After-Action Report: Soviets Almost Won in Afghanistan

[XASA]

LA Times 12/26/04
WARFARE
Surprise! The Soviets Nearly Won Afghan War

By Mark Kramer, Mark Kramer is director of the Harvard Cold War studies program and a senior fellow at the university's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian studies.


Twenty-five years ago, on Christmas Eve, Soviet troops marched into Afghanistan with the aim of restoring order in a few months. Nine years later they withdrew amid continued violence. In their wake, civil war erupted and the Taliban rose to power, providing a haven to Al Qaeda.

Critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq often cite the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as evidence that using foreign troops to put down an insurgency is bound to fail. But that "lesson" is misleading because it depends on a depiction of the Soviet-Afghan war that is downright inaccurate.

When Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan, they initially failed to protect their logistical and communications lines. But Soviet commanders quickly corrected these mistakes and brought in better troops, including helicopter pilots trained for mountain warfare. From mid-1980 on, the Afghan guerrillas never seized any major Soviet facilities or prevented major troop deployments and movements.

When Soviet generals shifted, in mid-1983, to a counterinsurgency strategy of scorched-earth tactics and the use of heavily armed special operations forces, their progress against the guerrillas accelerated. Over the next few years, the Soviets increased their control of Afghanistan, inflicting many casualties — guerrilla and civilian. Had it not been for the immense support — weapons, training, materials — provided to the Afghan guerrillas by the United States, Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan, Soviet troops would have achieved outright victory.

Even with all the outside military assistance, Afghan guerrillas were often helpless when facing the Soviet military machine. Raids conducted by Soviet airborne and helicopter forces were especially effective. In late 1985 and 1986, guerrilla units sustained heavy losses in the Kunar Valley and Paktia province and retreated from large swaths of strategic territory. The previously ineffective army of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul provided valuable support, launching fierce artillery barrages and huge armored assaults. In a long study of Soviet military progress as of mid-1987, a leading Westren military expert concluded that Soviet forces were proving "devastatingly effective against the Afghan resistance," were "presently winning in Afghanistan" and were "very close to crushing the resistance."

The announcement in 1988 by then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev that forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan within a year was a political and diplomatic decision, not a military one. The "bleeding wound" that Gorbachev described was not primarily Russian but Afghan. During the nine years of fighting, more than 2.5 million Afghans (mostly civilians) were killed or maimed; millions more were displaced or forced into exile. By contrast, 14,453 Soviet troops were killed, an average of 1,600 a year. This was not a trivial number, but certainly sustainable for the Soviet army, which numbered more than 4 million.

When the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989, the situation on the ground was relatively favorable to Moscow, in part because the Soviet air force conducted sustained bombing raids to cover the withdrawal. Aided by huge inflows of Soviet weaponry, Kabul's staunchly pro-Soviet regime led by President Najibullah remained in power for the next three years. The regime's durability represented a notable success for the Soviet war effort. Only after the Soviet Union collapsed and the new Russian government cut off military aid to Afghanistan did Najibullah fall.

What relevance does the Soviet-Afghan war have for U.S. military operations in Iraq? Very little. Soviet troops did not invade and occupy Afghanistan to oust a brutal dictator or promote democratic elections. They simply aimed to install a friendly communist regime in Kabul. The number of Soviet troops never exceeded 120,000 at any time, but they eventually laid waste to the entire country.

A dearth of training and equipment hampered the Soviet war effort. By contrast, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are much better trained, equipped and motivated than their Soviet counterparts were in Afghanistan.

The Soviet-Afghan war's main relevance to the U.S. campaign in Iraq is operational. The Soviet experience underscored the crucial importance of intelligence in fighting an insurgency, an advantage the U.S. continues to lack in Iraq. It also highlighted the enormous potential of attack and transport helicopters that can strike deep in enemy territory, and it reaffirmed the value of small, flexible units of heavily armed special operations forces that are capable of carrying out rapid strikes.

Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.

Looking back 25 years later, many observers have been tempted to assume that the Soviet military effort in Afghanistan was hopeless from the start. That's a distortion. An accurate appraisal of the Soviet military experience in Afghanistan is essential if we are to avoid drawing spurious lessons for current U.S. policy in Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-soviet26dec26,0,3931407.story

[Kitsune]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

[Sayeret]

Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.

[hist2004]

One major difference between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American
military operations against the Taliban-Al Qaeda, is how the Afghans perceived both
the American & Soviets during their respective operations in Afghanistan. The Soviets
were seen as invaders-so the various mujahideen factions put their differences aside
and united (for the most part) against a common enemy. The US had the assistance
of the Northern Alliance without whose cooperation the campaign would have been
considerably longer and more difficult. The articles reference to the Afghan guerrillas
not being invincible is of course spot on. Once the Soviets went on the offensive late
1983-1986,87 with the use of their SOF, the resistance almost came to the breaking
point.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yosy]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

woot

Indeed.

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

[Laworkerbee]

Kitsune wrote:
Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."



Pretty damned funny man!

[sergey31]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

woot

Indeed.

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

Soviets won all the battles in Afghanistan, Mujahadeens could not stand ground against Soviet machines and technology and Special Forces operations, Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change in the government.

[NicNZ]

When dismissing the Soviet achievement in Afghanistan, it is worth noting that they had both military and political/social objectives. This meant that there was more to achieve if the campaign was to be a "success". Thus, apart from the fact that no external military force has ever taken and held Afghanistan, the Soviet objective was difficult because it required Afghanistan to be revolutionised (and there can be no more suitable word than that) as a Communist society. Because the Soviets had a broader set of objectives for the campaign in Afghanistan, the fact that they were "almost successful" is much more significant than it would be if their campaign was merely a matter of occupying territory.


Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


No one ever said the Afghans were invincible
If no one has ever said it outright, plenty have implied it. Firstly, it was observed during the early stages of the Soviet advance: "How can you fight people who can live in a hole and eat dirt and dust?". Secondly, as I stated earlier, no external military force has ever taken and held Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great merely passed through there on his way into India. The Af's deserve a lot of credit, they are one of the few remaining fierce and unconquered peoples on earth! :)

[Bombtrack]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

Exactly.

[sergey31]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

Exactly.

You probably can't read I take.

[Herrmannek]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

[sergey31]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

[Yosy]

^^^^ basically you're saying that the soviets won the war - that's false.


The peace prospect faltered because no credible consensus was attainable. By mid-1987 the resistance forces sensed a military victory. They had stymied what proved to be the last set of major Soviet offensives, the Stinger missiles were still having a devastating effect, and they were receiving an unprecedented surge of outside assistance. Defeat of the Kabul government was their solution for peace. This confidence, sharpened by their distrust of the UN virtually guaranteed their refusal of a political compromise.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan

[Yosy]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

[sergey31]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

[foxtrot023]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?

because militarily they might have been the cat´s miau, but the end result was that the soviets, for whatever reason, left Afghanistan, never to go back.

[sergey31]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?

because militarily they might have been the cat´s miau, but the end result was that the soviets, for whatever reason, left Afghanistan, never to go back.

The objective was to help support Afghan-Government that was PRO-Communist. The second objective was a test-ground for experimental and new/newer weapons systems. The third objective was to show throat cutting savages that they (Soviet Union) will not tolerate such barbaric actions (pre-Soviet invasion).
They left because they saw no need to be there anymore, it was useless mountain wasteland for them. Do you really think that if Afghanistan was RICH in Gold or Diamonds Soviets would have left it alone?????
And there was no need or desire to go back especially with the new government.

[hist2004]

"What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?"


The original plan was to prop up the new government and deploy troops to
guard the cities and airfields while the Afghan Government Army (DRA)
fought the mujahideen. The Soviets hoped that this presence would stabilize
the country and that they could withdraw most of their troops within 2 or 3
years.

Regards,
Hist2004

[foxtrot023]

Sergey,

So of the 3 objectives you wrote, you can say that #2 was successful, but #1 and #3 were not accomplished, right? because the communist regime lasted very little and I do not think that the afghans were convinced on point #3 given that battles between soviets and afghans were bloody.

[sergey31]

Sergey,

So of the 3 objectives you wrote, you can say that #2 was successful, but #1 and #3 were not accomplished, right? because the communist regime lasted very little and I do not think that the afghans were convinced on point #3 given that battles between soviets and afghans were bloody.

I do think that all 3 objectives were achieved.

The Communist regime lasted for 3 years after Soviets withdrew, If you ask me that is not very little time when taking in a account that Soviet Forces were no longer present.
They were bloody mostly on Mujahadeen side, What I was referring to the event that trigger the war. The throat cutting incident before Soviet invasion, Anyway there is a book written by Tom Carew "Jihad- The Secret War in Afghanistan" it's autobiography of British SAS on a mission in Afghanistan during Soviet-Afghan war. By the end of the book it shows how Mujahadeens were loosing the war. Going on a mission and loosing 90% of their fighters.

[hist2004]

For clarity, Tom Carew whose real name is Philip Anthony Sessarego,
was a member of the Royal Artillery who failed selection for both the
SAS and later for the TA Reserve, R Squadron. He was allowed to remain
with the Demonstration Troops of non-Regiment members who did jobs for
the SAS. The book was principally correct in the portrayal of combat in
Afghanistan. “Carew” left the impression he was SAS which of course
discredited him. The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yosy]

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off.

That's exactly the problem: the resistance NEVER dies off. That's why winning battles IS different than winning wars. History shows us that.

[Kitsune]

To discredit the article in another way (Sergei31 listen up):

What the Russians did in Afghanistan was not unusual. Take these conflicts:
1) France and Algeria in the 50ties
2) USA and Vietnam in the 60ties and 70ties
3) Soviet Union and Afghanistan in the 80ties
4) Israel in South Lebanon in the 80ties

These are the bigger cases of a militarily potent nation that got into a guerilla war, when it tried to impose its will on a certain region. And now take the following similiarities:

In each of those conflicts the modern army in question had vastly superior combat power at its disposal compared to those of its partisan enemies. In all cases the modern armed forces controlled all or nearly all of the cities and won all or nearly all of the battles. They inflicted a number of casualties on their enemy that was around ten times as large as their own losses. And in all conflicts above the modern army in question used ruthless and brutal means to crush the opposition, which resulted in a lot of civilian suffering.
In every case the armed forces finally withdraw.
And finally: In after all of the conflicts above the nations in question claimed after withdrawal, that they had essentially won the conflict, withdrawn out of their own free will or lost only because some politicians could not cut it.

And I suspect that in 5 to 10 years one will be able to put the Iraq conflict on the list above. Because the same will happen. Including US claims that one had won it, had withdrawn out of free will or that some politicians had screwed it up.

Bet?

[Sayeret]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

[Sayeret]

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off.

That's exactly the problem: the resistance NEVER dies off. That's why winning battles IS different than winning wars. History shows us that.

Often insurgencies have won but not always here are some examples of the counter-insurgents winning:

Malayan Emergency, Philippines Huk rebellion , Mau Mau campaign, Hungarian uprising , Uprising in Tibet, Major Kurdish uprising in Iran, Palestinian uprisings in Jordan (Black September), Greece 1944-1949, Turkey 1984-1998, Algeria 1992-2000

[sergey31]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

If I'm not mistaking I believe U.S actually lost Vietnam war, they were literally running....... Soviets did not run because Mujahadeens were not chasing or coming after them and that is a big difference. Still, Soviets left but were not driven out- in my book those are two different things.
And yes, earlier stinger missiles had VERY high failure rate, every 8th or 9th one ever hit their target and with it's light warhead (not doing too great damage) most of the time aircraft would return to base especially Su 25's.

[Dima-RussianArms]

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. . It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.
:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Please show us how USSR was "loosing" war in Afghanistan by 1989?
Anxiously avaiting your educated answers.


The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to
:roll:
I guess having control of all of the 319 more or less significant Afghan population centers didn't count.


The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were
And you base this statement on.....?
So what was the acceptable number of losses for the Afghans and for the Soviets?


Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans.
I am not even going to laugh :cantbeli:
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?

Hist2004 had hit the nail on the head

The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Simple like that, there is nothing more to it...

[~Berdan]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

[Dima-RussianArms]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

15 Army, what is that?



lost much more then 15,000 soldiers

No, total casualties amounted to 13833 killed and 454464 wounded (sick, injuries. accidents)
Here is the breakdown by years
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm


and the real number is yet to be discovered .
Why?


For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell
?????????
Please elaborate with dates, numbers and sources.


I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

??????


What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?
I think and know that "facts" in your post are a product of someones imagination.

[Sayeret]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

If I'm not mistaking I believe U.S actually lost Vietnam war, they were literally running....... Soviets did not run because Mujahadeens were not chasing or coming after them and that is a big difference. Still, Soviets left but were not driven out- in my book those are two different things.
And yes, earlier stinger missiles had VERY high failure rate, every 8th or 9th one ever hit their target and with it's light warhead (not doing too great damage) most of the time aircraft would return to base especially Su 25's.

The USSR's goal was to take control of Afghanistan and this wasn't accomplished, thus they left. It doesn't matter that they implemented their own government since the Afghans in the mountains and countryside couldn't be controlled.

[Sayeret]

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. . It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.
:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Please show us how USSR was "loosing" war in Afghanistan by 1989?
Anxiously avaiting your educated answers.

The USSR didn't have control over the country and left because of that and the amount of casualties they had.


The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to
:roll:
I guess having control of all of the 319 more or less significant Afghan population centers didn't count.

It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country because that wasn't there goal. They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control but couldn’t because of the guerilla attacks by the Mujahadeen.


The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were
And you base this statement on.....?
So what was the acceptable number of losses for the Afghans and for the Soviets?

I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left. They didn't expect the war to go on as long as it did or cost as many lives as it did. The Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people. The Soviets pulled out after 14,453 people were killed.


Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans.
I am not even going to laugh :cantbeli:
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?

If you read the rest of what I wrote I said that the Stinger didn't have a significant impact but it was still an effective weapon.


I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

Hist2004 had hit the nail on the head

The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Simple like that, there is nothing more to it...

Yes, of course the Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

[NicNZ]

Hmm it would appear that people are becoming split into 'for' and 'against' on this issue. In my eyes, that isnt really the way to look at it.

It is clear that the Soviets failed to achieve the success envisioned in Afghanistan. By the time the Soviets withdrew, the campaign had dragged on for years and the military and financial losses were mounting. Perhaps more significantly, the Af's refused to settle down under the Soviet-backed government.

I dont regard the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as a loss comparable to Vietnam -- fairly independently, and regardless of pariotic American sentiments to the contrary, I regard Vietnam as a defeat. In my eyes, the key difference between the two campaigns (Afghanistan and Vietnam) is that the Soviets could (probably) have achieved the military objectives required for success but they could not achieve the socio-political objectives that were required. There are similarities, I suppose, between Afghanistan and the ongoing US efforts to stabilise Iraq under a new Government: If (or when) the US withdraws from Iraq, the campaign could hardly be deemed an "unsuccessful military campaign" but it could be deemed a socio/political failure.

On a side note, for those who are unaware, the Af's have never settled under any form of central government. Even today, the new democratic government is ridiculously illegitimate. The bulk of Af's neither care about nor support central government, if they are even are of its existence. Thus, the new democratic government in Afghanistan is not much celebrated and receives little acclaim. It would be an unwise G W Bush who celebrates "bringing democracy to Afghanistan"! :)

[Dima-RussianArms]

Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.
What about some proof for your statements: answering my questions with facts, maps, numbers, etc...?



14,453 people were killed.
Source?


Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people
So all of the killed Afghani were "mujahadeen"?


I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left
:cantbeli: rofl :cantbeli: rofl
That is the best argumentation I have ever heard.... please don't become a lawyer.


It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country
What is your definition of the term "controlled"?


They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control
:roll:
Where do you get all of these crazy ideaqs from? Seriously.


Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

What did Soviet government say?

[Dima-RussianArms]

It is clear that the Soviets failed to achieve the success envisioned in Afghanistan. By the time the Soviets withdrew, the campaign had dragged on for years and the military and financial losses were mounting. Perhaps more significantly, the Af's refused to settle down under the Soviet-backed government.

I dont regard the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as a loss comparable to Vietnam -- fairly independently, and regardless of pariotic American sentiments to the contrary, I regard Vietnam as a defeat. In my eyes, the key difference between the two campaigns (Afghanistan and Vietnam) is that the Soviets could (probably) have achieved the military objectives required for success but they could not achieve the socio-political objectives that were required. There are similarities, I suppose, between Afghanistan and the ongoing US efforts to stabilise Iraq under a new Government: If (or when) the US withdraws from Iraq, the campaign could hardly be deemed an "unsuccessful military campaign" but it could be deemed a socio/political failure.

On a side note, for those who are unaware, the Af's have never settled under any form of central government. Even today, the new democratic government is ridiculously illegitimate. The bulk of Af's neither care about nor support central government, if they are even are of its existence. Thus, the new democratic government in Afghanistan is not much celebrated and receives little acclaim. It would be an unwise G W Bush who celebrates "bringing democracy to Afghanistan"! :)

On the spot.

[Sayeret]

Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.


14,453 people were killed.
Source?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm, the same one you provided


Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people
So all of the killed Afghani were "mujahadeen"?

Actually a lot more civilians were killed by the Soviets than actual guerillas but I would still consider that part of the Afghan population.


Afghanistan lost over 1.3 million people, the bulk of them civilians, in pursuit of this war.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left
:cantbeli: rofl :cantbeli: rofl
That is the best argumentation I have ever heard.... please don't become a lawyer.

It looks like I should be a comedian, also. ;)


It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country
What is your definition of the term "controlled"?

My definition of control is they are able to control what happens in a region. In other words being able to decide what happens in a certain region but the Soviets only had control of the cities and not the country side where guerrillas could roam around and organize attacks against the Soviets.


They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control
:roll:
Where do you get all of these crazy ideaqs from? Seriously.

So why do you believe the Soviets went into Afghanistan?


Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

What did Soviet government say?

You posted what they supposedly said:


The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

[callous]

Just for the record the U.S. military never lost a major battle in Vietnam. By 1971 only 10 of the country's 45 provinces were seriously affected by communist activity. In 1973 we finally pulled out of South Vietnam. The country didn't fall till 1975.

[GazB]

Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Well that depends upon what the objectives of the war were. If the objectives of the war was to crush opposition and then install a government friendly to you then they succeeded in doing that. The fact that they chose not to invade again when their puppet government fell in the mid 90s is irrelevant. In fact now that the reminants of the government they supported has now be reinstalled into power by the US you could say not only did they win a short brutal war but they now have their government in power thanks to US taxpayers money. Of course ask most Soviet Veterans of the war and even if they had won they probably felt like the lost when they got home. :-( Those I have seen interviewed that didn't say they lost said it was a good Polygon... ie training ground.


Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI.

Probably the most relevant example in the sense that the Germans were not really defeated on the battlefield... rather they were economically crushed by the Royal Navys blockade.


The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to.

There were no sovietisation changes made to Afghanistan. The introduced communism properly into the cities... that meant that the women actually contributed to society as equal partners rather than invisible unmentionables. Something they lost when the Taliban took over in the md 90s. They did not adopt the Rouble as currency, no Soviet Maps were changed to include Afghanistan, there were no attempts to change the structure of government in any way to make it a new province of the Soviet Union.

They went in to change the government into a government that didn't kill Soviet Diplomats and their families in the streets.


The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

Rubbish.


The USSR's goal was to take control of Afghanistan and this wasn't accomplished, thus they left.

But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?


It doesn't matter that they implemented their own government since the Afghans in the mountains and countryside couldn't be controlled.

There hasn't been a government in Afghanistan in the last 1,000 years that has had complete control over every tribe and village and mountain goat.


http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

Venik has an interesting website, but I would hardly call it unbiased. Estimates seem to range from offical figures for just over 15,000 dead from the Soviet government side to CIA estimates of about 18,000. Spread out over a 10 year period that is still less than 2,000 a year... a force of 5 million during a bad patch could have a suicide rate higher than that. Of course there weren't 5 million men in Afghanistan but the Soviet Army militarily could take such losses indefinitely without problems.

[Javehn]

edit

[NicNZ]

But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?

Cmon Gaz, you should know better than that. You cant really succeed in holding a country -- particularly Afghanistan -- just by controlling the handful of major cities while leaving the vast bulk of the country unoccupied.


On the spot.
Cheers Dima

[~Berdan]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

15 Army, what is that?


Oh God , thank you . How embarrassing , my mistake . I was writting fom the memory . There was a article on German military newspaper (perhaps soldat und technik) about this matter , and I have read it long time ago .
I must have confused between 15 - Spn "Turkvo" bat. , and with 40-th Army .




lost much more then 15,000 soldiers

No, total casualties amounted to 13833 killed and 454464 wounded (sick, injuries. accidents)
Here is the breakdown by years
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

Thank you


and the real number is yet to be discovered .
Why?


For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell
?????????
Please elaborate with dates, numbers and sources.
In the book I am holding , it states 4 attacks only in 1981.It doesn't state dates . Then 14 may ,1982 , under command of Ter - Gregoryantz . Then , the beginning of september , 1982 .Next , 21-th of April 1984 , the biggest operation sence war broke . June 1985 .
Source : "Wars of 20-th Centure " , ISBN-985-437-507-2


I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

??????
Again my mistake . Commander of 40-th Army by then ,Boris Tkach was replaced by General-Lt. Viktor Yermakov , after 25-th of Aprile , 1982 . Warriors (el-mautaurik ) of Ahmad Massoud who was based in Pandjer gore attacked air strip in Bagram , destroying 23 plains and aircrafts , and killing tens of Soviet officers and commanders .


What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?
I think and know that "facts" in your post are a product of someones imagination.

Look - I have little doubt , that there is much truth in that article . Sence I have troubles recalling it , I was addresing in here to people who perhaps familiar with article , could fill the "holes" , sort of say , and explain . I have noticed , that mr. hist2004 has a good historical touch on that matter , and I was hoping he could shed light on that matter , if he bumped once with that article .
Never the less , thank you indeed for your answers .

[Sayeret]

There were no sovietisation changes made to Afghanistan. The introduced communism properly into the cities... that meant that the women actually contributed to society as equal partners rather than invisible unmentionables. Something they lost when the Taliban took over in the md 90s. They did not adopt the Rouble as currency, no Soviet Maps were changed to include Afghanistan, there were no attempts to change the structure of government in any way to make it a new province of the Soviet Union.

I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't have successes but the reason why they went to war was a failure. They didn't go to Afghanistan and fight there for ten years just to establish a government for a few years which could barely support itself.


The Armed Forces of the DRA were supposed to fight the counterinsurgency. However, as the countryside rose in revolt, it became obvious that the DRA could not handle the counterinsurgency alone and that the Soviets would have to participate--as the main partner.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm


Rubbish

If your going to say that atleast give some proof. Most modern armies don't tend to accept as many casualties as third world countries. Take Somalia for example. The US lost 18 soldiers and the Somalis lost several hundred but still consider it a victory. The fact that the Soviets lost less than 100,000 and the Afghans lost 1.3 million people shows this. The fact that bulk of the fighting against the Mujahadeen was carried out by the DRA in 1985 rather Soviets shows this. Another thing is a lot of the Soviet soldiers were conscripts and had low morale, so didn't help the matter any.


Although data on the armed forces were necessarily incomplete and speculative, informed observers in late 1985 estimated the strength of the army at no more than 40,000. Most army personnel were conscripts, and many of them had been forced into service by roving press gangs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/cs-invasion.htm


But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?

A lot of the people in Afghanistan didn't live in the major cities or towns anyway and if you can't control the country enough to prevent losing thousands of people a year thats a problem.


At this time, Afghanistan was a country of approximately 17 million people. Most were rural.

Afghanistan isn't a country like France or Russia where most of the people live in cities. If only a small percentage of the people live in cities that you wouldn't have very much control over that country.
The Soviets wanted to take complete control of the country over but weren't able to.


Pre-invasion Soviet military planning estimated that they would need 30-35 divisions to conquer and control Afghanistan completely. It soon became clear that the initial three Soviet divisions were inadequate. Eventually, the Soviets fielded five and 2/3rds division equivalents in Afghanistan. They needed far more, however, this was the maximum amount that could be supplied over the over-burdened Afghan road network. Soviet efforts to use theater logistics from the Soviet military districts broke down at the Afghan border.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm


There hasn't been a government in Afghanistan in the last 1,000 years that has had complete control over every tribe and village and mountain goat.

I know and I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't accomplish things but overall the war was a failure in acheiving the goals the Soviets wanted to accomplish.


If the objectives of the war was to crush opposition and then install a government friendly to you then they succeeded in doing that. The fact that they chose not to invade again when their puppet government fell in the mid 90s is irrelevant.

The objective of the war was to take complete control over the country and provided a link related to that earlier in my post. That includeed curshing the opposition which they were unable to do. The Mujahadeen continued attacking the Soviets through out the war up to 1989 and even the DRA after the Soviets left. They expected their puppet government to last like it did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia which did not happen.


Venik has an interesting website, but I would hardly call it unbiased. Estimates seem to range from offical figures for just over 15,000 dead from the Soviet government side to CIA estimates of about 18,000. Spread out over a 10 year period that is still less than 2,000 a year... a force of 5 million during a bad patch could have a suicide rate higher than that. Of course there weren't 5 million men in Afghanistan but the Soviet Army militarily could take such losses indefinitely without problems.

The Soviet losses in the war appear to be much larger than officially announced.


It was also a secret war. During the first two years of the conflict, the Soviet press covered the death of some two dozen servicemen—though thousands had already died. Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the Soviet press, it showed happy Soviet servicemen building orphanages—while neglecting to mention their role in filling them. The Soviet public was kept in the dark. When a dead Soviet soldier was returned to his family, the family was sworn to secrecy in order to get the body back for burial. Even the earlier tombstones did not list where the serviceman had died, only that he had died “fulfilling his internationalist duty.”

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

[Sayeret]

I am not even going to laugh
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?


One of the more controversial systems provided the Mujahideen was the US Stinger shoulder-fired air defense missile. This deadly, man-portable missile did not knock down anywhere near the number of Soviet aircraft that the Mujahideen and US backers claimed. However, this does not mean that the Stinger was ineffective. The Soviets completely revamped their aerial tactics to avoid losses to Stinger. High-performance jet aircraft flew at 15,000 feet where they were safe from the Stinger, but also ineffective. Helicopter gunships no longer ranged over the countryside, but flew in the relatively safe air space above Soviet ground forces. Transport and passenger aircraft kicked out strings of decoy flares during take off and landing.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm


They were used to destroy between 200 and 300 Soviet helicopter gunships, fighter jets and transport aircraft.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011204-attack01.htm


In 1986, the U.S. began shipping approximately 1,000 Stingers to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan for use against Soviet aircraft. Approximately 270 Soviet aircraft were downed with these missiles(a 79 percent combat success rate).

http://www.nisat.org/weapons%20pages%20linked/US/stinger_missile_system.htm


At the same time a sharp increase in military support for the mujahedin from the United States and Saudi Arabia allowed it to regain the guerilla war initiative. By late August 1986, the first FIM-92 Stinger ground-to-air missiles were used successfully. For nearly a year they would deny the Soviets and the Kabul government effective use of air power

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


When the leading Hinds were only about 600 feet from the ground Ghaffar yelled Tire’ and the Mujahideen’s shouts of AlIah o Akbar’ rose up with the missiles. Of the three, one malfunctioned and fell, without exploding, a few metres from the firer. The other two slammed into their targets. Both helicopters fell like stones to the airstrip, bursting into flames on impact. There was a mad scramble among the firing panics to reload and change over firers as everybody in the teams wanted their chance to shoot. Two more missiles were fired, with another success and a near miss wit) a helicopter that had landed. I believe one or two others were damaged due to heavy landings as the frantic pilots sought to touch down in precipitate haste. Five missiles three kills — the Mujahideen were jubilant.

http://www.afghanbooks.com/beartrap/english/15.htm


In the ten-month period from the first firing up to when J left the IS in August, 1987, 187 Stingers were used in Afghanistan. Of these 75 per cent hit aircraft.

http://www.afghanbooks.com/beartrap/english/15.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stinger missile didn't make a significant impact on the war but it did force the Soviets to change tactics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soviets won all the battles in Afghanistan


On 28 May 1982, I led a group of four Mujahideen in an ambush at the very gates of the Soviet garrison in Kabul. At that time, elements of the Soviet 103rd Airborne Division and some other units were based in Darulaman about 10 kilometers southwest of downtown Kabul. The headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army was also located there in the Tajbeg Palace.

I selected the ambush site after we spent several days in reconnaissance and surveillance of the Soviet traffic around Darulaman. During the reconnaissance, we detected a pattern in Soviet vehicular movement along the road from Kabul to the Soviet headquarters in the Tajbeg palace. Just north of the Soviet Darulaman base is the small village of Afshar. It has a typical suburban bazaar with several grocery and fresh fruit stores and stalls. Soviet soldiers frequented this bazaar and would stop their vehicles there to buy cigarettes, food and imported vodka. Afshar looked like a good ambush site. Soviet soldiers felt secure there, there was room enough to set up an ambush and site entrance and exit were fairly easy. The path to and from the ambush was mostly concealed and we could easily reach Mujahideen bases and safe houses in the Chardehi District using this path.

We spent the day of the ambush in Qala-e Bakhtiar--a village six kilometers to the west of the ambush site. We had four AK-47s and a non-Soviet manufactured light anti-tank grenade launcher. In the early evening, we moved out toward Afshar. It was the Muslim month of Ramadan when Muslims fast during the entire day. Few people were out at sunset since this is the time to break the daily fast. Since our ambush site was in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet base, I decided to conduct a very quick attack on a single Soviet vehicle and to take prisoners if possible.

We moved through a narrow street of Afshar which opened onto the main road north of the Darulaman palace. Around 1930 hours, as my leading riflemen reached the street intersection, a Soviet GAZ-66 truck approached from the east on its way to the military camp. The truck had five passengers--a driver, a soldier in the right front seat and three soldiers in the back. One of the soldiers had a back-packed radio. I told my anti-tank gunner to fire when the vehicle was in the kill zone. He fired, but he narrowly missed the truck. The truck came to a sudden halt and its occupants jumped out of the vehicle, took up positions and started firing at random.

During the brief fire fight, we killed one Soviet soldier. Two soldiers ran away to the southwest toward their camp. One soldier crawled under the truck near the rear tires. The radio-man rushed into an open grocery store and hid there. One of my Mujahideen was close to the shop behind a concrete electric pylon. I told him to follow the Soviet radio-man into the front of the shop while I went into the shop's back door and introduced myself as a "friend". The Soviet soldier was flustered at first, but when he saw the foreign light anti-tank weapon in the hands of my Mujahideen, he uttered "dushman" [enemy]. He kept quiet as we bound his hands and led him out back. I recalled my team and we quickly left the area. The whole action lasted only a few minutes.

Fearing enemy retaliation, we moved out swiftly in the dark, heading to Qala-e Bakhtiar. From there, we went on to Qala-e Bahadur Khan, Qala-e Jabar Khan and Qala-e Qazi until we reached our Front's base at Morghgiran around 2200 hours. We kept our prisoner there for three days and then transferred him to our faction headquarters in Peshawar, Pakistan.


In November 1982, some 60 Mujahideen from Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and Mohseni's Harakat-e Islami launched a night attack on the DRA Ministry of Defense located in the Darulaman Palace. The security in the area was very tight and the area between the Darulaman Palace and the Tajbeg Palace (headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army) was heavily patrolled. We decided to limit the attack to a short-range RPG attack. The Hezb group were armed with AK-47 Kalashnikovs, while the Mohseni group had British Sten guns and other weapons.(5) The Mohnseni had the RPG-7 we used in the attack. Both sides provided ammunition for the RPG.

We assembled in the staging area at Char Qala in the late afternoon. Char Qala is about three kilometers north of the target. From there, we moved south in groups to the intermediate villages of Qala-e Pakhchak and Qala-e Bahadur Khan and Qala-e Bakhtiar. Our attack position was a water mill outside the Juvenile Penitentiary close to the Darulaman Palace. As we moved, we dropped off security elements. Most of the men in the group were assigned to provide security during movement to and from the target area. Security elements were positioned at key locations, which facilitated our infiltration and withdrawal. Once our forward security elements secured the firing area, the RPG-7 gunner Saadat (from the Mohseni faction) took his position. He was about 250 meters from the target. He fired two rockets at the building. The enemy response was immediate. Guards from around the palace filled the night with heavy small-arms fire. We did not return their fire. Instead, we immediately began retracing our steps and pulled out along the route held by our security detail. We then scattered into hiding places and safe houses in the villages of Chardehi. Some years later, a prison inmate who was on the DRA side during the night attack told a Mujahideen contact that about 20 people were killed or injured in our attack


A Soviet regiment was garrisoned in the Balahessar Fortress in Kabul. In September or October of 1983, we decided to raid a security outpost south of Balahessar. This outpost formed part of the security belt around the fortress. I had 62 Mujahideen in my group. My armaments included eight RPG-7s and two 82mm recoilless rifles. My base was some ten kilometers south of Kabul at Yakhdara. We planned the raid in our base at Yakhdara, moved in the late afternoon to the village of Shewaki and waited until dark. We moved out at dark. On the way, there were several regime outposts. I detailed a five-man security element against each one as we passed it. The main outpost was at Akhozi and others were at Bagh-e Afzal and Qalacha. The security elements mission was to secure our return trip so that we wouldn't be ambushed by the enemy.

We reached Balahessar fortress which is surrounded by several security posts. I retained a 15-man attack group and posted the rest of my command as security elements guarding the other outposts. I divided my attack group into a five-man support group and a ten-man assault group. We crept up to the outpost, climbed the wall, got up on the roof of the outpost and then attacked it. I led the assault group. We hit the sentry with a RPG and he vaporized. We blew open the doors with RPG rockets and opened fire on the soldiers in the courtyard. We killed twelve of the DRA and captured three of their wounded. The rest escaped through a secret covered passage into Balahessar fortress. I had two KIA. One was Zabat Halim.(6) We took our dead with us. We could not carry the wounded prisoners so we left them there. We captured 16 weapons--Kalashnikovs and machine guns, a mortar and a RPG. As we left, there was a commotion in Balahessar and tanks moved out of the fortress in our direction. One tank came close to us and we destroyed it with an RPG. The other tanks then quit coming toward us--they had lost their taste for a fight. We just wanted to get out of there, so we left for our assembly area. We had a designated assembly area and, as we approached it, we were challenged and responded with the password. Once I assembled my entire group, we left. My security elements guaranteed a safe return. This raid was on the tenth day of the first month of the Islamic Lunar calendar--the Day of Ashura. This day commemorates the anniversary of the massacre of the Prophet Mohammad's grandson Hussein and his 72 followers at Karbala in Iraq. It is a day of mourning, reflection and solemn thinking for Shia and others. On this Day of Ashura, we thought of our own dead who died defending truth and righteousness. They had died appropriately on the Day of Ashura.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/nightstalker/nightstalker.htm

This is just an example of a few battles. The Afghans may have never won any conventional batttles but they won many guerilla battles. Here are some more links talking about that:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/ambush/ambush.htm

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/ambush-road/ambush-road.HTM

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/roadwar/roadwar.htm

Even Soviet commandos lost battles sometimes:


The terrorist fighters had the advantage of a mountain stronghold riddled with caves and tunnels dug over decades. In the 1980s, Afghan mujahideen leader Nassrullah Mansour killed many Soviet troops who sought to capture the base that lies at the southern end of the Shah-e Kot Valley and intersects a major supply and escape route east to Pakistan. In a nearby valley, a Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15883&highlight=afghanistan


While bigger battles may have resulted in more casualties, one of the most catastrophic fights occurred in February 1985. The “Black Stork” Mujahideen surrounded a Spetsnaz company near Asadabad. Of the 28 elite troops, only two survived.

http://www.vfw.org/magazine/soviets.htm

[jmatucd]

In my mind it is somewhat simple. It is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to conquer a people who hate you and are willing to fight to the death. Barring cases where invading armies are willing to exterminate their enemies (and civilians), there isn't much room to win that conflict. If your enemy will fight to the death, you must either kill him off completly (which is complicated by surrounding powers that will aide them and grant them shelter so they may re-enter the battlefield after their "defeat") or you will lose that conflict.

So without either having some support from the populace, or being utterly vicious toward the captive people (Soviet Union style around WWII, or simply killing off most of the males etc) - you will lose.

[Sayeret]

In my mind it is somewhat simple. It is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to conquer a people who hate you and are willing to fight to the death. Barring cases where invading armies are willing to exterminate their enemies (and civilians), there isn't much room to win that conflict. If your enemy will fight to the death, you must either kill him off completly (which is complicated by surrounding powers that will aide them and grant them shelter so they may re-enter the battlefield after their "defeat") or you will lose that conflict.

So without either having some support from the populace, or being utterly vicious toward the captive people (Soviet Union style around WWII, or simply killing off most of the males etc) - you will lose.

That is a good point since it's very difficult to occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied and who's citizens are willing to carry out guerrilla attacks however one shouldn't forgot that there has been many successful counter-insurgencies in history. Even the Soviet Union had conducted successful counter-insurgencies prior to the Soviet-Afghan war such as with a counterinsurgency against the Basmachi in Central Asia and against the Ukraine following World War II. It's very difficult to balance how much power is needed to defeat the guerillas yet not upset the population of the country, which is the US is learning in Iraq right now. Unless your going to kill everyone in your way such as what Jordan did against the Palestinians (Black September) or the Chinese towards Tibet it can be a very long and hard process.

Here is an article which talks about how hard it is to maintain being nice but not too nice to a country your occupying, this particular one talks about Iraq:

http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/11/counteri.html

It seems like no matter what you do it is very hard to get the population of an occupied country to understand that your trying to help them rather than hurt them, even if the previous government was a horrible person. I only hope that the US has enough patience to remain in Iraq to get the job done and that the Iraqi people learn that the occupation will take time.

[sergey31]

This is how Mujahadeens were fighting Soviets and won.

I'm not finish with this piece yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/Afghanistan2.jpg
did this one about 9 years ago.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/art.jpg

[Sayeret]

This is how Mujahadeens were fighting Soviets and won.

I'm not finish with this piece yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/Afghanistan2.jpg
did this one about 9 years ago.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/art.jpg

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

[sergey31]

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

No. And if you are any smart you would know the answer before asking stupid qustion. :slap:
BTW, the painting is from actual event that took place in Panjir valley in 1996.

[Sayeret]

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

No. And if you are any smart you would know the answer before asking stupid qustion. :slap:
BTW, the painting is from actual event that took place in Panjir valley in 1996.

Theres pictures of destroyed soviet tanks and helicopters but that alone doesn't mean that the Mujahadeen won. Wars aren't won by whoever kills the most people or has the most expensive weapons.

http://www.videofact.com/polska/aanowi/robocze%20today/afganista6.jpg

[sergey31]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

[Thucydides]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

[Sayeret]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

This website provided by Dima-RussianArms

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

shows that the Soviets lost 333 helicopters

[sergey31]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

[Sayeret]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

Yes, everyone says that, if the Soviet Union really wanted to then they could of. If the USSR really wanted to they could have realeased some kind of biological agent in Afghanistan but they didn't. Wars aren't won by whoever has the most advanced technology.

[sergey31]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

If you can't fight on the fields and face your enemy then you pretty much lost the war. Like I mention earlier loosing military hardware was not that big of deal to the Soviets, they had thousands more that they could easily afford to loose.
In my book, you loose the war when you hide from the enemy, conduct secret transports at night and simply outnumbered and outmatched by the enemy.
Russians did loose many millions in WW2 but they actually drove the Germans out, which Mujahadeens could never do and that is a BIG difference.

[Sayeret]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

If you can't fight on the fields and face your enemy then you pretty much lost the war. Like I mention earlier loosing military hardware was not that big of deal to the Soviets, they had thousands more that they could easily afford to loose.
In my book, you loose the war when you hide from the enemy, conduct secret transports at night and simply outnumbered and outmatched by the enemy.
Russians did loose many millions in WW2 but they actually drove the Germans out, which Mujahadeens could never do and that is a BIG difference.

Maybe the Soviets could afford to lose thousands of weapon systems but the Soviet government wasn't willing to lose millions of people fighting for a country like Afghanistan. Most modern countries aren’t willing to lose as many people as third world countries are.
It doesn't matter that in "your book" you can’t lose a war if your opponent is using guerilla tactics or terrorism since no once else goes by that standard. You consider Vietnam a defeat of the US even though the Vietcong used guerilla tactics against the US but you don't consider Afghanistan a defeat for the Soviets. The US left Vietnam like, the Soviets left Afghanistan and I could say that the Germans left the Soviet Union, too. If they really wanted to they could've sent their troops on the Western front to battle the Soviets and they could also use their chemical weapons but they didn't but it doesn’t mean the Germans didn’t lose because they did.

[Sayeret]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

Alexander the Great didn't need any fancy technology, he took over Afghanistan.

http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html

[sergey31]

The Soviet Union did their job and actually occupied and held Afghanistan for many years. They did not loose more than 15,000 soldiers in 10 years but U.S lost 58,000 in just 6 and that is a big difference. Another thing is, U.S forces were actually fighting a government (North Vietnam) combined with guerilla forces. U.S withdrew from Vietnam in a hurry and could not hold their positions any longer because North Vietnam forces with Armour were advancing. Soviets did not leave in a hurry and no one was advancing and they they were not RETREATING.
No, Germany could not send anymore troops to the Eastern front because it had none to send and thus they were literally kicked out, ONCE again that is a big difference.
The bottom line Soviets WERE NOT defeated, BUT THEY LEFT ON THEIR OWN will. NOT DRIVEN OUT BUT JUST SIMPLY LEFT..... How difficult is to understand that? Do you know the word LOOSING?
LOOSING IS when you can't fight someone because someone is superior to you, Soviet's could and did fight and it was an EXCELLENT training ground for them.

[Sayeret]

The Soviet Union did their job and actually occupied and held Afghanistan for many years. They did not loose more than 15,000 soldiers in 10 years but U.S lost 58,000 in just 6 and that is a big difference.

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.


It was also a secret war. During the first two years of the conflict, the Soviet press covered the death of some two dozen servicemen—though thousands had already died. Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the Soviet press, it showed happy Soviet servicemen building orphanages—while neglecting to mention their role in filling them. The Soviet public was kept in the dark. When a dead Soviet soldier was returned to his family, the family was sworn to secrecy in order to get the body back for burial. Even the earlier tombstones did not list where the serviceman had died, only that he had died “fulfilling his internationalist duty.”

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm



Another thing is, U.S forces were actually fighting a government (North Vietnam) combined with guerilla forces. U.S withdrew from Vietnam in a hurry and could not hold their positions any longer because North Vietnam forces with Armour were advancing. Soviets did not leave in a hurry and no one was advancing and they they were not RETREATING.

The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't.


No, Germany could not send anymore troops to the Eastern front because it had none to send and thus they were literally kicked out, ONCE again that is a big difference.

What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?


The bottom line Soviets WERE NOT defeated, BUT THEY LEFT ON THEIR OWN will. NOT DRIVEN OUT BUT JUST SIMPLY LEFT..... How difficult is to understand that? Do you know the word LOOSING?
LOOSING IS when you can't fight someone because someone is superior to you, Soviet's could and did fight and it was an EXCELLENT training ground for them.

The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

[sergey31]

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.

USSR stated 14,750 were lost and U.S stated around 18,000 and lets please not magnify the number in your favor shall we.

The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't
The U.S were fighting actual army (North Vietnam) and that army had air force and tanks etc, you can actually see the video how marines were retreating and evacuating because North Vietnamese were advancing. I have never seen Soviets leaving in such a hurry because Mujahadeens were advancing ONCE AGAIN.


What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?
What stopped Germans? This is what stopped....LOOSING the war stopped them, that is what stopped them. Stop giving me stupid and idiotic examples.


The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

Yes, they could and they did defeat them. Mujahadeens could not fight them on the battlefields period. Hit and run and ambushes that is the best the could do, especially and the last years of the war. Terrain aint S*#T if you have 500lb Fuel-Air bomb falling on top that terrain and evaporating several miles of every living thing within. Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside. Soviets did not loose and some people have tunnel vision and can't see the whole picture.

And please stop copying and paste other web sites, it just shows you knowledge and intelligence.

[Sayeret]

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.

USSR stated 14,750 were lost and U.S stated around 18,000 and lets please not magnify the number in your favor shall we.

The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't
The U.S were fighting actual army (North Vietnam) and that army had air force and tanks etc, you can actually see the video how marines were retreating and evacuating because North Vietnamese were advancing. I have never seen Soviets leaving in such a hurry because Mujahadeens were advancing ONCE AGAIN.


What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?
What stopped Germans? This is what stopped....LOOSING the war stopped them, that is what stopped them. Stop giving me stupid and idiotic examples.


The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

Yes, they could and they did defeat them. Mujahadeens could not fight them on the battlefields period. Hit and run and ambushes that is the best the could do, especially and the last years of the war. Terrain aint S*#T if you have 500lb Fuel-Air bomb falling on top that terrain and evaporating several miles of every living thing within. Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside. Soviets did not loose and some people have tunnel vision and can't see the whole picture.

And please stop copying and paste other web sites, it just shows you knowledge and intelligence.

Why don't you post a few links because right now I have no reason to believe anything you've said.


Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside.

I can tell that I'm dealing with an intelligent person when he compares killing people to a BBQ. :cantbeli:

[sergey31]

Why don't you post a few links because right now I have no reason to believe anything you've said.

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.


I can tell that I'm dealing with an intelligent person when he compares killing people to a BBQ

Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.[/quote]

[callous]

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam didn't fall till 1975. The only Marines left in Vietnam were guarding the US embassy. They stayed to make sure all US citizens got out of the country.

Did the Soviets leave an Embassy staff when they pulled out of Afghanistan? If so did they have to leave in a hurry when the Taliban rolled into Kabul?

Oh and by the way the Vietnam is considered a loss for the US and so is Afghanistan for the Russians.

[Sayeret]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.


Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

[sergey31]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.


Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

It's pointless, it's like talking to a 12 year old. AFACadet made an ass of himself way before Tu160 discussion so I won't bother but Please do read the introduction of this post as most of your links came from no better source and it shows that you have no mind of your own.
And the reality of war, well just look at my painting and when I'm finish with it it's going be much worse.
Like I mention before, I tell how it is and it's a cruel world and as an artist I like to show how it is.
Trust me I do my homework and research on the subject and looks like you have no idea about anything you talk about since all you do is copy and paste other people's opinions and views.

[Dima-RussianArms]

Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.
In one day, 400 spetsnaz troops....Too bad soviets did know about that....

Sayaeret, the rest of your posts have as much credibility as your statement above. For some reason you choose to turn the blind eye to the common sense and historical facts for the sake of your wishful thinking, as my sister says: fine, be that way....

You are playing around with definitions and twisting numbers, why?

Soviets had to quit Afghanistan because their 4 million military couldn't take loosing 13.800 men over 10 years - sure, whatever :roll:

Interesting definition of control you have there, so according to your own logic Israel does not have control of its own country ;)

Sergey31, stop arguing with him, I am sure you have much better things to do than wall.

The rest who want to know more about that conflict can read an excellent thread by hist2004 and 16OBrSpN
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7201&highlight=spetsnaz

[Sayeret]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.


Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

It's pointless, it's like talking to a 12 year old. AFACadet made an ass of himself way before Tu160 discussion so I won't bother but Please do read the introduction of this post as most of your links came from no better source and it shows that you have no mind of your own.
And the reality of war, well just look at my painting and when I'm finish with it it's going be much worse.
Like I mention before, I tell how it is and it's a cruel world and as an artist I like to show how it is.
Trust me I do my homework and research on the subject and looks like you have no idea about anything you talk about since all you do is copy and paste other people's opinions and views.

I'm going to assume you’re a 13 year old because you can't seem to admit that anyone knows anything more than you about any subject and have to keep writing in caps and bold. AFACadet knows a lot more about the US Air Force than either I or you do, like it or not. The fact you can't accept that the Soviets lost the war shows how narrow minded, you really are and no one else is. It doesn't matter that you and a few other people can't accept defeat since the rest of the world considered the Soviet-Afghan a defeat for the Soviets. Maybe you would like it if the Soviets had won but they didn’t so stop acting like they did.

Your realiy of war is screwed up because you seem to get pleasure drawing people being shot or killed and talking about war like a 13 year old would.

[Sayeret]

In one day, 400 spetsnaz troops....Too bad soviets did know about that....

Check the article and read the whole article because I didn't write it.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15883&highlight=afghanistan


Sayaeret, the rest of your posts have as much credibility as your statement above. For some reason you choose to turn the blind eye to the common sense and historical facts for the sake of your wishful thinking, as my sister says: fine, be that way....

How are my posts not credible? When I didn't provide any sources you said you had no reason to believe me but now when I post sources you don't want to believe them.


Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.
What about some proof for your statements: answering my questions with facts, maps, numbers, etc...?

If you don't like my sources at least give your own or state how they are untrue.


You are playing around with definitions and twisting numbers, why?

How so? Post where I did.


Soviets had to quit Afghanistan because their 4 million military couldn't take loosing 13.800 men over 10 years - sure, whatever

You didn’t add how many people the Soviets lost to non combat deaths. The Soviets thought the war would only take a few years and not as many casualties. Once they had fought for many years they realized that the country wasn't worth what it would require to take it over.


Interesting definition of control you have there, so according to your own logic Israel does not have control of its own country

The best person to answer this question is someone you had agreed with previously and addressing GazB, he wrote:


Cmon Gaz, you should know better than that. You cant really succeed in holding a country -- particularly Afghanistan -- just by controlling the handful of major cities while leaving the vast bulk of the country unoccupied.

[hist2004]

In a nearby valley, a Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.

I have read pretty extensively about the Soviet-Afghan War including first-
hand accounts of the major engagements. I have never heard of a “Soviet
Commando battalion” being wiped out on a single day. To begin with, who
are they referring too? (VDV, DShB, SpN). There was a battle in April of
1986 (the battle of Zhawar) involving a battalion from 37 Commando Brigade
(Afghan Government Army-DRA). During the battle this Battalion from the
37th mistakenly chose a flat open plateau (LZ) that was dominated by higher
ground occupied by mujahideen. The battalion contained 400 commandos
who were devastated in the ensuing fight.

Regards,
Hist2004

[sergey31]

I'm going to assume you’re a 13 year old because you can't seem to admit that anyone knows anything more than you about any subject and have to keep writing in caps and bold

You go ahead and ASSuME as much as you want, you still sound like a teenager who who knows S*^T about the subject, and it shows.

The fact you can't accept that the Soviets lost the war shows how narrow minded, you really are and no one else is. It doesn't matter that you and a few other people can't accept defeat since the rest of the world considered the Soviet-Afghan a defeat for the Soviets.

It has nothing to do with me accepting anything but knowing YES, I know what happened and I don't need an enlightened vision of some teenager tell me western propaganda by his miscued view.


Maybe you would like it if the Soviets had won but they didn’t so stop acting like they did.
Once again as far as I'm concern it does not affect me one way or another if they won or lost. But unlike someone here I don't need to read western propoganda to know what had happen.


Your realiy of war is screwed up because you seem to get pleasure drawing people being shot or killed and talking about war like a 13 year old would.
My reality? You do mean reality?
How is it my reality? Did I create war? But I do like to show the REALITY which is present in the war you like it or not. And if you don't like talking about it (the War) you should not even be in this tread.

[Sayeret]

Here are some things I found out about the ambush.


The Shahi-Kot Valley (also Shah-i-Kot, Shah-e-Kot and other variant spellings) is a valley located in Afghanistan's Paktia province, southeast of the town of Zormat. The terrain in and around the valley is notoriously rugged, located at a mean altitude of 9,000 feet. Shahi-Kot means "Place of the King" and it has historically been a redoubt for Afghan guerillas hiding from foreign invaders. The area was the scene of fierce fighting between the Afghan mujahideen rebels and Soviet forces during the Afghan-Soviet War.

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

Here is where the original article comes from:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/08-02/08-11-02/b01lo145.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0801/p01s03-wosc.html

[hist2004]

Sayeret-

I had read those sources concerning this action; I was wondering if anyone
had other information on this battalion's loss. I could only find the info I
mention in my previous post. I'm hardly the last word on the subject, so if
someone has another source, please post it.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Sayeret]

Sayeret-

I had read those sources concerning this action; I was wondering if anyone
had other information on this battalion's loss. I could only find the info I
mention in my previous post. I'm hardly the last word on the subject, so if
someone has another source, please post it.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

I'm going to keep looking for it also. Thanks for looking into it. I haven't found anything besides those two sources which appear to be the same thing that CAG 147 posted.

[Coop]

Here some excerpts from the book "Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf, who - as a chief of the ISI's Afghan Bureau - effectivelly organized, supplied, and led the Mujaheddin in the war against the Soviets, between 1983 and 1988.

Note: the following offensive was led by Brig. Abdol Gafur, commander fo the Afghan Army and the deputy of the Afghan Defence Minister, Maj.Gen. Tani.

The participating units - according to Yousaf - were:

- 7th and 8th Afghan Divisions (from Kabul)
- 12th and 14th Afghan Divisions (from Gardez and Khost, respectivelly)
- 37th Commando Brigade (total of 1.500 Afghan troops)
- Soviet AAR (2.200 Soviet troops)

The 25th Afghan division and 2nd Border Brigade were holding Khost, but could not participate in the offensive.

p.169:

For ten days Gafur struggled to get from Tani to Zhawar, ten days of heavy fighting in which the Mujaheddin resistance took a severe pounding, but during which they proved they could hold their ground even in adverse circumstances. Their outstanding triumph of this battle was the complete destruction of a battalion from 37 Commando Brigade, which was a part of Gafur's plan to land troops behind the Mujaheddin positions. In this instance they miscalculated badly in selecting as a landing zone (LZ) a flat, open plateau close to the base, but within range of higher ground held by some of Haqqani's and Hekmatyar's men. In broad daylight ten or more helicopters came in in waves to set down the 400 commandos. As they flew overhead they were met by a barrage of fire from SA-7s and heavy machine guns. Three helicopters crashed, while the others disgorged their troops under intense cross-fire from both Mujaheddin positions. In the open ground the commandos were badly cut up and demoralized. By nightfall there was nothing left of this battalion: all were either killed or captured. Had we had the Stinger missile I doubt if any helicopter could have escaped.

According to Youssaf, this battle occurred on 11 April 1986.

Now, somebody above mentioned that the Soviets killed something like "2.000.000 Mujaheddin" in that war. Well, this is how Yousaf describes a standard Soviet operation against the Mujaheddin - in turn explaining also who were most of these "2.000.000 Mujaheddin" killed by the Soviets (p.179):

The attack on the village of Rugyan in 1982 was typical of Soviet methods. Rugyan had a population of about 800 people and lay 8 kilometres NW of Ali Khel. It was an agricultural village set in the narrow valley of the Rugyan River and was, at that time, a thriving community which supported the Mujaheddin. The mud-brick houses were clustered together on the lower slopes of the mountains on both sides of the valley, and up a smaller side valley, whose stream joined the Rugyan from the east. In the centere of the village were numerous wells and more houses. Every possible use had been made of terraces to give maximum soil and space for crops of wheat or maize.

On the day in question the villagers were going about their normal chores when at around 9.00 am six helicopters were spotted high above the valley. The leading pair came lower, straight at the village. At about 2.000 feet the first rockets were fired, then another salvo, then another, the high explosive ripping apart the filmsy dwellings and killing or maiming the occupants. For at least two hours the endless bombardment continued with short intervals as one pair flew off to make way for the next. As a gunship ran out of rockets it circles around hosing the houses and fields with machine-gun fire. On the ground a few young men fled up into the hills, while the remainder, the elderly and the women and children cowered in the rubble or behind boulders. Many died outright, many more were to die later from shock and loss of blood. If there seemed to be a lull in the firing uninjured people would come out to attend the wounded. It was futile; any movement below was signal for the next pair of gunships to attack. There was no defence. The number of Mujaheddin in the village at the time was negligible. There were no anti-aircraft weapons and no caves in which to shelter.

The next phase was heralded by the approach of ground troops from the direction of Ali Khel. Two hundred infantrymen, with several tanks, APCs and mortars, halted a few hundred meters from the village. They spread out before opening fire. For another half an hour gunfire, mortar bombs and heavy machine-gun bullets pummelled the rubble and every possible place of concealment. At last, by about midday, the Soviet commander stopped the firing. None of this men had been scratched. It was a search and destroy operation in which the destruction preceded the searching. An AFghan officer yelled through a bullhorn for anybody still living to come out. The shocked, petrified, wailing women and children were segregated from the handful of men still able to walk. The searching of the ruins began, with the soldiers setting fire to any building left intact. No attention was given to the wounded, they were ignored until the troops finally departed, taking a few men for interrogation.

It was the end of Rugyan village. All 200 or so survivors trekked to Pakistan, carrying their injured strapped to horses and mules, or carried on beds. It took them ten hours to reach Parachinar hospital. On that occassion the surviving women had been fortunate to escape with few blows and curses. There was no rape or cold-bloodied butchery as it was not just a Soviet operation. When Afghan troops were present the Soviets usually refrained from their more gruesome atrocities. After a similar mission elsewhere three young girls had been taken up by the Soviets in a gunship, raped, then thrown out while stil alive. Multiply Rugyan by hundreds and you get some idea of what the Soviet's scorched earth strategy meant.

Finally, Yousaf's conclusion about the typical Soviet tactics (p.53):

There was nothing out of ordinary...Road-bound units, bristling with guns, moved tortuously along the roads and tracks in broad daylight. There was no discrenible attempt at surprise; the entire effort was slow-moving and ponderous, enabling the Mujaheddin either to fight or disappear at their will. No serious attempt had been made to block the heads of the valley, other than by bombs, and there was not much evidence of coordinating the air strikes with a swift approach by the ground forces. There was bombing, there was shelling, then there was a ground advance to find out what was left, a search and destroy mission with not much searching but a lot of destruction of buildings. No effort was made to position a proper cordon using helicopters. The Soviets seemed content to stay in their vehicles for the most part, and when they did dismount it was usually only to sift through the debris wrought by high explosive on mud and brick. After a few days of this everybody had gone back, chalking up another victory for official reports....

[Lokos]

And let's read 'Mein Kampf' to get a real truthful account of what the Jews are really like, right?

*shakes head*

Regards,
Lokos

[sergey31]

"Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf

Read the book, 75% of it is fiction..... Never seen so much BS piled up in one book.

[Coop]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

[Sayeret]

"Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf

Read the book, 75% of it is fiction..... Never seen so much BS piled up in one book.

How so?

[sergey31]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

I am me and who are you to question me?


How so?

Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing.

[Sayeret]

I haven't had too much luck finding information on the ambush at Shahi-Kot Valley but here some other attacks carried out by the Mujahadeen:


On 28 May 1982, I led a group of four Mujahideen in an ambush at the very gates of the Soviet garrison in Kabul. At that time, elements of the Soviet 103rd Airborne Division and some other units were based in Darulaman about 10 kilometers southwest of downtown Kabul. The headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army was also located there in the Tajbeg Palace.

I selected the ambush site after we spent several days in reconnaissance and surveillance of the Soviet traffic around Darulaman. During the reconnaissance, we detected a pattern in Soviet vehicular movement along the road from Kabul to the Soviet headquarters in the Tajbeg palace. Just north of the Soviet Darulaman base is the small village of Afshar. It has a typical suburban bazaar with several grocery and fresh fruit stores and stalls. Soviet soldiers frequented this bazaar and would stop their vehicles there to buy cigarettes, food and imported vodka. Afshar looked like a good ambush site. Soviet soldiers felt secure there, there was room enough to set up an ambush and site entrance and exit were fairly easy. The path to and from the ambush was mostly concealed and we could easily reach Mujahideen bases and safe houses in the Chardehi District using this path.

Map 2. Afshar Ambush


We spent the day of the ambush in Qala-e Bakhtiar--a village six kilometers to the west of the ambush site. We had four AK-47s and a non-Soviet manufactured light anti-tank grenade launcher. In the early evening, we moved out toward Afshar. It was the Muslim month of Ramadan when Muslims fast during the entire day. Few people were out at sunset since this is the time to break the daily fast. Since our ambush site was in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet base, I decided to conduct a very quick attack on a single Soviet vehicle and to take prisoners if possible.

We moved through a narrow street of Afshar which opened onto the main road north of the Darulaman palace. Around 1930 hours, as my leading riflemen reached the street intersection, a Soviet GAZ-66 truck approached from the east on its way to the military camp. The truck had five passengers--a driver, a soldier in the right front seat and three soldiers in the back. One of the soldiers had a back-packed radio. I told my anti-tank gunner to fire when the vehicle was in the kill zone. He fired, but he narrowly missed the truck. The truck came to a sudden halt and its occupants jumped out of the vehicle, took up positions and started firing at random.

During the brief fire fight, we killed one Soviet soldier. Two soldiers ran away to the southwest toward their camp. One soldier crawled under the truck near the rear tires. The radio-man rushed into an open grocery store and hid there. One of my Mujahideen was close to the shop behind a concrete electric pylon. I told him to follow the Soviet radio-man into the front of the shop while I went into the shop's back door and introduced myself as a "friend". The Soviet soldier was flustered at first, but when he saw the foreign light anti-tank weapon in the hands of my Mujahideen, he uttered "dushman" [enemy]. He kept quiet as we bound his hands and led him out back. I recalled my team and we quickly left the area. The whole action lasted only a few minutes.

Fearing enemy retaliation, we moved out swiftly in the dark, heading to Qala-e Bakhtiar. From there, we went on to Qala-e Bahadur Khan, Qala-e Jabar Khan and Qala-e Qazi until we reached our Front's base at Morghgiran around 2200 hours. We kept our prisoner there for three days and then transferred him to our faction headquarters in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Authors' Commentary: Detailed reconnaissance and knowledge of the enemy's movement and security arrangements contributed to a workable ambush right in the heart of the Soviet garrison area. The Soviets had not posted a vulnerable point adjacent to their garrison--either through overconfidence or negligence on the part of lower-level commanders.

Selection of a small group of fighters with an effective mix of weapons, and good selection of the ambush site played a significant role in the action. However, using a non-standard anti-tank weapon probably caused the gunner to miss a large target at close range. One wonders if the gunner had any training or practice with the weapon before he used it. An RPG-7 and an experienced gunner were needed.

One wonders why the Soviets stopped their truck in the middle of a kill zone once the Mujahideen rocket missed them. Since the Mujahideen rocket missed the vehicle, there was no need for the truck to stop and the soldiers could have escaped through the small-arms fire before the anti-tank gunner had a chance to reload. The Soviets failed to react effectively. Stopping in the kill zone under small-arms fire was a risky and unwise move that cost the Soviets the life of one soldier while another one was captured.


http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/nightstalker/nightstalker.htm


Escorting a truck convoy from Kabul to Ghazni
(Map 2) by Major V. I. Rovba8
Convoy escort and combat in the village of Daulatabad
(Map 4) by LTC A. A. Agzamov18

At the end of 1981, enemy attacks against convoys mounted along the Termez, Sheberghan, Andkhoy, Meymene route. It was particularly difficult in the region of Daulatabad. Intelligence reports indicated that a guerrilla force of 25 to 30 men armed with rifles operated in this area. Acting secretly, the enemy would attack a single vehicle or column. Their goal was to paralyze resupply into the area.

On 2 December 1981, the 2nd Reconnaissance Company, which was garrisoned in Meymene, was ordered to escort a 120-vehicle convoy loaded with supplies from Andkhoy to Meymene. The distance was 110 kilometers. The company reinforcements included a sapper squad, a flamethrower squad armed with the RPO flamethrowers, a ZSU-23-4 self-propelled air defense gun, and a BTS-4 towing vehicle.19



At the end of 1981, guerrilla forces were very active in the province of Ghazni. Especially bitter combat was fought along the Ghazni-Kabul and Ghazni-Kandahar highways. The enemy paid special attention to mining the roads where convoys would pass.

The 9th MRC was stationed six kilometers west of Ghazni with our parent regiment.9 On 5 September, our company commander was ordered to provide an escort on the next day for an 80-vehicle convoy from Ghazni to Kabul. On 7 September, we would offload the cargo and would return on 8 September. Two motorized rifle platoons were detailed to provide security and convoy escort. The company commander would command the detail on an R-142 radio set from the regimental communications company.10 The route is 160 kilometers long.


The only preparation that the troops had for the mission was drawing their ammunition and cleaning their individual and crew-
served weapons. The drivers pulled maintenance on their vehicles by themselves.

My company commander decided to keep the convoy together in one single column. He put a BTR in the lead of the convoy and two at the tail. He spaced the remaining BTRs between every 15 or 16 trucks in the convoy. Altogether, he committed seven BTRs to the mission. In the event that the mujahideen would attack a motorized rifle squad, each squad's BTR would pull over to the side of the road from which the enemy was firing and return fire with all its weapons. Thus, it would provide covering fire for the trucks driving out of the kill zone. Once the convoy was clear, the BTRs would rejoin the column and reoccupy their positions in the march column. Under no circumstances were we to allow the enemy to stop the column. It would be very difficult to get the convoy going again should it be stopped.

The road march to Kabul passed without incident. However, there was a delay in refilling the fuel trucks that constituted the bulk of the convoy back to Ghazni. The return trip was supposed to start at 0600 hours and finally got started at 1030 hours. We had sat on the outskirts of Kabul for four hours waiting for all of the fuel trucks. While we were waiting, individual Afghan trucks loaded with men and cargo continually passed by the entire convoy.

When the loaded fuel tankers finally arrived, they took their place in the convoy. The commander gave the order and the march began. After driving for an hour and a half, we entered the minor Kabul-river canyon and traveled through a green zone.11 Three kilometers ahead of us was an Afghan Army post which guarded a river bridge. The presence of this post had a certain psychological effect and we relaxed our vigilance as we approached the post. The company commander's BTR and the truck with the R-142 radio set traveled at the front of the column. Right behind them was a fuel truck towing a broken-down fuel truck. Once the entire convoy was flanked by the green zone, the enemy opened fire on the lead vehicles with grenade launchers at a range of 25 to 30 meters. The fuel truck towing the other fuel truck was hit. Simultaneously, the enemy opened fire on the tail end of the convoy and knocked out a trail BTR with a RPG.

The escort vehicles reacted as they had been briefed and returned fire. The truck column began to drive out of the kill zone while the enemy was rattled by the return fire. The company commander radioed for air support and thirty minutes after the battle began, helicopter gunships arrived. They hit the enemy and supported the motorized riflemen in their battle. The enemy ceased fire and began to withdraw to fall-back positions. In this combat, we lost one soldier KIA and seven WIA.

FRUNZE COMMENTARY: This report shows insufficient preparation for the convoy duty and further insufficient preparation in its accomplishment. On the day before the mission, the company commander did not conduct training with his personnel including training on coordination of actions in the event of enemy attack. The prolonged wait along the road side permitted the enemy to closely study the convoy as he drove by the column. The use of helicopter gunships to cover the column from the air did not come soon enough to ward off the enemy attack. Reconnaissance was not used during the course of the march. Nevertheless, the high psychological preparation of the drivers and the selfless actions of the motorized rifle soldiers allowed the column to rapidly exit the kill zone.

AUTHOR'S COMMENTARY: In this report, the commander is taken to task for not carefully supervising the preparation of his troops for the march. Part of this criticism is based on lack of trust of subordinates and the lack of a Soviet professional NCO corps. The commander is expected to personally conduct all training. In armies with a professional NCO corps, such training and preparation is done by trained, seasoned sergeants who understand the unit missions and train their forces to meet them. The commander checks his sergeants, but does not have to get involved in training to the extent that his Soviet counterpart had to. This leaves more time for carefully planning the action. The Soviet system overburdened the company grade officers and limited individual training opportunities.

The essential communications for this convoy were all contained in a soft-bodied vehicle. If it had been hit, the convoy commander may not have received the belated air support.


We had two days to prepare for the mission. During this time we studied data which we received from the high command and resolved issues of rear support and maintenance support. We paid particular attention to readying the vehicles for the march and to preparing our weapons for combat. The troops drew rations and ammunition.

The convoy commander was the deputy commander of a Spetsnaz detachment, N. Beksultanov. He decided to conduct the march from Meymene to Andkhoy on a single route and precede this with a forward security patrol. At 0500 hours on 4 December, the column moved out and eleven hours later closed into the assembly area some three kilometers northeast of Andkhoy. The truck convoy, already loaded with supplies, joined us. We then had to arrange the march column, distribute our combat power throughout the convoy, agree on coordination measures, and arrange for our night rest stop. We planned to leave on the morning of 5 December, move for five or six hours covering 80 kilometers with one rest stop. Following an overnight rest, we would close into Meymene the following day. The company had a platoon serve as the forward patrol.

The column moved out at 0500 on the morning of 5 December. By 0900, the forward patrol reached the village of Daulatabad. They reported back that the village was deserted. This report put us on our guard, and the convoy commander ordered us to increase our observation. When the lead vehicles of the convoy began to exit Daulatabad village, the enemy opened fire with a grenade launcher and destroyed a BMP-2KSH20 and a fuel tanker. A fire broke out and the vehicles immediately behind the conflagration were stuck in narrow streets.

The enemy opened up with small arms fire. Two more BMPs were knocked out and, as a result, the convoy was split into three sections. We returned fire, but it was not controlled or directed. The convoy commander lost control over his subunits since his communications were gone. Individual vehicles independently tried to break out of the kill zones. The FAC called in helicopter gunships and directed their fires. The helicopters began gun runs on the enemy in the village. In the meantime, the trail platoon received the mission to sweep the western part of the village. The dismounted troopers moved under the cover of BMP and helicopter fire to carry out their mission. The enemy withdrew when faced with this decisive action.

In the course of this three-hour battle, four of our soldiers were killed (all drivers), six were wounded, three BMPs were destroyed and five trucks were burned up.

FRUNZE COMMENTARY: This report shows poor decision-making, inadequate preparation for battle and inadequate troop control during the course of the battle. None of the commanders involved had been briefed on the probable sites of enemy contact and the likely enemy courses of action.

AUTHOR'S COMMENTARY: In this report, the recon element reports that all the people in a village, which is a traditional trouble spot, have left. This leads to increased observation, but the commander does not dismount a force and have them probe the village for ambushes. This appears to demonstrate a basic lack of field craft on the part of the commander.

Again, the company commander muddles through a three-hour battle with a lightly-armed platoon and only manages to extricate himself when airpower is brought to bear. There seems to be a strong reluctance to dismount and close with the enemy. There is an over-reliance on firepower.

The mujahideen learned to take out command vehicles early in the battle. Command vehicles were always distinguished by extra antennae and convoy commanders usually rode in the first vehicle of the main column. Other Soviet writings talk about strapping extra antennae on all vehicles before going into action and varying the commander's position in the column. This did not happen. Consequently, when the commander's vehicle was hit, communications were usually lost and the commander, if he survived, could not control the fight. The Soviets used radio almost exclusively to control the battle. Although the mujahideen had little jamming capability, once they knocked out the Soviet vehicles with the multiple antennae, they usually had disrupted the tactical control net.

Finally, Afghan government forces and Afghan civilian drivers are never part of the equation. Losses are strictly in terms of Soviet men and material and trucks from the convoy. Either the Afghans never suffered casualties, or they were considered of no account. If it is the latter, it demonstrates a mindset that is counterproductive when trying to assist another government in winning a guerrilla war.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/ISSUES/convoy/convoy.htm

[Sayeret]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

I am me and who are you to question me?


How so?

Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing.

Examples?

[sergey31]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

I am me and who are you to question me?


How so?

Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing.

Examples?

The whole book is an example..... also written by Mujihadeen himself.... I'm more incline to bealive Weakly World news then that book.

[Sayeret]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

I am me and who are you to question me?


How so?

Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing.

Examples?

The whole book is an example..... also written by Mujihadeen himself.... I'm more incline to bealive Weakly World news then that book.

Provide some proof to all these claims.

[Dima-RussianArms]

The whole book is an example..... also written by Mujihadeen himself.... I'm more incline to bealive Weakly World news then that book.
How dare you to question the Great Warrior of Islam and liberator of the sacred land from the communist dogs!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:

Long live glorious maujahadeen and their writers talent, Allah Akbar!

The words of Mohammad Yousaf are the words of the prohpet himself, Allah Akbar!

He singlehandedly shot down 333 helicopters and decimated infidel forces, forcing them to flee like dogs that they were, Allah Akbar!



The storytelling by mujahadeen reminds me of the looser saying:"Yeah, I'd win the fight by my laces were untied..."

[GazB]

Cmon Gaz, you should know better than that. You cant really succeed in holding a country -- particularly Afghanistan -- just by controlling the handful of major cities while leaving the vast bulk of the country unoccupied.


Was their objective to hold the country? By controlling all of the cities and all of the towns and the Afghan army what sort of threat to the USSR did afghanistan pose? Compare that with an Afghanistan with US bases and personel... the odd radar station, and air bases etc etc.


I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't have successes but the reason why they went to war was a failure. They didn't go to Afghanistan and fight there for ten years just to establish a government for a few years which could barely support itself.

The resulting chaos and lack of unity and the un-american rule of the taliban created a neighbour that was no threat at all to the Soviet Union. In fact compared to their rule communism even looked good.


If your going to say that atleast give some proof. Most modern armies don't tend to accept as many casualties as third world countries. Take Somalia for example. The US lost 18 soldiers and the Somalis lost several hundred but still consider it a victory. The fact that the Soviets lost less than 100,000 and the Afghans lost 1.3 million people shows this. The fact that bulk of the fighting against the Mujahadeen was carried out by the DRA in 1985 rather Soviets shows this. Another thing is a lot of the Soviet soldiers were conscripts and had low morale, so didn't help the matter any.


What proof do you need? Why do you think Afghan mothers can afford to lose their sons any more than a Soviet mother? From what I have read of Masoud he spent a lot of time planning things to avoid the loss of life amongst his own forces... and what I have read about airborne commanders they did the same. Suggesting that somehow you know that the Afghans were prepared to lay down more lives than the Soviets were seems to place upon you the burden of proof I should think. Those Afghans might die easier in the knowledge that they were defending their land and their country and Ivan might die wondering why he is giving his life for these muka that don't seem to want his help... much the same way some Americans are probably feeling right now in iraq.


A lot of the people in Afghanistan didn't live in the major cities or towns anyway and if you can't control the country enough to prevent losing thousands of people a year thats a problem.

The urban/rural percentages are irrelevant... those in rural areas were harldy a threat to the USSR, it would be those in towns and cities that would welcome in the Americans and allow them to build bases there.


The Soviets wanted to take complete control of the country over but weren't able to.

They controlled anyoine who could read a book. A few angry people in a few villages are an irritation.


I know and I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't accomplish things but overall the war was a failure in acheiving the goals the Soviets wanted to accomplish.


And what were these goals? Can you spell them out for us... and of course reveal how you divined these goals...




They expected their puppet government to last like it did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia which did not happen.


Nobody expected the government to last... and it stopped "lasting" when the Russians drastically cut the budget.


Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the Soviet press, it showed happy Soviet servicemen building orphanages—while neglecting to mention their role in filling them.

Yes, a nice unbiased source by the sound of it. I guess they could do a similar article about the US in Iraq doing exactly the same thing?


This is just an example of a few battles. The Afghans may have never won any conventional batttles but they won many guerilla battles. Here are some more links talking about that:


So if ambushes count then the Americans lost plenty of battles in Vietnam and the Israelis have lost plenty of battles too.


What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?

The short range of the V2, and the knowledge that if they started using such weapons they would pay even more dearly than they did.


Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.


Is it clear? What primary school did he go to when he was a child?

hmmm, accepting Pakistani sources but rejecting Soviet ones... hmmm...
Yeah that sounds fair.

[oldsoak]

Lo Gazb, I would argue that control of the towns and cities is all very well, but your major supply routes have to be secured as well, and also your borders with neighbouring countries - then you can sit pretty. While I think that the Russians came pretty close to winning ( and I sometimes wish they had ) , I think that they would have to remain in situ a long time for them to ultimately say "we won" conclusively. The reason why I say this is because of the borders with both Iran and Pakistan, which were sufficiently porous to make smuggling weaponry etc easy - and the Pakistanis damn well encouraged it.Then you have the determination of the US and the UK etc to back a militant fundamentalists against western communists - all this would make the need to remain in situ paramount until the social policies were running long enough to ensure fundamentalism died out due to lack of interest. Even after the Russians withdrew, we still backed the nutters. There existed the possibility that the Russians would have had a stable state in Afghanistan. Ok, not a state that we'd call free, but a viable, stable, state with progressive policies ( for the region ). With the advent of glasnost etc , that stable state would have moved forward as well. All we managed to do is create problems for a state that eventually we had to intervene in. We lost the war in Afghanistan for the Russians - what we should have done is let the Russians stabilise the place and go from there.It might also been a useful foil to ensure the neighbours in the area leaned more in our direction.

[Sayeret]

Was their objective to hold the country? By controlling all of the cities and all of the towns and the Afghan army what sort of threat to the USSR did afghanistan pose? Compare that with an Afghanistan with US bases and personel... the odd radar station, and air bases etc etc.

How was Afghanistan a threat to the USSR? They invaded Afghanistan hoping it would be an easy victory like Hungary and Czechoslovakia neither of which was considered a threat to the USSR.


The resulting chaos and lack of unity and the un-american rule of the taliban created a neighbour that was no threat at all to the Soviet Union. In fact compared to their rule communism even looked good.

That's off the point because the Soviets didn't go to Afghanistan to make the situation "look good".


What proof do you need? Why do you think Afghan mothers can afford to lose their sons any more than a Soviet mother? From what I have read of Masoud he spent a lot of time planning things to avoid the loss of life amongst his own forces

I'm not saying the Afghans didn't care about casualties, I'm just saying they were going to fight the war regardless of how many people they lost. Along with that they are defending a country unlike the Soviets who were trying to take it over:


Those Afghans might die easier in the knowledge that they were defending their land and their country and Ivan might die wondering why he is giving his life for these muka that don't seem to want his help... much the same way some Americans are probably feeling right now in iraq.


The urban/rural percentages are irrelevant... those in rural areas were harldy a threat to the USSR, it would be those in towns and cities that would welcome in the Americans and allow them to build bases there.

If most of the country's population lives in rural areas it matters a lot. If most of the population lives in the countryside and you have no control over it what stops them from rebuilding their forces and stocking up on weapons and ammunitions? Maybe you don't consider losing thousands of people a year a problem in a country your occupying but the Soviet government clearly did.


They controlled anyoine who could read a book. A few angry people in a few villages are an irritation.

Maybe the people living in the villages weren't genius’ but they were smart when it came to fighting. The fact that they destroyed as much Soviet weapons and equipment and killed as many people as they did clearly shows that. I wouldn't look down upon those people just because they don't go to a Western school. I wouldn't look down upon the Iraqi insurgents either because even though they might not have had schooling they are very smart and skilled when it comes to fighting.


And what were these goals? Can you spell them out for us... and of course reveal how you divined these goals...

Read some of my earlier posts


Nobody expected the government to last... and it stopped "lasting" when the Russians drastically cut the budget.

The Soviets wouldn't have invaded the country if they thought the government wouldn't last. You don't fight in a ten year with and lose dozens of thousands of people just so you can have a government work for a few years.


Yes, a nice unbiased source by the sound of it. I guess they could do a similar article about the US in Iraq doing exactly the same thing?

Do you have anything to disprove this statement?


So if ambushes count then the Americans lost plenty of battles in Vietnam and the Israelis have lost plenty of battles too.

That's fair.


The short range of the V2, and the knowledge that if they started using such weapons they would pay even more dearly than they did.

If the Germans have moved their V2s earlier in the war then they could have fired them at the Soviet Union.


The latter was a full-sized design with a range of about 175 km (109 miles), a top altitude of 80 km and a payload of about a tonne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2_rocket

Also the Germans wouldn't have had that much trouble firing V2 rockets filled with Tabun . It's not unlikely that they could have filled the V2 rockets with Tabun.

[Dima-RussianArms]

Sayeret, for the last time: USSR invaded Afghanistan not to conquer its "fertile soils" but to establish a puppet government. Why, because they wanted to have a little bit more predictable and stable neighbor...
The idea was to install a pro-soviet government and leave (kinda what US is trying to do in Iraq) and not to control every square inch of Afghan territory with soviet soldiers, otherwise you'd see USSR pouring way more than 90.000 troops into the country. What is so hard to understand about it?????


How was Afghanistan a threat to the USSR?
It was/is unstable neigbor that serves as a home to various radical muslim groups, terrorist organizations and whose only export are drugs. Would you like to have a neighbor like that?


like Hungary and Czechoslovakia neither of which was considered a threat to the USSR.

They were meant to be a buffer zone in case of WW3, kinda like a bumper on your car.


losing thousands of people a year a problem in a country your occupying but the Soviet government clearly did.
Do you know how many people died in the soviet standing military of 4 million from accidents every year?
Do you know how many people did USSR lost during "take over" of Czechoslovakia and Hungary?
SU pulled out of Afhganistan due to the political reasons:soviet people had no idea what and why their military was doing there, much like americans with Vietnam and Iraq.
Another reason was that Soviet government did not see "the light at the end of the tunnel", it took them that long to realize that they can give Afhganis modern infrastructure, healthcare, education and running water but they can not change their medieval/tribal mindset...


The Soviets wouldn't have invaded the country if they thought the government wouldn't last.
Pure genius :roll: Who would?


You don't fight in a ten year with and lose dozens of thousands of people just so you can have a government work for a few years.

How many????? Dude, you need to decide on a number: one day its 14K then its 18K, now its "dozens of thousands".....


Do you have anything to disprove this statement?
Nothing that he, me or whoever says will change your mind because you are young (hardheaded and close minded) ;)


If the Germans have moved their V2s earlier in the war then they could have fired them at the Soviet Union.
Of course they could but why would they?


Also the Germans wouldn't have had that much trouble firing V2 rockets filled with Tabun .
And what do you think would be Allies reaction if Germans started firing chemical weapons at them?
Hitler might not been the "sharpest tool in the shed", but he wasn't that stupid...

[Lokos]

Indeed. Hitler made the decision not to use chemical dispersants, especially against the Soviet Union, because the response against the tightly concentrated population of Germany proper would have been utterly devastating.

With regards to your assertions regarding the Soviet Union, Sayeret, I do not see why you do not understand that the Soviet Union did not lose 'dozens of thousands' but a number closer to *a* dozen thousand. In exchange they killed hundreds of thousands of Mujahideen (and even more civilians, but if Americans can do it and call it 'collateral damage' why not the Soviets?). In a guerilla war of such magnitude, I believe that is a fair exchange.

And, as the previous poster already pointed out, accidental deaths in a military 4 million strong would directly rival the (on average) ~1,500 Soviet deaths in combat a year in Afghanistan.

Simply speaking, Afghanistan was no Vietnam. The rather unassuming terrain meant that the Soviets didn't have to use their imagination when hunting for Mujahideen (much of the time, that is). Yes, the Mujahideen were relatively proficient guerilla fighters (meaning that they were still a great number of notches below your average army-trained soldier), but had the war continued indefinitely the Afghans would have run out of people long before the Soviet military would even truly feel the pinch.

Regards,
Lokos

[GazB]

How was Afghanistan a threat to the USSR? They invaded Afghanistan hoping it would be an easy victory like Hungary and Czechoslovakia neither of which was considered a threat to the USSR.


The CIA was pouring money into Afghansitan in 1973. How long do you think it would be before they had a few listening bases there, or perhaps even an overt airbase?


That's off the point because the Soviets didn't go to Afghanistan to make the situation "look good".

I think the point that the Soviets actually improved the the lives of the Afghan people more than the Americans ever did. The Soviets didn't give them a vote but they never had a vote in the first place, but they provided health and education opportunities they never had before. They also gave the Women equal rights... something else they had never had before.


I'm not saying the Afghans didn't care about casualties, I'm just saying they were going to fight the war regardless of how many people they lost. Along with that they are defending a country unlike the Soviets who were trying to take it over:

You haven't proved that they ever tried to take it over. As far as I am concerned their reasons for going in have yet to be defined clearly and until that is done how can their success be measured one way or the other? If they went in to prevent US influence creating another Soviet border enemy state then I would say they were successful in that the government formed after they pulled the plug on their government offered no threat, nor were they particularly useful to the US. In fact the onyl use the US got from Afghanistan was to get some Soviets killed which stopped when they pulled out in 89.


While I think that the Russians came pretty close to winning ( and I sometimes wish they had ) , I think that they would have to remain in situ a long time for them to ultimately say "we won" conclusively.

Won what? They never went in to take over... they went in to support a friendly government and then took over and replaced that friendly government for reasons unknown to me. They didn't shift forces in there the way they did in the warsaw pact countries... there was no advantage to shifting their border to a mutual border with Pakistan. There were claims in the west that they wanted a warm water port... occupying Afghanistan would never get them that.


All we managed to do is create problems for a state that eventually we had to intervene in. We lost the war in Afghanistan for the Russians - what we should have done is let the Russians stabilise the place and go from there.It might also been a useful foil to ensure the neighbours in the area leaned more in our direction.

Funny, you don't hear westerners admit that very much... that in screwing the Russians you also screwed the Afghans too. Still, Hindsight is 20/20.


Maybe you don't consider losing thousands of people a year a problem in a country your occupying but the Soviet government clearly did.


So now those evil commies that killed 100 million last century did care about a few hundred soldiers a month...


Maybe the people living in the villages weren't genius’ but they were smart when it came to fighting. The fact that they destroyed as much Soviet weapons and equipment and killed as many people as they did clearly shows that.

You ovbiously know very little about the people of their culture.
First of all most had some army training... they had conscription afterall.
Second their tactics were terrible initially... firing RPGs without even using the sights... iron or optical. It was training from outside forces that taught them how to ambush... often with foreign leadership as noted in your examples you posted. The average Afghan might go out and fire a few rounds from 1-2km in the general direction of a rival village and that was considered enough to meet the requirements of the feud. The attitude of the afghans toward the soviets was the same... fire a few round in the general direction and go home. It was outside people coming from Pakistan and further afield that would travel with the Muj and pretend to be film crew and after a few days would say to them that they weren't doing very much and how unmuslim like they were etc etc.


I wouldn't look down upon those people just because they don't go to a Western school.

Many of the ones from towns did go to western schools.


The Soviets wouldn't have invaded the country if they thought the government wouldn't last. You don't fight in a ten year with and lose dozens of thousands of people just so you can have a government work for a few years.


The first thing they did when they invaded was bump of their former puppet leader and replace him... do you really know anything about this war or are you just playing silly buggers?


If the Germans have moved their V2s earlier in the war then they could have fired them at the Soviet Union.


Full production didn't start till 1944... and from the source you provided:

The first unit to reach operational status was Batterie 444. On September 2, 1944 th

...the germans no longer had airsuperiority in the East and with a range of about 200km they would have serious trouble hitting soviet territory... and even if they managed that if the Soviets started using chem and bio weapons the germans had more to lose than the Soviets who could cover the motherland in all sorts of nasty chemicals. The amount of Anthrax alone the Soviets had could have starved the Germans in the near post war.


It was/is unstable neigbor that serves as a home to various radical muslim groups, terrorist organizations and whose only export are drugs. Would you like to have a neighbor like that?

That is what it was like in 1993... basically a crackhouse. In 1979 the risk was that it might collapse into civil war. For many years it has been a sort of surrogate soviet ally with soviet weapons and equipment and soviet aid and support. The CIA in 1973 started interfering and spending money to make it more western friendly. This culminated in factions wanting coups etc. That is the threat the Soviets sought to prevent... a pro US coup. The US had already done a similar sort of thing in Iran to maintain a western grip on oil by installing the Shah in power.

[Sayeret]

Sayeret, for the last time: USSR invaded Afghanistan not to conquer its "fertile soils" but to establish a puppet government. Why, because they wanted to have a little bit more predictable and stable neighbor...
The idea was to install a pro-soviet government and leave (kinda what US is trying to do in Iraq) and not to control every square inch of Afghan territory with soviet soldiers, otherwise you'd see USSR pouring way more than 90.000 troops into the country. What is so hard to understand about it?????

If their goal was to prevent Afghanistan from being any threat they only made it worse with the war. The Soviets didn't think they would need to control eery square inch because they didn't think the Afghans would resist like they did.


Do you know how many people did USSR lost during "take over" of Czechoslovakia and Hungary?


As for casualties suffered by the Warsaw Pact forces, a relatively
small number (around 20) were killed, but only one of these deaths
— that of a Bulgarian soldier — came at the hands of Czechoslovak
citizens. Most of the deaths among Soviet troops were caused either
by traffic accidents or by “so-called extraordinary events that
accompany every large-scale troop movement.”94 In addition, a
handful of Soviet soldiers were sentenced to death by firing squad
for having refused to go along with the invasion; and a few others
committed suicide

http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b3a3.htm

When I have more time I'll look for more solid info but I'm pretty sure the Soviets lost around 1,000 people in all in Hungary.


SU pulled out of Afhganistan due to the political reasons:soviet people had no idea what and why their military was doing there, much like americans with Vietnam and Iraq.
Another reason was that Soviet government did not see "the light at the end of the tunnel", it took them that long to realize that they can give Afhganis modern infrastructure, healthcare, education and running water but they can not change their medieval/tribal mindset...

Even here you say that the Soviet people don't understand why the Soviet military was in Afghanistan. They would only start to question it after things went badly other wise why didn't they question Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Maybe your correct that they realized they couldn't change the mindset of the Afghans but that doesn't mean they won.


How many????? Dude, you need to decide on a number: one day its 14K then its 18K, now its "dozens of thousands".....

I should have said it differently. According to the website you provided 45,000 Soviets (including non combat deaths) were killed so over the course of ten years over three dozen thousand Soviets were killed in Afghanistan.


And what do you think would be Allies reaction if Germans started firing chemical weapons at them?

The Germans wouldn't have ever fired V2 rockets filled with chemical weapons in the beginning of the war but there was the possibility they could've at the end of the war. I don't think Hitler cared about the German people any more near the end of the war. One of the last things he had done was for his troops to flood the subways, which were filled with hundreds of German civilians trying to avoid being killed by the allied bombing.

Here is an interesting article about the Soviet-Afghan war



Guerrilla war does not fit into the popular image of high-tech future war, but it may well be the future war that a high-tech country finds itself fighting. The Soviet Army, a modern, mechanized high-tech force, fought a guerrilla war for over nine years in Afghanistan. Despite their best efforts, the application of overwhelming air power, and the expenditure of national treasure and young lives, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the field to the defiant Mujahideen guerrilla.

A wise army prepares for future war by examining the lessons of the past. This does not mean that armies should prepare to fight as the last war was fought. Rather, they should draw lessons from the past that will guide the future. The Russian General Staff officers who wrote this book have recorded their experience so that their military can learn from it. Fortunately, their observations are now available to a wider audience. Too many military books only deal with the strategy or tactics of a particular war and ignore the vital issues of force structure, branch missions, combat support, and combat service support. This book examines these issues, as well as dealing with tactics and strategy. It provides a comprehensive look at how a modern, high-tech force attempted to fight a guerrilla war on rugged terrain in the middle of someone else's civil war.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grasovforeword.html


Lokos, I tried to address some of your points in this post but when I have more time I'll reply to your post in more detail.

[Coop]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

I am me and who are you to question me?
You criticised the book in a manner that makes absolutely no sence, and without providing any kind of evidence of the contrary to what can be found in it.

Consequently, it's on you to explain your qualifications to do so and provide evidence for your standpoint, not to complain about me.



How so?

Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing.[/quote] Can you provide evidence?

[Lokos]

Coop, amongst historians your source would not be relevant. As a primary source document that shows attitudes and beliefs prevalent at the time it is usable - it is of far less use as an analytical piece. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely anecdotal and inherently biased.

The commander of one force shouldn't be the sole basis for making judgements about the other force. It's what the US did in the immediate aftermath of WW2 with German East Front commanders, and came away with an impression of the Red Army as an endless horde of crap soldiers who had to outnumber Germans 10:1 to win.

Of course, I'm willing to have my opinion evolve, if you can show objective treatment of the war in Afghanistan by this author.

Regards,
Lokos

[Sayeret]

GazB, sergey31, and Dima-RussianArms

I don't have any reason to continue arguing with you guys over the same things. You don't have to believe that the Soviets lost the war but almost everyone else does so doesn't really matter.

One thing to GazB regarding the intelligence and tactics of the Mujahadeen. Read these articles because it shows how skilled and intelligent some of the Mujahadeen were:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/nightstalker/nightstalker.htm

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/ISSUES/convoy/convoy.htm

[Lokos]

Sayeret, the key word there is 'some'. *Most*, according to Soviet and many Western sources, were shockingly ineffective. Which is exactly why the result was as lopsided as the Vietnam War. Why not agree to this definition: 'The Soviets didn't lose a single battle, but managed to lose the war.' Sounds kind of like the American definition of Vietnam, but it will do.

Regards,
Lokos

[Coop]

Lokos,
Brig. Yousaf was - effectivelly - commander of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, from 1983 until 1988.

He was the chief of the Afghan ISI Bureau: he was controlling ALL the incoming shipments and money, regardless from where were these supplied - USA (i.e. CIA), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, whatever. Anybody explaining that he was not in THE crucial position for this war is - IMHO - a dilletant.

He - Yousaf - was the one who was deciding about who's going to get these weapons, equipment, supplies, money etc. Nobody else. Not Akhtar (Chief of ISI), not Zia ul-Haq (Pak president), no CIA, nobody else. Yousaf makes this VERY clear in his book.

Of course, it is clear that Yousaf is "biased" to Soviets: he doesn't like them and would in fact - as a professional officer of the Pakistani Army - have been extremely stupid if he wouldn't have been biased. But, it was his job to be biased, then as a military commander he was organizing, funding and leading a force in a war against the USSR. Consequently, you can equally declare Valeriy Markovskiy to have been biased to Afghans in his "Zharkoe Nebo Avganistana", or IDF Gen. Bren Adnan to be biased to Egypt, in his "On the Banks of Suez", just for example, but that's not the point. In fact, such statements make absolutely no sence.

Consequently is your commentary - which you haven't supported by any examples - that "among historians your source would not be relevat" completely out of place: which other source should be relevant?

Would you also now explain that Sadat's autobiography is "irrelevant between historians" because he was an Egyptian nationalist and led Egypt into the war against Israel in 1973? Or is Viktor Babich's babbling about the Egyptian air force in wars against Israel, because he's a Russian - and thus "biased to Israel"?

You also say that Yousaf's book, "seems to be largely anecdotal": what's so "anecdotal" there? He describes the flow of money, supplies, equipment, arms etc., ISI's organisation, work with Mujaheddin commanders, all important battles with DRA and Soviets, and organization of insurgence inside the USSR to the last detail.

What's better, he clearly provides evidence for who was "Islamist" in Pakistan, how and why have the USA stopped supporting the Mujaheddin (and Pakistan), because of this fact, and thus also clearly indicates that the Taliban were also a Pakistani creation - that came into being after their disapointment with Hekmatyar.

Thus, my understanding is that when somebody declares Yousaf for "biased" (to who?) and his book for "largely anecdotal", then I must ask if the person doing this has read that book at all?


The commander of one force shouldn't be the sole basis for making judgements about the other force. Who said Yousaf is the only source? I really wouldn't say he is. There are also works by Ballance and Debay about Afghanistan, just for example, in addition to those by Markovskiy. Of course, there is a difference between each of them in how they have seen the politics and the military situation (i.e. the reasons for this war, Soviet invastion etc.), but, essentially, they confirm each other in most important points.

So, where is the problem?


Of course, I'm willing to have my opinion evolve, if you can show objective treatment of the war in Afghanistan by this author. See my points above, and read the book, please: if I'm not wrong, the orignal manuscript can even be downloaded somewhere on the internet (I've got the hardback version, reprinted in 2002, and updated with help of a British Army officer - who, I hope, you'll not declare for "biased" too, or say he was mad enough to put his credibility in question by participating in that project).

Don't get me wrong now, please. But, hell, even the US military is meanwhile in the process of admitting the fact that "inofficial/private" sources (i.e. works published by non-military personnel) "can be" more than "hearsay", and that it should not only depend on its own intel for information, then this can frequently be badly wrong und completely underinformed.

So, since when should then official sources - like Yousaf - not be recognized as authoritative, or be put in question by some anonymous (and obviously biased) character on the internet?

[Lokos]

Coop, I do have my own biases, that is true, but there is no need to insinuate that they control my thought process, rather than the other way around.

The point regarding bias has to be taken into account because historians, as a matter of course, need an objective point of view when analysing any particular event or period in history. An example of this, since I neglected to include one last time, is the difference between German accounts of the Eastern Front (used by the US to construct their tactics and strategies to counter a post-1945 Soviet threat) and the accounts of historians such as Erickson and Glantz - academics who have far less direct bias that could affect their judgement.

Now, you yourself recognise that this author has an obvious, distinct bias against the Soviets. This is not conducive to producing a *balanced* point of view. Did he use Soviet sources? Did he interview Soviet veterans? Did he have access to Soviet archives?

He is not an authorative source for the very same reason that Manstein or Guderian aren't authorative sources for anything but the most basic of investigations: he did not look at both 'sides of the picture'. If you are under the impression that a one-sided account of any particular event or period is enough, then such is your prerogative.

But I would suggest not simply looking at the sources that back up your particular point of view.

Regards,
Lokos

[Coop]

Hm, it's rather surprising to hear from you - somebody who is so "eloquently" criticising my choice of sources - that I'm satisfied with what you call a "one-sided" account....Especially after I made it clear that I very much have also read works of Russian authors to the same topic.... :roll:

Ah, well, nevermind. Let me draw few lessons from what you teached me so far, and let you know what I'm going to do in the future:

- I'll first sort out and then burn all the books and magazines in my possession that contain narratives or were written by participants of some conflict; they are all clearly biased and not relevant for any serious - sorry: academic - historian.

- Afterwards I promise to buy only books published by "professional", non-involved and neutral historians, who wrote their books while sitting in some office at least 15.000km away, and have created their works by copy-pasting copy-pasted information from footnotes in copy-pasted works. It is a matter of fact that the history will never be properly presented in books. But, hell, because few anonymous people on some forum think that eyewitness and participant accounts are of no serious historical value - this is a fact.

- The book "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" is BS and I'll burn it as first. Nobody can offer any kind of evidence for this, but who cares: few anonymous characters on some internet forum said so. They all provided no evidence for the fact that the author is wrong, but he participated in the war he describes and can therefore not be considered as a serious source.

- The Author of "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap", must be wrong, then the German accounts of the fighting on the Eastern Front were misleading. The authors of such works should by no means express their points of view, but write only academical truth.

- The author of "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" comitted a crime, then as a participant he wrote his book solely from his own standpoint (that of the Chief of ISI's Afghan Bureau), and did not consult KGB first, so to be able to talk with Soviet veterans.

- I'll stop reading different books about the war in Afghanistan: from now on I'll only read Russian and Ukrainian accounts. It is clear that doing anything else might upset Sergey31.

- Questioning somebody's reasoning and demanding proofs for something he states is wrong as well: worst yet, that's an insinuation.

I promise not to do anything similar in the future.


Err... Lokos,
please, be so kind and don't put the blame on me: this is just what I understand from your last post.

[Lokos]

Coop, I really don't like it when people insult me, even as I'm remaining perfectly civil in disagreement - something many, many people on this forum fail to do on an everyday basis. So, if you wouldn't mind, *re-lax*. Was I insulting you or your sources? No. I was constructively criticising. Your impatience with my criticism doesn't interest me, and doesn't reflect well on you.

Now, back to the topic at hand:

The reason why I suggested you use more balanced sources is because you provided the Mujahideen commander's account to make a point - if I understood you correctly. What you didn't provide is a counter-weight. You know, something that people use for 'on the other hand' lines of argument. So, I pointed out that your evidence for that point is biased and unusable *specifically* when attempting to *analyse* a historical period/event. Was I wrong to?

If someone had used a purely Russian account of the conflict, I'd have said the exact same thing.

Regardless of your, assuredly, indepth reading of Russian sources regarding Afghanistan, you seem to have completely ignored them in providing your opinion of the situation in Afghanistan during that war.

Objectivity is all I ask for, not insipid little sarcastic commentaries regarding my reasoning.

Okie-dokey?

Lokos

[sergey31]

Lokos.... You are Well spoken.

[GazB]

Which is exactly why the result was as lopsided as the Vietnam War. Why not agree to this definition: 'The Soviets didn't lose a single battle, but managed to lose the war.' Sounds kind of like the American definition of Vietnam, but it will do.


The difference between Afghanistan politically and Vietnam politically was that Vietnam was a US crusade to stop the spread of communism though Asia. In stopping communism in Vietnam they failed, and in stopping it spread though Asia... they were wrong... it never happened anyway. Afghanistan on the other hand was a little country that bordered the USSR that the US started interfering with... like they did in neighbouring Iran, and the Soviets went in to install a more friendly government. They ended up in a quagmire they hadn't anticipated and eventually cut their losses and left. To define whether they won or not you need to define why they went in. When they left the CIA lost interest and basically until about 1992 their government stayed in power. Then there was a lot of infighting and no one had control till the CIA backed Pakistanis created the Taliban which then crushed all opposition except the Northern Alliance which was pushed out of where they held up into the top corner of the country. The Taliban imposed extremist muslim law and took all rights away from the women. This remained the status quo till the Americans got annoyed by Al Quada and they removed the Taliban from power with the help of the NA... which had been receiving Russian aid and support to fend off the Taliban.


One thing to GazB regarding the intelligence and tactics of the Mujahadeen. Read these articles because it shows how skilled and intelligent some of the Mujahadeen were:


What has intelligence got to do with military prowess? Were German soldiers smarter than the soldiers of Western Europe? They were better trained and better equipped. The first few years without proper training the afghans were no better than any other civilian fighter... ie they were pretty crap. Those articles you have posted here are not written by Afghans fo the most part... most of them are Pakistani. And Pakistani special forces at that.
They certainly got better with experience too but most of their ability came later in the war with outside observers... why do you think governments provide such specialists if they made no difference?


Brig. Yousaf was - effectivelly - commander of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, from 1983 until 1988.

Hahahahahahaha... really! So who are these guys like Hekmatyr who lead the Iranian back faction of the Muj? Or how about Massoud who lead the NA? I realise they are Only Afghan Nationals, but I pretty much think they lead their Muj factions rather than the leader of the Pakistani ISI which interfered using CIA money.


He was the chief of the Afghan ISI Bureau: he was controlling ALL the incoming shipments and money, regardless from where were these supplied - USA (i.e. CIA), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, whatever. Anybody explaining that he was not in THE crucial position for this war is - IMHO - a dilletant.


He was in the Pakistani ISI that distributed the money given to him via the CIA. He is not even an Afghan. Gee whiz, I guess he would be a reliable independant source of information.


He - Yousaf - was the one who was deciding about who's going to get these weapons, equipment, supplies, money etc. Nobody else. Not Akhtar (Chief of ISI), not Zia ul-Haq (Pak president), no CIA, nobody else. Yousaf makes this VERY clear in his book.


So if he was right and he had "control" of where the money and weapons went why pray tell was so much weapons and equipment and money given to Hekmatyr? All through the 80s the CIA gave support to him and he did very little against the Soviets... he was saving it up for when the Soviets left so he could use it against his rivals. That was the major problem in Afghanistan that was helpful to the Soviets and was a problem for the soviets and basically why they left. And it was the problem for the Afghans ever since, and will be a problem now. Those Taliban that weren't killed by the NA or the US bombers will have been taken in by the Iranian backed group... not because they are friends but because they will both see the US and NA as an enemy. The simple fact is there is no leader in Afghanistan and there hasn't been for several thousand years. They have had governments in Kabul but outside the cities they had little or no power... just as the Soviets had when they were there... which is no better nor any worse than anyone else has had before or since.

(And no the taliban didn't control the country either... it was like a large Soviet unit passing through... before they came through they had no control, when they were there all villagers would be loyal, and when they left they lost control and any individual Soviet soldier would get shot at. It was the same for the Taliban... they ruled the cities and towns except those to the north that the NA held.)

But, it was his job to be biased, then as a military commander he was organizing, funding and leading a force in a war against the USSR.

Rubbish. A biased view of your enemy is the last thing you want. You need to understand you enemy as well as you can to defeat him. Thinking he is dumb or slow because you are biased will get you killed when you come up against VDV forces.


So, since when should then official sources - like Yousaf - not be recognized as authoritative, or be put in question by some anonymous (and obviously biased) character on the internet?

You admit he is biased but he should also be the official authority?[/b]

[Lokos]

GazB, you make a good point. I mean, did the Soviets lose the war, or did they just not *win* it? In the most extreme sense, we could say that the Soviet military was largely successful, but the Soviet system itself was unsuccessful in reshaping Afghanistan.

So which is the more important: a military victory, or a socio-political defeat? Depends on who you ask and when you ask them, I suppose.

Regards,
Lokos

[callous]

This remained the status quo till the Americans got annoyed by Al Quada and they removed the Taliban from power with the help of the NA... which had been receiving Russian aid and support to fend off the Taliban.

Annoyed by al queda? I know it's been a couple years but, in case you forgot. Al queda flew two hijacked Planes and crashed them into the World Traded Center, a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania resulting in the loss of 2996 people. I wouldn't call it annoyed. I would say we were attacked.

[Coop]

Coop, I really don't like it when people insult me, even as I'm remaining perfectly civil in disagreement - something many, many people on this forum fail to do on an everyday basis. So, if you wouldn't mind, *re-lax*. Was I insulting you or your sources? No.No, you really "didn't" - just comparing "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap", with "Mein Kampf".


I was constructively criticising. Your impatience with my criticism doesn't interest me, and doesn't reflect well on you. Wether it reflects "well" or not on me doesn't matter to me: I'm not here in order you - or anybody else - to fall in love with me.

Your criticism, however, was - from my standpoint - nothing like "constructive", because your first reaction in this thread was a completely useless and irelevant critique of my post with excerpts from "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap" - a book you so obviously never even heard about.


The reason why I suggested you use more balanced sources is because you provided the Mujahideen commander's account to make a point - if I understood you correctly. Why don't you do us both a favour and read that book?

For...xth...time: Mohamad Yousaf was not "Mujaheddin commander", but an Infantry officer of the Pakistani Army, seconded to ISI - Inter-Service-Intelligence (Pakistani military intel), to run its "Afghan Bureau".

In that position, however, he was effectivelly running the insurgency of the Afghans against the Soviets and the quasi-Communist Afghan regime.

That might sound similar, but is not. Capice?


What you didn't provide is a counter-weight. Who demands this? You? rofl rofl

Mister "academic historian", how about you providing some counter-weight?

The following, namely, was your first post in this thread - simultaneously reaction to my post with excerpts from "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap":


And let's read 'Mein Kampf' to get a real truthful account of what the Jews are really like, right?

*shakes head*

Regards,
Lokos
You came with senseless and completely irelevant remark about a book from which I cited commentary about something several other posters asked for. You did not post anything relevant, just your biased attack against a book you never even heard about.

And then you wonder when I sarcastically call such behaviour and your commentary for "eloquent" - and also demand from me to "provide counter-weight"?


You know, something that people use for 'on the other hand' lines of argument. So, I pointed out that your evidence for that point is biased and unusable *specifically* when attempting to *analyse* a historical period/event. Was I wrong to? Yes, you were. So far you did nothing for this thread but useless babbling about something you don't know about, for reasons that are completely irelevant for the topic.


If someone had used a purely Russian account of the conflict, I'd have said the exact same thing. Oh, really? And, how comes you never supported anybody's statements here with any kind of citates from any kind of Russian accounts?

Where, in heaven's name, are all these eloquent citates from all the possible eloquent historians you're talking about so to prove that a book you haven't even read is so far "off", so and its author is so "biased"?

Where is your reaction to Sergey's commentary about (citate), "Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing." - if you're so "unbiased", and leaning on "academic historians" as you attempt to present yourself?


Regardless of your, assuredly, indepth reading of Russian sources regarding Afghanistan, you seem to have completely ignored them in providing your opinion of the situation in Afghanistan during that war. Care to provide any kind of proofs at least for this?


Objectivity is all I ask for, not insipid little sarcastic commentaries regarding my reasoning. Then act objectively first of all, don't preach water and drink vine.

Okie-dokey?



GazB,
I'd like to ask you a few questions:

If (citate), "The difference between Afghanistan politically and Vietnam politically was that Vietnam was a US crusade to stop the spread of communism though Asia."

Just a second: where is the difference now?

This you do not explain at all.

Besides, while the USA were fighting the "Communism" in SEA, wasn't the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan an attempt to stop the spread of militant Islamism into (Soviet) central Asia?

Given that Afghanistan was declared an "Islamic Republic" already in 1992 (not to talk about "Islamic Emirate" under the Taliban rule), and what happened in Tajikistan, in 1992, didn't the Soviets fail too - just like the USA failed in stopping the "spread of Communism"?

You also say, "In stopping communism in Vietnam they failed, and in stopping it spread though Asia... they were wrong... it never happened anyway."

This is also unclearly stated: the spread of communism in SEA was defined by the attempted spread of the (North) Vietnamese hegemony in that part of the World. I'm sorry, but you must've missed a better part of the history of that part of the world if you say that it never happened: who controlled Laos after 1975? Who invaded Cambodia, in 1979 and installed a puppet-regime there (in a manner very similar to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan)? Who was fighting a shadow war with Thailand and for which purpose through the whole 1980s?

I very much agree with you that the Soviets went in to Afghanistan to install a friendly government. The problem is that they did not need to do so: Brezhnev's intel was completely wrong and politically coloured. Then the governments that came to power during different coups in Kabul of 1979 were all Soviet-friendly.

Also, there was a mistake in assessment of the significance of the "Islamic" Revolution in Iran (and there is a mistake in your assessment of this development too: what kind of a US intervention was this?): this was mainly organized by the Tudeh - the Iranian Communist Party (subsequently smashed by the Islamists) - yet the Soviets considered that development as a threat too.

The CIA was not present in Pakistan in the 1970s: Pakistan was cut-off of any US help or support already since 1971. So much so, that when the Reagan admin decided to support the Mujaheddin, in 1981, and had to do so via Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq was in position to demand quite some conditions - and, effectivelly, get free hands for acting in own interest but with US financial aid.

Also, it is a widely accepted fact - at least between what we might call the "Afghans" for the sake of simplicity - that the Najibullah's regime survived from Soviet pull-out until 1992 because of nothing else but disunity between Mujaheddin commanders. As soon as first coallitions were formed - like "United Front", in 1992 - and local Afghan Army commanders attracted to join, the Najibullah's regime had not the least chance to survive for longer than two weeks.

You say that the "CIA backed Pakistanis created the Taliban": this is a widespread assertion, but completely wrong, sorry. The Taliban were created by Pakistani military establishment solely with financial aid from Saudi Arabia, starting in 1992 - and in reaction to disapoitment with Hekmatyar's performance during fighting against the Northern Alliance (aka "Central Forces"), in that very same year.

The fact is, namely, that by the time the USA were not financing anything in that area any more: the US aid was stopped (in accordance to an agreement with CIS from January 1992) already before that period - which was also one of the reason why the shame and blame for Hekmatyar's shelling of Kabul, in April 1992 (and again in 1994, when there was also a massacre comitted by his militia) fell to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not on the USA.

On the contrary, the Taliban - which were entirely founded and trained in Pakistan - became active in Afghanistan only in 1994.

Nevertheless, there was no "status quo" in Afghanistan of the 1990s: Moscow was (officially - and mainly via Uzbekistan) supporting the Northern Coallition, while clandestinely - via Victor Bout - selling weapons to Taliban; the USA were negotiating with Taliban, and even bribing them with $ millions in order to gain concessions for building a gas-pipe-line from the Casspian Sea to the Indian Ocean; Pakistan (with extensive financial aid from Saudi Arabia) was fully involved in organizing, training, and running the Taliban and their military.


So who are these guys like Hekmatyr who lead the Iranian back faction of the Muj? Keep your foot out of your mouth when laughing so loud. Hekmatyar was NEVER supported by Iran. Ismail Khan and his Hezb-e-Wahadat were. Hekmatyar was Pakistani player from the begin of insurgency until 1992: he was receiving most of the CIA/Saudi sponsored aid during the 1980s.


Or how about Massoud who lead the NA? Massoud, as a Tajik, was not receiving any kind of aid from Pakistan (and thus the CIA) before 1984. Even then the ISI had to put Hekmatyar under heavy pressure to let caravans with aid through to Massoud. And, he was not receiving any kind of aid from Iran before Khan joined his coallition, in 1992.

Besides, for most of the 1990s Pakistan was directly supporting the Taliban in the war against the NA/UF - by 2001 even with regular (commando and artillery) units of the Pakistani Army.


I realise they are Only Afghan Nationals, but I pretty much think they lead their Muj factions rather than the leader of the Pakistani ISI which interfered using CIA money. The distribution of "international" aid run entirely via the ISI. Without this aid the Mujaheddin wouldn've survived longer than until 1984. Without this aid they'd run out of ammo, would not get any Chinese rockets, no mortars, no Stingers, no Oerlikons, not even food and blankets.

Given that the ISI Afghan Bureau was conditioning the delivery of aid on own terms, and that Yousaf was directly ordering different Mujaheddin commanders what and where to do with weapons and equipment given to them, it was the chief of the ISI Afghan Bureau - Brig. Mohamad Yousaf - who was effective commander of the Mujaheddin forces.


He was in the Pakistani ISI that distributed the money given to him via the CIA. He is not even an Afghan. Gee whiz, I guess he would be a reliable independant source of information. Indeed. By a magnitude more reliable than any Russian author writing about "request for Soviet aid" (from Afghan regime, in 1979), or "unbreakable friendship between Afghanistan and the USSR"... (Markovskiy, "Zharkoe Nebo Avganistana").


So if he was right and he had "control" of where the money and weapons went why pray tell was so much weapons and equipment and money given to Hekmatyr? All through the 80s the CIA gave support to him and he did very little against the Soviets... he was saving it up for when the Soviets left so he could use it against his rivals. Exactly because of that. Hekmatyar was Islamic fundamentalist, and somebody who was directly representing Pakistani interests. Given that Zia ul-Haq was presenting himself foremost as "Defender of Islam" - and this was the reason for which he was receiving such immense Saudi financial aid throught the 1980s, that Pakistan not only run the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, but also developed the nuclear bomb - this should actually not be the least surprising.


That was the major problem in Afghanistan that was helpful to the Soviets and was a problem for the soviets and basically why they left. And it was the problem for the Afghans ever since, and will be a problem now. Those Taliban that weren't killed by the NA or the US bombers will have been taken in by the Iranian backed group... not because they are friends but because they will both see the US and NA as an enemy. BS. Those Taliban that survived the NA and US onslaught run back "mama" for hide: straight into Pakistan. Musharraf can even today not directly and openly explain how much is his country supporting the USA, then the public support for Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan is so massive that this would cause widespread unrest - probably of such a dimension that Musharraf would be swept from power.


The simple fact is there is no leader in Afghanistan and there hasn't been for several thousand years. They have had governments in Kabul but outside the cities they had little or no power... just as the Soviets had when they were there... which is no better nor any worse than anyone else has had before or since This stands in no relation to the topic at hand. Quite on the contrary: because the 19 main Mujaheddin organizations were mainly based outside the cities they have had no industrial support. So, please, explain me where should they have got all the ammo they used in the 1980s, just for example - if not from Pakistan?

From Afghan Army depots?

Oh, now it's my turn to laugh...


And no the taliban didn't control the country either... it was like a large Soviet unit passing through... Nonsence. The difference between the Soviet control of Afghanistan in the 1980s or the US now, was that the Taliban were bribing local chiefs and thus keeping them under their control. That's why they indeed had something like 90% of the country under their control by September 2001. And, that's what "killed" them in the end: when the USA was paying more to the very same chiefs.


before they came through they had no control, when they were there all villagers would be loyal, and when they left they lost control and any individual Soviet soldier would get shot at. It was the same for the Taliban... With the difference that where the Soviets went through in the rural areas there was nothing left intact, just "scorched earth". That's, after all, how the Soviets managed to secure their main lines of communication in the 1986.


Rubbish. A biased view of your enemy is the last thing you want. You need to understand you enemy as well as you can to defeat him. Thinking he is dumb or slow because you are biased will get you killed when you come up against VDV forces.Re-read that post of mine again - so to understand the context.

[Lokos]

Hi Coop,


No, you really "didn't" - just comparing "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap", with "Mein Kampf".

Exactly. It is a good analogy. Not because of the content, of course, but because of the inherent bias. Hitler is not an authorative figure on Jewish history and cultural characteristics, Guderian is not an authorative figure on the Red Army, and this Pakistani infantry officer is not an authorative figure on the war in Afghanistan.


Wether it reflects "well" or not on me doesn't matter to me: I'm not here in order you - or anybody else - to fall in love with me.

Your criticism, however, was - from my standpoint - nothing like "constructive", because your first reaction in this thread was a completely useless and irelevant critique of my post with excerpts from "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap" - a book you so obviously never even heard about.


I'd say my critique was very relevant. You were offering a point of view supported by clearly biased evidence. I pointed that out. Does it get any more relevant than that? And I haven't read Mein Kampf either. It doesn't mean I have no clue about what to expect in case I did.


Why don't you do us both a favour and read that book?

For...xth...time: Mohamad Yousaf was not "Mujaheddin commander", but an Infantry officer of the Pakistani Army, seconded to ISI - Inter-Service-Intelligence (Pakistani military intel), to run its "Afghan Bureau".

In that position, however, he was effectivelly running the insurgency of the Afghans against the Soviets and the quasi-Communist Afghan regime.

That might sound similar, but is not. Capice?

If I was researching personal perspectives of the war in Afghanistan I *would* read the book. However, since I am not, I doubt I'll find the time to read it.

'Mujahideen commander' =/= 'Commander of the Mujahideen' - or would you argue otherwise? The fact that he was a Pakistani infantry officer seconded to the ISI does not change the other fact, capice? Whatever he was in the Pakistani Army, as long as he ran the insurgency (try not to throw in more semantics) he was one of the opposing commanders, and those have never been, nor will they ever be, authorative sources on any conflict.


Who demands this? You? ROFL ROFL

Mister "academic historian", how about you providing some counter-weight?

The following, namely, was your first post in this thread - simultaneously reaction to my post with excerpts from "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap":

If you wanted anybody to take you seriously I'd say you should demand this of yourself.

Did I ever say I am an 'academic historian'? Do I have to be one to point out the lack of objectivity you show on a near-continuous basis?


You came with senseless and completely irelevant remark about a book from which I cited commentary about something several other posters asked for. You did not post anything relevant, just your biased attack against a book you never even heard about.

And then you wonder when I sarcastically call such behaviour and your commentary for "eloquent" - and also demand from me to "provide counter-weight"?

The remark made sense, and its relevance has already been determined. How was it biased? And what you offered other posters was a twisted, subjective view of the war that supported a point you were trying to make. Not 'commentary... several other posters asked for'. It wasn't a commentary of the sort you'd like to promote it to be. It was an inherently biased series of anecdotal 'facts'. An analytical commentary is something I have yet to see from you, here.


Yes, you were. So far you did nothing for this thread but useless babbling about something you don't know about, for reasons that are completely irelevant for the topic.


I see. According to you, I was obligated to provide reams of material just to appropriate the right to criticize your rubbish? It's an interesting philosophy you've got going, there. Unfortunately it has all the water retention capability of a thimble-full of sweat in the middle of the Sahara.


Oh, really? And, how comes you never supported anybody's statements here with any kind of citates from any kind of Russian accounts?


Should I have? It seems to me that the only point I was making in this thread was to criticize your sources. Was I arguing anything else?


Where, in heaven's name, are all these eloquent citates from all the possible eloquent historians you're talking about so to prove that a book you haven't even read is so far "off", so and its author is so "biased"?

Mockery of the word 'eloquent' seems to have become a running theme in your little soap-box dissertation. Why? Do you think ad hominem idiocy like that somehow enhances your arguments in some way?

I already stated, quite clearly, that I was willing to have my opinion of this author 'evolve' if you could *show me* that the book is an objective analysis of the war, which you claim it to be. So, like the old saying goes: 'You first.'


Where is your reaction to Sergey's commentary about (citate), "Extorted numbers, bias, false reports, made up events, taking things out of context...... and Hollywood like writing." - if you're so "unbiased", and leaning on "academic historians" as you attempt to present yourself?

What Sergey is describing is quite common to all anecdotal accounts. In fact, it is exactly what I am talking about, simply in words I opted not to use. I am objective in the sense that, while I do have an opinion (who doesn't?), I am willing to change it if presented with a credible reason to. The only thing you have given me to that effect is the viewpoint of a man who has every reason to present facts as he wants them to be, not neccessarily as they are.


Care to provide any kind of proofs at least for this?

Alright. Point out to me the usage of Soviet sources in the amalgamation of your chosen 'commentary'. Point out where you used Soviet sources to back up your opinions. I'm happy to change my views, if given a credible reason to.


Then act objectively first of all, don't preach water and drink vine.

Okie-dokey

This is getting old. *Show me* where I am being anything but objective. Asking you to specify how a first hand account of someone with a personal stake in how the war is viewed is objective is *not* bias. However much you'd like it to be.

Okey-dokey?

Lokos

[Coop]

Hi Coop,


No, you really "didn't" - just comparing "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap", with "Mein Kampf".

Exactly. It is a good analogy. Not because of the content, of course, but because of the inherent bias. Hitler is not an authorative figure on Jewish history and cultural characteristics, Guderian is not an authorative figure on the Red Army, and this Pakistani infantry officer is not an authorative figure on the war in Afghanistan.
Lokos,
instead of losing time with this BS, we can make this clear in a very simple manner:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?

- Have you read anything else - any book or article - about that war?

- Can you make it clear who is an "authoritative" source about that war in your opinion and bring excerpts from his account about the action near Zhavar in April 1986?


I'd say my critique was very relevant. You were offering a point of view supported by clearly biased evidence. I pointed that out. Does it get any more relevant than that? And I haven't read Mein Kampf either. It doesn't mean I have no clue about what to expect in case I did. If you never read the book in question, you can't comment about it: your related commentary is completely irrelevant. Period.

(An exception would be if you'd have been an active participant in that war - which you certainly have not been.)



Why don't you do us both a favour and read that book?

For...xth...time: Mohamad Yousaf was not "Mujaheddin commander", but an Infantry officer of the Pakistani Army, seconded to ISI - Inter-Service-Intelligence (Pakistani military intel), to run its "Afghan Bureau".

In that position, however, he was effectivelly running the insurgency of the Afghans against the Soviets and the quasi-Communist Afghan regime.

That might sound similar, but is not. Capice?

If I was researching personal perspectives of the war in Afghanistan I *would* read the book. However, since I am not, I doubt I'll find the time to read it. Even more of babbling and losing time.

You HAVE NOT read that book. That means you CAN NOT comment about it.

As a matter of fact I meanwhile doubt you've read anything about that war (not to talk about "researching"). At least so far you have not provided any evidence that you did.

Why?

Because you can't mention even a single book, article or whatever else you read about Afghanistan, and because you have also never been there. All you're doing so far is sensless babbling about irrelevant semantics and wasting bandwidth.

Consequently: call me when you have at least read something. Then we're going to talk about it.

[Coop]

Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.
In one day, 400 spetsnaz troops.... There was indeed no such case - at least I can't find any reference for Soviets losing so many troops on a single day, in any of the sources at hand. One of the reasons is that the Soviets never deployed SPETSNAZ units larger than 20-30 men.

In the book "Afghanistan: Boyna Razvedchikov" ("Afghanistan: The War of Recce-Troops"), by Markovskiy and Milyatschenko, one can find quite some details about heavy losses of Soviet SPETSNAZ and oder "èlite" troops in different periods or battles of that war.

For example (rough translations from Russian):

- (p.20)
The 334 Unit was organized in Winter 1985, from the 5 Brigade of the Whiterussian MD (Military District), and reinforced by personnel from 2, 14, 9 and 22 independent SPETSNAZ units. First CO was Maj. W. J. Terentyev. The Unit was deployed under most complicated conditions in the area along the border to Pakistan. The base was near the Kunar River, and almost permanently under enemy fire. The Kunar Valley was one of the areas that were under the control of the Mujaheddin and therefore extremely dangerous for Soviet troops. So it happened that on 21 april 1985 a SPETSNAZ group was ambushed, cut off and almost annihiliated. The commander of the detachment was killed, while a "group-leader" (whatever that should mean) and seven troops blew themselves (in order to avoid capture). The bodies of killed troops had to be recovered in the course of a fierce battle (or: The bodies of killed troops had to be recovered under combat). Within only three days this unit (334) suffered a loss of 29 men. Afterwards the CO (Terentyev) was replaced. Instead of him Maj. G. W. Bykov took over for two years.


More similar examples can be found in the part of the book where the authors discuss the formation of specially-detached helicopter unit (205 OVIP - Independent Helicopter Squadron), consisting of 16 Mi-8s and 16 Mi-24s, the crews of which were trained to cooperate with and support SPETSNAZ in combat.

- On p.23 they describe one of the early missions that was to be undertaken by SPETSNAZ in cooperation with 205 OVIP):
During an attack by two SPETSNAZ units against a fortified Mujaheddin position south of Asadabad, on 28/29 March 1986, these groups were blocked by strong enemy forces. The helicopters based only 20km away arrived only three hours over the battlefield and - having an order not to open fire in an area so close to the border - they waited with (held back their) fire-support action. During the ensuing fighting the SPETSNAZ suffered a loss of eight killed, two missing, and 20 injured. The Commander of the SPETSNAZ, Lt.Col. Babuschkin, was removed from his command and in the future the tasks of SPETSNAZ were more specific.

- On p.27:
It happened time and again that groups (of SPETSNAZ) were ambushed and annihiliated. The Mujaheddin would wait until the helicopters would be away, then encircled the group and put it under fire. In December 1986 the SPETSNAZ launched an operation to capture Stinger missiles...Near the border, in the Tarve area, the group was encircles on a lonesome hill. Thick fog prevented air support, and therefore the troops had to fight back while under mortar-fire. Only after three days were the helicopters able to recover the 12 survivors as well as bodies of the dead...

Especially "black" month was October 1987. In the south the units from (based in) Kandahar suffered very heavy losses. On 24 October a group from the 173 (SPETSNAZ) Group placed an ambush some 75km from Kandahar. On the next morning it was encircled by numerically superior enemy. The armoured unit sent to rescue failed to approach the area due to technical difficulties/malfunctions. The 20 SPETSNAZ pulled back into a ruined village and fought back for five hours. Nine of them were killed and all the others injured.

Barely a week later a group of 12 men was also encircled and forced to defend. During the battle only four survived. Having spent their remaining ammunition they blew themselves with handgrenades.

Of course, there are other stories one can find in this book, positive and negative (including a very detailled description of SPETSNAZ-ops during the invasion, in 1979), in which also operations of the GRU, "special recce-squads of the High Command" etc. are described. Although describing the organization of all the Soviet "razvedchikov" units, every-day life of soldiers in field, their uniforms, equipment and weapons (from the start of the war until the end of the Soviet involvement) in great detail, sadly, the authors did not clearly state even a single of their sources.

IMHO, in general, this book gives a good picture of the situation, nevertheless.

[Lokos]

Coop,


Lokos,
instead of losing time with this BS, we can make this clear in a very simple manner:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?

- Have you read anything else - any book or article - about that war?

- Can you make it clear who is an "authoritative" source about that war in your opinion and bring excerpts from his account about the action near Zhavar in April 1986?



1) I've read your excerpts. That about did it for me. Now, again, I'll say that I haven't read Mein Kampf either. But I know what to expect. Your 'authorative' source relates questionable anecdotes (a destroyed commando battalion, anyone?) of wartime experiences, in no way sources them or supports them with documentation and then calls it 'truth'. Well **** on me and call me a statue, he must be telling it like it truly was.

2) Indeed, I have! The papers I read were mostly military in nature. For example, 'Borba Na Taktikalnom Nivou u Afganistanu' (Combat on the Tactical Level In Afghanistan) by Stanislav Vrhunac. This is a simple analysis of small-unit actions against a guerilla foe. It was required reading for all troops bound for Kosovo in 1997-1998. Like the Americans, we learned from the Soviet experience. And, no, there is no political dimension to the paper. Furthermore, unlike your 'authorative' source, it's actually backed up by declassified Soviet files, as well as independent Western analytical groups.

But I bet that won't be enough. So here:

The Lessons of Afghanistan: War Fighting, Intelligence and Force Transformation by Anthony H. Cordesman

The Afghanistan Wars by William Maley

Afghanistan: The Soviet Union's Last War by Mark Galeotti

There are more, but how many were you looking for, exactly?

3) One or two of the above can hold the 'authorative' title. But the memoirs of the guy who commanded the Mujahideen? ....

Let me understand this right: you want me to search the books on Afghanistan I've read for reference to some action near a place called Zhavar in 1986 that may very well be the ravings of a man looking to aggrandize himself?

Coop, how you do make me laugh.


If you never read the book in question, you can't comment about it: your related commentary is completely irrelevant. Period.

(An exception would be if you'd have been an active participant in that war - which you certainly have not been.)


Once more, since you're not feeling particularly fast today: Memoirs are as authorative as propaganda leaflets. Do you consider Guderian, Manstein, Zhukov or Konev as 'authorative' sources on the Eastern Front of the Second World War? Answer that question for me, and you'll see where I'm coming from, if your answer is the sane one I can only hope to expect.

And, again: your excerpts tell me all I need to know about the nature of the work in question.


Even more of babbling and losing time.

You HAVE NOT read that book. That means you CAN NOT comment about it.

As a matter of fact I meanwhile doubt you've read anything about that war (not to talk about "researching"). At least so far you have not provided any evidence that you did.

Why?

Because you can't mention even a single book, article or whatever else you read about Afghanistan, and because you have also never been there. All you're doing so far is sensless babbling about irrelevant semantics and wasting bandwidth.

Consequently: call me when you have at least read something. Then we're going to talk about it.

When would you like me to call you? Would now be a good time? *calls you* 'Yeah, Coop, it's me, L. I've read a couple of books on the War in Afghanistan. Just thought I'd let you know.'

I've actually already dealt with everything else you've managed to put to digital paper in this quoted section, so I think I'll just bask in the satisfaction of a job completed for the day.

Lokos

[Coop]

One final time, as you appear unable to answer even the simpliest questions:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?

- Can you make it clear who is an "authoritative" source about that war in your opinion and bring excerpts from his account about action near Zhavar in April 1986?


Do you consider Guderian, Manstein, Zhukov or Konev as 'authorative' sources on the Eastern Front of the Second World War? Can't say: I read Guderian and Manstein years ago, but don't possess their books, and don't have a clear memory what exactly they wrote.

That's why I don't comment to this topic.... :bash:

[Lokos]

Coop,


One final time, as you appear unable to answer even the simpliest questions:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?

- Can you make it clear who is an "authoritative" source about that war in your opinion and bring excerpts from his account about action near Zhavar in April 1986?


One final time, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the simplest of answers:

1) The excerpts you provided are riddled with unsupported anecdotal garbage. Were they special sections in the book that are somehow misleading as to its nature, or are they a general sample? If the latter, do you really think I'd waste my time reading such a book?

2) What in the **** does this action near Zhavar have to do with anything? Like I said, I am *not* hunting for it. Even if it happened, and that's a big if, the details are assuredly different since no Spetsnaz battalion was ever destroyed en masse. Especially since the Soviets *extremely* rarely deployed Spetsnaz battalions at all.

And Spetsnaz casualties were very rarely 'heavy'. In fact, they usually achieved kill ratios of something like 30-40:1 - and that's in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Fine, if you want an authorative account, read Cordesman. Or Vhrunac, if you just want an authorative figure on the small-unit military aspect.


Can't say: I read Guderian and Manstein years ago, but don't possess their books, and don't have a clear memory what exactly they wrote.


It's not that you can't say, it's that you won't say. And you know damned well why. It's because Manstein and Guderian did all they could to paint themselves in the most favorable of lights in their memoirs. They have never been nor will they ever be called 'authorative' by anyone with half a brain - and I know this for a fact.

So, if I don't consider the unsourced recollections of Manstein, Guderian, Zhukov or Konev authorative, why should I consider the unsourced recollections of your Pakistani infantry officer who also happened to head the Mujahideen efforts against the Soviets authorative?

Lokos

[Coop]

You haven't read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap".

While this is nothing wrong in itself, it becomes "wrong" when you then comment about that book and declare it for "unsupported anecdotal garbage": you are commenting about something you can't possibly know.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. I don't need to know anything else about you, your intentions, or the purpose of your posts.

[Lokos]

Coop, do you know what sourcing is?

It's when there's a little thing called a footnote following a statement of 'fact'. That 'action near Zhavar' could be called an assertion of statement of fact. Unfortunately, the distinct lack of *sourcing* (like I said, a footnote usually helps in this regard) means that the author is relating something to the reader based on faith alone.

I should also explain anecdotes, just so we're crystal on this issue. An anecdote is when someone talks about something that happened to him/her at some point in their life.

Now, when you have an anecdote that contains 'statements of fact', any reader looking for factual viability would also look for documentation/sourcing. Since your excerpts do not contain anything as such, I am prepared to generalize and call the book 'anecdotal, unsourced rubbish'. In other words, a memoir.

Your seemingly junior-high level of comprehension in terms of academic authority is a bit of a worry.

Here's my advice: stop posting in this thread. The longer you continue, the more of a fool you're being.

Regards,
Lokos

[GazB]

GazB, you make a good point. I mean, did the Soviets lose the war, or did they just not *win* it?

Not quite... more like what was the definition of win in this case.

If they went in to take over and integrate Afghanistan as a new part of the Soviet Union then by that standard they lost.
But from their actions there, the relatively low troop deployments, the lack of attempts to control the countryside till later when that was shown to be a major source of resistance, down to even published Soviet maps of the time period not including Afghanistan as anything but an ally with an expeditionary force of Russian solders seem to suggest otherwise.

If that is the case what was the purpose of the intervention?

Without examining that closer I really don't think you can come up with an answer... And I don't think I have said they lost or they won yet, because I really don't know.

Comparisons to Vietnam and the second world war are not particularly helpful as Vietnam and WWII were about different things that are not related to the war in Afghanistan.


Annoyed by al queda? I know it's been a couple years but, in case you forgot. Al queda flew two hijacked Planes and crashed them into the World Traded Center, a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania resulting in the loss of 2996 people. I wouldn't call it annoyed. I would say we were attacked.

I meant it in overall terms. Sure you were attacked, but the damage done and loss of life sustained was rather less than what you have inflicted on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia in the last decade. Suffice to say that even if Alquada managed to attack you every week with the same level of success would you be defeated? Would you be anywhere near capitulation? No of course not. It was an outrage, but hardly a decisive blow to knock you down and out.


If (citate), "The difference between Afghanistan politically and Vietnam politically was that Vietnam was a US crusade to stop the spread of communism though Asia."

Just a second: where is the difference now?

Vietnam (which is actually a country... most Americans refer to it as a war) was a country trying to find out what it wanted. The Americans decided to go on a worldwide crusade against communism so they went into a country they had never cared about before to fight a war they didn't really understand. (it was more about imperialism vs communism than deomcracy vs communism)
The war in Afghanistan however was a case of a large superpower that had had a relatively good long term relationship with a neghbouring country that was begining to be soured by a rival superpower.
Caring not for anything but perhaps revenge and sticking one to the SU the West then went on to support what they called freedom fighters. Considering what resulted in the mid 90s I'd say the Soviets were punnished in the 80s and the Afghans got the worst of the deal being punnished by the Soviets and then by the Talliban.


Besides, while the USA were fighting the "Communism" in SEA, wasn't the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan an attempt to stop the spread of militant Islamism into (Soviet) central Asia?

The taliban didn't exist in the 80s or 70s when the war started. There were muslim extremists in afghanistan but they weren't interested in spreading their religion... just being left alone. The call to war wasn't to spread the Koran, it was to fight the invader.


Given that Afghanistan was declared an "Islamic Republic" already in 1992 (not to talk about "Islamic Emirate" under the Taliban rule), and what happened in Tajikistan, in 1992, didn't the Soviets fail too - just like the USA failed in stopping the "spread of Communism"?

An Islamic republic that received financial support from the Russians. They did not get defeated by the Taliban till the Russians reduced their aide... which was a consequence of their financial position more than anything else.
The Soviets didn't exist in 1992. Tajikistan has an islamic government thanks to the democracy that replaced communism in the Soviet Union member states. What would you expect them to have? A good christian democracy?
The Soviets would be comparable to the US in the Vietnam war if Afghanistan was half a world away and if you could prove that they went in there to stop Islamic fundamentalism. Can you?


I'm sorry, but you must've missed a better part of the history of that part of the world if you say that it never happened: who controlled Laos after 1975? Who invaded Cambodia, in 1979 and installed a puppet-regime there (in a manner very similar to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan)? Who was fighting a shadow war with Thailand and for which purpose through the whole 1980s?


Hmmm... Laos... doesn't that country appear in the Guinness book of world records? Something about the worlds most bombed country?

Just because the Americans like to make out it was there war it actually invovled all the countries of the region... including Australia and New Zealand.
Perhaps if those neighbouring countries hadn't gotten involved through excessive US bombing campaigns and CIA operations there might not have been any other actions in the region?


Then the governments that came to power during different coups in Kabul of 1979 were all Soviet-friendly.


Even the one that executed the Soviet ambassador and his family in the street outside where they lived?


The CIA was not present in Pakistan in the 1970s: Pakistan was cut-off of any US help or support already since 1971. So much so, that when the Reagan admin decided to support the Mujaheddin, in 1981, and had to do so via Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq was in position to demand quite some conditions - and, effectivelly, get free hands for acting in own interest but with US financial aid.


So CIA aide that started in 1973 went through where? Iran? China? The Soviet Union?


that the Najibullah's regime survived from Soviet pull-out until 1992 because of nothing else but disunity between Mujaheddin commanders.

But I thought the writer of the bear trap book was in supreme command of afghan forces?


The Taliban were created by Pakistani military establishment solely with financial aid from Saudi Arabia, starting in 1992 - and in reaction to disapoitment with Hekmatyar's performance during fighting against the Northern Alliance (aka "Central Forces"), in that very same year.

Hekmatyar was Iranian backed, why would the Arabs support the Persians?


The fact is, namely, that by the time the USA were not financing anything in that area any more: the US aid was stopped (in accordance to an agreement with CIS from January 1992) already before that period

Yes, America was innocent... and the CIA always does as it is told. Though I do agree that the Afghans wouldn't take money from the CIA for some time after the Soviets pulled out... the $50,000 US dollars for each Stinger I believe.


Hekmatyar's shelling of Kabul, in April 1992 (and again in 1994, when there was also a massacre comitted by his militia) fell to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not on the USA.


That was handy. And also ignores that when the Soviets were there he did very little, yet received as much aid as the other muj forces.


On the contrary, the Taliban - which were entirely founded and trained in Pakistan - became active in Afghanistan only in 1994.

Pakistan... that US surrogate? Yes, I am sure the CIA would like the world to think that. Flip Flopping on policy does get the politicians in a tiz.


Nevertheless, there was no "status quo" in Afghanistan of the 1990s: Moscow was (officially - and mainly via Uzbekistan) supporting the Northern Coallition, while clandestinely - via Victor Bout - selling weapons to Taliban; the USA were negotiating with Taliban, and even bribing them with $ millions in order to gain concessions for building a gas-pipe-line from the Casspian Sea to the Indian Ocean; Pakistan (with extensive financial aid from Saudi Arabia) was fully involved in organizing, training, and running the Taliban and their military.


Yes, everyone was giving the taliban money.


Keep your foot out of your mouth when laughing so loud. Hekmatyar was NEVER supported by Iran. Ismail Khan and his Hezb-e-Wahadat were. Hekmatyar was Pakistani player from the begin of insurgency until 1992: he was receiving most of the CIA/Saudi sponsored aid during the 1980s.

So western reporters were wrong? Like David Isby?


Besides, for most of the 1990s Pakistan was directly supporting the Taliban in the war against the NA/UF - by 2001 even with regular (commando and artillery) units of the Pakistani Army.

Didn't seem to be working.


Brig. Mohamad Yousaf - who was effective commander of the Mujaheddin forces.


Except for massouds forces that weren't getting aid...


Indeed. By a magnitude more reliable than any Russian author

By what reasoning?


Quite on the contrary: because the 19 main Mujaheddin organizations were mainly based outside the cities they have had no industrial support.

Which shows why they couldn't be defeated militarily without extending the war to include Pakistan and Iran.
Not wishing to expand to such a level the Soviets chose eventually to withdraw and continue with surrogate forces.


So, please, explain me where should they have got all the ammo they used in the 1980s, just for example - if not from Pakistan?


I have never denied that Pakistan and Iran were conduits for material aid.


From Afghan Army depots?

Oh, now it's my turn to laugh...


If you wish to play the game of putting words in my mouth I can do the same, but what really is the point of that?


The difference between the Soviet control of Afghanistan in the 1980s or the US now


Ahhh, of course. The Soviets didn't bribe anyone. There were no deals done for protection, or to help one Muj fight another faction for a local peace deal. No, never happened. You made it up.


With the difference that where the Soviets went through in the rural areas there was nothing left intact, just "scorched earth". That's, after all, how the Soviets managed to secure their main lines of communication in the 1986.


If that was the policy from day 1 then there would be no afghans left outside refugee groups in iran and pakistan. The scorched earth policy only began when the Muj started to get more successful with foreign training, foreign aid, and foreign weapons. The attempt was to force people out of the country into to the towns which the soviets controlled.


You HAVE NOT read that book. That means you CAN NOT comment about it.

Have you read the communist mannifesto of 1933? Can I quote it here to support my arguments. If you haven't read it you can't criticise me. You can't suggest that such noble authors could possibly lie or present half truths. I mean why would they try to make their own efforts and accomplishments look grander than they already are.


One final time, as you appear unable to answer even the simpliest questions:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?


Are you slow or mentally disabled?
He has repeatedly said he has not read nor is he interested in reading this book. Get over it. Considerig its source I doubt it would be of any historical value anyway.
It no doubt is very useful for explaining away all the mountains of money that otherwise might have bought Pakistan a better standard of living and perhaps an airforce better able to face its rather large neighbour, but historically its value is probably right up there with other memiors.

Hey... wait a minute... Coop... not Tom Cooper?

That explains it...


While this is nothing wrong in itself, it becomes "wrong" when you then comment about that book and declare it for "unsupported anecdotal garbage": you are commenting about something you can't possibly know.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. I don't need to know anything else about you, your intentions, or the purpose of your posts.

Don't write him off yet coop... he could be another Indian Mig-29 fighter pilot.

[Lokos]

Nope, just a Kosovo War veteran :)


Not quite... more like what was the definition of win in this case.

If they went in to take over and integrate Afghanistan as a new part of the Soviet Union then by that standard they lost.
But from their actions there, the relatively low troop deployments, the lack of attempts to control the countryside till later when that was shown to be a major source of resistance, down to even published Soviet maps of the time period not including Afghanistan as anything but an ally with an expeditionary force of Russian solders seem to suggest otherwise.

Everything does hinge on how one defines victory or defeat, here. Militarily, certainly, the Soviets did not lose. They were not pushed out of Afghanistan. They suffered no strategic or even operational defeat, per se. But, politically speaking, they withdrew without leaving a stable communist government in their wake. The result was predictable.

Like Vietnam, victory and defeat are strange paradigms when used to describe the outcome of the Afghanistan War.

Regards,
Lokos

[Coop]

Annoyed by al queda? I know it's been a couple years but, in case you forgot. Al queda flew two hijacked Planes and crashed them into the World Traded Center, a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania resulting in the loss of 2996 people. I wouldn't call it annoyed. I would say we were attacked.

I meant it in overall terms. Sure you were attacked, but the damage done and loss of life sustained was rather less than what you have inflicted on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia in the last decade. Suffice to say that even if Alquada managed to attack you every week with the same level of success would you be defeated? Let me interrupt you here.

The strikes on WTC and Pentagon had VERY distinct effects - even if they certainly never killed as many civilians as the USA killed during their operations in Bosnia, in 1995, Serbia, 1999, and - especially - in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2001-2004.

It's not only the effects of the publicity: the US economy was already damaged by this alone - through damage on many influential companies, and a chaos created in Mannhattan. Of course, this damage was not "crucial", not in the sence of delivering a blow from which the USA couldn't recover with a relative ease.



If (citate), "The difference between Afghanistan politically and Vietnam politically was that Vietnam was a US crusade to stop the spread of communism though Asia."

Just a second: where is the difference now?
Vietnam (which is actually a country... most Americans refer to it as a war) was a country trying to find out what it wanted. Sorry, but I have no doubts that Ho-Chi-Minh had any problems to find out what he wanted: the Vietnamese hegemony in SEA.

His only problem was that he was the leader of a specific Communist Party - which put the might of the USA accross his pad.

But, this doesn't mean that Vietnam was "trying to find out what it wanted", and this especially does not mean that anybody should simply explain "Vietnam" for a single country, when there are such considerable differences within the population in the North and in the South.


The Americans decided to go on a worldwide crusade against communism so they went into a country they had never cared about before to fight a war they didn't really understand. (it was more about imperialism vs communism than deomcracy vs communism).
Have you ever heard about the "Operation Haik"?

If not, then I'm sure it's a little bit problematic to understand that the actual US point was stopping the spread of Communism in SEA. Preventing it spread into Indonesia and on the Philippines, just for example.


The war in Afghanistan however was a case of a large superpower that had had a relatively good long term relationship with a neghbouring country that was begining to be soured by a rival superpower.
Caring not for anything but perhaps revenge and sticking one to the SU the West then went on to support what they called freedom fighters. But, there was no US influence - not even interest - in Afghanistan in the 1970s. So, who was "soured by a rival superpower" there?


Considering what resulted in the mid 90s I'd say the Soviets were punnished in the 80s and the Afghans got the worst of the deal being punnished by the Soviets and then by the Talliban. Worst yet: Pakistan, which was the actual reason for the spread of Islamist influence in Afghanistan (for very specific reasons, which are solely related to own Pakistani interests!), came away each time not only completely unscatched, but also reinforced!



Besides, while the USA were fighting the "Communism" in SEA, wasn't the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan an attempt to stop the spread of militant Islamism into (Soviet) central Asia?

The taliban didn't exist in the 80s or 70s when the war started. There were muslim extremists in afghanistan but they weren't interested in spreading their religion... just being left alone. The call to war wasn't to spread the Koran, it was to fight the invader. And, who was the invader? And, why did the USSR then invade first of all?



Given that Afghanistan was declared an "Islamic Republic" already in 1992 (not to talk about "Islamic Emirate" under the Taliban rule), and what happened in Tajikistan, in 1992, didn't the Soviets fail too - just like the USA failed in stopping the "spread of Communism"?
An Islamic republic that received financial support from the Russians. Uh?

If at all, then "an Islamic republics, with a government consisting of 19 different fractionsk, SOME of which were receiving aid from Russia".


They did not get defeated by the Taliban till the Russians reduced their aide... which was a consequence of their financial position more than anything else. Actually, the Russians should have stopped delivering any aid to Afghanistan already in January 1992 - that was the agreement with the USA at least... But, OK... Moscow continued supporting NC/UF - at least indirectly - very much until 2001. So, this statement is not exactly correct either.

Besides, South Vietnam also did not get defeated until the USA decreased the amount of aid - i.e. completely stopped delivery of arms and supplies - either. And, just like Tajikistan came under the rule of Islamists, in 1992, so also Laos, Cambodia etc. came under the Communist rule after the US pull-out. Consequently, the conflicts in SEA and that in Afghanistan have - essentially - very similar flows.

So, how comes that people explain Vietnam for a war "the USA have lost", while simultaneously explaining that the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan then?


The Soviets didn't exist in 1992. Tajikistan has an islamic government thanks to the democracy that replaced communism in the Soviet Union member states. What would you expect them to have? A good christian democracy? "Democracy"? In Tajikistan?

Let's see...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/tajikistan.htm

In May 1992, the Tajik opposition seized power from the Tajik Supreme Soviet, precipitating civil war. The opposition was defeated in December 1992 and the current Tajik government assumed control. The defeated opposition comprised a coalition of self-declared democratic and Islamic groups and Islamic fundamentalists, a plurality of whom originate from the Garm-Kartogin region of the country, and Pamiris, who were traditionally underrepresented in the ruling coalitions during Soviet and pre-Soviet rule. Since early 1993, the ongoing armed insurgency of the opposition forces, in particular from across the Tajik-Afghan border, continued to destabilize the country.

- Or here:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_284.shtml

The fighting in Tadjikistan was in looming already in the mid-1980s, when time and again the Afghan and Tadjik fighters trained and equipped by the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) were crossing the Soviet border to attack local installations that supported the war in Afghanistan. Interested in reinforcing the Islamic identity of the locals, and in cooperation with CIA, the Pakistanis launched a small-scale campaign in which thousands of Qorans – but also some weapons and demolition devices – were supplied to the locals, some of which were then recruited to either fight in Afghanistan, or attack local Soviet installations. After a warning from Moscow to Islamabad that such operations were seen as mingling into internal Soviet matters, the ISI stopped operating inside the USSR, but by 1987 the Afghan Tajiks have already established good relations to their brothers in Tajikistan and ever-increasing amounts of weapons were arriving in the country.

The Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic gained independence from the Soviet Union on 9 September 1991, following a coup in Moscow, and became the Republic of Tajikistan. The fighting in Tajikistan begun by numerous killings of ethnic Russians – foremost locally-based soldiers – and violence in Dushanbe between the forces loyal to Emomali Rahmanov, the former Speaker of the Parliament and later the President of the Republic, and a range of opposition parties on the other side.

In May 1992 an attempt of the Communist president Nabijew to form a multi-party government failed. The Islamic opposition then seized power from the Tajik Supreme Soviet in a coup, forcing the post-Communists to leave the country.

Can you explain how comes that two completely different authors failed to use such words like "democracy" or "free elections" for their description of how the Islamists rose to power in Tajikistan, in 1992?

Or do you mean that there is "democracy" in Tajikistan - per decret of President Rachmonov?

Please, remain serious: there is nothing like "democracy" in that country. No elections, nothing. After the Islamists came to power, Yeltsin organized a counter-coup, supported by Russian troops, which installed a post-Communist junta in Dushanbe. There is only "peace" in Tajikistan, and even this came only after the Russians and "loyal" troops failed to defeat the Islamists in the east of the country...


The Soviets would be comparable to the US in the Vietnam war if Afghanistan was half a world away and if you could prove that they went in there to stop Islamic fundamentalism. Can you?
Well, measured from Moscow, Afghanistan is not as far as Vietnam is from Washington, that's sure... But, how about having a look what a Russian author states to this topic (or would this be "irrelevant", as Lokos prefers to call such sources)?

(Markovskiy, "Zharkoe Nebo Afghanistana", Introduction)

As an expression of unbreakable friendship to the USSR the organisers of the April-Revolution from 1978 turned to the USSR requesting aid and guidance for a jump into Socialism. The new government described itself formost as Marxist, but as it attempted to turn Afghanistan into a socialist country a civil war broke out. There was bloody fighting and massive repression, which destroyed the Army and economy. The Party, which was calling itself the "People's Democratic Party", was taking the matter with Bolsevist determination. It was destroying the clerics, merchants and feudal lords, and enforcing a "democratic reform" in an Islamist country with centuries-old culture and traditions....

...The trust in the solely true doctrine and the right to realise it, resulted in the Soviet leadership bringing decision to, "deploy the limited troop contingent" to Afghanistan, in order to fullfil the tasks requested from it by the Afghan government.

There is more - if required...



I'm sorry, but you must've missed a better part of the history of that part of the world if you say that it never happened: who controlled Laos after 1975? Who invaded Cambodia, in 1979 and installed a puppet-regime there (in a manner very similar to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan)? Who was fighting a shadow war with Thailand and for which purpose through the whole 1980s?

Hmmm... Laos... doesn't that country appear in the Guinness book of world records? Something about the worlds most bombed country?

Just because the Americans like to make out it was there war it actually invovled all the countries of the region... including Australia and New Zealand. So what? Does this means it wasn't Vietnam which controlled Laos after 1975? It wasn't Vietnam which - with extensive Soviet support - invaded Cambodia in 1979? It wasn't Vietnam which was supporting Communist insurgency in Thailand, in the 1980s?


Perhaps if those neighbouring countries hadn't gotten involved through excessive US bombing campaigns and CIA operations there might not have been any other actions in the region? Aha... So, let me see if I understand you correctly: the USA first bombed Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese then started building the Ho-Chi-Minh Trail over these two countries? And, this Vietnamese enterprise was NOT launched in order to support the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam...?



Then the governments that came to power during different coups in Kabul of 1979 were all Soviet-friendly.
Even the one that executed the Soviet ambassador and his family in the street outside where they lived?Interesting...Is the information of this "quality" widespread in Russia?

I mean, it wasn't the Afghan government - but rebels; and I don't remember anybody mentioning the ambassador too (military instructors and their families were massacred by mob in Shindand). Namely, every single Afghan ruler, Daud, Taraki, and Amin, was requesting Soviet intervention, or? Now you'd like to explain they did so by murdering the ambassador and his family?



The CIA was not present in Pakistan in the 1970s: Pakistan was cut-off of any US help or support already since 1971. So much so, that when the Reagan admin decided to support the Mujaheddin, in 1981, and had to do so via Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq was in position to demand quite some conditions - and, effectivelly, get free hands for acting in own interest but with US financial aid.

So CIA aide that started in 1973 went through where? Iran? China? The Soviet Union? Who was getting the CIA support since 1973?

Otherwise, when you talk about Iran, the CIA was present since 1953, that's truth. And, since 1949 in China as well....



that the Najibullah's regime survived from Soviet pull-out until 1992 because of nothing else but disunity between Mujaheddin commanders.
But I thought the writer of the bear trap book was in supreme command of afghan forces? Lokos thinks that as well.

That comes from people talking about a book they never read.

So, once again: Yousaf was chief of the ISI's Afghan Bureau. This, in turn, was controlling Mujaheddin military operations through channeling of arms, aid, supplies, and money to preferred parties (i.e. "commanders") in Afghanistan. And, this put Yousaf into a position where he could say: you, Hekmatyar (or whoever else), are going to shell Baghram at each and every opportunity, and here are rockets for this task, as well as a video-camera so you can take each of your attacks and provide evidence that you've spent these rockets for that purpose - or you're not going to get even a single bullet 7.62mm from Pakistan any more.

Or, he could say: Ahmad, you take this explosive, swim over the Amudarya River to the Soviet side, go to place X, and blow it.

So, effectivelly, yes, he was a military commander. But, NO, he was neither a Mujaheddin, nor the direct commander of theirs. He was, effectivelly, in the control of the (military aspect of) anti-Soviet war (now you can call for Lokos who is going to explain that there is no difference between these two aspects).



The Taliban were created by Pakistani military establishment solely with financial aid from Saudi Arabia, starting in 1992 - and in reaction to disapoitment with Hekmatyar's performance during fighting against the Northern Alliance (aka "Central Forces"), in that very same year.

Hekmatyar was Iranian backed, why would the Arabs support the Persians? Arabs do support the Pakistanis - until today. And, this because the majority of Pakistanis are supporters of extreme Islamism, and because the Pakistani establishment supports the extremist/terrorist groups that are going to different countries and attempting to spread Islamist insurgency there.

The problem with your question, however, is:
- Iran is no "Arab country" nor supporter of Islamist terrorism in the form this is supported by Pakistan;

- Hekmatyar, an ethnic Pashtun based in Peshawar (that is a city in Pakistan, for your information), and leader of Hezb-e-Islami (and one of the first to declare a "Jihad" on the USSR), has no connections to Iran, and was NEVER backed by Iran; on the contrary, he was always - and exhaustivelly - supported by Pakistan;

- You obviously mix Hekmatyar with Ismail Khan.



The fact is, namely, that by the time the USA were not financing anything in that area any more: the US aid was stopped (in accordance to an agreement with CIS from January 1992) already before that period
Yes, America was innocent... and the CIA always does as it is told. Though I do agree that the Afghans wouldn't take money from the CIA for some time after the Soviets pulled out... the $50,000 US dollars for each Stinger I believe.Neither USA or CIA provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And, neither the USA or CIA paid a single cent for creation of Taliban.



Hekmatyar's shelling of Kabul, in April 1992 (and again in 1994, when there was also a massacre comitted by his militia) fell to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not on the USA.

That was handy. And also ignores that when the Soviets were there he did very little, yet received as much aid as the other muj forces. Wether Hekmatyar was doing something or not while the Soviets were in Afghanistan is not in dispute here. The fact that you say he did not means not that he was not supported by Pakistan.



On the contrary, the Taliban - which were entirely founded and trained in Pakistan - became active in Afghanistan only in 1994.
Pakistan... that US surrogate? Yes, I am sure the CIA would like the world to think that. Flip Flopping on policy does get the politicians in a tiz.
Pakistan is - in this moment - a US protectorate, just like Saudi Arabia is. However, at THAT TIME it was no "US surrogate": the CIA was channeling money to the ISI, and the ISI was the sole authority that controlled the spread of this money in Afghanistan of the 1980s. By the time the ISI started creating the Taliban, however, the CIA and the USA were not financing anybody there any more: in fact, the USA put Pakistan under arms embargo already in 1990.

Consequently, you can't say that the Taliban were financed by the USA.


Yes, everyone was giving the taliban money. Right. Just, the Taliban were no US creation, and were not organized with US money.

The US attempts to bribe the Taliban admin in the period 1999-2001 have nothing to do with this act.



Keep your foot out of your mouth when laughing so loud. Hekmatyar was NEVER supported by Iran. Ismail Khan and his Hezb-e-Wahadat were. Hekmatyar was Pakistani player from the begin of insurgency until 1992: he was receiving most of the CIA/Saudi sponsored aid during the 1980s.

So western reporters were wrong? Like David Isby?
Cite a single of Isby's works on Afghanistan where he states that Hezb-e-Islami was supported by Iran?

Hezb-e-Wahadat, yes, but not Hezb-e-Islami. Sounds similar - especially for those who are not well informed - but not the same.



Besides, for most of the 1990s Pakistan was directly supporting the Taliban in the war against the NA/UF - by 2001 even with regular (commando and artillery) units of the Pakistani Army.

Didn't seem to be working. Aha. And, how cames Taloqan - the "capital" of NC/UF - fell in the year 2000? How comes by September 2001 the Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan?



Brig. Mohamad Yousaf - who was effective commander of the Mujaheddin forces.


Except for massouds forces that weren't getting aid... Correct.

And, if you'd know to make difference between the 19 different Afghan resistance groups, and their 30 or so leaders, you'd also know why was Masood nevertheless still so much successful.



Indeed. By a magnitude more reliable than any Russian author

By what reasoning?
Because they have only two possible sources:

- What little of original Soviet military reports about different wars was released to the public so war is usually of extremely poor quality, strongly biased, and politically coloured (for example, see above; if even stronger examples are needed, let me know).

- Aside from such "sources" like mentioned above, and except they write about technical issues, main-stream Russian/Ukrainian military-related reporters (V. Babich, Y. Gordon, D. Komissarov just for example) are largely basing their work on Western mainstream reports of dubious quality, hand-picking excerpts from these that suit their own "taste".



Quite on the contrary: because the 19 main Mujaheddin organizations were mainly based outside the cities they have had no industrial support.
Which shows why they couldn't be defeated militarily without extending the war to include Pakistan and Iran.
Not wishing to expand to such a level the Soviets chose eventually to withdraw and continue with surrogate forces. Was the best idea under given conditions.



I have never denied that Pakistan and Iran were conduits for material aid.
[quote]From Afghan Army depots?

Oh, now it's my turn to laugh...


If you wish to play the game of putting words in my mouth I can do the same, but what really is the point of that?
Well, you first laughed about a statement of mine and then countered with something that not only stood in absolutely no relation to what I stated, but was also - historically - completely off. Sorry, but I do not see where should i have been putting words into your mouth.



The difference between the Soviet control of Afghanistan in the 1980s or the US now
Ahhh, of course. The Soviets didn't bribe anyone. There were no deals done for protection, or to help one Muj fight another faction for a local peace deal. No, never happened. You made it up. Oh, really?

So, how comes that Abdul-Rashid Dostum was bribed by the Soviets already in 1987 so to keep the whole garrison in Mazar-e-Sharif - including a better part of the DRAAF - fighting on their side?

Where do such well-supplied Afghan "warlords" and their "militias" come from, so to have up to 60.000 men and 100 combat aircraft and helicopters under their command?

Please, excuse me, but except if richdom broke out in Afghanistan during the last night, you'll have to explain me quite something to change my opinion... I just haven't heard any kind of news supporting indications that there are any such kind of sources in that country, that would enable anybody to run whole armies for such extended periods of times...



[quote]With the difference that where the Soviets went through in the rural areas there was nothing left intact, just "scorched earth". That's, after all, how the Soviets managed to secure their main lines of communication in the 1986.

If that was the policy from day 1 then there would be no afghans left outside refugee groups in iran and pakistan. The scorched earth policy only began when the Muj started to get more successful with foreign training, foreign aid, and foreign weapons. The attempt was to force people out of the country into to the towns which the soviets controlled. Would you be so kind to repeat this: there was "Scorched Earth" politics of the Soviets in Afghanistan - after all?

I'm just asking to be sure: Lokos previously declared this for nonsence... But then, he also explained that he would react _against_ any similar statements regardless from who these might come...



You HAVE NOT read that book. That means you CAN NOT comment about it.

Have you read the communist mannifesto of 1933? Can I quote it here to support my arguments. If you haven't read it you can't criticise me. No, I never read it.

Consequently, if you would cite it here, I'd ask you for explanations, but never come to the idea to criticise you: after all, it wasn't you who wrote it...

I just can't understand why is it so problematic to accept the fact that one can't comment about something he's clueless about?


You can't suggest that such noble authors could possibly lie or present half truths. I mean why would they try to make their own efforts and accomplishments look grander than they already are. Hehe, Lokos and you, plus sergey31, are implying EXACTLY this all the time - and that for an author of a book neither of you three ever read.

Worst yet: you imply this for an author who is - as you'd know if you've read that book - revealing the whole history, politics and actual intentions of the Pakistani establishments regarding Afghanistan and Islamism, as well as an author who was explaining the backgrounds of Taliban at the time these did not even exist (then "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" was originally written in the early 1990s) - "biased" to the Soviets, and a "Mujaheddin".

So, think for a moment: imagine how laughable your, Lokos' and sergey31's statements must look to anybody who read Yousaf's book?



One final time, as you appear unable to answer even the simpliest questions:

- Have you read "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" or not?


Are you slow or mentally disabled?
He has repeatedly said he has not read nor is he interested in reading this book. Get over it. Considerig its source I doubt it would be of any historical value anyway.
Are you now going to comment about a book you haven't read?


It no doubt is very useful for explaining away all the mountains of money that otherwise might have bought Pakistan a better standard of living and perhaps an airforce better able to face its rather large neighbour, but historically its value is probably right up there with other memiors. Ever heard a word "guess"?



While this is nothing wrong in itself, it becomes "wrong" when you then comment about that book and declare it for "unsupported anecdotal garbage": you are commenting about something you can't possibly know.

[quote]Hey... wait a minute... Coop... not Tom Cooper?

That explains it... Even if, what would this explain?


[quote]Well, thanks, but no thanks. I don't need to know anything else about you, your intentions, or the purpose of your posts.

Don't write him off yet coop... he could be another Indian Mig-29 fighter pilot. He could be "another" scientist of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and it wouldn't help him - only explain the nonsence he writes (and you attempt to support in such a dilletant manner)...

[sergey31]

"Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf

Read the book, 75% of it is fiction..... Never seen so much BS piled up in one book.

And....

Hehe, Lokos and you, plus sergey31, are implying EXACTLY this all the time - and that for an author of a book neither of you three ever read.

You must have reading comprehension problem. Yes I read the fairly tale book. Look kid, stop with all this nonsense BS because the more you type the more you make an ass of yourself.

[Coop]

If you have read it, then let's discuss it, so you can show all the "fiction", "BS", "fairly tales" etc.

Otherwise, all you - and others who have no clue about it - are doing is sensless babbling and wetting yourself at each and every opportunity.

[Lokos]

Coop,


So, effectivelly, yes, he was a military commander. But, NO, he was neither a Mujaheddin, nor the direct commander of theirs. He was, effectivelly, in the control of the (military aspect of) anti-Soviet war (now you can call for Lokos who is going to explain that there is no difference between these two aspects).

So, he directed their war effort, but he can't be considered their commander because he was also a Pakistani officer? Still in Lalaland, my friend? I suppose then that Hitler would be an authorative figure on the Wehrmacht, and a totally unbiased one, because he only directed the war effort, instead of field command, right? Coop, your arguments are a joke - and a bad joke at that.


What little of original Soviet military reports about different wars was released to the public so war is usually of extremely poor quality, strongly biased, and politically coloured (for example, see above; if even stronger examples are needed, let me know).

... And the Pakistani orchestrator of Mujahideen efforts somehow juxtaposes Soviet 'extremely poor quality, strongly biased and politically colored' reporting with his own, eh? You have to be under the influence. That is the only explanation for this kind of rubbish. That, or you are utterly devoid of sense.


I'm just asking to be sure: Lokos previously declared this for nonsence... But then, he also explained that he would react _against_ any similar statements regardless from who these might come...

Show me where I specifically said that Soviets never under any circumstances practiced scorched earth tactics. Oh, wait, you can't. I called the entirety of your seemingly only source regarding the war itself a giant bag of bull**** on the grounds of non-existent documentation, anecdotal 'evidence', extreme bias and outright lies. I have never stated that the Soviets did not committ what can be considered war crimes in Afghanistan.

So why don't you not put words in my mouth, especially when they have no place there?

And my actual statement was that I would react against any outright fallacies posted here, be they Soviet or Afghani oriented. What, in your opinion, does that have to do with your reference in this section?


Hehe, Lokos and you, plus sergey31, are implying EXACTLY this all the time - and that for an author of a book neither of you three ever read.

Worst yet: you imply this for an author who is - as you'd know if you've read that book - revealing the whole history, politics and actual intentions of the Pakistani establishments regarding Afghanistan and Islamism, as well as an author who was explaining the backgrounds of Taliban at the time these did not even exist (then "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap" was originally written in the early 1990s) - "biased" to the Soviets, and a "Mujaheddin".

So, think for a moment: imagine how laughable your, Lokos' and sergey31's statements must look to anybody who read Yousaf's book?


People who've read 'Yousaf's' book are not people I want to meet. They're people who only see what they want to see, and actively search out support for their myopia. I've already pointed out what makes your book a piece of rat ****. Now it's your turn to show me it ain't. But all you seem to be doing is saying 'You haven't read the book, so you can't say anything' over, and over, and over again.

You're a broken record, and you're playing a ****ty tune.


He could be "another" scientist of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and it wouldn't help him - only explain the nonsence he writes (and you attempt to support in such a dilletant manner)...

I've already stated who I am, as far as my role in a particular campaign defines 'me'. Unfortunately for you, you haven't succeeded in showing anything I've said to be nonsense. Far from it, when pressed you dogmatically pour out the same old rubbish that's already been dealt with. Like I've said: you're a broken record.

Lokos

[Coop]

Coop,

<snip>

Unfortunately for you, you haven't succeeded in showing anything I've said to be nonsense. Comes from the fact that you haven't posted anything related to this thread so far - just some babbling about relevance and irelevance... Like you're doing right now again.

Namely, you came back to ask me:

So, he directed their war effort, but he can't be considered their commander because he was also a Pakistani officer? Still in Lalaland, my friend?
As mentioned on the other thread, I'm quite surprised you are asking me anything.

So, just to be sure, are you the same Lokos who previously said:
"Coop, the day I need information about something from you is the day I start consulting blind men about the wonders of Van Gogh's work."?

If yes, I'm surprised you didn't already apply for that job...

[hist2004]

Question for Coop-

Is this the book (War of Scouts) you’re referring to in your previous post?

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?VMA-003

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Coop]

Yep, that's it.

http://www.aviapress.com/book/vma/vma003/vma003.jpg

[hist2004]

Thanks...

Regards,
Hist2004

[Lokos]

Coop,


Comes from the fact that you haven't posted anything related to this thread so far - just some babbling about relevance and irelevance... Like you're doing right now again.


Anyone who has actually read this thread will understand just how much bull**** you've started piling on, as of late.


As mentioned on the other thread, I'm quite surprised you are asking me anything.

So, just to be sure, are you the same Lokos who previously said:
"Coop, the day I need information about something from you is the day I start consulting blind men about the wonders of Van Gogh's work."?

If yes, I'm surprised you didn't already apply for that job...

I've been asking you questions relating to our argument - not asking you for information about anything in particular. Get that straight, why won't you?

And, please, if your next post is written for the hell of it - simply inviting another response to a series of mindless repetitions - instead of to further this debate properly, just don't bother.

Lokos

[GazB]

The strikes on WTC and Pentagon had VERY distinct effects

Certainly war had finally come to the US and the US was directly experiencing something they normally read in the paper or saw on TV happening in other countries. But in the end it was hardly a knockout blow... it was a bit like but no where near the effectiveness of Pearl Harbour. It was a pinprick that woke a sleeping giant.


It's not only the effects of the publicity: the US economy was already damaged by this alone - through damage on many influential companies, and a chaos created in Mannhattan.

That damage was balanced with quite a bit of worldwide support and sympathy... that has largely been dissipated by US attitudes and actions since.


Sorry, but I have no doubts that Ho-Chi-Minh had any problems to find out what he wanted: the Vietnamese hegemony in SEA.

Which we can disagree upon. I doubt his objectives originally were anything more than getting the French to leave. When the Americans interfered then outside influences will have changed the situation. If you are suggesting that a Pakistani "ran" or "led" the Afghan war one could assume that by supplying the Vietnamese also gave the Chinese and Russians power and influence too. It would certainly suit them for Asia to be red... as much as it would suit the US for it to be red, white and blue.


But, there was no US influence - not even interest - in Afghanistan in the 1970s. So, who was "soured by a rival superpower" there?


So the CIA didn't spend a cent in Afghanistan to support opposition groups opposed to the relationship with the soviets? That would probably make it the only country friendly to the soviets in the entire world where the CIA didn't do that. Amazing.


And, who was the invader?

That is the question.


And, why did the USSR then invade first of all?


That is the main question I have been asking. It really is the key to deciding what the objectives were, whether they were achieved, and therefore enable the whole operation to be judged successful, or failure, or partially successful etc etc.


Besides, South Vietnam also did not get defeated until the USA decreased the amount of aid - i.e. completely stopped delivery of arms and supplies - either. And, just like Tajikistan came under the rule of Islamists, in 1992, so also Laos, Cambodia etc. came under the Communist rule after the US pull-out. Consequently, the conflicts in SEA and that in Afghanistan have - essentially - very similar flows.

Except that the US went into Vietnam with the clear identified goal of stopping the spread of communism in SEA in general but specifically in Vietnam. The question remains why the soviets went into afghanistan. Suggesting they were there to stop the spread of islam is rediculous if you are going to support that with what incident that got them in there in the first place. I say it was CIA interference and therefore it was an attempt to stop US influence in the back door of the SU. If that is the case then they certainly succeded according to your comments about the US having nothing to do with anything and being completely innocent.


So, how comes that people explain Vietnam for a war "the USA have lost", while simultaneously explaining that the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan then?

When did I say the Soviets won? Please include the complete quote as I think you will find the paragraphs start with something along the lines of "assuming x is the case, then we can logicially deduce that...", or "...for them to have lost you would have to prove they didn't achieve their goals, and therefore have to define in black and white what those goals were..."


"Democracy"? In Tajikistan?

I didn't mean democracy suddenly came into effect in each member state of the former Soviet Union. What I mean is that when central control of those countries disappeared they had to start again by creating a government system. Russia didn't go around and impose a government on them... they chose it themselves. I never meant it was a democratic process in the sense that each individual voted for anything. Just that each country decided for itself what it wanted to become... decided by the majority or by a minority with power.


So what? Does this means it wasn't Vietnam which controlled Laos after 1975? It wasn't Vietnam which - with extensive Soviet support - invaded Cambodia in 1979? It wasn't Vietnam which was supporting Communist insurgency in Thailand, in the 1980s?


Without US intervention how much Soviet and Chinese intervention would there have been?

Are you suggesting that Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam?


Aha... So, let me see if I understand you correctly: the USA first bombed Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese then started building the Ho-Chi-Minh Trail over these two countries? And, this Vietnamese enterprise was NOT launched in order to support the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam...?


Would the supply lines through Laos and Cambodia have been necessary without US participation in this war? Would SV airpower have been so powerful as to require that?


Lokos thinks that as well.

That comes from people talking about a book they never read.


I am not going by what the book says... but by what you say. First you say he has direct control of every individual operation and was masterminding the whole operation against the Soviets, and then you say there was disunity between the Muj commanders. Well that last fact is well known and is still a big issue today, so how can the first fact be true?


Arabs do support the Pakistanis - until today. And, this because the majority of Pakistanis are supporters of extreme Islamism, and because the Pakistani establishment supports the extremist/terrorist groups that are going to different countries and attempting to spread Islamist insurgency there.

But Pakistan is a good friend to the US in its war on terror...


However, at THAT TIME it was no "US surrogate":

So the Pakistan AF was not equipped and trained by the US?
Chuck Yeagar had nothing to do with Pakistan?

Soviet influence in India didn't create a US interest in arming India's enemy in the region?


Consequently, you can't say that the Taliban were financed by the USA.


The purpose of the CIA is deniability.


Aha. And, how cames Taloqan - the "capital" of NC/UF - fell in the year 2000? How comes by September 2001 the Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan?


So what? 1993-2000 is quite some time... how long did it take 120,000 soviet conscripts to take over the towns and cities?


And, if you'd know to make difference between the 19 different Afghan resistance groups, and their 30 or so leaders, you'd also know why was Masood nevertheless still so much successful.

Currently not so successful... currently dead.


- What little of original Soviet military reports about different wars was released to the public so war is usually of extremely poor quality, strongly biased, and politically coloured (for example, see above; if even stronger examples are needed, let me know).

- Aside from such "sources" like mentioned above, and except they write about technical issues, main-stream Russian/Ukrainian military-related reporters (V. Babich, Y. Gordon, D. Komissarov just for example) are largely basing their work on Western mainstream reports of dubious quality, hand-picking excerpts from these that suit their own "taste".

I guess those who were actually there at the time can't write?


Sorry, but I do not see where should i have been putting words into your mouth.


When you describe what I said and then offer an example as it if were my example then you are putting words in my mouth.


Oh, really?

So, how comes that Abdul-Rashid Dostum was bribed by the Soviets already in 1987 so to keep the whole garrison in Mazar-e-Sharif - including a better part of the DRAAF - fighting on their side?

Where do such well-supplied Afghan "warlords" and their "militias" come from, so to have up to 60.000 men and 100 combat aircraft and helicopters under their command?

Please, excuse me, but except if richdom broke out in Afghanistan during the last night, you'll have to explain me quite something to change my opinion... I just haven't heard any kind of news supporting indications that there are any such kind of sources in that country, that would enable anybody to run whole armies for such extended periods of times...


Reread my comments in the context that they were fully based on SARCASM. Even platoon leaders negotiated local truces with mountain villages by providing food and blankets in the winter. Agreements to help one village continue its feud with a neighbouring village for the price of a ceasefire or intelligence was also common. Not that such ceasefires were always adhered to.


Would you be so kind to repeat this: there was "Scorched Earth" politics of the Soviets in Afghanistan - after all?


In villages found to have freely supported guerrilla groups that had inflicted harm on Soviet troops the result was to economically destroy the village by destroying their crops and buildings. This was to drain the swamp so to speak. ( ie a guerilla must move around and plan operations and rarely has the spare time to aquire the bare essentials of life for themselves let alone weapons and ammo to continue the rebellion. This means they need local support.. either freely given or taken by force (ie banditry). Cutting off local support and creating enough fear in the locals to stop them providing support can make the rebels resort to banditry which can reduce their local support and lead to them moving elsewhere or being reported... in any case it makes the job of resistance forces harder, but also turns local opinion against your forces... of course if they are already operating actively agaisnt you then you have nothing to lose (or win))


Consequently, if you would cite it here, I'd ask you for explanations, but never come to the idea to criticise you: after all, it wasn't you who wrote it...

And who is criticising you for the contents of the books you quote from?


I just can't understand why is it so problematic to accept the fact that one can't comment about something he's clueless about?

But we are not clueless about this person. We kow their and role in the subject of the book in question and from the excerpts I think it is pretty clear that positive things are written about, but negative things seem to be ignored or glossed over.


I suppose then that Hitler would be an authorative figure on the Wehrmacht, and a totally unbiased one, because he only directed the war effort, instead of field command, right? Coop, your arguments are a joke - and a bad joke at that.

And he wasn't German... he was Austrian so therefore completely unbiased.


... And the Pakistani orchestrator of Mujahideen efforts somehow juxtaposes Soviet 'extremely poor quality, strongly biased and politically colored' reporting with his own, eh? You have to be under the influence. That is the only explanation for this kind of rubbish. That, or you are utterly devoid of sense.


He was right there commanding every throw of a grenade... apparantly there were no Soviets there at all because all their sources are western...


I have never stated that the Soviets did not committ what can be considered war crimes in Afghanistan.


Except it wasn't anything the US didn't do in Vietnam... or their south vietnam allies did for them.

[Lokos]

I didn't say Soviet crimes in Afghanistan were worse than US crimes in Vietnam.

Regards,
Lokos

[-=P=-]

@Lokos



Anyone who has actually read this thread will understand just how much bull**** you've started piling on, as of late.

Even if one of you was wrong here, please lets the "anyone’s who read that thread" judge about who was wrong in which point, its for nobody useful when one starts to say things like "me and my friends here know that you are bull****ting and so you must be wrong".

[Coop]

The strikes on WTC and Pentagon had VERY distinct effects Certainly war had finally come to the US and the US was directly experiencing something they normally read in the paper or saw on TV happening in other countries. But in the end it was hardly a knockout blow... it was a bit like but no where near the effectiveness of Pearl Harbour. It was a pinprick that woke a sleeping giant. In general, we're therefore in agreement here: I wouldn't say it was a "pinprick", but it definitely woke a sleeping giant.



It's not only the effects of the publicity: the US economy was already damaged by this alone - through damage on many influential companies, and a chaos created in Mannhattan.
That damage was balanced with quite a bit of worldwide support and sympathy... that has largely been dissipated by US attitudes and actions since. Sorry, you can't "balance" the economic damage of a terrorist strike by sympathy: nobody donated even a single cent of charity for the US economy...



Sorry, but I have no doubts that Ho-Chi-Minh had any problems to find out what he wanted: the Vietnamese hegemony in SEA.
Which we can disagree upon. I doubt his objectives originally were anything more than getting the French to leave. When the Americans interfered then outside influences will have changed the situation.The war did not start with the US intervention in 1964, or with the start of US direct - but clandestine - involvement, in 1960.

The Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi - abbreviated to Viet Minh - was founded in China, already in May 1941, to link nationalist movements in the French Indo-China. Its postwar aim was to achieve independence for Vietnam. The leader was certain Nguyen Ai Quoc (Nguyen the Patriot), better known as Ho Chi Minh (He who Enlightens). The basic idea was gaining power in the whole French Indo-China.

At the time this (the French Indo-China) consisted of protectorates of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin-China (Vietnam), Laos and Cambodia. What subsequently became known as "North Vietnam", was then essentially Tonkin (captial was Hanoi) and "South Vietnam" was Cochin-China (with capital Saigon): these had no mutual borders, then in between was Annam. The population was completely different, to a large degree not only ethnically, but also because of different religions.



If you are suggesting that a Pakistani "ran" or "led" the Afghan war one could assume that by supplying the Vietnamese also gave the Chinese and Russians power and influence too. It would certainly suit them for Asia to be red... as much as it would suit the US for it to be red, white and blue.The Russians and Chinese were supplying weapons, equipment and training to the Vietnamese, but were in no position to tell them: your next operation will be executed as follows... That stood in sole responsibility of Ho-Chi-Minh - and, of course, certain Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.

Consequently, we're talking here about two completely different types of relations and power organization.



But, there was no US influence - not even interest - in Afghanistan in the 1970s. So, who was "soured by a rival superpower" there?
So the CIA didn't spend a cent in Afghanistan to support opposition groups opposed to the relationship with the soviets? That would probably make it the only country friendly to the soviets in the entire world where the CIA didn't do that. Amazing. OK, the CIA spent a nickel in Afghanistan in the 1970s - or was it two? Can you specify where? Who got these two nickels? Which so mightly influential member of the Afghan government was on the CIA's payroll that a whole invasion of the USSR was needed in order to remove him?



And, who was the invader?
That is the question. Why is that a question? Did the USSR invade Afghanistan in 1979 or not? Wasn't the government in Kabul supported by the USSR?



And, why did the USSR then invade first of all?

That is the main question I have been asking. It really is the key to deciding what the objectives were, whether they were achieved, and therefore enable the whole operation to be judged successful, or failure, or partially successful etc etc.Well, if they invaded in order to bring the country under control in the face of riots and a civil war in 1978-1978, then they failed: the civil war was not only continued, but it intensified to a degree where by 1986 Pakistan was sending Afghan Mujaheddins to conduct acts of sabotage inside the USSR. Furthermore, the civil war went completely out of control even before the Soviets pulled out (not to talk afterwards).

If they invaded in order to stop the spread of militant Islamism into Soviet Central Asia they failed too, because two years after their withdrawal Sharia was introduced as martial law in the country, and three years after the Soviet pull-out the Islamists climbed to power even in Tajikistan (and are ever since still controlling something like 50% of that country), while subsequently they also caused the war in Chechenya, inside what is considered as "Russia". Consequently, the spread of militarnt Islamism was not stopped.

If they invaded in order to solely control the cities and communications in Afghanistan, then they succeeded only partially. Then, even during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan only cities were under their control - and even this wasn't anything like "firm" control, otherwise the Hezb-e-Islami wouldn't contol half Kabul by night, Mohaz Melli Islami wouldn't be able to do the same in Wardak, Jbeh Milli Nejad couldn't do so in Jalalabad etc... Besides, the Soviet supply convoys wouldn't have been attacked. And, in the end, as soon as the Soviets have left the country collapsed into what was effectivelly an anarchy, without a clear law or order, without a unified military and police, even without a proper government. Consequently, at best, it could be said the Soviets remained in partial control while they were there; in the end, they've lost then Afghanistan today is not under their - or even Russian - control.



Besides, South Vietnam also did not get defeated until the USA decreased the amount of aid - i.e. completely stopped delivery of arms and supplies - either. And, just like Tajikistan came under the rule of Islamists, in 1992, so also Laos, Cambodia etc. came under the Communist rule after the US pull-out. Consequently, the conflicts in SEA and that in Afghanistan have - essentially - very similar flows.
Except that the US went into Vietnam with the clear identified goal of stopping the spread of communism in SEA in general but specifically in Vietnam. Agreed.


The question remains why the soviets went into afghanistan. Suggesting they were there to stop the spread of islam is rediculous if you are going to support that with what incident that got them in there in the first place. I say it was CIA interference and therefore it was an attempt to stop US influence in the back door of the SU. OK. Let's say it was the "US influence". What kind of evidence can you offer for this "US influence" in Afghanistan?

Can you support this thesis by anything?


If that is the case then they certainly succeded according to your comments about the US having nothing to do with anything and being completely innocent. If there was no US influence and the USA had absolutely nothing to do with AFghanistan in the 1970s, but the USSR invaded Afghanistan becuse of US influence there, then there was no point in USSR invading first of all...



So, how comes that people explain Vietnam for a war "the USA have lost", while simultaneously explaining that the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan then?
When did I say the Soviets won? Please include the complete quote as I think you will find the paragraphs start with something along the lines of "assuming x is the case, then we can logicially deduce that...", or "...for them to have lost you would have to prove they didn't achieve their goals, and therefore have to define in black and white what those goals were..." I said "people", not you, Gaz.



"Democracy"? In Tajikistan?
I didn't mean democracy suddenly came into effect in each member state of the former Soviet Union. What I mean is that when central control of those countries disappeared they had to start again by creating a government system. Russia didn't go around and impose a government on them... they chose it themselves.Sorry, I strongly disagree with any statement about there being no Russian meddling into the organization of power in countries that became independent after the dissolution of the USSR. How else would you explain the situation in - Moldova (half of which is still occupied by what was left of the 14th Soviet Army), in Tajikistan (where there was a direct Russian military intervention), Georgia (where the Russians not only secured Abkhasian claims but also ethnically cleansend something like 70% of the pupulation - i.e. all the Georgians - out of Abkhasia), or in Azerbaijan, where the Russians activelly supported Armenia during the war for Nagorny Karabakh?


I never meant it was a democratic process in the sense that each individual voted for anything. Just that each country decided for itself what it wanted to become... decided by the majority or by a minority with power. - with Russian support "as required", or decided by Yeltsin... p-)



So what? Does this mean it wasn't Vietnam which controlled Laos after 1975? It wasn't Vietnam which - with extensive Soviet support - invaded Cambodia in 1979? It wasn't Vietnam which was supporting Communist insurgency in Thailand, in the 1980s?

Without US intervention how much Soviet and Chinese intervention would there have been? The Soviets and the Chinese were supporting the Vietnamese already during the war against the French. I explained above that the Viet Minh was organized in China already in 1941. So, how can you make a US intervention responsible for the spread of Communsm in SEA?


Are you suggesting that Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam? Where have I done anything of that kind?

Of course they all became involved, but because of North Vietnamese.

Laos was under a king after the French have left - and there was peace until Pathet Lao was formed under North Vietnamese supervision and, together with North Vietnamese troops, started a war against the royalists and others. This resulted in the US involvement on the government's side.

Cambodia was under a king after the French have left - and there was peace until the North Vietnamese started using Cambodian soil as transit grounds for supplies for Viet Cong in South Vietnam. This brought the South Vietnamese and the US troops into the country in response.

Thailand was under a king too - but too far from Vietnam for this to do anything more but support local communist insurgency, and even that only after Vietnam invaded Cambodia, in 1979.



Aha... So, let me see if I understand you correctly: the USA first bombed Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese then started building the Ho-Chi-Minh Trail over these two countries? And, this Vietnamese enterprise was NOT launched in order to support the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam...?

Would the supply lines through Laos and Cambodia have been necessary without US participation in this war? Would SV airpower have been so powerful as to require that? The US troops were not present in South Vietnam before the Viet Cong. Stating anything else is nonsence. The first US troops were deployed into South Vietnam in order to support the local government in war against the Viet Cong.

Consequently was the Ho-Chi-Minh trail originally built to establish a supply line for the Viet Cong, not to counter the US intervention.

In fact, according to the pace treaty from 1954, the North Vietnam was NOT to meddle into South Vietnam, not to meddle into matters of Laos, Cambodia or anybody else. If there were no North Vietnamese pretentions for hegemony in the whole SEA, then why the North Vietnamese involvement in Laos, why in Cambodia, why support for insurgents in Thailand?

Please, don't tell me this all happened because of the US intervention: it did not. The US intervention in serious began only in 1960. By the time the North Vietnamese were already active in the whole SEA...



Lokos thinks that as well.

That comes from people talking about a book they never read.


I am not going by what the book says... but by what you say. First you say he has direct control of every individual operation and was masterminding the whole operation against the Soviets, and then you say there was disunity between the Muj commanders. Well that last fact is well known and is still a big issue today, so how can the first fact be true? You'll excuse me for I do not understand why is this relation so problematic to understand for you (and quite a few others here) - except you reject it simply because you don't like the idea of the Mujaheddin being - effectivelly - under professional military supervision during the war against the USSR?

Try to understand:

Under their own commanders alone, the Mujaheddin were disunited and each fighting for himself. As such, they could never be effective against the Soviet Army. In fact, even against the DRA their effectiveness was - optimistically expressed - "limited", at best.

Yousaf was in a unique situation to have something with which he could exercise pressure on every single Mujaheddin commander: supply of weapons, ammo and equipment. That's what he used. He, essentially, put the Mujaheddin under his/ISI control, blackmailing them to attack at specific Soviet and DRA points, bases, supply lines etc. in exchange for arms and supplies.

Consequently, they ended doing what he required from them - not all the times, but often enough for their operations to become a very serious threat for the Soviet control of Afghanistan.

That means that he was in control of the military aspects of the war vaged by the Mujaheddin against the Soviet invaders and the marionette regime in Kabul.



Arabs do support the Pakistanis - until today. And, this because the majority of Pakistanis are supporters of extreme Islamism, and because the Pakistani establishment supports the extremist/terrorist groups that are going to different countries and attempting to spread Islamist insurgency there.
But Pakistan is a good friend to the US in its war on terror... So what?

Pakistan is a major exporter of terrorism. That is a fact. Nevertheless - according to present US establishment - Pakistan is now a major non-NATO ally in the fight against terrorism. That is an official US position, or, in the words of one famous former US president, "they are SoBs, but they are our SoBs.

I guess it should be obvious that different political leaders present different visions of what they perceived as the state of international relations - usually because it is a common theme among foreign policy-makers to sterotype the world in terms of boggymen, friends and neighbours. Black or white. As, according to George W. Bush Jr. there is only "black/evil" and "white/good", and the Pakistani government tollerates the basing of US troops on its soil, Pakistan "cannot" be "black/evil", because it is "white/good".

If Quasy Bush would be intelligent and realistic enough to understand that most of the World is actually "grey", he'd have to admit that his politics is leading nowhere, then he makes friends with supporters of terrorism to fight his "anti-terror" war against "other" (i.e. wrong) terrorists, just not against those who really matter.

Would this be the first time that reality is distorted for the sake of expediency and political correctness?



However, at THAT TIME it was no "US surrogate":
So the Pakistan AF was not equipped and trained by the US? Yes, it was. The question is, however: during which period of time?

The USA imposed an embargo on arms exports to Pakistan already in 1965. That's why Pakistan got no replacement for its Starfighters and Sabres lost in that war (well, at least not from the USA). In 1971 the PAF went into the war against India still flying - essentially - the same main types like in 1965.


Chuck Yeagar had nothing to do with Pakistan? Yeager was a millitary attache in Islamabad at the time. Does this mean that the USA were supporting Pakistan during that war?

Or, let me ask this a different way, for you to better understand: the USSR had a military attache in Washington during the whole Cold War. Does this means the USSR was supporting the USA and selling arms to them during the Cold War?


Soviet influence in India didn't create a US interest in arming India's enemy in the region? Soviets were never "influential" in India.

You are, to a degree, right in indicating that the USA believed that India was "influenced by the USSR", but such positon - even if widespread in the USA until today - is just a pile of Cold War-BS. India was running its own politics, and was also ready to pay the price for doing so. That's why India also never bancrupted - like all the other Soviet allies - but remained a democracy since 1948.

Besides, who said the USA were never supporting India or selling arms to it? Don't you know what was the main transport aircraft of the IAF during the 1960s?



Consequently, you can't say that the Taliban were financed by the USA.
The purpose of the CIA is deniability. The purpose of the CIA is not "deniabiltiy", but gethering of intelligence and clandestine operations.

It's the purpose of CIA front-companies that is "deniability".

However, I don't know about any kind of operations by CIA front-companies in Afghanistan of the 1970s. So, unless you can provide any kind of serious evidence....



Aha. And, how cames Taloqan - the "capital" of NC/UF - fell in the year 2000? How comes by September 2001 the Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan?
So what? 1993-2000 is quite some time... how long did it take 120,000 soviet conscripts to take over the towns and cities? Come on Gaz, you're attempting to compare a militay created from pupils of Pakistani madrasses with the Soviet Army?

Well, perhaps the (lack) of discipline is similar, but otherwise... sigh... is this your explanation for how could few thousands of religious students defeat battle-hardened Mujaheddin on the battlefield?



And, if you'd know to make difference between the 19 different Afghan resistance groups, and their 30 or so leaders, you'd also know why was Masood nevertheless still so much successful.
Currently not so successful... currently dead. I sthis denying my conclusion?



- What little of original Soviet military reports about different wars was released to the public so war is usually of extremely poor quality, strongly biased, and politically coloured (for example, see above; if even stronger examples are needed, let me know).

- Aside from such "sources" like mentioned above, and except they write about technical issues, main-stream Russian/Ukrainian military-related reporters (V. Babich, Y. Gordon, D. Komissarov just for example) are largely basing their work on Western mainstream reports of dubious quality, hand-picking excerpts from these that suit their own "taste".
I guess those who were actually there at the time can't write?
Have you ever seen any of such reports so to be able to reasonably discuss their quality?

I'm asking this because I have one of these reports in my hands, and it really speaks nothing good about the ability of those "who were there" to describe what happened...

Your turn...



Sorry, but I do not see where should i have been putting words into your mouth.

When you describe what I said and then offer an example as it if were my example then you are putting words in my mouth. So, when you explain that Hekmatyar was "supported by Iran", I deny this and provide evidence of the contrary, that's "putting words in you mouth"?



Oh, really?

So, how comes that Abdul-Rashid Dostum was bribed by the Soviets already in 1987 so to keep the whole garrison in Mazar-e-Sharif - including a better part of the DRAAF - fighting on their side?

Where do such well-supplied Afghan "warlords" and their "militias" come from, so to have up to 60.000 men and 100 combat aircraft and helicopters under their command?

Please, excuse me, but except if richdom broke out in Afghanistan during the last night, you'll have to explain me quite something to change my opinion... I just haven't heard any kind of news supporting indications that there are any such kind of sources in that country, that would enable anybody to run whole armies for such extended periods of times...

Reread my comments in the context that they were fully based on SARCASM. Even platoon leaders negotiated local truces with mountain villages by providing food and blankets in the winter. Agreements to help one village continue its feud with a neighbouring village for the price of a ceasefire or intelligence was also common. Not that such ceasefires were always adhered to. OK. So, as you admit yourself, that was the way of doing it.

In that case, I'm right in concluding that the USA are better in bribing the Afghans than either the Taliban or the Soviets were...



Would you be so kind to repeat this: there was "Scorched Earth" politics of the Soviets in Afghanistan - after all?

In villages found to have freely supported guerrilla groups that had inflicted harm on Soviet troops the result was to economically destroy the village by destroying their crops and buildings. This was to drain the swamp so to speak. ( ie a guerilla must move around and plan operations and rarely has the spare time to aquire the bare essentials of life for themselves let alone weapons and ammo to continue the rebellion. This means they need local support.. either freely given or taken by force (ie banditry). Cutting off local support and creating enough fear in the locals to stop them providing support can make the rebels resort to banditry which can reduce their local support and lead to them moving elsewhere or being reported... in any case it makes the job of resistance forces harder, but also turns local opinion against your forces... of course if they are already operating actively agaisnt you then you have nothing to lose (or win)) Very nice, thanks for this explanation.

Now that we agreed about this, would you mind me asking if you can guarantee that in no such operations was there any mass-murder of Afghanistani civilians by the Soviet troops - as described in several different and independent sources? Would you really say that all the 2 million or so Afghans killed during the times of Soviet military presence in Afghanistan of the 1980s were indeed "Mujaheddin"?



Consequently, if you would cite it here, I'd ask you for explanations, but never come to the idea to criticise you: after all, it wasn't you who wrote it...

And who is criticising you for the contents of the books you quote from?Perhaps that was not the best formulation (even if I wonder how you missed several of my corresponding statements): certainly, I wouldn't ever come to the idea to criticise that book, nor you for reading it - especially because I never read it.

Otherwise, regarding your question who is criticisng me for the contents of the books I quote from: do I need now to re-post/qute all the Lokos' unsubstantiated attacks against my person and for citing that book, as well against that book (which he never read), or Sergey's support for him?



I just can't understand why is it so problematic to accept the fact that one can't comment about something he's clueless about?
But we are not clueless about this person. Do you know Ahmad Yousaf personally? Ever had any kind of direct interaction with him?

Sorry, Gaz, but you don't even understand what was his position in regards of that war, but you say you are not "clueless" abou thim.


We kow their and role in the subject of the book in question and from the excerpts I think it is pretty clear that positive things are written about, but negative things seem to be ignored or glossed over. That book has what - some 240 pages. I cited less than one, but you - and Lokos and Sergey - all "know" what is this book about, how "biased" to USSR it is? And, you all know this by stubbornly refusing to understand even the essence of Yousaf's position and function in relation to that war?



I suppose then that Hitler would be an authorative figure on the Wehrmacht, and a totally unbiased one, because he only directed the war effort, instead of field command, right? Coop, your arguments are a joke - and a bad joke at that.


And he wasn't German... he was Austrian so therefore completely unbiased.
... And the Pakistani orchestrator of Mujahideen efforts somehow juxtaposes Soviet 'extremely poor quality, strongly biased and politically colored' reporting with his own, eh? You have to be under the influence. That is the only explanation for this kind of rubbish. That, or you are utterly devoid of sense. That also means that we cannot consider Yefim Gordon as an authoritative source on MiGs, Sukhois or other Soviet-built aircraft, then he never flew them as a pilot in combat. We cannot, however, also consider for "authoritative" any accounts from pilots who did, then they were participants and - thus (according to Lokos) - also "biased".

Let me see if I've got this right: we cannot consider as "authoritative source" about Afghanistan anybody else but those you consider as authoritative, right?

OK, no problem. Just, what are your sources, Gaz?



I have never stated that the Soviets did not committ what can be considered war crimes in Afghanistan.
Except it wasn't anything the US didn't do in Vietnam... or their south vietnam allies did for them. So, the US - or, better said: North and South Vietnamese - war crimes in Vietnam, are the reasons or excuse for Serbian war crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, and Soviet war crimes in Afghanistan...? :roll:

Ah, well, whatever... As said before: I'll stop considering (just few examples) Sadat as an authoritative source on Egypt, and I'll not consider Gorbachev for an authoritative source on the USSR any more. I have also promised to burn all the books and magazines in my possession that contain narratives or were written by participants of some conflict; they are all clearly biased and not relevant for any serious - sorry: academic - historian; as well as to buy only books published by "professional", non-involved and neutral historians, who wrote their books while sitting in some office at least 15.000km away, and have created their works by copy-pasting copy-pasted information from footnotes in copy-pasted works.

Heck, I did everything Lokos, Sergey and you demanded from me. I did not care that I had to do this because few anonymous people on some internet forum think that eyewitness and participant accounts are of no serious historical value.

But, you still don't like me? You don't like my standpoints (all of which were so far supported by evidence), nor my conclusions, and criticise me for citing from a book "Afghanistan; the Bear Trap"? :(

Caugh... I can't keep myself back any more rofl rofl rofl rofl

[hist2004]

Excerpt from an article:

Mr Inyadullah, 35, said: "The Americans would be easier to defeat than the
Russians. The Americans lead lavish lives and they are afraid of death. We
are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."By
contrast, the former fighters had a wary respect for Russian soldiers,
especially those from the Spetsnaz special forces. Ali Amjud, 40, paid
tribute to the prowess of the invaders he had fought from the first to
the last day of the 10 year conflict. "The Russians were very brave and
they were used to mountain warfare. The Spetsnaz were very dangerous,
they climbed mountains like goats."

On one occasion, Mr Amjud awoke to find his mountainside encampment
under night attack from a Spetsnaz force. He escaped after six hours of
hand to hand fighting. A few months later, when his group ambushed a
Soviet armoured column in the Noor Pass, he was hit by splinters from a
tank shell and seriously wounded.

source:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/24/wbin124.xml

Regards,
Hist2004

[Coop]

Well, not that I'd be defending anybody here, but being afraid of death is nothing wrong in combat: it keeps senses awake, and - if the fear is held under control - helps you obtain better situational awareness.

In fact, I do not see any really good reason to die for any country, religion, or idea on this planet: I prefer letting enemies do that.

[Lokos]

Coop, you have a wonderfully selective vision.

See, when I asked you to show the credibility of your 'authorative source' in terms of documentation, sourcing, archival evidence and other forms of proof, your answer was nowhere to be seen.

When I asked why should this author's anecdotal 'analysis' be considered any more worthy than Manstein's, Guderian's, Zhukov's or Konev's you were silent.

Seeing as that was the width and breadth of what I wanted from you in this thread, it begs the question:

Where, exactly, have you done what I've asked you to do here?

You've certainly posted reams of crap - I can't fault you there. But finding something pertinent from you in this mess of a thread is not a job for mere mortal such as myself.

And that idiotic comment regarding a direct relative comparison between Soviet and Mujahideen/Taliban discipline... Care to back it up? Or did that one plop out of your ass, as so many other gems have?

Lokos

[Coop]

Let me see, Lokos,
you are the person that said,
"Coop, the day I need information about something from you is the day I start consulting blind men about the wonders of Van Gogh's work."?

- but is now asking me again for specific information(s)?

[Lokos]

Okay, let's for a second say I retract that statement. Answer my questions, amigo.

Lokos

[Coop]

Either you retract that statement or not: "for a second" will not do.

If you want anything from me, then you can forget BS of that kind: I'm not some idiot you can play with as you like.


And, I'm not your "amigo".

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

If you think that Mohammad Yousaf is an objective source, maybe you should go take a look at some of his other writing (http://www.afghanbooks.com/editorial/04.htm). Apparently "The Zionist controlled media," in league with the CIA, is out to poison Russia with drugs and smear the Taliban's spotless reputation! Talk about biting the hand that fed you... He also seems to be convinced that the CIA assasinated his beloved General Akhtar.

If you are somehow convinced that half of Tajikistan is now overrun by Muslim fanatics, then please explain why their government and Russia decided to start phasing out Russian border patrol officers this year, and 2004 saw a marked decrease in border violations and ceasures. Could it be because the Americans gave the noble and law-abiding (smuggle drugs - why never!) Northern Alliance thugs something else to do other than grow poppy?

[GazB]

Sorry, I strongly disagree with any statement about there being no Russian meddling into the organization of power in countries that became independent after the dissolution of the USSR.

Except that my statement was:


Russia didn't go around and impose a government on them...

Not that Russia let everyone of its neighbours decide in a free and fair election process... blah blah blah...


- with Russian support "as required", or decided by Yeltsin...

Most countries have an interest in their neighbours choices of government. Many countries also have an interest in affecting the outcomes of such changes if they promise to be quite radical... hense Germany supporting known Russian communists during WWI and the UK and US and Japan supporting those who opposed communism in Russia regardless of whether their policies were any better or worse for the Russian people.


So, how can you make a US intervention responsible for the spread of Communsm in SEA?


You have clearly demonstrated that the so called communist expansion was actually a liberation of indochina... a bit like naming all of the Arab and other middle east countries that were constructs of western powers and made no turn or deviation based on culture or the peoples actually present on the ground and then calling someone trying to reclaim what could have been a real country as being an invader. For example restoring Kurdistan would involve invading both Turkey, Iran and northern Iraq and taking land. If the people in those regiond were Kurdish to begin with then a western intervention to stop it would actually oppose what the west normally supports... ie independance for oppressed minorities.


The US troops were not present in South Vietnam before the Viet Cong. Stating anything else is nonsence. The first US troops were deployed into South Vietnam in order to support the local government in war against the Viet Cong.


You seem to think I was trying to say that the US created the VC. Obviously the VC were fighting the French so that could not be the case. What I meant was that the supply lines through foreign countries were created to avoid air attacks from powerful countries. South Vietnam is not a powerful country. France and the US are.


Yeager was a millitary attache in Islamabad at the time. Does this mean that the USA were supporting Pakistan during that war?


So Yeager had nothing to do with training Pakistani jet pilots?


So, when you explain that Hekmatyar was "supported by Iran", I deny this and provide evidence of the contrary, that's "putting words in you mouth"?


Now you are just being stupid.


In that case, I'm right in concluding that the USA are better in bribing the Afghans than either the Taliban or the Soviets were...


No. They might offer more money, but the Muj never continued these ceasefires longer than it suited them. Unless the US forces realise this and appreciate this their actions when they are double crossed may make them less effective than the Soviets or Taliban. The US's record in understanding those they are going in to help is not that great.


any mass-murder of Afghanistani civilians by the Soviet troops - as described in several different and independent sources?

There might have been a few Mi-Lai type massacres, I haven't read about any insances myself but i don't discount it. In a guerilla war there will always be what the US likes to call collateral damage, and often cases of if we kill them then they were the bad guys.


Would you really say that all the 2 million or so Afghans killed during the times of Soviet military presence in Afghanistan of the 1980s were indeed "Mujaheddin"?

No more than you could say that the millions of Vietnamese or Iraqs killed were VC/NVA or republican guard.


So, the US - or, better said: North and South Vietnamese - war crimes in Vietnam, are the reasons or excuse for Serbian war crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, and Soviet war crimes in Afghanistan...?

No, more of a case that in such a friendly war like the removal of a dictator in Iraq there were war crimes commited by both sides... why should the war in Afghanistan... or Bosnia, or Vietnam or Chechnia be any different?


I have also promised to burn all the books and magazines in my possession that contain narratives or were written by participants of some conflict;

Yes, book burning... you have read Mein Kampf... :-)


Heck, I did everything Lokos, Sergey and you demanded from me. I did not care that I had to do this because few anonymous people on some internet forum think that eyewitness and participant accounts are of no serious historical value.

This Pakistani chap you keep blabbing on about that seems to have the only unbiased view of the war in Afghanistan does not hold the key on the unbiased truth for the region during the period of the Soviet intervention. He tells part of the story... not a part of the story I am interested in for sure, but a part non-the-less. If you find his information interesting by all means read it, cherish it, preach it where you can. But considering his lot screwed the Afghans longer and harder than the Soviets ever did please understand if I don't share your esteem for the man.

[Coop]

If you think that Mohammad Yousaf is an objective source, maybe you should go take a look at some of his other writing. Apparently "The Zionist controlled media," in league with the CIA, is out to poison Russia with drugs and smear the Taliban's spotless reputation! Talk about biting the hand that fed you... He also seems to be convinced that the CIA assasinated his beloved General Akhtar.
Oh, good morning! "All of a sudden", somebody who actually read Yousaf, finds out he's writting things nobody likes - and this "nobody" includes not only the Pakistani establishment, but also the Americans, Israelis, Russians, different Afghan warlords etc....


If you are somehow convinced that half of Tajikistan is now overrun by Muslim fanatics, then please explain why their government and Russia decided to start phasing out Russian border patrol officers this year, and 2004 saw a marked decrease in border violations and ceasures. If you'd have any kind of clue about Tajikistan, you'd know that it's the only battlefield in the former USSR where there is any kind of reconcilliation between the involved fractions.

Hardly surprising that this comes from the fact that the local post-Communist government realized it couldn't win, and Moscow stopped meddling....making possible not only a number of UTO members (United Tajik Opposition) to be taken into government, but also the pull-out of Russian troops.... But, in order to know about this, one would have to read about that conflict too...


Russia didn't go around and impose a government on them... Yes, I know that this is your statement, and that's why I said that Russia very much did go around and was imposing governments to former USSR republics.


Not that Russia let everyone of its neighbours decide in a free and fair election process... blah blah blah... That's really some blah, blah... Can you point at any elections in the former USSR-republics described as "free & fair" by OSCE observers?


Most countries have an interest in their neighbours choices of government. Many countries also have an interest in affecting the outcomes of such changes if they promise to be quite radical... hense Germany supporting known Russian communists during WWI and the UK and US and Japan supporting those who opposed communism in Russia regardless of whether their policies were any better or worse for the Russian people. Yeah...and this should be a denial of my statement?

You can't even admit that Russia explains that there is no way Chechenya to separate, while simultaneously supporting separatists in Abkhasia (this after ethnically cleansing something like 50% of the population, all of which was Georgian), and even changing own laws so to enable such countries to join the Russian Federation, but want to explain me here about "logical" Russian behaviour....


You have clearly demonstrated that the so called communist expansion was actually a liberation of indochina... Never denied that - at least initially - this was an anti-colonial war. However, the moment North Vietnam started meddling in Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam, it was nothing else but a fight for Vietnamese hegemony in whole SEA. By "accident", these "liberators" were Communists - and this caused an US intervention, not the other way around as you attempt to explain.


... a bit like naming all of the Arab and other middle east countries that were constructs of western powers and made no turn or deviation based on culture or the peoples actually present on the ground and then calling someone trying to reclaim what could have been a real country as being an invader. For example restoring Kurdistan would involve invading both Turkey, Iran and northern Iraq and taking land. Kurdistan never ever existed as an independent country. Consequently, this example of yours makes absolutely no sence.


If the people in those regiond were Kurdish to begin with then a western intervention to stop it would actually oppose what the west normally supports... ie independance for oppressed minorities. Well, I'm not supporting the Western politics: if you check the thread about Iran futher bellow you'll find me under a severe attack from several sides for criticising the US and Israeli politics.

What I'm attempting to do here is to get you to understand what was actually going on in specific wars - especially in Afghanistan, about which you appear to be wrongly informed.


You seem to think I was trying to say that the US created the VC. Obviously the VC were fighting the French so that could not be the case. What I meant was that the supply lines through foreign countries were created to avoid air attacks from powerful countries. South Vietnam is not a powerful country. France and the US are. No. You are stating - several times already - that the North Vietnamese interventions in Laos and Cambodia came in response to the US intervention in South Vietnam.

I state - and I can confirm this by as much evidence as you like - that the USA only became involved after the Vietnamese were already knee-deep involved in Laos, in Cambodia, and in South Vietnam.


So Yeager had nothing to do with training Pakistani jet pilots? What is the job of an Air Attache accredited to a foreign country?


Now you are just being stupid. You said I'm, "putting words in your mouth": if I did so, then provide evidence.

If you can't provide any evidence, then you can only call yourself stupid for stating calling me stupid.

Then, after all, it's really stupid to call somebody stupid for your own mistakes...



In that case, I'm right in concluding that the USA are better in bribing the Afghans than either the Taliban or the Soviets were... No. They might offer more money, but the Muj never continued these ceasefires longer than it suited them. Unless the US forces realise this and appreciate this their actions when they are double crossed may make them less effective than the Soviets or Taliban. The US's record in understanding those they are going in to help is not that great. Very nice - but no confirmation that I'm wrong with my conclusion.

Right now the NATO-led UN-peacekeepers in Afghanistan are widening zones under their control well outside Kabul, while simultaneously preventing bloodsheed between different warlords. Effectivelly, this means they are doing quite good.

As about US actions being "less effective" that those of the Soviets: wait and see...


There might have been a few Mi-Lai type massacres, I haven't read about any insances myself but i don't discount it. In a guerilla war there will always be what the US likes to call collateral damage, and often cases of if we kill them then they were the bad guys. Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- at first there was fierce denial of this even being possible from several people in this thread; author of a book detailing one such case was called names, and I'm being attacked here all the time for citing some excerpts of work from that author;

- then there is admission that something of this kind was possible;

- now you say there were such cases, but explain them by what the USA were doing in Vietnam?

That should be an excuse for Soviet deeds in Afghanistan, and an explanation for how it came that 2 million of people (largely civilians) were killed in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989?



Would you really say that all the 2 million or so Afghans killed during the times of Soviet military presence in Afghanistan of the 1980s were indeed "Mujaheddin"?
No more than you could say that the millions of Vietnamese or Iraqs killed were VC/NVA or republican guard. I never said anything of this kind, so what you're doing is putting words into my mouth.

Therefore, I apparently have to repeat my question: Would you really say that all the 2 million or so Afghans killed during the times of Soviet military presence in Afghanistan of the 1980s were indeed "Mujaheddin"?


No, more of a case that in such a friendly war like the removal of a dictator in Iraq there were war crimes commited by both sides... why should the war in Afghanistan... or Bosnia, or Vietnam or Chechnia be any different? Because the US troops never ethnically cleansed anybody, just for example...


This Pakistani chap you keep blabbing on about that seems to have the only unbiased view of the war in Afghanistan... Can you cite any sentence of mine where I stated that:
- a) Yousaf is "unbiased", and
- b) Yousaf has the only unbiased view of the war in Afghanistan?


....does not hold the key on the unbiased truth for the region during the period of the Soviet intervention. He tells part of the story... not a part of the story I am interested in for sure, but a part non-the-less. Have you read "Afghanistan: the Bear Trap", so to be actually able to say which part of the story Yousaf explains?


If you find his information interesting by all means read it, cherish it, preach it where you can. But considering his lot screwed the Afghans longer and harder than the Soviets ever did please understand if I don't share your esteem for the man. Have I anywhere ever "cherished" or "preached" Yousaf?

I.e. why are you now (again) putting words into my mouth - instead of returning to earlier posts in this thread and checking what exactly did I say?

[Lokos]

Way to artfully dodge the questions again, Coop.

No, I think we'll stick to 'for a second'. And I think I've been playing around with you throughout this thread - you're just too thick to see it. But don't worry, everyone else does, and that's what's truly important here, right?

Regards,
Lokos

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

"But, in order to know about this, one would have to read about that conflict too..."

Yes, you should probably go do that. And then talk to the actual people that have lived and fought there. That is if you find the time between composing 4-page long rants devoid of thought or content.

[Coop]

No need to explain me about things you should do, "Suvorov": then, despite suggesting you "talked to the actual people that have lived and fought" there, you still don't know that - eventually - Tajikistan remained separated until the post-Communist government, brought in power with help of the Russian military that reacted to Islamists climbing to power, in 1992, concluded it couldn't win, and agreed on a cease-fire....

Which, in turn, means that Moscow did not manage to stop the spread of Islamism into former USSR-republics, which was - just for your information - a conclusion that led to this part of discussion....

Of course, this doesn't mean Moscow never stopped trying this: one just needs to take a look at Chechnya and Dagestan....

So, now feel free to come back with some more offense and bragging: that should make you feel better for the next 24 hours or so...

[GazB]

That's really some blah, blah... Can you point at any elections in the former USSR-republics described as "free & fair" by OSCE observers?

What would OSCE know about free and fair?


Never denied that - at least initially - this was an anti-colonial war. However, the moment North Vietnam started meddling in Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam, it was nothing else but a fight for Vietnamese hegemony in whole SEA.

Lines on a map... who knows where they should really go.

Lines on maps are created and deleted or moved all the time.


Kurdistan never ever existed as an independent country. Consequently, this example of yours makes absolutely no sence.

Never been drawn on a western map as an independant country... but if NATO can create an Albania that is not part of Albania in Kosovo why can't the Kurds do the same.

ie Not so much never been a country... more like sadly misrepresented by map makers all this time...


Well, I'm not supporting the Western politics: if you check the thread about Iran futher bellow you'll find me under a severe attack from several sides for criticising the US and Israeli politics.

Yes, you seem to be a strong supporter of Iran... and of course Kurdistan would annex part of Iran...


No. You are stating - several times already - that the North Vietnamese interventions in Laos and Cambodia came in response to the US intervention in South Vietnam.

I have also repeatedly mentioned that Afghanistan and Vietnam are not comparable except that they are now considered wars rather than countries in some western countries.


What is the job of an Air Attache accredited to a foreign country?

So if that is training pilots how can you compare what he did there with a Soviet official in the US?


You said I'm, "putting words in your mouth": if I did so, then provide evidence.

If you can't provide any evidence, then you can only call yourself stupid for stating calling me stupid.

Then, after all, it's really stupid to call somebody stupid for your own mistakes...



This stands in no relation to the topic at hand. Quite on the contrary: because the 19 main Mujaheddin organizations were mainly based outside the cities they have had no industrial support. So, please, explain me where should they have got all the ammo they used in the 1980s, just for example - if not from Pakistan?

From Afghan Army depots?

Oh, now it's my turn to laugh...


Right now the NATO-led UN-peacekeepers in Afghanistan are widening zones under their control well outside Kabul, while simultaneously preventing bloodsheed between different warlords. Effectivelly, this means they are doing quite good.

What percentage of the country do they occupy?
How long will money be used there... if OBL is found tommorrow the US will be gone the next day.
Plus any preemptive self defence attacks on Iran could make both Afghanistan and Iraq very different types of environments.

GW is dumb enough to try it.


Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- at first there was fierce denial of this even being possible from several people in this thread; author of a book detailing one such case was called names, and I'm being attacked here all the time for citing some excerpts of work from that author;

- then there is admission that something of this kind was possible;

- now you say there were such cases, but explain them by what the USA were doing in Vietnam?

That should be an excuse for Soviet deeds in Afghanistan, and an explanation for how it came that 2 million of people (largely civilians) were killed in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989?


Let me see if I understand this correctly:

You have been attacked? By whom? What sort of weapon did they use or was it a barehanded punch?
First of all the so called denial was a questioning of the validity or potential bias of a writer.
Second the so called admission was from me, and no one else so far so how is that anything of importance?

I could just as easily point out the claim made by some of 400 Soviets killed in a day was then retracted by you and others... suspicious????

Regarding the so called USA did it too... and first explaination is a bit weak too. Pointing out that such isolated incidents of what would now be considered war crimes happened in many places. Your implication that the war in Afghanistan was some sort of Pogrom or holocaust is quite frankly rediculous.

Soviet deed don't need my explaination. Any more than American deeds require yours.


I never said anything of this kind, so what you're doing is putting words into my mouth.


Don't like it do you? So why do you think I should not mention it when you do it to me?


Would you really say that all the 2 million or so Afghans killed during the times of Soviet military presence in Afghanistan of the 1980s were indeed "Mujaheddin"?


As much as every kill in Vietnam by an American trooper was of a VC or NVA.


Because the US troops never ethnically cleansed anybody, just for example...

Never? Ask the American Indians...


Can you cite any sentence of mine where I stated that:
- a) Yousaf is "unbiased", and
- b) Yousaf has the only unbiased view of the war in Afghanistan?

But no Soviet source is credible... I mean they only get their facts from western sources afterall.


Have you read "Afghanistan: the Bear Trap", so to be actually able to say which part of the story Yousaf explains?

I have it sitting on my hard drive in pdf format. Haven't bothered looking at it yet.


Have I anywhere ever "cherished" or "preached" Yousaf?

You cast down those who speak against him... You seem to hold him as the only authoritative source on the whole situation. How should I describe your devotion?


help of the Russian military that reacted to Islamists climbing to power, in 1992

In 1979 what Islamic threat was there to the Soviet Union? If they are so anti islam why is there peace Tajikistan? Why didn't they come to the same conclusion in Chechnia? Perhaps the reality is that unlike the war on terror it has nothing to do with a crusade against muslims but in reality is more about more serious things?

[mwe]

Ah the wonderful "we didn't lose we left" talks on forums to deal with battered national pride stemming from a internatonally known defeat ;) .


It was/is unstable neigbor that serves as a home to various radical muslim groups, terrorist organizations and whose only export are drugs. Would you like to have a neighbor like that?

It was not a terrorist hold out until the Soviet invaded.


The difference between Afghanistan politically and Vietnam politically was that Vietnam was a US crusade to stop the spread of communism though Asia. In stopping communism in Vietnam they failed, and in stopping it spread though Asia... they were wrong... it never happened anyway. Afghanistan on the other hand was a little country that bordered the USSR that the US started interfering with... like they did in neighbouring Iran, and the Soviets went in to install a more friendly government.

Of course they are different. America showed up to deal with a North Vietnamese invasion and Russian went into Afghanistan to try and turn a nation with a history of being nuertal and playing both sides off each other into a ally. And of course North Vietnam was actually trying to control all of Indochina not fight some war of liberation.


Would the supply lines through Laos and Cambodia have been necessary without US participation in this war? Would SV airpower have been so powerful as to require that?

The supply lines had started before the USA showed up. North Vietnam was meddling in Laos since the 1950s. They were trying to basically control the region. Going into Laos not only gave them a presence but allowed them to dodge the DMZ and the ARVN forces there.


So who are these guys like Hekmatyr who lead the Iranian back faction of the Mu

Hekmatyar and the HIA did not get support from Iran but from Pakistan.


Hmmm... Laos... doesn't that country appear in the Guinness book of world records? Something about the worlds most bombed country?

Yes it is the most bombed nation in the world. There was a war there. And North Vietnamese forces were fighting to remove the Laotian government from power and put up their proxy Pathet Lao. And America was not the only nations dropping bombs, Thailand, Laos, the Hmong, South Vietnam and North Vietnam all dropped bombs in Laos.


Just because the Americans like to make out it was there war it actually invovled all the countries of the region... including Australia and New Zealand

Thailand put out an add for volunteers and got swamped by people ready to fight to stop the spread of communism. It was a war which involved most of the nations in the region. Thailand deployed a larger force to the war then Australia and New Zealand. And the Philippines and South Korea sent guys as well. And one canot forget the RLA and FANK. So yeah the war did effect the region as the region was at war.


Yes, I am sure the CIA would like the world to think that. Flip Flopping on policy does get the politicians in a tiz.

American aid was gone. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE backed the Taliban because the HIA failed.


If that was the policy from day 1 then there would be no afghans left outside refugee groups in iran and pakistan. The scorched earth policy only began when the Muj started to get more successful with foreign training, foreign aid, and foreign weapons. The attempt was to force people out of the country into to the towns which the soviets controlled.

Failed policy.


As much as every kill in Vietnam by an American trooper was of a VC or NVA.

So you talk highly about the wonderful Soviet policy of blowing up towns and villages but try and shy away from admiting they killed people by trying to insult the USA?


They controlled anyoine who could read a book. A few angry people in a few villages are an irritation.

A few angry people?


Nobody expected the government to last... and it stopped "lasting" when the Russians drastically cut the budget.

It stopped lasting because Dostum switched sides and took Kabul. The aid was cut but there were still lots of weapons and equipment.


Oh, good morning! "All of a sudden", somebody who actually read Yousaf, finds out he's writting things nobody likes - and this "nobody" includes not only the Pakistani establishment, but also the Americans, Israelis, Russians, different Afghan warlords etc....

Some of what he writes is good, other stuff is word play to watch his own ass.

---
To the orginal point of the topic, it means little.

In 1988 the USSR did not all of a sudden decide to leave. The left in defeat because they simply could not control the nation. When they left the Kabul government was dug into the major towns and cities.

[sergey31]

Soviets did not loose any major battles in Afghanistan...
In 10 years they lost only 15,000
Compared to Vietnam, in about 6 years Americans lost 58,000+
In 1986 Mikhail Gorbachev decided to take troops out and they left by the end of 1989 (nearly four years later).
Mujahadeen could not face Soviets face to face in the battlefield and did what Iraq's so called insurgents are doing right now..... By you logic America already lost Iraq war and if they leave they will definitely loose the war.

This is from "western" biased source and even they state that Soviets were not defeated.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

quote from the article
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.

[mwe]

A defeat is a defeat.


Soviets did not loose any major battles in Afghanistan...

Doesn't matter. And winning and losing is often based on opionin in wars like that.


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

Fighting to a standstill and then the invader left. They won.


Mujahadeen could not face Soviets face to face in the battlefield and did what Iraq's so called insurgents are doing right now..... By you logic America already lost Iraq war and if they leave they will definitely loose the war.

If American leaves and the Sunni guerillas take power then America would have lost. If the Iraqi government keeps power then America would have succeeded.

[sergey31]

A defeat is a defeat.

Defeat is Germany in WW2, Defeat is Japan in WW2, etc, etc.
Defeat is when a military power can't conduct military campaign any longer,when enemy is advancing and other side is running away (retreat) when resourced are depleted, when manpower is exhausted, when there no options but surrender it could be one or all of the above...That is a defeat.
Soviets were not defeated at all, one of the objective in that war was a testing ground for new and experimental weapons.... Russians wanted that kind of war they called it "poligon". It was just what Soviets wanted.


Doesn't matter. And winning and losing is often based on opionin in wars like that.

No it actually matters...... Afghan rebels could not come even close as to what North Vietnamese did in Tet Offensive in 1968.


Fighting to a standstill and then the invader left. They won.

That does not interpret literally..... It's metaphoric. No Mujahadeens could fight stand still, well not until close support shows up then run for the hills where the man hunt began.


If American leaves and the Sunni guerillas take power then America would have lost. If the Iraqi government keeps power then America would have succeeded.

No, when Americans leaves the civil war will begin and by the things are going right now, it does not look as it's getting any better but only worse. So by your ideology America already lost the war because they have to leave sooner or later.

[mwe]

Defeat is when a military power can't conduct military campaign any longer,when enemy is advancing and other side is running away (retreat) when resourced are depleted, when manpower is exhausted, when there no options but surrender it could be one or all of the above...That is a defeat

Israel lost in Lebanon and yet can still wage wars. Hezbollah runs the former secuirty zone, wiped out the SLA and are the last ones standing on the battlefield. But yet Israel can still fight and their economy and nation didn't fall apart after the war like someones ;) .

Russia lost in Afghanistan deal with it and move on.


No it actually matters...... Afghan rebels could not come even close as to what North Vietnamese did in Tet Offensive in 1968.

Doesn't matter.


That does not interpret literally..... It's metaphoric. No Mujahadeens could fight stand still, well not until close support shows up then run for the hills where the man hunt began.

The Mujahideen controlled most of the nation by the time the Soviets left. They were still a combat ready force. And at the end of the day they were the last ones standing as Russia left.


No, when Americans leaves the civil war will begin and by the things are going right now, it does not look as it's getting any better but only worse. So by your ideology America already lost the war because they have to leave sooner or later.

Iraq is not over until it is over. Afghanistan is over. Russia has already lost in Afghanistan. America could still win or lose in Iraq. Time will tell on Iraq, time has already told in Afghanistan and Russia.

If when it comes time to leave Iraq can stand on its own the deal with the Sunnis rebels and reduce them to being nothing more then a crimnal gang (at worst) then America checks off the block in the win column. If the Sunni rebels take control of the nation then it is a check in the loss column.

Who has a crystal ball ;)

[sergey31]

Israel lost in Lebanon and yet can still wage wars. Hezbollah runs the former secuirty zone, wiped out the SLA and are the last ones standing on the battlefield. But yet Israel can still fight and their economy and nation didn't fall apart after the war like someones Wink

Pretty dumb example and not relevant. Russian nations did not fall apart and USSR was not a nation. Learn history...... And it had nothing to do with the Afghan war, it was simply change over and reconstruction of government and realization that Communism was just unachievable dream.


Russia lost in Afghanistan deal with it and move on.

No Soviet Union (not Russia) did not loose the war, I don't need to deal with any of it as it does not affect me one way or the other.
You can move one to what ever you wish I know history better then to accept ridiculous western bitter cold war mentality and version on what happen in Afghanistan.


Doesn't matter.

It does matter....it just simply shows that they were not near of being defeated... with only 4% of it's military force deployed it's amazing that they did what they did.
America deployed 20% to SEA.... They also deployed 60+% to recent Iraq war.
That tells me that USSR's goal was not to capture Afghanistan and control it 100%. otherwise they would deployed more additional forces.
Like I stated, it was simply testing ground for new weapons, tactics and excellent training for special forces.


The Mujahideen controlled most of the nation by the time the Soviets left. They were still a combat ready force. And at the end of the day they were the last ones standing as Russia left.

The Mujahadeens control only their wife's deep inside a cave. They could not collaborate even with each others tribes on military decisions, and often fought each other.
You need to learn some "Afghan Mujahadeens" history during Soviets "occupation"
At the end of the day they were not standing but rather peeking out of caves to see if Mi 24's have disappeared on the horizon..... Yah, Soviets left them a few surprises when leaving Afghanistan.


Iraq is not over until it is over. Afghanistan is over. Russia has already lost in Afghanistan. America could still win or lose in Iraq. Time will tell on Iraq, time has already told in Afghanistan and Russia.

If when it comes time to leave Iraq can stand on its own the deal with the Sunnis rebels and reduce them to being nothing more then a crimnal gang (at worst) then America checks off the block in the win column. If the Sunni rebels take control of the nation then it is a check in the loss column.



The death rate of American service men is almost identical to the one with Soviets in Afghanistan. The Iraq's internal resistance combined outside insurgency and their tactics is too almost identical to what Soviets went trough.....And everything else seems to be going the same route.


Who has a crystal ball
:roll:

[mwe]

Pretty dumb example and not relevant.

Israel lost in Lebanon and was unable to complete their goals the same way the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.


Russian nations did not fall apart and USSR was not a nation. Learn history...... And it had nothing to do with the Afghan war, it was simply change over and reconstruction of government and realization that Communism was just unachievable dream

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:


No Soviet Union (not Russia) did not loose the war, I don't need to deal with any of it as it does not affect me one way or the other.
You can move one to what ever you wish I know history better then to accept ridiculous western bitter cold war mentality and version on what happen in Afghanistan.

It effects you it eats you up ;)

You need to deal with it. The USSR lost. The USSR's goal to control Afghanistan failed and they left, tail between legs, as a defeated army. Check off one in the Soviet's loss column and call it a day ;)


Like I stated, it was simply testing ground for new weapons, tactics and excellent training for special forces.

No it was an attempt to control the nation. It failed, the Soviets lost deal with it. Saying the Soviets were just there to test weapons is a joke. They were there to put and keep up a pro Soviet government and they failed. The USSR lost.


The Mujahadeens control only their wife's deep inside a cave. They could not collaborate even with each others tribes on military decisions, and often fought each other.

Now the Mujahideen actually go figure had control over most of the nation with the USSR/DRA holding cities and towns and struggling to hold open their LOCs. And despite the fact the Mujahideen had an impossible time getting along with each other they were the last men standing and won the war.


The death rate of American service men is almost identical to the one with Soviets in Afghanistan. The Iraq's internal resistance combined outside insurgency and their tactics is too almost identical to what Soviets went trough.....And everything else seems to be going the same route.

All that matters is the outcome. Niether one of us can know the outcome of the current war.

-------
You might do better to blame it on the USA, Pakistan, the UK, China and Saudi Arabia rather then sticking your head in the sand and pretending the USSR did not lose in Afghanistan. I mean at least come up with a better approach ;) .

[sergey31]

Israel lost in Lebanon and was unable to complete their goals the same way the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

Like I mention before.....No correlation what so ever.
Note to mwe:need to come up with better examples by reading military history. TV and only" western" publications is not enough as often it's filled with BS and cold war mentality crap written by imbeciles who watched to many "Iron Eagles", "Red Dawn", "Rambo" movies.


It effects you it eats you up Wink

You need to deal with it. The USSR lost. The USSR's goal to control Afghanistan failed and they left, tail between legs, as a defeated army. Check off one in the Soviet's loss column and call it a day

No, it affects you more then anyone here. I don't need to deal with it. The withdrawal was political one rather then military... Once again read military history and stop repeating yourself as someone who ran out of things to say.....
And where is this check off column?
I just hope it's not in your 9th grade history notepad...... Otherwise you might need to retake that class.


No it was an attempt to control the nation. It failed, the Soviets lost deal with it. Saying the Soviets were just there to test weapons is a joke. They were there to put and keep up a pro Soviet government and they failed. The USSR lost.

Did you read what I wrote?
Does not look like it.... So I'll repeat myself.
If SU wanted to control "the nation" then they would deployed a bit more the 4% of it's military and would not take their sweet ten year time.
It was one of the desired objectives but not the only one and not serious enough one either.


Now the Mujahideen actually go figure had control over most of the nation with the USSR/DRA holding cities and towns and struggling to hold open their LOCs. And despite the fact the Mujahideen had an impossible time getting along with each other they were the last men standing and won the war.

Like I said they controlled their wife's inside the caves and their camels at night rest stops.


You might do better to blame it on the USA, Pakistan, the UK, China and Saudi Arabia rather then sticking your head in the sand and pretending the USSR did not lose in Afghanistan. I mean at least come up with a better approach

I'm not here to blame anyone, I don't care what anyone did to help the mujahadeens (it did them little good if at all). SU did not want Afghanistan and it's ****ty mountains. If Afghanistan was full of oil fields, diamonds and gold.... Do you really think Soviets would have left it alone or spent ten years f***ing around playing find Muji'hadeens in the field game.
Come up with a better approach to what? Your or "western" version of history? Now that is just pathetic...... You need to clear your mindset.

[mwe]

I just hope it's not in your 9th grade history notepad...... Otherwise you might need to retake that class.

I'm not in the 9th grade but I know you are ;)


Once again read military history and stop repeating yourself as someone who ran out of things to say.....

"Repeating yourself as someone who ran out of things to say" - :backhand:

I figure if I keep pointing out the fact it was a defeat you might open your eyes and see that at the end of the day the USSR failed to control Afghanistan and turn it into and keep it a puppet. Plus the Soviets more or less left tail between legs.


need to come up with better examples by reading military history. TV and only" western" publications is not enough as often it's filled with BS and cold war mentality crap written by imbeciles who watched to many "Iron Eagles", "Red Dawn", "Rambo" movies.

Never saw Rambo, Red Dawn or Iron Eagles. Nice try to try and throw things off. But the Soviets did lose in Afghanistan and had to pull out under a cloud of defeat.


And where is this check off column?

:roll:


If SU wanted to control "the nation" then they would deployed a bit more the 4% of it's military and would not take their sweet ten year time.

The Soviets tried to control the nation and failed. And not like they could spare the man power either at the time.

The whole point of the invasion was to make a friendly government and at the end of the day they failed in that goal. Plus they kind of left tail between legs. Thats an overall failure.


Like I said they controlled their wife's inside the caves and their camels at night rest stops.

They controlled most of the country.


I don't care what anyone did to help the mujahadeens (it did them little good if at all).

Didn't hurt them seeing as they won at the end of the day woot .


SU did not want Afghanistan and it's ****ty mountains. If Afghanistan was full of oil fields, diamonds and gold.... Do you really think Soviets would have left it alone or spent ten years f***ing around playing find Muji'hadeens in the field game.

Makes no sense. Well they tried to control the "shiity" mountains and failed to do so. All the weapons they used and money they spent and at the end of the day they lost. And you are trying to say they didn't want it, when they had in the real world tried to put it up as a puppet. They failed and had to leave.


Come up with a better approach to what? Your or "western" version of history? Now that is just pathetic...... You need to clear your mindset.

You are trying to duck the fact the Soviets failed :P .

You can't even say they lost so maybe you need to open your eyes and see the real world :lol: .

I mean come on... :roll:

It is eating you alive inside... ;)

[sergey31]

I'm not in the 9th grade but I know you are

Things begin to make more sense now....


"Repeating yourself as someone who ran out of things to say" - Backhand

I figure if I keep pointing out the fact it was a defeat you might open your eyes and see that at the end of the day the USSR failed to control Afghanistan and turn it into and keep it a puppet. Plus the Soviets more or less left tail between legs.

You do repeat yourself over and over just like some 12 year old kid who ran out of it's mental capacity to come up with new or better material.


Never saw Rambo, Red Dawn or Iron Eagles. Nice try to try and throw things off. But the Soviets did lose in Afghanistan and had to pull out under a cloud of defeat.

Reading comprehension....Did I say you did? You need to pay attention a bit better if you want to make yourself look a little bit more intelligent in which case you already failed.


They controlled most of the country.
This is the way they controlled most of the country.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/Afghanistan2.jpg

And this is what was waiting for them around every corner.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/art.jpg


Didn't hurt them seeing as they won at the end of the day
The Afghan government stayed in power for 3 more years after Soviets left, which go to show that the mujahadeens were no more then a joke to deal with against modern military.


Makes no sense. Well they tried to control the "shiity" mountains and failed to do so. All the weapons they used and money they spent and at the end of the day they lost. And you are trying to say they didn't want it, when they had in the real world tried to put it up as a puppet. They failed and had to leave


Once again kid.... If they really tried to then they would have sent more then 4% of it's military...Wouldn't they?
Money spent? SU did not care about spending cost of war at that time of it's own political turmoil.... Otherwise they would left 3 billion of equipment and aid to the Afghani government.



It is eating you alive inside..

If it's eating anyone inside it'd probably be you, after all you are the one who dug up and resurrected this old tread, so obviously there some issues going on.

Here I'll put more of these faces up....I think you begin to like them the more you post here. :lol: :) :D :lol: :roll: :roll: :P ;) p-) :lol: :lol: :)

[mwe]

You do repeat yourself over and over just like some 12 year old kid who ran out of it's mental capacity to come up with new or better material.

Don't need to come up with "new material" seeing as we are discussing the Soviets failure in Afghanistan. They lost simple as that.


This is the way they controlled most of the country.

And to think the Mujahideen still won in the end ;)

(nice picture by the way did you do it yourself)


The Afghan government stayed in power for 3 more years after Soviets left, which go to show that the mujahadeens were no more then a joke to deal with against modern military.

The communist government was on the defensive for 3 more years before it finally fell to the Mujahideen. But it did fall. The Mujahideen did win.

And that "joke" humbled and outlasted the USSR p-) .


Once again kid.... If they really tried to then they would have sent more then 4% of it's military...Wouldn't they?

Doesn't matter. They deployed forces to control the country and failed to control that nation and left tail between legs. They came, they saw and they failed.


If it's eating anyone inside it'd probably be you,

You have a disconnect because you can't bring yourself to admit the USSR failed in Afghanistan. Is it that hard, or once you do that your national pride will go down the drain and you will turn into a pumpkin :cantbeli: .


after all you are the one who dug up and resurrected this old tread, so obviously there some issues going on.

Wow 5 months old rofl

[sergey31]

Don't need to come up with "new material" seeing as we are discussing the Soviets failure in Afghanistan. They lost simple as that.
There's more to it then Soviets decided one day to leave and they left. Afghanistan was a unpopulated wasteland and perfect for testing new technology like new Mi 24's, brand new Su 25, new guided bombs and rockets (especially highly affective and modified fuel-air bomb/rockets), new SS missiles, training for Spetsnaz, etc etc. It took almost 4 years for USSR to completely withdraw it's forces out of that region. If they ran with "tail between their legs" then it would have happened overnight as that's description of defeated withdrawal.


And to think the Mujahideen still won in the end

(nice picture by the way did you do it yourself)

I don't need to think like some people do, I already know the outcome of their superb fighting actions and how fast sometimes they ran for cover into the caves from Soviet attack aircraft (sometimes not fast enough).
Yes. Not finished yet.... Actual historic event. 1986 Panjir valley, Soviet mop-up operation). I did my research on the war so I can depict my art more accurately and know about the war a bit more then average American Joe.


The communist government was on the defensive for 3 more years before it finally fell to the Mujahideen. But it did fall. The Mujahideen did win.

And that "joke" humbled and outlasted the USSR

Mujahideens were fighting each other rather then Communist government, the pro-Moscow government fell only because Russia (Not USSR anymore) was no longer providing military aid to them like gas, spare parts for machines, ammo, etc.
If USSR still existed to this day, then most likely Afghan government would held power to this day.


Doesn't matter. They deployed forces to control the country and failed to control that nation and left tail between legs. They came, they saw and they failed.

Yes it does matter. Common sense will tell you that if that was their ultimate goal then they would have done it. They had the resources and manpower but not priority and ambition.
They came, they played - Find & catch mujihids in the desert, they got bored and left.



You have a disconnect because you can't bring yourself to admit the USSR failed in Afghanistan. Is it that hard, or once you do that your national pride will go down the drain and you will turn into a pumpkin .


I can't bring myself to swallow western version of history and it's anti Soviet propaganda... What national pride? Soviet Union is no longer, Ukraine was not responsible in invading Afghanistan. Pumpkin? You are defiantly smoking something to much.


Wow 5 months old

People usually post or respond to treads that are recent or fairly new, anyone who goes trough many pages to dig up old tread has some unresolved issues.....And that's just what I see (there could be more to it, like digging another tread that has to do with Soviets AGAIN in Afghanistan using chemical weapons).

[Coop]

A defeat is a defeat.

Defeat is Germany in WW2, Defeat is Japan in WW2, etc, etc.
Defeat is when a military power can't conduct military campaign any longer,when enemy is advancing and other side is running away (retreat) when resourced are depleted, when manpower is exhausted, when there no options but surrender it could be one or all of the above...That is a defeat.
Let's see; according to your own logic:

- "Defeat is when a military power can't conduct military campaign any longer..."

Soviet Union was unable to continue conduction the military campaign in Afghanistan any longer. Of course, this happened for various reasons, but in essence resulted in the Soviet pull-out. Consequently, you gave one reason for a Soviet defeat, while explaining there was none...?

- "...when enemy is advancing and other side is running away (retreat).."

First of all, that's a definition not valid for guerrilla wars. The definition for guerrilla war is that the government and/or outside supporter is not winning as soon or as long as the guerrilla is not losing.

Down on the ground, the guerrilla will always be "running away", and the conventional force "winning" in any such wars. In fact, the experience from such wars like the one fought by French in Algeria teach us that the matter can be even worse, in the sence that the government and/or supporter can even be clearly on the winning side - but still lose the war.

Given that by 1988 the Mujaheddin were actually on advance (of course, their disunity prevented them from taking places like Jalalabad or Qandahar, but the Soviets were not advancing any more), and Soviets in the process of pulling out, the USSR lost that war. Even more so: given that the Mujaheddin remained active and survived on the battlefield, and the Soviets were not there any more, the Soviets have lost - even by your own definition.

- "...when resourced are depleted..."
One of the main reasons for Soviet pull-out was unsustainability of the war. The USSR couldn't afford the war in Afghanistan any more - financially (as a matter of fact, the USSR bancrupted only two years after pulling out of Afghanistan). Consequently, the USSR lost that war - by your own definition.

- "...when there no options but surrender it could be one or all of the above..."
As already compared above, the French were neither out of resources, nor out ouf human power, and certainly far away from surrendering in Algeria. On the contrary: in military sence, they were victorious and that beyond any doubt. Yet, they lost.

Consequently is it either so that your argument is not valid, or the Soviets lost the war in Afghanistan.


Soviets were not defeated at all, one of the objective in that war was a testing ground for new and experimental weapons.... Russians wanted that kind of war they called it "poligon". It was just what Soviets wanted.Oh, yeah, of course.... Brezhnev ordered invasion in order to test obsolete Soviet weapons systems (then all the stuff the 40 Army brought to Afghanistan was already 20-30 years old), and the 40 Army, huh?

I've never heard a more dumb explanation for the Afghanistan War.... What's worst, given what happened in Chechnya, in 1994/95, the Russians obviously learned nothing. Consequently, in the end - by your own definition - they lost again.



Doesn't matter. And winning and losing is often based on opionin in wars like that.

No it actually matters...... Afghan rebels could not come even close as to what North Vietnamese did in Tet Offensive in 1968.And what did the NVs do during the Tet - actually, except holding Hue and some other areas for few weeks, while massacring the local population and at a cost of severe losses?

They won the PR battle, that's all. But, this PR battle was decisive. Just like the Soviet inability to sustain the war in Afghanistan was decisive there....



If American leaves and the Sunni guerillas take power then America would have lost. If the Iraqi government keeps power then America would have succeeded.

No, when Americans leaves the civil war will begin and by the things are going right now, it does not look as it's getting any better but only worse. So by your ideology America already lost the war because they have to leave sooner or later.There is no "ideology" in his statement. Only a logical conclusion that if the USA instal a friendly government in Iraq that can survive without the US military, or if the USA defeat the insurgents, then the USA have won that war. And the other way around.

I could understand that this sounds illogical to many Russians - especially because the majority of them burns to see the USA losing in Iraq, foremost because of their own painful defeats in Afghanistan and Chechnya. But, this is not making you or them right.

Or are you unable of understanding simple logic?

[sergey31]

O.K Cook.....I'm going to post this once since I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over....Apparently some people have very thick heads.
Re-read it twice if you have to before any retarded replies.


Soviet Union was unable to continue conduction the military campaign in Afghanistan any longer. Of course, this happened for various reasons, but in essence resulted in the Soviet pull-out. Consequently, you gave one reason for a Soviet defeat, while explaining there was none...?

USSR was totaly able to continue the war in Afghanistan. Mikhail Gorbachev decided to end it and he tried to make some major changes in Soviet government "perestroika" and that included making Soviet Union a more western friendly empire. He knew that Soviet presence in Afghanistan was a negative point in the U.N and western world view. He knew that overall Soviets did not have a good reason being involved in Afghan war, SO he decided to end it.
ONCE again, the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years. This means they took their time and were not in a rush to hurry up and run because they were on the virtue of defeat.



Given that by 1988 the Mujaheddin were actually on advance (of course, their disunity prevented them from taking places like Jalalabad or Qandahar, but the Soviets were not advancing any more), and Soviets in the process of pulling out, the USSR lost that war. Even more so: given that the Mujaheddin remained active and survived on the battlefield, and the Soviets were not there any more, the Soviets have lost - even by your own definition.

This must be some sort of a joke, right? Mujahadeens were on advance? You mean like going on a mission with 100 men and loosing 96 out of 100? Soviets were not advancing anymore? There was nowhere to advance! Mujahadeens were not holding any ground for Soviets to advance to. Last major Soviet mop up operation actually took place in 1986 in Panjir valley where Soviet gunship helicopters working with close support aircraft Su 25 decimated all of their precious AAA installations and killed more the 75% of rebels who decided to stand ground.
After 1986 nearly all of Mujahadeens traffic was done at night and majority of attacks were hit and run ambushes and even then they fell victim to Spetsnaz.
By my definition they did not loose but rather gain much more they had achieved previously.


One of the main reasons for Soviet pull-out was unsustainability of the war. The USSR couldn't afford the war in Afghanistan any more - financially (as a matter of fact, the USSR bancrupted only two years after pulling out of Afghanistan). Consequently, the USSR lost that war - by your own definition.

Now you simply talk out of your ass. Soviets could and did afford that war that took only 4% of their military resources. They even left over 3 billion dollars of aid to Afghan government when they left, after they left they continued to supply aid to them and in 1991 that aid was discontinued simply because USSR was not longer and Russia on its own had no interest in them.
Any government that goes trough such a large transformation would suffer financially, simply not because it did not have enough funds but because everything had to be reconstructed in a different format, with different ideology. What good does $ do to anyone if he can't spend it or business does not manufacture the product because the government is no longer in charge of making that product in the first place.


Oh, yeah, of course.... Brezhnev ordered invasion in order to test obsolete Soviet weapons systems (then all the stuff the 40 Army brought to Afghanistan was already 20-30 years old), and the 40 Army, huh?

I've never heard a more dumb explanation for the Afghanistan War.... What's worst, given what happened in Chechnya, in 1994/95, the Russians obviously learned nothing. Consequently, in the end - by your own definition - they lost again.

What obsolete weapons? Mi 24 Hind D, E, F models were all brand new and never saw action before. Infect in 1979 Soviets entered the war with Hind "A" as their main attack helicopter.
Su 25 was introduced in 1981 in the war and went trough many changes and upgrades during the war.
Fuel-Air bombs and rockets were first used in Afghan war with different tactics and modified versions of these munitions were introduced later in the war- that was in effectiveness in par with small nuclear tactical warheads.
AK 74 was tested out in a real battlefield conditions and was evaluated and actually adopted for Soviet Armed Forces.
Su 24's/Su 22/Mig 27 carried tests on Soviet new laser guided bombs and rockets, that were not used anywhere before.
Yak 38 VTOL aircraft was tested to see if it's was suited for as attack aircraft.
Many new versions of SS missiles were tested and proved to be highly successful..... etc, etc.
Many soviet military machines today are upgrade to a better platform as a result of Afghan war.
This simply shows your knowledge of Soviet equipment which in case is related to the war and that explains everything else connected to that war.


I could understand that this sounds illogical to many Russians - especially because the majority of them burns to see the USA losing in Iraq, foremost because of their own painful defeats in Afghanistan and Chechnya. But, this is not making you or them right.



I do not wish for U.S to loose the war; I do hope that they win and would give my left nut if they could win as a result. When war started I said it that this will be just like Afghanistan.... It's sad that I was right and to this day it's developed to the same as Afghan war. Death rate is almost identical to what Soviets experienced in Afghanistan....But at least Soviets had complete control of the cities in which case Americans do not. Nearly all anti Soviet attack happened in the country side and in the mountains.
How did Russia lost in Chechnya? They control all of the state and eliminated 99% of rebels that were there in the begging of 1999.



Or are you unable of understanding simple logic?

No I do not understand some armchair general’s stupid western and idiotic logic. It's not simple logic but rather retarded wishful garbage.

[mwe]

Many soviet military machines today are upgrade to a better platform as a result of Afghan war.

Who cares. Nice side bar. At the end of the day it doesn't make a difference.


There's more to it then Soviets decided one day to leave and they left. Afghanistan was a unpopulated wasteland and perfect for testing new technology like new Mi 24's, brand new Su 25, new guided bombs and rockets (especially highly affective and modified fuel-air bomb/rockets), new SS missiles, training for Spetsnaz, etc etc. It took almost 4 years for USSR to completely withdraw it's forces out of that region. If they ran with "tail between their legs" then it would have happened overnight as that's description of defeated withdrawal.

They were no there to test weapons or train troops (nice try) but to put Afghanistan under their control. They failed. Trying to come up with excuses to change the reason is a joke. They failed to put Afghanistan under their control, they left, they lost.


Last major Soviet mop up operation actually took place in 1986 in Panjir valley where Soviet gunship helicopters working with close support aircraft Su 25 decimated all of their precious AAA installations and killed more the 75% of rebels who decided to stand ground.

I would shy away from claiming to have killed 75% of the Mujahideen in the Panjshir. The valley was also the scene of failed offensive after failed offensive by the Soviets. Doesn't go to well with winning every major battle.

And lets not forget operations near Khost in 1987 because the Mujahideen blocked off the city. The Soviets only kept it open for about a week as the Mujahideen blocked it off again. Things were not rosy for the Soviets and DRA as the Mujahideen were able to launch constant attacks on garrisons and cities.


Soviets could and did afford that war that took only 4% of their military resources.

Doesn't matter they went there to take control and put and keep the nation into the Soviet bloc and failed.


But at least Soviets had complete control of the cities in which case Americans do not.

Herat was turned into a battleground between the Mujahideen under Khan and Russians. There were points were Khan had control over half the city. The Mujahideen also launched attacks on most cities with rockets and mortars or by sending in hit teams. So no the Russians did not have total control over the cities and not in the areas around them.


It took almost 4 years for USSR to completely withdraw it's forces out of that region. If they ran with "tail between their legs" then it would have happened overnight as that's description of defeated withdrawal.

They left in defeat. They failed at their mission.


If USSR still existed to this day, then most likely Afghan government would held power to this day.

But the USSR fell to pieces comrade :lol:

If wishes were horses beggers would ride ;)


They came, they played - Find & catch mujihids in the desert, they got bored and left.

No they failed at their goals and thus failed in the war. It is as simple as that.


By my definition they did not loose but rather gain much more they had achieved previously.

And to think the rest of the world knows the USSR lost in Afghanistan.

You have got to be the first person I have ever heard claiming Afghanistan was not a Soviet defeat. It would be almost funny... ;)

[VISTREL]

Sorry guys, I read only the first post in this thread, so I won't be arguing with anyone or if my idea already had been said..

Soviets did not loose war in Afganistan, nor they lost to mudjahideen...Soviets lost when Gorbachev was elected as general secretary of SU, and this loss was not only related to Afghan war but to whole Soviet Union as we know...

[VISTREL]

Israel lost in Lebanon and yet can still wage wars. Hezbollah runs the former secuirty zone, wiped out the SLA and are the last ones standing on the battlefield. But yet Israel can still fight and their economy and nation didn't fall apart after the war like someones ;) .

Russia lost in Afghanistan deal with it and move on.

haha, you're stupid just because u used word - "Russia"...maybe you meant Soviet Union ? rofl

Soviet Union officially ended in 1992, and it did not collapse...several leaders decided that it was time to declare independent states. That's in 1992 - 3 years after Soviet withdrawal from A-stan. War certainly did not cause SU to break up...

Besides, after SU ceased to exist, Russia was still able to help Tadjikistan fight the Afghan rebels, wage war in chechnya and still is...your statement is pure nonsence..go kill yourself.

[mwe]

Besides, after SU ceased to exist, Russia was still able to help Tadjikistan fight the Afghan rebels, wage war in chechnya and still is...your statement is pure nonsence..

And? That has nothing to do with the failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan ;)


go kill yourself.

:roll:

[Coop]

O.K Cook.....It's "Coop", not "Cook".


I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over....You can repeat yourself as long as you like: I was talking about YOUR OWN arguments, which explained that the USSR lost the war in AFghanistan.

So, don't complain about me: it's your arguments that are null and void.


Apparently some people have very thick heads.You can be sure of that.


Re-read it twice if you have to before any retarded replies....like yours that Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to test their new weapons systems? rofl rofl rofl


USSR was totaly able to continue the war in Afghanistan. Mikhail Gorbachev decided to end it and he tried to make some major changes in Soviet government "perestroika" and that included making Soviet Union a more western friendly empire. He knew that Soviet presence in Afghanistan was a negative point in the U.N and western world view. He knew that overall Soviets did not have a good reason being involved in Afghan war, SO he decided to end it.Aha. So Gorbachev pulled Soviet troops out of Afghanistan because of public relations?

rofl rofl Well, it's truth that according to some pools he was more popular in the USA than even Reagan, so around 1986-1987, but this is really a "retarted" reply....


ONCE again, the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years. This means they took their time and were not in a rush to hurry up and run because they were on the virtue of defeat.BS. Given the Soviets pulled their last troops out in 1989, this would mean they began pulling out already in 1985 - which is definitely NOT TRUTH. Gorbachev ordered the first regiment to pull out (that was the one with nick-name "Berlin", equipped with upgraded T-62s) in 1986... So, I'd say your arguments are again off....


This must be some sort of a joke, right? Mujahadeens were on advance? You mean like going on a mission with 100 men and loosing 96 out of 100? Soviets were not advancing anymore? There was nowhere to advance! Mujahadeens were not holding any ground for Soviets to advance to.They were not holding any ground? What is with the siedge they laid on Jalalabad and Qandahar? What is with the Panjsheer Valley where no Soviet or DRA troops were stationed ever since 1979 - except for few weeks in 1982 etc.? What was with the whole area along the border to Pakistan where no Soviet officer would order his troops to go? What is with Soviets bribing Mujjs for their supply convoys to pass through so many other areas?

Man, Sergey, are you talking about some other war, perhaps - because the one in Afghanistan went a completely different way than you're explaining...


Last major Soviet mop up operation actually took place in 1986 in Panjir valley where Soviet gunship helicopters working with close support aircraft Su 25 decimated all of their precious AAA installations and killed more the 75% of rebels who decided to stand ground.I'd say you're mixing ops in the Panjsheer Valley with those in the Khost area...


After 1986 nearly all of Mujahadeens traffic was done at night and majority of attacks were hit and run ambushes and even then they fell victim to Spetsnaz.Yes, and after 1986 the Soviets also change their tactics with most of their flying being done by night or so high they couldn't hit anything - becuase of the Stinger threat.


By my definition they did not loose but rather gain much more they had achieved previously.Which gains?


Now you simply talk out of your ass. Soviets could and did afford that war that took only 4% of their military resources. They even left over 3 billion dollars of aid to Afghan government when they left...Yes, but not three - only one billion - and not in cash: that was the worth of obsolete equipment the Soviet Army was not needing any more. You can still find most of this stuff in a field near Kabul, where over 600 T-55s, T-62s, BMPs, BTRs, artillery pieces etc. can be found rusting...


....after they left they continued to supply aid to them and in 1991 that aid was discontinued simply because USSR was not longer and Russia on its own had no interest in them.And this didn't happen because in 1989 the USSR and the USA reached an agreement to stop supporting different parties in Afghanistan?


Any government that goes trough such a large transformation would suffer financially, simply not because it did not have enough funds but because everything had to be reconstructed in a different format, with different ideology. What good does $ do to anyone if he can't spend it or business does not manufacture the product because the government is no longer in charge of making that product in the first place.With other words: you would never accept the fact that the USSR was bancrupt by 1989?



Oh, yeah, of course.... Brezhnev ordered invasion in order to test obsolete Soviet weapons systems (then all the stuff the 40 Army brought to Afghanistan was already 20-30 years old), and the 40 Army, huh?

I've never heard a more dumb explanation for the Afghanistan War.... What's worst, given what happened in Chechnya, in 1994/95, the Russians obviously learned nothing. Consequently, in the end - by your own definition - they lost again.

What obsolete weapons? Mi 24 Hind D, E, F models were all brand new and never saw action before.Let's see....

In 1979, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, only parts of a single mixed helicopter regiment flying Mi-8s and Mi-24s were deployed to Afghanistan; it was not before late winter 1980 that this unit was increased to 60 helicopters - most of which were still Mi-8s. But, you say the Soviets went to Afghanistan to test Mi-24s?

Well... OK...

Neither in 1979 nor in 1980 were any MiG-27s or any Su-24s deployed in Afghanistan. Yet, you say the Soviets started that war in order to test them?

Prototypes of Su-25 arrived with the Rhombus team in 1980, but this was a small unit, deployed there for purely testing purposes. The same can be said about Yak-36/38. This also happened months after the invastion - to say at least. But, you say the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to test Su-25s and Yak-38s?

FAE-bombs and rockets did not enter service before around 1984; AK-74 was also not distributed to the troops of the 40 Army at the time of invasion...On the contrary, the 40 Army went into that war with reserve troops driving the oldest, open topped variant of the BTR-60s, and T-55s, and towing their SA-4s for air defence.... But, you say the Soviets went to that war to test modern weapons systems?

Or, would you now like to change this into, "Soviets invaded Afghanistan to test their obsolete systems"?

How do you then explain that with SA-4s? What was their purpose, given they could not be tested against anybody?


Many soviet military machines today are upgrade to a better platform as a result of Afghan war.No dispute about this. But, the USSR DID NOT invade Afghanistan in order to test its weapons...

[quiote]This simply shows your knowledge of Soviet equipment which in case is related to the war and that explains everything else connected to that war.[/quote] rofl rofl rofl


I do not wish for U.S to loose the war; I do hope that they win and would give my left nut if they could win as a result. When war started I said it that this will be just like Afghanistan.... It's sad that I was right and to this day it's developed to the same as Afghan war. Death rate is almost identical to what Soviets experienced in Afghanistan....Why do I have problems to believe this....? :roll:


But at least Soviets had complete control of the cities in which case Americans do not. Nearly all anti Soviet attack happened in the country side and in the mountains.Aha, so the Soviets had "complete" control in the cities (where the Mujaheddin were active nevertheless...?!?), and the Mujjs on the countryside - but there was, in your own words, "nowehere" to advance for the Soviets?

Don't you notice how do you contradict to your own words?


How did Russia lost in Chechnya? They control all of the state and eliminated 99% of rebels that were there in the begging of 1999.And, what was in 1994 and 1995? You "won", right?

BTW, that war still goes on - and is likely to go on until you kill the last male Chechen. So, I'd say it's a little bit too early to declare anybody for a "winner" here. Just remember what I said about Algeria: the ALN was considered completely defeated in military sence by 1960 - when de Gaulle started negotiations about Algerian independence....



Or are you unable of understanding simple logic?

No I do not understand some armchair general’s stupid western and idiotic logic. It's not simple logic but rather retarded wishful garbage.Aha, so let me see if I understand your logic: I am stupid, because your own argumentation beats your own arguments? I'm also stupid because I pointed at this?

BTW, you're calling me "armchair general": have you ever been to Afghanistan?


Soviet Union officially ended in 1992, and it did not collapse...several leaders decided that it was time to declare independent states. That's in 1992 - 3 years after Soviet withdrawal from A-stan. War certainly did not cause SU to break up...I see. On "that" particular morning, leaders of all the Soviet republics realized they don't have anything better to do, so they dissolved the USSR, right...?

It wasn't so that the country was bancrupt and a number of republics started separating from the USSR already in 1990? It wasn't so that there was civil war in some places already in 1989? It wasn't so that nobody could keep that empire together any more?

[GazB]

Quote:
ONCE again, the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years. This means they took their time and were not in a rush to hurry up and run because they were on the virtue of defeat.

BS. Given the Soviets pulled their last troops out in 1989, this would mean they began pulling out already in 1985 - which is definitely NOT TRUTH. Gorbachev ordered the first regiment to pull out (that was the one with nick-name "Berlin", equipped with upgraded T-62s) in 1986... So, I'd say your arguments are again off....

Not going to read this thread again so post what you like... threads like this are like the afghan war itself...

But forgive me for my poor grasp of reality but if by your own admission that the soviets pulled out in 1989 and you state that gorby ordered the first pull out in 1986 where exactly is the substance to your arguement?

I will repeat the quote you are replying too with my own emphasis on what I think are pretty important words you seem to have ignored...


the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years.

1989 pullout, 1986 start = three years. Now is three years nearly four years?

Can't be bothered checking out the rest of the thread but if someone is arguing with your logic they have my sympathies. :P

[/quote]

[Coop]

Quote:
ONCE again, the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years. This means they took their time and were not in a rush to hurry up and run because they were on the virtue of defeat.

BS. Given the Soviets pulled their last troops out in 1989, this would mean they began pulling out already in 1985 - which is definitely NOT TRUTH. Gorbachev ordered the first regiment to pull out (that was the one with nick-name "Berlin", equipped with upgraded T-62s) in 1986... So, I'd say your arguments are again off....

Not going to read this thread again so post what you like... threads like this are like the afghan war itself...

But forgive me for my poor grasp of reality but if by your own admission that the soviets pulled out in 1989 and you state that gorby ordered the first pull out in 1986 where exactly is the substance to your arguement? Well, indeed, you haven't even read that post properly.... rofl

It wasn't me who stated that the Soviet pull-out lasted for four years. And, if you want to describe yourself as somebody capable of discussing Afghanistan, then you should know that the pull back of a single regiment in 1986 was nothing but a PR-measure. The actuall pull-out started only in 1988.


I will repeat the quote you are replying too with my own emphasis on what I think are pretty important words you seem to have ignored...


the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces took nearly 4 years.

1989 pullout, 1986 start = three years. Now is three years nearly four years?Wrong. Find yourself any book about the war in Afghanistan and see when the pull out started, and what was the purpose of pulling out a single T-62 regiment in 1986: the last action stood in no connection with the overall Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan.

Consequently, the pull-out lasted no "three years", and certainly not "four years". It wasn't "nearly four years" either.


Can't be bothered checking out the rest of the thread but if someone is arguing with your logic they have my sympathies. :P Sure. Having "proved" the "validity" of your pointless argumentation, there is no better way out but to run away with tail between your legs...if nothin' else, restraining yourself from personal attacks was definitely something of an improvement.

[sergey31]

Hey Coop... I'm sick and tired of stupid debates on this forum, especially with retards.... So instead of arguing with bunch of idiots I'm going to waste my time drawing..... I've had it.
..... I dedicate this drawing to you....Don't bother replying sense I'm not coming back to this tread, and if you do then you are even more of a dumbass then I thought.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork2/XT/XT78.jpg

[mwe]

Hey Coop... I'm sick and tired of stupid debates on this forum, especially with retards.... So instead of arguing with bunch of idiots I'm going to waste my time drawing..... I've had it.

Tail between legs....

[Coop]

Hey Coop... I'm sick and tired of stupid debates on this forum, especially with retards....Well, I'm very sorry that you can't sell your story to anybody here.

Go somewhere else and explain that Crusades were launched because the Franks wanted to test their new weapons on Saracens... Or offer few pyramides and bridges on sale: perhaps somebody buys that. rofl

[James]

Some of you people should actually come over here...

In recent weeks I've started to think that the Soviets didn't leave because of military losses, but because, after almost 10 years, they had reached the limits of their patience... basically "F*ck this place, it isn't worth another Soviet soldier or another ruble."

Exasperation, not military defeat.

[Lokos]

Their military losses were some ~15,000 men and a couple of hundred pieces of heavy equipment.

And that's over nine-ten years.

I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those kinds of losses could un-nerve the Soviets, who expected to absorb as many losses in a day of a conflagration with NATO in Europe (minus nukes, of course).

So, I agree with you James.

Lokos