Who said Afghanistan wouldn't be another Vietnam...

[Natan]

Andy Man, you don't need to exterminate the populace to end terrorism/insurgency. For starters, at the most basic, nasty, and visceral level, Hafez Assad defeated his Islamic fundamentalist opponents by slaughtering less than one out of two hundred of his citizens, and the losses were replaced within the year. Saddam Hussein suppressed the Shi'ite rebellion in the south of his country without depopulating the country. To give some more humane examples, the British defeated Malayan rebels in the 1950s, and IIRC had actually defeated the Mao Mao militarily when they granted independence to Kenya. UNITA may well be on the way out in Angola, and the FIS isn't doing to well in Algeria either. I don't see continued Interahamwe raids in Rwanda-Burundi, nor have I heard much of Aum Shinriko, the Japanese Red Army, or Bader-Meinhoff lately.

What people like to forget about Vietnam is the role of the NVA in the matter.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
How about overthrowing Manuel Noriega?

Don't get me started on this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Natan
Andy Man, you don't need to exterminate the populace to end terrorism/insurgency.

That clearly has to depend on how well the rebels/revolutionaries are supported by the local populace.

Saddam is having a problem with the Kurds, for example, and the BTA is still bothering Spain in a low-level sort of way. Then there is the Palestinian situation.

[Fidel]

I think the peaceful people of Afghanistan will repell the agressors once again. This time they will use Russian weapons against Americans (in a bizzare twist to the previous war against foreign invaders). Too bad that war criminals in the US army will never be held responsible for the crimes committed against Afghan civilians since October (and especially in the last month or so).

[Fidel]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



5 vietnemise died for every US troop in vietnam, 10 Russians for every Nazi in WW2.

who won?

jesus, by your account, there should be no single russian alive

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by LaRusso
I think the peaceful people of Afghanistan will repell the agressors once again. This time they will use Russian weapons against Americans (in a bizzare twist to the previous war against foreign invaders). Too bad that war criminals in the US army will never be held responsible for the crimes committed against Afghan civilians since October (and especially in the last month or so).

Take your trolls elsewhere... the US and civilized world has liberated Afghanistan. We should not be expecting them to support our views but we should always hope for them to support their own freedom.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Take your trolls elsewhere... the US and civilized world has liberated Afghanistan. We should not be expecting them to support our views but we should always hope for them to support their own freedom.

well you certainly are repeating the pentagon version
tell that to the people killed and strangled two weeks ago (17 of them) and to those beaten severly in kandahar cages

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by LaRusso


well you certainly are repeating the pentagon version
tell that to the people killed and strangled two weeks ago (17 of them) and to those beaten severly in kandahar cages

Who told you that? The Guardian? A big pack of lies. You don't have any idea what you are saying by supporting the taliban.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by LaRusso


jesus, by your account, there should be no single russian alive

Well its true. 15 million Russian Casaulties in WW2. Germans never had then 4 million men on the east front. (1942)

[DinoDoc]

That's a good one.

Originally posted by LaRusso
I think the peaceful people of Afghanistan will repell ...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I'm not crying, I'm just saying those wh osaid the war would last 2 weeks were wrong.

Could Mr Spink explain me how this is anti-American in any way?

you are absolutely correct that those who said the war would last 2 weeks are wrong. Of course Donald Rumsfield and other Pentagon spokesmen have spent the last several months saying over and over again that the war would not be short or easy. My general sense here in the US is that most ordinary people have resolve and determination - we are willing to take casualties, to do what it takes. Maybe im wrong since i live in northern virginia, and saw and smelled the Pentagon on fire in the week after Sept 11. Or perhaps because i live only a short drive from battlefields where Americans sacirificed their lives in the tens of thousands.

Your thread says "who says this wont be another VIet Nam?" Viet Nam took 7 years, 50,000 american lives, and ended with the NVA taking Saigon.

There are intermediate results between that, and a two week walk-over.

There is also an intermediate between "lets bomb and get out" and the commitment to occupation the Soviets did.
The Soviets were committed to complete control for a specific (and unpopular) govt. We are committed only to keeping the Taliban out of power, and to giving the afghan people the fair chance they deserve for peace and stability. At this point the Karzai govt seems the best chance, and seems to be popular with the afghan people, even as they have trouble with the warlords. IF karzai loses his popularity, and support for him results in the US being linked to a hated regime, we can and will abandon him. While this may be frustrating in our war against Al-qaeeda and its friends, it is necessary to avoid getting stuck in the Soviet position.

Right now the relevant metrics are not from VIet Nam, but from the Soviet experience. These can be expressed in terms of troop commitment, international situation, local opposition, and supply situation.


1. Soviets fairly early sent in large force, over 100,000 to secure afgan cities and roads. US has only 5,000, including troops aggressively going after al-qaeeda.

2. SOviets were condemned, including breaking up of what had been promising ties to muslim world. US has support of world, including not only our traditional allies, but of Russia and China. Even has tacit support of most muslim states, and acquiesence of muslim street.

3. SOviets faced guerilla war all over the country - virtually the entire Afghan nation in arms. We face primarily foreign (non-Afgan) fighters, who have some local support, but only in 3 or 4 pashtun provinces. AL qaeeda confined to mountain positions.
While other regions present their own security challenges, there is no support for al qaeeda in non-Pashtun half of the country, and little in other pashtun areas.

4. Anti-soviet forces received massive support across iran and pakistan borders, including large numbers of stinger missiles. al qaeeda seems to be mainly using their dwindling stocks of weapons. Some weapons probably are being smuggled from pakistan, but not in large numbers, and probably not including stingers.

These are all related - soviets found themselves in vicious cycle - more troops - more opposition - more troops, etc
US has so far kept its footprint in the country light, which is one key reason there has been no national rebellion against US and US friends. There will be temptations along the road, but we have the Soviet example as a warning.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



5 vietnemise died for every US troop in vietnam, 10 Russians for every Nazi in WW2.

who won?

good point. Body counts alone are meaningless. However in Viet nam there was a virtually endless source of new recruits for the NVA, if not for the VC - the growing North vietnamese population was subject to conscription.

At this point Al-qaeeda seems to be mainly die-hard foreign fighters. Few afghan taliban are still fighting, and most Pakistanis have gone home. The fight is largely chechens, uzbeks, and arabs. rebuilding al -qaeeda's army will be very difficult. A. Under current political conditions in muslim world, recruitment should be more difficult than before. B. Those who are recruited will have to be smuggled into Afghanistan - how? by sea to Karachi, then over the mountains from Pakistan? with coalition forces watching the sea lanes? With the Paki army in the mountains, and coalition airborne surveillance? (no hidden ho chi min trail here) And of course they have no place to train, with their camps destroyed.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


Bassically saying, Afghans are dying instead of US troops....



, there is an unknown amount of guys hiding in the mountais,

Unknown doesnt mean infinite. estimates range from 500 to 5000. Even if its 5000, they are beatable, with patience and resolution.

LOTM

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Who told you that? The Guardian? A big pack of lies. You don't have any idea what you are saying by supporting the taliban.

1) IHT, too lazy to check, it was a week or something ago
2) why is it that saying americans might be commiting attrocities amounts to supporting taliban?



faded glory:
russians had about 11 million military casualties and about 15 million civilians
germany lost total of 9 million, i am not sure about military portion.
even if we take your estimation of 15 million lost by the russians, it would take 1,5 million german military losses to cover that. they lost that just in 3 biggest battles (stalingrad, kursk, bagration -44)

[Fidel]

Re: That's a good one.

Originally posted by DinoDoc