The Afghans did not defeat the Soviets on their own

[joecool65]

Please stop the meme on here that the little old Afghans all alone defeated the Red Army. Without massive international support, the Soviets would have crushed the Afghans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Did we not also help?

I seem to recall the CIA working with them at the time, no?

[ShamelessHussy]

104. and they are not fighting today without support as well

in fact, it is from many of the same actors who supported them in their fight against the USSR, with some new players as well.

fyi

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

105. Their major benefactor in the 1980s is bombing the bejeezus out of them in Pakistan

and the state of the art technologies that helped them turn the tide of the war back then are largely absent from today's war.

[ShamelessHussy]

106. yeah, for 8 years, and they keep coming... just like the soviets learned

a super power, especially a financially strapped one, is no match in a fight against folks who are highly motivated, with nothing to loose.

it's a pretty sad state we are in considering we can't even secure our aims in the two of the weakest nations on the planet, after all this time.

and so it goes...

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

108. For the vast majority of that period we were simply fighting a holding action

not fighting to eliminate the Taliban threat, so I think your portrayal of the Taliban as some unstoppable behemoth is a bit off base.

[ShamelessHussy]

110. well, you seem to think that the more violence we inflict over there the more hearts we win

well, i think that is a misguided way of thinking but i guess we shall see.

good night

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

111. I do not favor indescriminate violence. I do favor selective violence. It is a war, after all.

[ShamelessHussy]

112. how many wars have you experienced in your neighborhood?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

115. One of the surest ways to avoid wars in your neighborhood is...

to prevent extremists from running your country.

[IcyPeas]

2. "Charlie Wilson's War"

We helped arm Afghanistan!

[joecool65]

3. As well as Pakistan, Israel, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc....

Where is the Taliban and Al Qaeda getting their massive international aid from now?

People on here need to stop comparing Afghanistan today to the Soviet war. Not even a close analogy in terms of the two sides.

Whenever we start fighting the special forces of another country like the Soviets had to in Afghanistan with the Pakistanis, then I will start getting worried.

[Turborama]

103. And look what happened 12 years after we just upped and left them to it.

I recently watched Charlie Wilson's War again. The moment at the end when he's trying to get $1million for schools just after the Russians had left and says “We always leave. And the ball keeps bouncing" was very pertinent to this whole idea of "pull out now". It is a lesson from history that we should heed.

[Greyhound]

113. I think the lesson we failed to learn is that helping makes you friends,

blowing the crap out of things comes back and bites you in the ass.

OBL became a household name for the measly sum of $10M. After the Soviets, Americans, Chinese, etc. demolished what little they had and left, he stayed and built a couple of schools and a hospital.

We made him.

[Vincardog]

4. Right it was the hundreds of millions of $ we sent to Osama that did the Ruskies in

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Massive international support?

What ever covert support was given ended up with some rather unfortunate unintended consequences.

[mmonk]

6. "Massive international support" was just a steady stream

of small arms and anti tank shoulder held weapons. They have plenty of that and probably will continue to as they are relatively easy to smuggle in the black market.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

9. Small arms did not turn the tide of the Afghan War of the 1980s

If you want to credit it to any one type of weapon, it should be the Stinger missiles.

The Taliban today are not receiving start of the art weaponry of the kind they needed to defeat the Soviets. The original poster is right. It's time to stop treating these guys as mythical figures and time to start looking at this conflict realistically.

[joecool65]

14. THANK YOU!

Too many anti-war ideologues on here just against the military escalation to be against it.

[Arctic Dave]

29. Stinger missiles are old hat. IED are just as lethal and demoralizing.

If air superiority is a gimme for winning, why are we still there eight years later?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

32. Because for seven years we fought a holding action instead of fighting to win.

[joecool65]

34. Exactly

[Arctic Dave]

37. A holding action? Please.

If only we could drop more bombs and killed more people we would have won.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

41. We poured our resources and directed our attention towards Iraq

which allowed the Taliban to regroup and take back large portions of the country. So in response to your post, yes, if we had actually pursued them more vehemently these past seven years, we'd be in a much better position.

[Arctic Dave]

46. But they are a rag tag nobody insurgency unlike when the Soviets were there.

We should be able to kick their butts with slingshots.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. Is that an accurate depiction?

They clearly have weapons, knowledge of the terrain, and safe havens across the border, all of which make them a formidible foe. However, with that being said, they are not what the Mujahideen were in the 1980s.

[Arctic Dave]

57. Nor do they need to be.

Persistant and lethal is all it takes. Stingers are as irrelevant in this occupations as a musket. 100 IED's will be far more effective then 1,000 stingers.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. Will they? Because the death toll sure doesn't show it.

[Arctic Dave]

66. Did I miss something? As far as I know the death toll has increased last I looked.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. It has increased

I'd ask you to consider "why" though and also ask you to keep in mind that it's still nothing comparable to the deaths the Russians suffered (13,000+ over ten years).

[Arctic Dave]

82. 13,000 over ten years equals roughly 108 people a month.

That isn't much of a difference between what our casualties are based on the size of our forces.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. I would sincerely question the numbers you're using to reach that conclusion

because, as I understand it, the Soviet Union never had more than 120,000 troops in Afghanistan at a given time. Right now, coalition forces number 104,000.

[Arctic Dave]

87. 104,000 is a new occurrence.

And, if we are using all military deaths as a gauge and not just US then we are very close to the KIA ratio as the USSR. If we use mercs number also then the number goes up too.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

89. So if you're not using the current figures what numbers are you using?

[Arctic Dave]

91. http://icasualties.org/oef/

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

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

93. Not to be rude, but that image isn't particularly helpful. All that I'm asking

is what the specific number of U.S. (or even coalition) troops you're using in your calculation is.

[Arctic Dave]

100. I'm using the graph as a way to calculate the casualties per year/month against the Soviet invasion.

If we say that the Soviets lost 13,000 troops over ten years the average comes to just over 100 a month. The 100,000 troops inserted from the beginning, where as we had roughly 30,000 and have gradually put more since then.
If you look at the graph, the KIA totals increase as the years and the troops increase. We are now at a 100,000 strong force and our casualties are mounting close to the same numbers as the Soviets. However, what we don''t have is the exact number of "contractor" KIA's, something the USSR did't employ to the point we are and if included would, IMO, bring our KIA to a pace not unlike theirs.

On edit:
And this, as some have said, is against a less lethal and financially funded insurgency.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

101. Let's take your number of roughly 100 Soviet troops killed per month

and compare it to the number of American and allied troops killed per month today, when troop levels are relatively the same (around 100,000). Last month that number came to what? 31? 31 vs. 100. What am I missing here? Where are you coming up with 69 extra deaths?

[27inCali]

98. because Bush didn't want to win

he wanted to drag it out so the Rotheschildes could have their fucking pipeline.

[aquart]

97. Then you need to take a look at the topography of Afghanistan.

Myths grow out of fact.

[Greyhound]

114. They're not mythical figures, they're Afghanis and they will be there forever.

That leaves two alternatives, kill them all or stay forever.

There is nothing to win here.

[joecool65]

11. Please read the link about international involvement, especially Pakistan

What foreign nation has its special forces and air force fighting us in Afghanistan today like Pakistan did against the Soviets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

[MNDemNY]

7. "crushing "the Afghans does not a victory make.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

12. Without the ability to knock Russian helicopters out of the sky

the Mujahideen would have amounted to nothing but an extremely tall pile of bodies.

[MNDemNY]

19. And that would have constituted a "victory"?

interesting.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

20. If the Russians had utterly decimated the Mujahideen, yes, that would have been a victory for them.

[MNDemNY]

26. Then what?

They squat their russian asses in Afganistain forever? For what gain? Foolish.Victory? I think not.

[joecool65]

28. The Soviets were there to prop up the government

Without a rebellion, the government would have stayed in place.

[MNDemNY]

33. To govern the dead bodies?

:shrug:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

36. To govern those who remained. Believe it or not, not every Afghan was a Mujahideen fighter.

[MNDemNY]

40. "to govern those who remained" And that is "victory"?

You ,also, must be so proud of Obama's escalation.:shrug: :rofl:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. Yes, defeating your enemy generally is considered victory. Radical concept, huh?

And yes, at this point, an escalation is the wisest move.

[MNDemNY]

48. So, using that criteria, we achieved "Victory " in Afghanistan 6-7 years ago?

Cool. Let's leave.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. We didn't defeat them 6-7 years ago. We let them walk away.

[MNDemNY]

55. But they no longer control the Afgahn govt., right? was that not our goal?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

62. Technically speaking, they never did in the first place.

Our goal (one of them, anywya) was to eliminate them as a fighting force. We failed to do that.

[MNDemNY]

65. You mean the 100 alqueada?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

73. No, the Taliban never technically controlled the country

They were not the recognized leaders nor did they control the territory as a whole.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

35. No, at that point they would have allowed their puppets to assume control of security.

[MNDemNY]

39. To what end?

Sure you can enslave the masses, but is that any kind of "victory"? You must be so proud of Obama's escalation, huh?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

45. The Russians clearly sought to fill their Western border with loyal Communist regimes

So yes, in their eyes, that would have been a victory.

However, you should confuse my personal beliefs with the beliefs of 1980s Soviets.

[MNDemNY]

53. Point taken.

:hi: (But I think ,even in their eyes, it would have been a short-lived "victory").

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

64. Agreed. I think many of their "victories" in the West proved shortlived and shortsighted.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

79. Excuse me?

[aquart]

96. Yep. Anyone can massacre.

[JVS]

8. I think the Afghans have demonstrated that they have plenty of leftovers from that era

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

15. I don't know that they do

Our air superiority certainly hasn't been challenged.

[Selatius]

10. No. We trained the religious fanatic scumfucks in how to make war and build bombs.

We as well as the Pakistanis and the Saudis and groups from all over the Middle East. If we didn't put in the money, the Saudis and Pakistanis would've gladly filled in the gap.

[NJmaverick]

13. Very true, it was the US supplied Stinger missles that turned the tide

[wuushew]

72. All hail the crappy Stinger

Significantly however, the Stinger was not responsible for a majority of Soviet aircraft losses in the war, and the "hit ratio" is a subject of controversy. According to one U.S. government estimate, the ratio averages at best 50 percent. By the end of 1986, this study found , before a significant number of Stingers had been deployed, about one thousand Soviet and Afghan aircraft had been destroyed, primarily by Chinese-supplied Dashika 12.7 mm heavy machine guns and other less sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry. During 1987, when the Stingers were widely used, Soviet and Afghan forces lost 150 to 200 aircraft and in 1988 Soviet-Afghan losses dripped to fewer than 50.



http://books.google.com/books?id=iFasqHGo3p0C&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=soviet+aircraft+losses+in+afghanistan&source=bl&ots=jRmbuplTFw&sig=2nTl5dMot0q3AaXrw0UuZnIUZNc&hl=en&ei=Yb8WS5_JBofMNan_9agG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=soviet%20aircraft%20losses%20in%20afghanistan&f=false

[KG]

16. hardly 'massive'. Stingers to counter the Hinds turned the tide.

soviet troop morale was never more than lukewarm.

[EFerrari]

17. Do you think there is no foreign money in Afghanistan now?

[Individualist]

21. not to mention all the cash that heroin is bringing in.

[EFerrari]

25. Or our own money flowing back from Pakistan. nt

[tekisui]

70. Yep. We are funding boths sides (or is it all three).

[JVS]

22. I'm sure China is looking for a place to put money. Lending it to us so we can fight this war is...

getting kind of old.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. There is, but it doesn't appear to be comparable.

Nor is the level of weaponry the Taliban are using comparable. Generally speaking, they're using the scraps of past conflicts.

[tekisui]

74. More of an issue than that is the Taliban's ability to wait us out.

They went to the mountains for six years and flushed back to control much of Afghanistan in a short time. It is an unwinnable game we are playing.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. The thing is...

they didn't flush back in over a short period of time. It's been a fairly steady process. We simply didn't have the forces in the country to effectively combat it.

[joecool65]

27. Not anywhere close to the scale of the Soviet War

It is nonsense to say the Soviet conflict is juste the conflict today.

[EFerrari]

90. You don't know that. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

92. We know that by measuring the end result of the aid they ARE receiving

which is hardly impressive.

[Arctic Dave]

18. They used 800,000 troops. We are using 100,000.

They used everything short of a nuke on them and it didn't work. Persistence and small arms did them in.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. They also fought a very different type of war

One that relied on tying bombs to children's toys, eradicating villages, suppressing the Islamic faith, etc.

[Arctic Dave]

42. And we prop up a corrupt government and drop bombs on villages.

Just because we use a different tactic to kill people doesn't make it any better when your dead.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

47. If you target a specific residence versus eliminating an entire village

that makes no difference in your eyes?

[Selatius]

54. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but one of the side effects is it generates more opposition.

Because people who watch friends and family members become collateral damage are likely to pick up a gun the same way someone would if those friends and family were intentionally killed. When a wedding party gets bombed by our forces by mistake, a lot of people become angry because the celebration is often a community event, not a family one. It is a cultural misunderstanding such as that that can lead to the creation of resistance to foreign troop presence.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

59. I'm not disagreeing with you (nor does the military disagree with you).

All that I'm stating is, there's a very big difference between how we're conducting this war and how the Soviet Union conducted theirs.

[KG]

43. the russians fought a totally ruthless war. reprisals. collective punishments. atrocities.

the kind of war the US isn't prepared to fight.

[Arctic Dave]

52. Yes they did and it still didn't work.

The 1980's version of Shock and Awe.

[joecool65]

69. It did not work because of a concerted international involvement

[mmonk]

63. Really? Plane loads of people to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram

(which is increasing in size), bombing villages, etc.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

68. Is it comparable? Is shipping people to Guantanamo comparable to shooting them in the head?

Don't get me wrong, I find Guantanamo troubling, but it still seems you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Fumesucker]

24. Welcome to DU..

Now please stop telling us what to think.

And if you believe the Taliban aren't getting money and materiel from somewhere you are delusional.

Let's see, Muslim nation invaded by officially atheist one and get help from fellow Muslims (among others).

Muslim nation invaded by officially Christian one gets help from fellow Muslims.

(Recall that it does *not* say "In Allah We Trust" on our money and our politicians do not end all their speeches with "Allah bless America")

[joecool65]

31. Then do say where the money is coming from

You made a claim, now back it up.

What country is supplying the Taliban with aid?

[Fumesucker]

49. Not countries..

Muslims around the world.

Now stop telling us what to think..

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. What's with your persecution complex?

And, so what? Some Muslims around the globe are undoubtedly sending them support. What of it?

[Fumesucker]

61. You are a low count poster who is telling people who have been here a long time what to think..

I found your OP offensive..

If Muslims around the world are sending them support then they are not fighting us alone, just like the Mujahideen didn't fight the Soviets alone.

So the situations are comparable.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. Financial donations vs. new tech. supplied by nation states

I'd say there's a significant difference.

[Fumesucker]

80. I'm sure we'll win in a few months then..

Check back this time next year and let us know about the victory celebration, eh?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. OK, well, there are things we can do better (and I hope we do, the surge is a good step)

but there are things that other countries need to do as well, particularly Pakistan. Will a few months solve this thing? No. The surge will barely be underway and it will be winter, thus the conflict will essentially be on hold. Next Spring is the earliest any results might be seen.

[Fumesucker]

84. Umm.. This has *already* been going on twice as long as the US in WWII..

Wherein the Allies totally defeated the armed might of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the Waffen SS, the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Air Force, not to mention random Italian and other forces.

If we were really and truly serious about winning this war we would go all out, the US had 13 million men under arms in WWII when the population was less than half what it is today. D-day alone involved one million men.

"The surge" is but yet another half measure, the Army's own field manual on COIN strategy calls for a minimum troop to civilian ratio of 1:25, Afghanistan had a population of 28 million in 2009 which means over one million troops.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/FM_3-24.pdf

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. The length of the war has little relevance, as we were fighting a hold action for seven years.

[Fumesucker]

94. But you totally ignored my other point..

And the link to the Army's own recently updated (by General Betrayus no less) manual on COIN warfare.

Edited for speling.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

102. That being, your argument that we should have a million troops in Afghanistan if we're serious about

winning?

Quite frankly, we're able to conduct wars with fewer troops due to advances in technology. We don't need as many grunts

[ShamelessHussy]

107. rummy, is that you?

i thought you were out, considering the fine mess you have gotten us in with your misguided fantasies (we don't need 'grunts' on the ground, like before)

shakes-head

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

109. The simple fact is, we don't need that many soldiers to conduct major wars.

[joecool65]

67. Undoubtedly? Really?

That is your proof? Undoubtedly?

Shi'ites are arming a Sunni Muslim extremist group? Interesting theory because you did say "Muslims" and everyone knows they are all Pashtun Sunnis like the Taliban.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

78. Did I say the Shia are funding them?

I didn't, because I find it unlikely that they are. For instance, Iran has it's own problems as a result of Afghanistan's instability, therefore I find it unlikely that they're perpetuating the conflict in any meaningful way. What I find extremely likely, however, is that charities in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are funding the Taliban, as they've essentially done on and off since the early 1980s.

[Octafish]

38. Yours is the ONLY reason to help Afghanistan now.

Capitalism's Invisible Army screwed up what had been a very peaceful, progressive and secular state for Empire.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

IOW: By "help" I don't mean war.

PS: Welcome to DU, joecool65.

[TexasObserver]

58. Afghanistan is where Empires go to die.

[ieoeja]

83. Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe



I quoted an entire poem. Not just one line. So I guess that makes my argument better than yours.

[existentialist]

88. Perhaps, and

they would still be crushing them now with a continual drain on their population, their fiscal and material resources, and upon their international good will.

Instead, we are now in that bind.

We're so lucky.

[aquart]

95. The Soviets would like to think so.

So, obviously, would you.

[roamer65]

99. Even Pakistan cannot control their NWFP

(Northwest Frontier Province)

This province is their piece of Pashtunistan.

Obama did not tell the REAL reason we are staying in Afghanistan last night.

We are staying because leaving abruptly will allow the Taliban to take the fight into Pakistan, which is a nuclear armed state.

The American empire will die in Afghanistan, just like the USSR.

[Greyhound]

116. Are you guys completely incapable of learning?

Every goddamn time the next crop keeps spouting the same crap.

"Truman should have let MacArthur nuke the North Koreans"

"We would have won Vietnam except for the politicians"

and this myth joins the lesson unlearned.

The only way to win is to kill everybody, cause it's their home and every time you kill one of them you make that many more enemies. They will fight forever because they have no choice. We killed at least four million Vietnamese, how many more would have made them give up?