings as I get to know more about my mistakes and beside that everyone has his/her view and is free to express it, so thanks for your comment. Afterwards dear I have always said that fighting can never bring developement and peace to a nation, even sometimes I say that if King Ghazi Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan was let to rule for a further 10-20 years, today Afghanistan would have been one of the leading countries in the world in sence of economic, military might, education and democracy as his visions was much like Late. Attaturk of Turkey who took Turkey to much higher steps of developement and success. But the problem with our people (you can say that it's a part of their nature) is that they never understand that what is good for them and what is not. I mean let just take a look at our neighbor Pakistan, they got their so called independent in 1947 and after 60 year today they are a nuclear power with a stable economy and good education rate, what is the cause is that they still are a part/member of common wealth (meaning they never thought of demolishing their relations with western countries). Our people knows only one word and that is independent, I mean they would prefer living Independent in stone age rather than in a occupied modernized age. Well that's what our nature is and may Almighty Allah change it as no other one can do so. After thousands of years we still see that this country has not spared anyone not even its own people and is still living in a era where the word developement is not know by people. As far as your comment :
is concerned. I would like to tell you just a single line which is a famous saying about pashtuns, it says; "The only time Pashtuns are not at war with themselves is when they are at war!" So I am sure that you got the reply to that comment.
You can check my other post about the use of chemical weapons by Americans in Afghaistan. -------------
|
Posted By: mwe1
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 16:08
|
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. The USSR couldn't have stayed there five more years... Only a tiny minority of Afghans participated in the fighting on the Soviet side. Their role and casualties were very insignificant. The schorched policies and repressions were small scale. A large number of young men were drafted to fight in the DRA. The DRA had tens of thousands of men (which would and did flucate as few wanted to die for the Soviets). And the DRA even formed elite units, conducted sweep and clear operations with the Soviets, made up garrison units. DRAAF planes conducted cross border air strikes and recon operations into Pakistan. To say their role was insignificant is to not know history. And the scorched earth and repression were on quite a large scale. 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. They failed to put down the revolt, thus a military failure. Winning some fire fights and blundering around during sweeps doesn't mean one won the war. |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 21:03
Sarmat, you're always so pro-Russian/Soviet that it gets annoying. SU did not stop (sic) the war in Afhganistan because they felt like it, they were FORCED to discontinue action by their inability to conclude a military result. Yes, they were defeated in the same sense that the Americans were defeated in Vietnam (or are now being defeated in Iraq) and recently Israel was defeated in Lebanon against Hezbollah. In all these cases the main point is the same: when a world-power military goes against a puny enemy and does not achieve its goals, it is defeat in whatever colors you want to dress it up in. ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2007 at 08:29
True, the Soviet leadership usually applied brutality mostly to their own population; a few conquered enemies and some "undisciplined" friendly regimes being the exception. Much of an improvement, no? ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 03:43
Yes, NATO isn't much of a military alliance it seems. Our Canadian troops are there but I was ashamed when my government demanded additional troops to Kandahar and threatened to pull out if it didn't happen. The US is the Canadian military's crutches but unfortunately there is still this myth here that Canadians are only peacekeepers and that we don't need to pull our weight militarily. Don't worry US, we're trying to shape up though! ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 00:22
|
War in Afghanistan is not a military affair but a political one. The soviets left the coutry because they realized that their political goal was impossible to achieve and most of the population were against the government. So, to stay and fight would be useless.
Nowadays things are a little bit different. NATO and other international stakeholders are performing reconstruction projects to help population and "win hearts and minds". The army, as far as I know, has been performing well and for instance, the last major operation in Arghanbad district, a week ago, was performed mainly by Afghan troops supported by Canadians.
But things are not perfect and may change for the worse.
The Karzai government is still heavilly dependant on foreign help and cannot perform with authonomy;
Slowly by slowly the war is taking its toll on foreign troops, and as we know, Western people is less willing on taking casualties as it was 60 years ago;
More important, any Western military débacle is likely to show on Al Jazeera, no matter how insignificant it may be. And the image of burning vehicles and dead soldiers will have a disproprotionate effect on public opinion if compared with the real military loss.
So, things are not all that bad but the West has many drawbacks, and these can turn a stabble situation into a defeat.
And lets not forget a crucial dogma: for a guerrilla force to succeed it only needs to stay alive while for a conventional force to succeed it has to destroy the guerrilla.
|