[ingliz]

The Soviet forces did not lose the Afghan War they withdrew from a war that could not be won. After the war ended, the Soviet Union published figures of the Soviet dead : Total - 13,836 people, on average - 1,537 Russians died per year. According to updated figures, the Soviet army lost 14,427; the KGB - 576; MIA - 28 people dead and missing. Which is nothing in a ten year campaign! Loss of domestic support, economic cost, lack of political support and a realisation that it was a war that could never end led to a negotiated withdrawal.

It was not the total defeat American propagandists would have you think. As in Vietnam where the bodycount was overwhelmingly in the US's favour, in Afghanistan the Russians were killing the enemy very efficiently: 1,000,000+ Afghan dead v 15,000 Soviet dead.

The leading UK commander in Afghanistan is now advocating negotiations with the Taliban because this new conflict is a war without end or purpose - I wonder if the politicians will listen to the military this time? They didn't in Iraq and look what a mess that turned into.

[wraith261]

The Soviet forces did not lose the Afghan War they withdrew from a war that could not be won.
Nice spin...in other words they lost. It's funny though, on one hand you claim the Soviets didn't lose in Afghanistan because "the war could not be won" yet at the same time you seem to ridicule the US as a paper tiger and define Afghanistan as nothing but "a small local conflict."

After the war ended, the Soviet Union published figures of the Soviet dead : Total - 13,836 people, on average - 1,537 Russians died per year. Which is nothing in a ten year campaign!
Far more than the 985 total war dead that the coalition has suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan seven years ago. Also far more than we've lost in Iraq.

Loss of domestic support, economic cost, lack of political support and a realisation that it was a war that could never end led to a negotiated withdrawal.
In other words, similiar to Vietnam...a war that the US lost.

The leading UK commander in Afghanistan is now advocating negotiations with the Taliban because this new conflict is a war without end or purpose
Many people said the same about Iraq; that the war was lost and could not be won. Now that the surge has been successful the new "unwinnable war" is SUDDENLY Afghanistan. And I know, I know, according to you the surge in Iraq has failed as well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/ ... 8601.shtml


All of your points here though are completely off-topic from this thread...not to mention idiotic. The First Gulf War was "unwinnable" for Saddam Hussein. Does that mean he didn't lose??


.

[ingliz]

If Saddam Hussein had withdrawn from Kuwait with his billions of plunder then he would not have lost, he chose to fight an unwinnable war.

The US did not 'lose' the war militarily in Vietnam, they chose to withdraw from an unwinnable war; They lost prestige and 58,000 dead.

The USSR did not 'lose' the war militarily in Afghanistan, they chose to withdraw from an unwinnable war; They lost prestige and 15,000 dead.

I was not discussing the winning or losing of wars only that the US cannot sustain fighting two small local conflicts at the same time without overstretch and loss of efficiency which is a piss poor effort if you are supposed to be a superpower.

All of your points here though are completely off-topic from this thread.

Then why did you bring up the US's superpower status and defend it if you didn't want to discuss it.

[wraith261]

he chose to fight an unwinnable war.
And the Soviets chose to invade Afghanistan. Whether they knew how tough their opposition would be or not is irrelevant. Both the Soviets and Saddam lost their wars.

The US did not 'lose' the war militarily in Vietnam, they chose to withdraw from an unwinnable war.
The US lost the Vietnam war; that's a fact. Now you can dissect the reason why we lost (and I do agree we lost politically not militarily) however that doesn't change the fact that we lost as did the Soviets in Afghanistan.

the US cannot sustain fighting two small local conflicts at the same time without overstretch and loss of efficiency which is a piss poor effort if you are supposed to be a superpower.
So you're claiming the Soviet Union wasn't a super power then. Again, the Soviets had the biggest military in the world they were bordered close to Afghanistan and they LOST in Afghanistan; that is also a fact. Your little semantics game is just a pathetic dodge and deflection tactic.

Then why did you bring up the US's superpower status and defend it if you didn't want to discuss it
Um...I wasn't the one who brought that up. I was responding to someone else who brought it up. And we were discussing it in terms of economics not militarily. Did you even read this thread?

.

[ingliz]

The Soviet military forces were never overstretched by Afghanistan as they only committed about 150,000 troops at any one time whereas The US seems to be by Afghanistan and Iraq although the troop numbers are roughly comparable.

And we were discussing it in terms of economics not militarily

You don't think they are two sides of the same coin?

[wraith261]

The Soviet military forces were never overstretched by Afghanistan as they only committed about 150,000 troops
Which is EIGHT TIMES as many troops as the US has in Afghanistan yet the Soviets still LOST. I'll ask you again. Does that mean that the Soviet Union wasn't a superpower?

The only country that has a bigger military than the US is China. So your claim that we're militarily weak (or whatever you're trying to say??) is ridiculous. The reason we're stretched thin in Afghanistan is because of the Iraq debable. It's an unpopular war and the president doesn't have the political strength to send as many troops as he would like to. He was extremely lucky that he even got the extra troops for the surge.

.

[ingliz]

Of course the USSR was a superpower. If they had wished they could have fought in Afghanistan until doomsday, they chose not to, with no overall loss of efficiency. The US Army cannot fight in Iraq until doomsday, as it is organised, without significant loss of efficiency. That is the point I am making - What is the US projection of force capability whilst fighting these piffling little skirmishes? Almost zero! They would have to pull troops out of Iraq if they needed to counter another threat.

Iraq - 146,000 US troops

Afghanistan - 150,000 Russian troops

[Dave]

On the other hand ingliz, the USSR certainly would not have been capable of supporting substantial overseas military interventions thousands of miles from its home territory, precisely because its aeronaval forces were comparatively less developed.

[wraith261]

Of course the USSR was a superpower.
Okay, so on one hand the USSR was a superpower despite the fact that they lost in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US only has a fraction of the troops that Soviets had in the country, we haven't lost the war in Afghanistan ...yet we're NOT a superpower.

If they had wished they could have fought in Afghanistan until doomsday
Um...no they couldn't, their country was in the process of completely falling apart and DID fall apart only a few years after their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The US Army cannot fight in Iraq until doomsday, as it is organised, without significant loss of efficiency.
NO country's army can fight until doomsday/indefinitely without loss of effienciency so your logic is again muddled.

What is the US projection of force capability whilst fighting these piffling little skirmishes, almost zero!
So first you claim that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that are unwinnable and now you're claiming they're nothing but piffling little skirmishes. Will you make up your mind.

They wuold have to pull troops out of Iraq if they needed to counter another threat.
With the exception of China, no other country in the world could even deploy, let alone maintain the fighting force size we currently have in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as we've had troops there. So again your notion that we're militarily weak is laughable.

.

[ingliz]

Being a superpower is all about perception and people perceive the US to be weak. There is not much use to be had by blasting a country to pulp if you cannot impose your will. War is diplomacy by other means; it cannot be just wanton killing that serves no purpose. I don't deny the US has an unmatched capacity to kill but it does not have the same capacity to impose it's will.

[wraith261]

Being a superpower is all about perception and people perceive the US to be weak.
Pardon?? If anything the criticism is that we've been overly aggressive and a bunch of warmongers who are unwilling to give diplomacy a chance.

There is not much use to be had by blasting a country to pulp if you cannot impose your will.
Again, no country can impose it's will on a population if that population is determined and persistent enough in resisting. That's a constant.


.

[ingliz]

If you are playing the bully it is a given that you only terrorise the little kids who cannot fight back; Once you receive a bloody nose you look both weak and stupid.

Didn't the military planners estimate that at least 450,000 troops would be needed to pacify Iraq in the original wargame scenario? Rumsfeldt chose his own path and look where it has led.

[wraith261]

If you are playing the bully it is a given that you only terrorise the little kids who cannot fight back;
I'm sorry if you feel that the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam and the Iraqi insurgents with their car bombs in Iraq are just a bunch of poor victimized little kids. And we all know that Afghanistan is a country that has a long history of NOT fighting back.

Once you receive a bloody nose you just look weak and stupid.
Well it still remains to be seen whether those wars will be lost and if we'll suffer a defeat like the Soviets did (and yes they were defeated.) I know you and your blogs have already long since decided that both wars are unwinnable and that all is hopelessly lost.

.

[ingliz]

Okay, so on one hand the USSR was a superpower despite the fact that they lost in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US only has a fraction of the troops that Soviets had in the country, we haven't lost the war in Afghanistan ...yet we're NOT a superpower

The USSR was not hamstrung by Afghanistan and could have countered another threat, The US has shown it cannot fight two wars at once with the forces it has now. Afghanistan is a PR war until America withdraws its troops from Iraq

their country was in the process of completely falling apart

It was but that had little to do with the war in Afghanistan.

NO country's army can fight until doomsday/indefinitely without loss of effienciency so your logic is again muddled

A conscript army can fight as long as the state is capable of supplying it with arms, men and material unlike your small volunteer 'spearpoint' of highly trained personnel.

no other country in the world could even deploy, let alone maintain the fighting force size we currently have in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as we've had troops there. So again your notion that we're militarily weak is laughable

I don't see how that makes you a superpower and not just a big power.

Will you make up your mind.

Little wars can be just as unwinnable as large wars, size has nothing to do with it - Look at Somalia. Do you think Iraq is a 'big' war?

I'm sorry if you feel that the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam and the Iraqi insurgents with their car bombs in Iraq are just a bunch of poor victimized little kids. And we all know that Afghanistan is a country that has a long history of NOT fighting back.

If your government didn't want the US to look weak and stupid it should have committed the number of troops needed to prosecute both the Afghan war and the pacification of Iraq as originally planned. And if it could not the US shouldn't have started these foreign adventures in the first place.

[wraith261]

The USSR was not hamstrung by Afghanistan and could have countered another threat,
How could the USSR counter another threat when their entire country was already in the process of falling apart.

It was but that had little to do with the war in Afghanistan.
You claimed that the Soviet Union could've fought in Afghanistan until doomsday. How is that possible when they broke apart only a few years after withdrawing in defeat?? And the war in Afghanistan was a very costly financial endeavor, so to claim it had nothing to do with hastening an already ailing economy's collapse is a bit odd.

A conscript army can fight as long as the state is economically capable of supplying it with arms, men and material
Exactly, and any country that occupies another nation and has their occupation fiercely resisted will eventually not find it economically, militarily or politically worthwhile to remain. As I said no foreign army can win against a relentless and constant civilian insurgency.

I don't see how that makes you a superpower and not just a big power.
Right now part of being a superpower is having a large military. The US has the second largest military in the world. Also we have the biggest economy in the world which seals our superpower status.

Do you think Iraq is a 'big' war?
Well it's not comparable to WWII but 150,000 troops deployed overseas is a pretty sizeable amount. Can you name a bigger military deployment by any other nation right now?


.

[ingliz]

Also we have the biggest economy in the world which seals our superpower status.

Which is going down the toilet as we speak.

[wraith261]

Which is going down the toilet as we speak.
Along with many other economies around the world. Which brings us right back to the main topic of this thread.

.

[ingliz]

And the war in Afghanistan was a very costly financial endeavor, so to claim it had nothing to do with hastening an already ailing economy's collapse is a bit odd.

I would blame Gorbachev's reform combined with Reagan's very expensive psyop, the Strategic Defense Initiative, rather than the Afghan War for the collapse of the USSR.

[pikachu]

The Soviet forces did not lose the Afghan War they withdrew from a war that could not be won.

It all depends on the objectives.

On one hand, they didn't succeed in wiping out the resistance movement, in fact they might have made it only stronger.
On the other hand, they kept the Afghani communist government in place for 10 years straight, and they left it in such condition that it survived for another three years, thus managing to outlive the Soviet Union itself.

It's hard to tell who wins in that sort of conflict. The war was a bad investment, so they withdrew, that's all we know.

[Falx]

On the other hand ingliz, the USSR certainly would not have been capable of supporting substantial overseas military interventions thousands of miles from its home territory, precisely because its aeronaval forces were comparatively less developed.

That is probably because they never needed to develop the capability, where would they have used it? Canada, Mexico? The US on the other hand only needed that capability, again Canada and Mexico aren't that big of a threat against it.