"Don't go there, you cannot win...Everything you think you know about war changes in Afghanistan."

[StageLeft]

U.S. should think twice before striking Afghanistan - Russian experts say

"That was one of the ugliest wars ever fought, on both sides," said Grigory Bondarevsky, one of Russia's top Afghanistan experts who acted as adviser to Soviet forces in the 1980's.

Veterans of that war say the Soviet forces never had a chance.

"It is not a structured society, so you can never take control of it," said Andrei, a former Soviet intelligence officer who asked his family name not be used. "Yet the bands of fighters are superbly organized. They seem to just come out of the ground and strike where you least expect them."

Soviet machinery broke down in the extreme desert heat, where tires melted and tank engines exploded, vets say.

The bitter mountain cold made guns jam, paralysed vehicles and sidelined more men with frostbite than the Afghan mujahedeen ever managed to kill.


"The mujahedeen moved their arms and fighters through over 4,000 mountain passes, and those are only the ones we eventually got to know about. It's impossible to control that terrain," he said.

 

[Siva]

I don't see anything ruling out air strikes

A lot can change in 20 or so years, things won't be the same, that's for sure. Hopefully that's a good thing.

 

[rudder]

Soviet machinery broke down in the extreme desert heat, where tires melted and tank engines exploded, vets say

Thats cause they were pieces of cap to begin with.

 

[Axman]

who said that we will invade them , just carpet bomb

 

[Rogue]

I can assure you that we are far better equipped and trained to handle this than the Soviets were. The Cold War was held up by nuclear weapons, not by the strength, training or preparedness of their troops.

 

[shiner]

I wouldn't exaclty be comparing our military to that of the Soviet Union/Russians. I think it's been proven time and again that our stuff, especially the M1-A1, is superior to theirs. Besides....we already did a little desert fighting back in 1991. Why do you think that during and after the Gulf War the Russian military was doing a collective "holy crap!" and re-evaluating their equipment and strategy?

 

[StageLeft]

Besides....we already did a little desert fighting back in 1991. Why do you think that during and after the Gulf War the Russian military was doing a collective "holy crap!" and re-evaluating their equipment and strategy

I have every confidence in the US's abilities in a desert but I think the real problem will be the mountainous terrain. One quote I read said that the Russian's would use a trainful of explosives just to kill a few afghans.

I hope these guys are wrong but whoever is saying them has an understanding of the conflict there and also an understanding of the US military and yet they still say this.

 

[Stark]

We should think carefully about a ground campaign. We can easily starve them of food and gasoline until Bin Laden and his group are handed over.

We should also help any refugees who make it out alive. They should see that America will punish their enemies but will also care for the innocent.

 

[Fraggle]

are strikes are not expected to be effective; this and other poor countries do not have traditional targets such as military command centers, power grids, or communication systems... there is very little that the US can take from these people, except their lives... and airstrikes will not be a particularly effective method of killing such ellusive individuals; air support will most likely be used to cover ground forces. you also can't expend cruise missiles on such loosely organized ground forces... I'm paraphrasing the opinions of supposed experts that I've been reading online and in news sources; feel free to offer differing opinions, but try and note where you got the ideas, even if they're just your own, and -- for goodness sake -- don't start fighting with each other!

 

[Tripleshot]

Well, time for dow and allied to crank up the vats of napalm. We can light up the night sky in the Afghan mountains,and carpet bomb the heck out of the area.

But the real way it will be done is to use intellegence and cooperation with the locals to ferret out Osama and his followers. The territory he is alledged to be in is in the control of the Northern Rebels. I would lay you odds, we already know where he is. Or we can certainly narrow down where he is not. The Russians where fighting all of Afghanistan. We are on a search and destroy mission.

Big difference.

 

[Pocatello]

Conventional warfare will not work in Afghanistan. These guys know what they are talking about. I hope we can learn from their mistakes. First, we should not take over Afghanistan and run it, and we don't have plan to do so. We should use UAVs extensively to search for where they are hiding then strike hard and fast, then get out. The British SAS are legendary desert fighters, who can do recon work and set up ambush. We should also work with the enemies of the Taliban in Afghanistan. US army special forces can train the Northern Alliance to strike at the Taliban also. These guys were capable enough to attack Kabul last Tuesday.

 

[Fraggle]

edit: I like those ideas Stark; providing positive reinforcement to Afgans who are not supporting the Taliban agenda and just want to live safely and peacefully would be consistent with the OBJECTIVEs of this war... it may temporarily be gratifying to punish them as well, but it's not like that country is a democracy and they are even theoretically responsible for what the Taliban's actions include. Besides, both Americans and the rest of the world will lose its stomach for the fight much more quickly, should the US fail to show appropriate comapassion for those who have ALSO been abused by the Taliban, etc.

 

[MikeO]

That was damn interesting article, thanks.

Some very good bits were:



<< "Yet the bands of fighters are superbly organized. They seem to just come out of the ground and strike where you least expect them." >>





<< "Even the Americans, with all their technology, will never find them." >>





<< "If the Americans want results they'll have to go in on the ground, in force. Then they'll face all the nightmares that we did." >>




I agree, America should think twice before going in there - it may seem like easy task but could turn into nightmare...

 

[StageLeft]

Besides, both Americans and the rest of the world will lose its stomach for the fight much more quickly, should the US fail to show appropriate comapassion for those who have ALSO been abused by the Taliban, etc.

Yep, and the world will also lose resolve if they lose too many troops. As a guy on news last night said the longer a conflict goes on and the more casualties, the less public support over time.

 

[ToBeMe]

Wnat a better read on it? Politics, Moral, Drugs and Poor Execution Cost The Soviets Afghanistan.

• During the war, draft-age Soviet youth increasingly tried to avoid the draft and Afghanistan duty. Large bribes were paid to exempt or safeguard the children of the privileged. A disproportionately high number of youth from factories and collective farms served in Afghanistan. The conscript's had little education and morale was not great when he was drafted. At the training centers, they were told that they were going to fight Chinese and American mercenaries. When they got to Afghanistan for their eighteen-month tour, they soon discovered that they were unwelcome. Morale further plummeted at this realization. As in other armies, the field soldiers were too busy to get into much trouble, but those soldiers in the rear with routine supply, maintenance and security duties had too much time on their hands. Many conscripts developed a narcotics habit in Afghanistan. They financed their habit by selling equipment, ammunition and weapons. Many turned to violent crime. Soviet soldiers robbed merchants and passersby. At Soviet checkpoints, the soldiers would search Afghan civilians' luggage for weapons. Routinely, those Afghans carrying large amounts of money were "sent to Kabul". Being sent to Kabul meant isolating the civilian and his luggage behind a wall and out of sight of the checkpoint. There, the soldiers would kill the civilian and take his money.

 

[CocaCola5]

Apache and M1 A1 won't have easy pickin this time. In fact, with so few and elusive targets, I see friendly-fire as a greater threat than the Afgans.

 

[Pocatello]

The M1A1 won't be useful, but the Apache will be. The Afghan rebels were not afraid of the Soviet troops but Soviev Hind attack choppers were another story.

 

[RossGr]

One thing to remember is that through the entire Soviet war the US was feeding weapons and supplies to the Afgans across the Pakistan boarder. If we can stop the flow of weapons to the Taliban they will have a hard time. Even so to commit ground troops to Afganistan will be a disaster waiting to happen. We need to out think them.

Can G. W. Do it? Not on his own he can't. Let us hope that he follows in the footsteps of his father and finds the best minds available then lets them do what is necessary to put and end to the threat of terrorism.

 

[Pocatello]

One thing for sure, if we don't find them, they are going to hit us again and again. What choice do we have? If we don't fight, they still are going to attack us.

 

[StageLeft]

One thing for sure, if we don't find them, they are going to hit us again and again. What choice do we have? If we don't fight, they still are going to attack us.

Thats the problem. I don't know what else to do either!

 

[Pliablemoose]

The USSR wanted to control the country & thought by taking the capital they would. Wrong...

Out goal is not to control Afghanistan, but to destroy some terrorist camps & send a message.

I honestly think the only way we'll end up with ObL is is someone turns him over to us.

 

[Nemesis77]

If I remember correctly, Soviet equipment is famous for it's high reliability. For example, you could drive a tank over AK47 and it would still work. rest of the equipment is similar.

I think the correct strategy in Afganistan would be:

1. US/NATO troops go where the terrain suits them. That is, the plains. They take control of the cities, airfields, crossroads etc. They would be supported by attack-choppers and maybe tanks (tanks would me useful in such terrain).

2. USA provides equipment, intelligence, firesupport and logistical support for the Northern alliance who pursue the Taleban to the mountains, and take them out there. In fact, the reason why Taleban has been unable to defeat NA is because NA soldiers are from the mountaineous part of Afganistan, and that's where their remaining area on control is. They are better at fighting in the mountains than the Taleban is!

3. When US forces have the cities under their control, they start delivering humanitarian aid. Make sure that the population is better off with US troops there than they would be without US-troops. In short: Win their hearts!

 

[burnedout]

This is not an area of operations to attempt a long, protracted engagement on land.

The United States should employ air power (bombers and fighters) from outside the country. Ground forces should be limited to airmobile operations and elite, inserted units. The airmobile forces should also be based outside the country.

Psyops, coupled with massive support for the current resistance movement (Northern Alliance) is mandatory. The CIA must begin to sow the seeds of unrest.

Success would not be realized for years. Measuring the degree of success depends largely upon the objectives accomplished. Capturing bin Laden, overthrowing the Taliban. Installing the NA in power.

In contrast however, the old Red Army had many, many problems of it's own. Many more than what the article mentions.

 

[Pocatello]

What else could we do but defend ourselves. My only question is the American resolve, are we softer than the World War II generation or that of the Revolution War generation or the Civil War generation?

 

[StageLeft]

Well hopefully the NA won't get stupid after getting power and end up being just as bad as the Taliban...they probably won't be as bad and arming and supporting them could serve well. The NA has already taken the step to say they give their troops as support. They must be piss happy with all of this actually. They couldn't take the taliban themselves and now the world will do it for them (or try anyway).

My only question is the American resolve, are we softer than the World War II generation or that of the Revolution War generation or the Civil War generation?

I think that culture is definitely softer and less hardened to conflict but I don't know if I'd say the resolve would be any weaker than if this happened 4 decades ago.