Post by Oleg Smirnov<http://tinyurl.com/yxp5429k> warontherocks.com
COMING TO TERMS WITH AMERICA'S UNDENIABLE FAILURE IN AFGHANISTAN
Quite many of the Russian expats in the US tell that the quality of the
US military is actually not so good. A few seek to serve in the military
nowadays, despite the advertising and recruiting campaigns, it rather
attracts those who disbelieve they could make a succesful civil career.
Also some of those who have an inferiority complex, were harassed by their
schoolmates etc, may choose it as a compensatory way for self-affirmation.
It might explain things like that <http://tinyurl.com/yb4o9t6k>
I myself don't know for sure, it's just "what people say".
What is obvious to me, the US military is a nest of huge corrution. Due
to this American 'our military' cultism, the Pentagon possesses huge
budgets and the military chiefs use it in an extremely ineffective way.
The business folks like Trump must be understanding this issue, but the
strong lobby from both the left and right wings would seek to undermine
efforts to optimize military-related costs by inventing bogus threats
and appealing to the popular jingoistic sentiment. Still, you have no
other way, since the national debt is growing to a critical point, and
every American will face consequences of living beyond their means.
Actually, unlike the USSR, the USA accomplished their primary goal in
Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks, intelligence (including Russian
sources) promptly identified Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as the instigators
(leaders being Saudi, not withstanding). The US armed forces then went in
and destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan along with a heavy hammering of their
Taliban sponsors. What went wrong was the US ability to effectively conduct
nation building. That was a failure in diplomacy, not military.
How is it a matter of diplomacy if the US military were simply unable
to suppress (with 17 years, huge budgets, FOABs etc, which makes the US
failure even more epic) the Taliban militias?
The brave Yankies are simply afraid to go beyond their stations without
heavy equipment and armored vehicles, and the command of course would
like *to stay* there as long the American taxpayers fund their staying.
Contrast that with the USSR's adventure there: The USSR went in to install
a communist government and essentially expand the Soviet empire. As we
know, that didn't go to well with the Soviets withdrawing across that
"Friendship" bridge without accomplishing any of their goals.
If was a secular leftist government rather than communist. The USSR hadn't
"installed" it. Those socialists came to power as a result of the Afghan
own 'Saur Revolution' in spring 1978. It was a surprise for the Soviets,
they had pretty good relations with the pre-socialist Afghan government,
and they didn't take part in their revolt. However, when the new government
expressed intention to implement some Soviet-like reforms, the leaders of
the USSR were of course enthusiastic about that.
That were not the Soviets who sought to send troops to Afghanistan, but the
Afghan new government repeatedly sent messages to the Kremlin asking for
military help, - because they started to face militant resistance from the
traditionalists and Islamic fundamentalists that opposed their program of
social modernization, and their situation became close to civil war. The US
began to provide support for the insurgents a few months before the Soviet
involvment, - deliberately, in order to foment the civil war in the country.
When the new Afghan government first asked for the Soviet military help, the
Kremlin refused to give it, but the Afghanis were insistent and managed to
send about two dozen pleas before the Soviet leadership eventually decided
to send troops.
During the time the Soviet operation in Afghanistan was conducting, there
was very strong external support for the mujs. Not only the US and 'western'
American cock's suckers, but many Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iran, the
KSA and Egypt supported them and provided them with [heavy] weapons. China
and North Korea raised their voice against the Soviet involvment. China also
took a notable part in the supply of weapons to the mujs. Nevertheless, the
Soviets and the Afghan army managed to contain the mujs, and, as I said, the
Gorbachyov's withdrawal was a part of his fundamental course change, and the
Afghan army managed to withstand for about 3 years after the withdrawal.
Now, compare this to the American operation. External support for Taliban is
in no way comparable with what the mujs got in the 1980s. The amount of money
the US spent on this war is in no way comparable with then Soviet spendings.
And yet the US military were unable to suppress Taliban, and that's why the
US is forced to humbledly negotiate with Taliban today.
...
As time passes, I become stronger in conviction that the socialist regime in
Afghanistan in the 1980s was a great chance to put the country on track of
progressive development. This chance had been lost, but nevertheless I think
those Afghan socialists and the Soviets who helped them, were on right side
of history. The life of the Afghanistan people might be much better today.
This is what Afghanistan under the 'pro-Soviet' government looks like.
<http://tinyurl.com/y3hc7r7o>
<http://tinyurl.com/y6zf3tce>
And this is what Afghanistan liberated by those freedom fighters looks like.
<http://tinyurl.com/y56368y4>
