While US Army might be the most potent fighting force in the world, you must NOT underestimate your enemy! You must not think that "lets go in and whoop some ass!". When Soviet Union fought in Afganistan, their army was the most powerful army in the world (if you have problems accepting that, then you must accept that it was at least second most powerful), and they lost. So while US Army is superior to Taliban, it does not mean that it will be a walk in the park. Enemy that is determined and who has no value for his life is a dangerous enemy to fight.
As I said... only reason they held them off was because of OUR help. And please... the Soviet Army was not that powerfull at all!
While US Army might be the most potent fighting force in the world, you must NOT underestimate your enemy! You must not think that "lets go in and whoop some ass!". When Soviet Union fought in Afganistan, their army was the most powerful army in the world (if you have problems accepting that, then you must accept that it was at least second most powerful), and they lost. So while US Army is superior to Taliban, it does not mean that it will be a walk in the park. Enemy that is determined and who has no value for his life is a dangerous enemy to fight.
To begin with, we must first look at the focus here.............
1. When the former USSR invaded Afghanistan, the Cold War was still going on. There were commitments they made to the old Warsaw Pact which they attempted to uphold during that time.
2. As much as I respected the old "Bear", the old Red Army had serious leadership and personnel problems related to force protection.. It's not only weapons that win wars. Soldier and unit discipline are key ingredients to the equation.
Fully 415,932 (88.56 percent) were hospitalized for serious diseases. In other words, 67 percent of those who served in Afghanistan required hospitalization for a serious illness. These illnesses included 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis and 31,080 cases of typhoid fever. The remaining 269,544 cases were split between plague, malaria, cholera, diphtheria, meningitis, heart disease, shigellosis (infectious dysentery), amoebic dysentery, rheumatism, heat stroke, pneumonia, typhus and paratyphus.
US Military personnel are commonly vaccinated against most of the above infectious diseases. Additionally, the above link goes into detail about field sanitation. Something in which the leadership of the old "Bear" was negligent thereof. While the Red Army was indeed a mighty fighting force in it's day, their internal discipline left very much to be desired from a western military commander's perspective.
3. How much of an alliance in the immediate area did the Soviets actually have during this conflict? Another fact we must look at was that Iran, China and the USA supported the Afghans with arms. While I'm not saying they won't have imported arms in a conflict against the US and her allies; I'm stating that the cards are now dealt with a different deck. From initial indications, they will enjoy less logistical support now than during that particular time period.
This will not be a cakewalk. However, if executed correctly, the results can be much more decisive than those achieved by the old Red Army.
To begin with, we must first look at the focus here.............
1. When the former USSR invaded Afghanistan, the Cold War was still going on. There were commitments they made to the old Warsaw Pact which they attempted to uphold during that time.
2. As much as I respected the old "Bear", the old Red Army had serious leadership and personnel problems related to force protection.. It's not only weapons that win wars. Soldier and unit discipline are key ingredients to the equation.
Fully 415,932 (88.56 percent) were hospitalized for serious diseases. In other words, 67 percent of those who served in Afghanistan required hospitalization for a serious illness. These illnesses included 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis and 31,080 cases of typhoid fever. The remaining 269,544 cases were split between plague, malaria, cholera, diphtheria, meningitis, heart disease, shigellosis (infectious dysentery), amoebic dysentery, rheumatism, heat stroke, pneumonia, typhus and paratyphus.
US Military personnel are commonly vaccinated against most of the above infectious diseases. Additionally, the above link goes into detail about field sanitation. Something in which the leadership of the old "Bear" was negligent thereof. While the Red Army was indeed a mighty fighting force in it's day, their internal discipline left very much to be desired from a western military commander's perspective.
3. How much of an alliance in the immediate area did the Soviets actually have during this conflict? Another fact we must look at was that Iran, China and the USA supported the Afghans with arms. While I'm not saying they won't have imported arms in a conflict against the US and her allies; I'm stating that the cards are now dealt with a different deck. From initial indications, they will enjoy less logistical support now than during that particular time period.
This will not be a cakewalk. However, if executed correctly, the results can be much more decisive than those achieved by the old Red Army.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Many of you seem to not realize just how highly technical many of our weapons are today. With the aid of what we love here, computers, and with satellites, and many other technology advancements, the soldier is able to fight at great distances from his enemy today. Although technology is not an absolute replacement for the foot soldier, air superiority and technologically advanced weapons of today soften the battle front to such a degree that the eventual movement of land forces into the battle is more of a clean up operation than what was so many years ago. America will not settle for protracted police actions like we saw in Korea and Vietnam.. today we go into battle to win. This is one reason it took so long to start our attack in SW Asia against Saddams forces.. we spent a great deal of time to establish our strike force. So dont anticipate an attack tommorrow, give our Military leaders time to establish a winable war, if this leads up to that.
I'm not sure I follow you guys wanting a war. From what I've understood it will be about inserting aircraft, tanks and a huge load of marines into afghanistan to do, what?
Find Bin Laden, kill him and then withdraw?
The Afaghanistan people is very poorly educated and very unfamiliar with the outside world (I doubt many of them know about the hijackings or even who the hell Osama Bin Laden is). So if you want to do what was done in Europe after ww2, with the marchal plan, you have to face the fact that in Europe there were lots of educated people who could start working once the factories was rebuild, that isn't the case in Afghanistan.
See it in a longer perspective, what is really our objective??
Find Bin Laden, kill him and then withdraw?
The Afaghanistan people is very poorly educated and very unfamiliar with the outside world (I doubt many of them know about the hijackings or even who the hell Osama Bin Laden is). So if you want to do what was done in Europe after ww2, with the marchal plan, you have to face the fact that in Europe there were lots of educated people who could start working once the factories was rebuild, that isn't the case in Afghanistan.
See it in a longer perspective, what is really our objective??
<< yes we must expect casualties in a campaign against the taliban...but their religious fanaticism will not overcome a better equipped and organized military that is fighting with equal resolve and air support available at a moment's notice. yes, ground troops will be essential and battles will be bloody. but to disregard our complete air superiority is to ignore perhaps our greatest tactical advantage.
sacrifice is difficult, but it's time to stand up for the victims of the wtc bombings, the pentagon bombing, the embassy bombings, the barracks bombing and the cole bombing. let this fight against terrorism become a defining moment so that our generation will take its place among america's greatest and bravest. dubya is right...as the world's leading democracy and defenders of freedom, it is our historical obligation to fight the good fight. let not future generations blame us for an opportunity missed. it is time for a new world order based upon civility and may each of tuesday's victims be so considered a point of light on a path to a better tomorrow. >>
DAMN STRIGHT
They called for a jihad? So what? Do you honestly think that the Taliban has any credibility, especially on religious matters, within the Islamic world? Maybe you should actually study some world politics.
I'm stating obvious fact here... they are highly trained... and right now the common preception is that they will be pushovers. War has been a way of life for these people for ages.
Oh, please -- "highly trained"?? They know how to fire AKs, RPGs, and perhaps Stingers. However, their enemies to date have been themselves and the Russians, who were fielding a predominately conscript army in an unpopular war [their army was the most powerful army in the world...: Oh, please spare us the BS!]. The Russians were never as good as the West was led to believe, and that was proven in Afghanistan. They do have some good elite units, but the majority of their Army has always been, AT BEST, lackluster.
The Afghanis have NEVER faced anything remotely like the power of the US military. Hiding in Afghanistan is not as easy as hiding in Vietnam. There is a huge difference between hiding among rocks and hiding in a thick jungle canopy. Remember how everyone was saying how tough the Iraqis were before Desert Storm? Battle hardened from years of warring with Iran and the Kurds? We will not underestimate the Afghanis, but we will certainly not overestimate them. Sure, there will be US casualties, but there will be many more Afghanis lying in pieces on their soil.
Guerrilla warfare in Chechnya was effective...
The Chechens slaughtered the Russians because they were fielding an exceptionally piss poor military composed of borders guards, policeman, and poorly trained conscripts, some of whom had never even fired their rifles and didn't know they were heading into combat until bullets started flying. However, sheer numbers of men, armored vehicles and aircraft carried the day eventually. The Chechens were hardly what you would call an "elite" force, since many of them only took up arms just prior to the Russian attack, but they were defending their homes in an urban environment against Russian forces led by thoroughly inept commanders who apparently forgot all precepts of urban combat (like not sending armored vehicles in column down streets with multiple story buildings withOUT infantry support).
Nemesis: You might also benefit from some study -- in this case, military doctrine, tactics, and capabilities. Your scenario for an offensive against the Taliban is woefully lacking in reality. Send in the Marines?? They are poorly equipped for this sort of operation, despite their apparent mythic capabilities as stated in this thread. Special operations for unconventional warfare does NOT mean Army "Special Forces", which are a specific unit with a specific mission wholly unrelated to what you are proposing. You might be thinking of the US Army Rangers. Pay attention to what MadRat wrote.
I'm stating obvious fact here... they are highly trained... and right now the common preception is that they will be pushovers. War has been a way of life for these people for ages.
Oh, please -- "highly trained"?? They know how to fire AKs, RPGs, and perhaps Stingers. However, their enemies to date have been themselves and the Russians, who were fielding a predominately conscript army in an unpopular war [their army was the most powerful army in the world...: Oh, please spare us the BS!]. The Russians were never as good as the West was led to believe, and that was proven in Afghanistan. They do have some good elite units, but the majority of their Army has always been, AT BEST, lackluster.
The Afghanis have NEVER faced anything remotely like the power of the US military. Hiding in Afghanistan is not as easy as hiding in Vietnam. There is a huge difference between hiding among rocks and hiding in a thick jungle canopy. Remember how everyone was saying how tough the Iraqis were before Desert Storm? Battle hardened from years of warring with Iran and the Kurds? We will not underestimate the Afghanis, but we will certainly not overestimate them. Sure, there will be US casualties, but there will be many more Afghanis lying in pieces on their soil.
Guerrilla warfare in Chechnya was effective...
The Chechens slaughtered the Russians because they were fielding an exceptionally piss poor military composed of borders guards, policeman, and poorly trained conscripts, some of whom had never even fired their rifles and didn't know they were heading into combat until bullets started flying. However, sheer numbers of men, armored vehicles and aircraft carried the day eventually. The Chechens were hardly what you would call an "elite" force, since many of them only took up arms just prior to the Russian attack, but they were defending their homes in an urban environment against Russian forces led by thoroughly inept commanders who apparently forgot all precepts of urban combat (like not sending armored vehicles in column down streets with multiple story buildings withOUT infantry support).
Nemesis: You might also benefit from some study -- in this case, military doctrine, tactics, and capabilities. Your scenario for an offensive against the Taliban is woefully lacking in reality. Send in the Marines?? They are poorly equipped for this sort of operation, despite their apparent mythic capabilities as stated in this thread. Special operations for unconventional warfare does NOT mean Army "Special Forces", which are a specific unit with a specific mission wholly unrelated to what you are proposing. You might be thinking of the US Army Rangers. Pay attention to what MadRat wrote.
Done properly, possible US assault in Afganistan should have better results than Soviets had. Reaons primarily being that US is today more powerful militarily that Soviets ever were and Taleban/Afganistan is already exhausted from decades of war. So in that sense I'm optimistic, but one should always be cautious in cases like this.
True, US weapons did help the Mujahedin alot. Particularly Stinger-missiles, which allowed them to effectively fight against Soviet attack-choppers. But the fact remains that so far Afgans are undefeated. That says something about their fighting capabilities.
True, US weapons did help the Mujahedin alot. Particularly Stinger-missiles, which allowed them to effectively fight against Soviet attack-choppers. But the fact remains that so far Afgans are undefeated. That says something about their fighting capabilities.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Guys, before you start worrying, first learn what a Jihad is.
In an online chat/interview between ABC News and Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, a ...Muslim leader...He is the director of Interfaith Affairs at the Islamic Center of Long Island and executive director for the Council on American Islamic Relations in New York. Mr Khankan answered a few Muslim related questions for ABC.
According to him, a Jihad is:
<< Moderator at 1:19pm ET
Curtis Smith writes: "The fanatics have often spoken of a 'Jihad'. Can you give a nutshell explanation of what this is? And how the fanatics may have twisted its meaning?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan at 1:20pm ET
Jihad is not a holy war. No such translation is in Al-Qu'ran.
Jihad simply means to struggle, to better oneself, to be the best student in one's classroom, to be the best in one's business activities, to control one's anger and to control one's tongue from speaking against people.
To raise good children is one of the most difficult Jihads for parents. Al-Qu'ran teaches to fight only those who fight you and force you out of your homes and prevent you from performing your religious duties. So fighting back is only for self defense.
God says in Al-Qu'ran, "do not oppress others," for God does not love oppressors. So Muslims are allowed to fight only in self defense, which is the right of all nations, including the United States. >>
While Arghanistan may very well be asking for a retaliation, that is not a Jihad.
In an online chat/interview between ABC News and Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, a ...Muslim leader...He is the director of Interfaith Affairs at the Islamic Center of Long Island and executive director for the Council on American Islamic Relations in New York. Mr Khankan answered a few Muslim related questions for ABC.
According to him, a Jihad is:
<< Moderator at 1:19pm ET
Curtis Smith writes: "The fanatics have often spoken of a 'Jihad'. Can you give a nutshell explanation of what this is? And how the fanatics may have twisted its meaning?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan at 1:20pm ET
Jihad is not a holy war. No such translation is in Al-Qu'ran.
Jihad simply means to struggle, to better oneself, to be the best student in one's classroom, to be the best in one's business activities, to control one's anger and to control one's tongue from speaking against people.
To raise good children is one of the most difficult Jihads for parents. Al-Qu'ran teaches to fight only those who fight you and force you out of your homes and prevent you from performing your religious duties. So fighting back is only for self defense.
God says in Al-Qu'ran, "do not oppress others," for God does not love oppressors. So Muslims are allowed to fight only in self defense, which is the right of all nations, including the United States. >>
While Arghanistan may very well be asking for a retaliation, that is not a Jihad.
I have a feeling this will be another Vietnam...
Thankfully we supplied the afghanis with a lot of weapons in the late 80's to fight the russians. Hindsight is always 20/20
Thankfully we supplied the afghanis with a lot of weapons in the late 80's to fight the russians. Hindsight is always 20/20
<< Oh, please -- "highly trained"?? They know how to fire AKs, RPGs, and perhaps Stingers. However, their enemies to date have been themselves and the Russians, who were fielding a predominately conscript army in an unpopular war >>
What's wrong with conscript army? It's a different kind of army, but it's not necessarily bad army. Finland had conscrip army during the Winter War, and it didn't hurt us one bit
And how come soviet army wasn't any good? Because they lost in Afganistan? Well, USA had it's ass handed to it in a platter in Vietnam, so I guess you aren't any better in that sense. Soviet army was a capable fighting force, there no denying that. Just because it was a conscript army doesn't make it inferior. It had massive firepower and the west was afraid of it.
<< Nemesis: You might also benefit from some study -- in this case, military doctrine, tactics, and capabilities. Your scenario for an offensive against the Taliban is woefully lacking in reality. Send in the Marines?? They are poorly equipped for this sort of operation, despite their apparent mythic capabilities as stated in this thread. >>
Sorry, I'm no expert when it comes to different units in US military. And I masterminded that plan in about 5 minutes while writing that reply, damn straight it ain't no paradigm of military thinking!
<< Special operations for unconventional warfare does NOT mean Army "Special Forces", which are a specific unit with a specific mission wholly unrelated to what you are proposing. You might be thinking of the US Army Rangers. Pay attention to what MadRat wrote. >>
Rangers, Delta Force, british SAS... Whatever troops you choose to deploy. Cruise missiles wont get the job done, if you want to remove Bin Laden, it has to be done by ground-troops.
What's wrong with conscript army? It's a different kind of army, but it's not necessarily bad army.
Nothing, in principle, is wrong with a conscript army, especially if it is trained and commanded properly. However, the Soviet and now Russian military has never been either.
Well, USA had it's ass handed to it in a platter in Vietnam, so I guess you aren't any better in that sense.
Nope, you're wrong there. The U.S. military never lost a single large scale engagement in Vietnam with a kill ratio that's roughly estimated at 20:1 for the course of the war. Further, the U.S. military eliminated the Viet Cong as an effective military force by 1969, and the gap was filled by the NVA regulars. The war was "lost" in a political sense, not in a military one. Had the U.S. not been hamstrung by political considerations such as not bombing Haiphong and not pursuing fleeing NVA into Cambodia, the war would have been vastly different. Plus, I'd take the Vietnamese over the Afghanis in terms of capability. Read up on Dien Bien Phu to understand why.
Sorry, I'm no expert when it comes to different units in US military.
Didn't realize you were Finnish so I'll cut you some slack. However, keep in mind that special operations troops are NOT intended to be overly trained ground troops. They have very specific missions that are tailored to very specific situations. They are small units that cannot and should not ever be used in a situation where they would face large concentrations of enemy troops (ie., trying to take bin Laden from wherever he's hiding -- it's a fantasy to think that he's only lightly guarded). Doing so only results in those highly trained troops being killed.
Nothing, in principle, is wrong with a conscript army, especially if it is trained and commanded properly. However, the Soviet and now Russian military has never been either.
Well, USA had it's ass handed to it in a platter in Vietnam, so I guess you aren't any better in that sense.
Nope, you're wrong there. The U.S. military never lost a single large scale engagement in Vietnam with a kill ratio that's roughly estimated at 20:1 for the course of the war. Further, the U.S. military eliminated the Viet Cong as an effective military force by 1969, and the gap was filled by the NVA regulars. The war was "lost" in a political sense, not in a military one. Had the U.S. not been hamstrung by political considerations such as not bombing Haiphong and not pursuing fleeing NVA into Cambodia, the war would have been vastly different. Plus, I'd take the Vietnamese over the Afghanis in terms of capability. Read up on Dien Bien Phu to understand why.
Sorry, I'm no expert when it comes to different units in US military.
Didn't realize you were Finnish so I'll cut you some slack.
However, keep in mind that special operations troops are NOT intended to be overly trained ground troops. They have very specific missions that are tailored to very specific situations. They are small units that cannot and should not ever be used in a situation where they would face large concentrations of enemy troops (ie., trying to take bin Laden from wherever he's hiding -- it's a fantasy to think that he's only lightly guarded). Doing so only results in those highly trained troops being killed.Well, USA had it's ass handed to it in a platter in Vietnam, so I guess you aren't any better in that sense.
<< Nope, you're wrong there. The U.S. military never lost a single large scale engagement in Vietnam with a kill ratio that's roughly estimated at 20:1 for the course of the war. >>
I'm aware of that, but I'm looking at the end result. The truth is that you lost the war, but you won the battles. But, the point is, that you lost the war. I always remember the footage of the frantic escape from the rooftop of US Embassy. True, militarily you would have won, but you couldn't won because of politics. If things start to go in to same direction in Afganistan, are american willing to go through with it? They weren't in Vietnam, are they this time? They might have more motivation right now, as emotions run high. Will they have that motivation as americans start to come home in a box covered with flag of USA?
Sorry, I'm no expert when it comes to different units in US military.
<< Didn't realize you were Finnish so I'll cut you some slack. However, keep in mind that special operations troops are NOT intended to be overly trained ground troops. They have very specific missions that are tailored to very specific situations. >>
That's what my "plan" was. Use the special units (Delta Force etc.) to hit Osama bin Ladens bases deep in Afganistan. Neutralising him in the process (capture him, if not possible, kill him). The ordinary ground combat would be carried out by conventional forces.
Of course, if bin Laden is surrounded by hundreds of his best fighters, then that's an unrealistic plan. If there are bases with 20-30 men, hit them. if bin Laden is one of those camps, good! Use the opportunity! Afterwards send in the ordinary troops to finish the job if necessary.
<< Nope, you're wrong there. The U.S. military never lost a single large scale engagement in Vietnam with a kill ratio that's roughly estimated at 20:1 for the course of the war. >>
I'm aware of that, but I'm looking at the end result. The truth is that you lost the war, but you won the battles. But, the point is, that you lost the war. I always remember the footage of the frantic escape from the rooftop of US Embassy. True, militarily you would have won, but you couldn't won because of politics. If things start to go in to same direction in Afganistan, are american willing to go through with it? They weren't in Vietnam, are they this time? They might have more motivation right now, as emotions run high. Will they have that motivation as americans start to come home in a box covered with flag of USA?
Sorry, I'm no expert when it comes to different units in US military.
<< Didn't realize you were Finnish so I'll cut you some slack.
However, keep in mind that special operations troops are NOT intended to be overly trained ground troops. They have very specific missions that are tailored to very specific situations. >>That's what my "plan" was. Use the special units (Delta Force etc.) to hit Osama bin Ladens bases deep in Afganistan. Neutralising him in the process (capture him, if not possible, kill him). The ordinary ground combat would be carried out by conventional forces.
Of course, if bin Laden is surrounded by hundreds of his best fighters, then that's an unrealistic plan. If there are bases with 20-30 men, hit them. if bin Laden is one of those camps, good! Use the opportunity! Afterwards send in the ordinary troops to finish the job if necessary.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter