Back to the 80's - the Soviet - Afghan war (VIDEO)

[mogster]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-140756878294549745

If this 35 minute movie doesn't give you an aha experience, well...

It tells the story about the Mujahedin, and how they went from being an unorganized bunch of rebels to a well organized guerilla army, under the leadership of Ahmed Shah Massoud, described as 'the charismatic leader that united the Afghans'. Massoud was killed, supposedly by Al Queda, just prior to the Sept. 11 attacks - one can interpret that in different ways. The war was financed by the Saudis and the American taxpayers thru the CIA and probably other unknown secret groups, I guess you all know that story by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Shah_Massoud

But:
It's strange to see this movie because it does in many ways describe the situation today. Rockets poised against stones, fired with homemade mechanisms at fortified positions. The slash and run tactics. The successful assymetric warfare so clearly visible.

Isn't the network of arab fighters up and running again today, you think? The very specialized web of people smuggling and weapons trade, intended to support the assymetric war?
Can we be sure that the Saudis isn't still financing that network?
Have a look at this film. The Afghans fighting in it are the good guys, while today they're the bad guys. Simple people with a love for their land, which now is being invaded by NATO.

Is it a coincidence that the countries of the 'Western world' is starting to look more and more like the Soviet; less freedom and more government control, and even copying the Soviet mistakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

[mogster]

1. Another movie

The Russian version, haven't seen this myself yet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5931942340790284291

[mogster]

2. A kick for the afternoon crowd n/t

[NNN0LHI]

3. Compare that to this recent news report from Afghanistan. See if you notice any similarities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBLEvg5-36o

[mogster]

4. Pretty much the same pattern, yeah

How is it possible to turn an invasion of a country into a success? Is it possible to occupy successfully? The occupation of Germay after WWII is often quoted as such a success, but the Germans was at the time totally defeated with no escape. And Germany was split in two different political spheres, one which stayed under authoritarian yoke for decades.
The lack of dynamics politically in the NATO war is the most disturbing factor here. You see no new plans for the future, no effort to solve long term issues like the poppy growing and infrastructure (which is bound to be destroyed by war anyway, if it's built), and no actual progress in the war.
Why aren't we smarter than the Soviets? How long will we occupy Afghanistan? 'As long as it takes'? You'd wonder ;-)

After the Soviets withdrew, a civil war broke out that lasted more or less until 2001, when we invaded. The taliban came to power in 1996, and the country split into three fractions:



Afghanistan is always at war, it seems.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Yes whatever we were trying to do there was doomed to failure

The thing no one ever mentions is that as bad as the Taliban were, and they were bad, they were better than the other options. That is how the Taliban came into power. They were the liberals of Afghanistan.

Don