Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan?

[Darius871]

Serb in 3, 2, 1...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by our_man
US support. The Afghans were being pwned before the CIA arrived on the scene.

The CIA was on the scene six months before the Afgani government asked for Soviet aid.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan?

Originally posted by germanos
Offcourse communism (well, Soviet style at least) is notoriously centralised which didn't help the Soviet case.

What pissed off the locals was not the Communists running things centrally. They were fine with that for four years until the Communists decided to go and do something, well, communist, like passing equal rights for women. Then the reactionaries got all pissed off and revolted. The CIA said, hey, we can lay a trap for the Soviets and began supporting this minor insurgency. Six months later, in come the Soviets, and the rest is history.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by alva
Beast of war.

Good movie.

No. Great movie


The Soviets lost because they were idiots. You can't win a guerilla war with military strength. And that was their only strategy.

The Afghans have a history of beating the snot out of invaders (albeit Alexander the Great and Islam did okay there). It's very, very rugged terrain, which favors popular guerilla actions.

Afghanistan is filled with very religious people. The Soviets came in and, instead of trying to win the hearts and minds of the people, tried to force them convert to Soviet-style atheism.

So jihadists (including Usama bin Ladin) from all over Islam flooded in to do battle, and once Jimmy Carter realized the Soviets couldn't be trusted , we were only to happy to supply the jihadist--opps, the freedom fighters --with weapons.

[duke o' york]

Tanks are next to useless in the hills and mountains that the mujahidin, er, hid in.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
... The CIA said, hey, we can lay a trap for the Soviets and began supporting this minor insurgency. Six months later, in come the Soviets, and the rest is history.

I disagree. You assume the CIA has the capacity to think, to plan, and to act intelligently. I don't think it has any of those abilities.

It wasn't the CIA's brilliance but rather the Soviet's stupidity which foredoomed Soviet efforts in Afghanistan.

[spartak]

this old saw again?

[Zkribbler]

No, this is a totally different old saw.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Tanks are next to useless in the hills and mountains that the mujahidin, er, hid in.

And the Gunships and Planes which would have been of some use there became useless when the Mujahideen got the Stingers.

[Lancer]

Rambo! Right, I forgot.



Thanks for all the informative answers. So, the US and allies seem to be doing rather well. Is it because we aren't trying to hold territory?

[Proteus_MST]

Has probably also something to do with the modern weapons/equipment employed.

The best Equipment the Taliban have is probably more than 15 years old
and they don´t get much support anymore (maybe there are still enough recruits, but there won´t be much supply in modern weapons anymore [and I doubt many of the local warlords have an interest in helping the Taliban to power again]) whereas the US and Allied troops use state of the art equipment (among them unmanned drones which make it easier to observe regions without having to risk soldiers) which also negates the advantage of the remaining Stingers the Taliban might still have.

[Pekka]

Because overwhelming firepower and superior fighting forces do not necessarily equal winning a war, just like winning the battles doesn't mean winning the war.

They faced tough as nails guerillas who had all the advantages of what they needed; mobility, support (CIA), motivation and of course the home field advantage plus defendors benefits. Along with difficult terrain, it's really enough to fight superior enemy.

With those elements in place, you can also gain initiative and momentums, which really kills the opposition morale and trust to their own superiority.

Now, the goal of the invading force is to end it as quickly as possible, no one wants to fight that kind of a war. And they can have a goal of keeping the fight alive. They can pick their battles, they can regroup if smashed to bits, recover and only become stronger basically.

It's not extremely likely to win that kind of a war if you're going in. What you need is solid intelligence in order to crush the key people and leadership, you need to be able to keep being motivated and have that high morale, you need a great cause for that. So that everyone knows why they are fighting, so that they feel it's necessary and important. So that no one feels all the damage taken and lives lost were for nothing or for too small of a reason.

You need to cut all the support which is basically impossible in real life. You need to establish yourself in key places for a long time, and 24/7. This also is close to impossible. Not impossible, but close.

In order for victory, you need to break their backs and their morale, which is exactly what they try to do back. So you need to keep the momentum as much as possible, initiative and force the fights to be fought on your own terms, which is next to impossible again.

You need to be ready for heavy losses over time and to be able to deal with it. It's more likely that the other side is willing and ready to fight for years, even decades. Are you ready for it? That's the question. If the cause is right, there might be means to overcome it, if not, there's no chance what so ever. And you don't need a betting man to realize it. Just the ability to take the blinders off is enough .

It's not really comparable but gives an interesting view, that it's the same if you created a society without crime. Impossible, unless you take extraordinary measures. There will be forces to fight you as long as they have motivation. You can't kill them all, that's just out of madman's book. Who thinks any invading forces have motivation high enough, lasting years or decades that can match the locals? They are, essentially, fighting in their own backyards. Wouldn't you be motivated to fight on your own yard, against anyone? Kill one, kill two, doesn't matter. They have options to...... fight or die or be imprisoned, or accept foreign power and domination. Many would rather die. Including if it means joining troops that you don't agree with, if they have ideological agendas. How do you kill that motivation, so that when they go weak, they STAY weak so you can crush the rest of them?

That's a question no one knows the answer to. Many wars have ended just because of the threats of guerilla war by the opposition, and gotten the deal they wanted. If someone has medicine to that, I guess they'll be the next military overlords and genius minds.

Or.. there is no answer for it.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan?

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, but Zbignew Brzhinsky admitted to it several years ago.

[Vince278]

Serb must be having a day off.

I see some parallels between their experience in Afghanistan and in Chechnya.

[Berzerker]

You can disagree all you want, but Zbignew Brzhinsky admitted to it several years ago.

Didn't he say Carter et al saw an opportunity to create a Vietnam for the Russians? We wanted the Russians to invade so we could arm the Islamic fundies.