Afghanistan

[c1ue]

Re: Afghanistan

Covert American support for the Mujahedin helped neutralize Soviet technical superiority. Tanks aren't as useful in the mountains, and after we gave the Afghans a way to fight back against Soviet gunships, Afghanistan became too costly to the Soviets.

And do you really think it is unlikely that covert support can't begin again should America continue to irritate Russia/China?

The support doesn't even need to be anti-aircraft missiles - a nice big shipment of old artillery shells for use as IEDs would do just great.

The one thing Afghanistan lacks which Iraq has/had is a large stockpile of explosives. That can be fixed.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

And do you really think it is unlikely that covert support can't begin again should America continue to irritate Russia/China?

The support doesn't even need to be anti-aircraft missiles - a nice big shipment of old artillery shells for use as IEDs would do just great.

The one thing Afghanistan lacks which Iraq has/had is a large stockpile of explosives. That can be fixed.

Sorry c1ue -- didn't mean to give the impression that I thought this was an immutable situation. I was just saying why I don't think the Soviet experience matches the current situation on the ground.

My impression is that Russia is presently using supply routes through its territory as the carrot/stick with us right now, and is a long way from the level of confrontation which you describe. Is your take different?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Afghanistan

And do you really think it is unlikely that covert support can't begin again should America continue to irritate Russia/China?

The support doesn't even need to be anti-aircraft missiles - a nice big shipment of old artillery shells for use as IEDs would do just great.

The one thing Afghanistan lacks which Iraq has/had is a large stockpile of explosives. That can be fixed.

Based on the amount of stuff being cleaned up by EOD teams in Afghanistan since 2001, Afghanistan is not exactly in short supply of raw materials for IEDs either.

But your point of external covert support to drain/cripple coalition efforts in Afghan by expanding existing insurgent capabilities rather than introducing new capabilities would be far more easily deniable.

Discussing anti-IED capabilities is a big no-no.....but it must be a particularly frustrating yin/yang when the very infrastructure that can be a key to helping lift a nation from the 4th world into the 3rd( or 2nd someday) is also the very platform used to attack development efforts.

Personally, I think the coalition is in some respects trapped.

In light of western ultra short attention spans, our demand for instant gratification, our inability to face the coming economic pain head-on, and our short-election cycles....the chance of real long-term success in Afghanistan is severely blunted.

But clear and certain failure in Afghanistan would have the potential to be a defining moment in a seismic geopolitical shift.

My concern is that a declared political victory, but real failure and withdrawal on the ground in Afghan would have potential for a repeat of the post Vietnam period where the long forgotten problems of the 70's and 80's East Timor, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Southern Africa, Horn of Africa, Latin America, and South America resurface to rear their ugly head.

I don't know what the end state in Afghanistan will be, but I do strongly believe the consequences of it will reverberate throughout the world in the coming decades.

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

That's not exactly true.

Without going into graphic detail of the Soviet Order of Battle, it's worth noting the Soviet's made considerable use of their own Spetznaz and special mission units.

The successful Soviet forced entry and takedown of Afghanistan would rank up there with US operations in late 2001.

I've had the opportunity to discuss with and learn from Soviet operations in Afghanistan directly from a member of a special mission unit directly involved in interdiction missions along the Pakistani/Afghani frontier.

I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the level of success achieved by Soviet special mission units once they adjusted their orientation and doctrine away from rear echelon disruption in a conventional conflict in Western Europe to disrupting logistical supply chains from "secure" Mujahideen bases in Pakistan.

I've seen photos of Spetznaz posing with a LOT of Stinger tubes.

Of course, ultimately the Soviets failed......but I think it would be dangerous to assume the reasons why are largely due to a difference between a conscription based, officer centric force and a professional based, NCO centric force.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that opposition strategy in Afghanistan is exceptionally difficult to counter.

Go for a few high profile political/media wins specifically targeting weaker coalition members..the weak links in the chain...to hasten their departure

Combine this with efforts to temporarily cease insurgent operations and allow the coalition to declare political victory and get the hell out....then the real party starts.

Good guys have training, tactics, kit, and resources to win the battles....but a relatively short attention span.

Bad guys have unlimited patience to wait for the coalition to leave and win the war.

Yes Spetsnaz were used in Chechnya, but not so much initially. Initially the Russians got their asses handed to them. For some reason Russia chose to use a mix of some of their worst units and some of the best ( OMON, Spetsnaz) in that war. And their tactics could be downright awful at times. ( Armor in cities got slaughtered). As you probably know, Russian morale in 1995 was awful and hundreds of officers refused to serve in Chechnya. Generals even refused. There was quite a bit of war profiteering going on on both sides. And Russian soldiers routinely sold weapons to the enemy in return for drugs and booze. But you are correct. Some
Russian units are quite good.
The brutality of the Russian Army doesn't do much for the morale problem. Even the officers can punch and kick each other! I'm sure they have improved since the first Chechen war, but in my study of that war the apathy of the troops was appalling. Poorly officered as well in my opinion.

I'm not really up to speed on the Soviet war in Afghanistan, though that is on my list of things to read up on.

I just think there are some lessons to be learned from the Chechen wars about how to fight an issurection led by a few fanatical zealots. Like the Chechens, I really don't see the Afghan Taliban having these international aspirations they are accused of having. They want to run their little fiefdom the way they want to. Both countries are run by warlords and tribal loyalty trumps nationalism there. Occupying Afghanistan merely interferes with what these warlords do, which is exploit the people and selling of drugs. I just don't see any fundamental change happening by the US being there another 8 years. The Russians leveled almost every town and villiage in Chechnya and it didn't accomplish much of anything. Now we are smart enough not to do that, but I can't see any Western supported government gaining broad appeal in that country. That would be like asking an American to join a child molester group in order to fight Canada. We're infidels dammit, always will be.

[unlucky]

Re: Afghanistan

The current war appears to be much lower intensity than during the soviet period. About 1,300 coalition troops killed since 2001, and about 13,000 civilian casualties. Versus approx 14,000 soviet troops killed and more than 1 million afghans killed during '79-'89. (Figures from wikipedia).

Suggests the violence is about 10x less intense.

Combine that with the fact that the US mil. seems to have gotten a handle on how to fight counter-insurgency in Iraq, and it suggests grounds for optimism. At least give them a chance to see if they can deliver any results within say 1 year.

After that, IMHO the Europeans should be asked to police and fund the country until it's fully stable. Don't laugh - they might have done this in 2002/3 if Bush hadn't diverted his attention to Iraq. There is plenty of popular support in Europe for the goal of the mission in Afghanistan, the problem is that people don't currently believe it is winnable.

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

I don't know about the training, but the uniforms are non existent, at least what I have seen from pictures in the Georgia conflict.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

Instead of boots, some have normal shoes, different uniforms without matching colors and probably nobody has a bulletproof vest.

I hope they are getting enough food.

Great link.

I thought the Russians looked pretty well armed and equipped in those pictures. Are you talking about the Georgians? Of course the Russians are not going to be as well equipped as most Western soldiers. But I saw uniforms and a LOT of armor.

As you mentioned food, of course in Chechnya some Russian units literally starved for lack of it.

Ash, I agree the 1979 Soviet Army was better than the current one. I also agree that the US can do a lot better job than the Soviets did. But it still won't be enough. War is not won by simply killing more of the opponents. Its about achieving your goals. We don't really even have a goal do we? Stick around until the Taliban calls it quits? It won't happen. What else are they going to do? Open a golf shop? This is what they do. They Warlord. Our presence literally makes them stronger as they use it to recruit. Religion and politics go hand in hand in these countries. Their goals? Stay in power. Which they can do indefinitely due to their ability to hop over to Pakistan any time they need to and the nature of the terrain, as well as unlimited funding from our "allies" in the Middle East.

This has all been played out before. Vietnam, Chechnya, Dacia in Roman times. The home team always has the advantage in these wars. In ancient times they could be won by sheer brutality and destruction. But short of that I don't see it working. And by the time it possibly could be "won", America will be such and mess we could care less about Afghanistan.

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

Great link.

I thought the Russians looked pretty well armed and equipped in those pictures. Are you talking about the Georgians? Of course the Russians are not going to be as well equipped as most Western soldiers. But I saw uniforms and a LOT of armor.

As you mentioned food, of course in Chechnya some Russian units literally starved for lack of it.

If you look at the feet you'll notice some of them are wearing sports shoes

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/4916/img9693mm9.jpg

This wound would probably never happen with any kind of body armor
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5228/img9681bi9.jpg

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

If you look at the feet you'll notice some of them are wearing sports shoes

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/4916/img9693mm9.jpg

This wound would probably never happen with any kind of body armor
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5228/img9681bi9.jpg

Actually, this is well documented that some Russians preferred shoes. Their boots sucked, so many troops wanted tennis shoes. They felt they could move better in them. I can't find the link now that I need it.

Nasty wound, but depends what hit the guy if a vest would help. The fact he's standing means it's probably shrapnel . A 7.62x54R round and he's dead anyway.

Interesting link interviewing a former Spetsnaz who served in Afghanistan

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

Andrei: The same that we had, the same thing. First you have to realize where their allegiance lies, when you come over their with a smile and hand out chocolate bars to their children you do not necessarily buy their loyalty. You have to realize that their loyalty lies with Allah. You are not Muslim so you are infidel. Taliban is Muslim, so they are their brother. So that is what they have to realize. Their food droppings they are doing now is not going to buy them nothing. These people have to realize these people have been at war at for 20 years. They have seen everybody, the Brit's, the Russians, everybody. The biggest thing will be the treachery. They'll smile, take your candy bar, and say thank you very much good ol Americans. Then when you leave the village they'll tell the local Taliban leader where you went, how many people, how you're armed, and so on and so on. So they ambush you.
Then next one is the weather. Right now winter is approaching. From what I've seen of U.S. extreme cold weather equipment, none of it will hold up in the mountains. All that layering bullshit, with the winds that they have in the mountains, is not gonna work. So they're gonna havta rethink that.
And another one will be the treacherous terrain where equipment like the Blackhawk and Apache cannot operate. Altitude, contamination by dust, dirt, and grime which is everywhere you step. That will be another one. I'll say, the locals, the weather, the terrain, and the equipment. And I'm not saying it will or won't work, I'm just saying this is where they should be looking. I'm sure the training of the guys are adequate, they know their stuff, their weapons are functional, they just haven't been there

The boots that we used were regular paratrooper boots that did not work good in the mountains. Some of the officers that were trained Alpinists had their own mountain boots but for the mass of us in the summer time we would get ourselves regular sneakers or tennis shoes and use those. But in the winter time we had no choice but to use the standard issue boot. So some type of boot that is light and comfortable with the proper sole, that would definitely be an asset.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

Ash, I agree the 1979 Soviet Army was better than the current one. I also agree that the US can do a lot better job than the Soviets did. But it still won't be enough.

Oh, to be sure, I was writing about how I thought we stumbled into this mess and what our remaining objectives might be. I am skeptical of success. Afghanistan has come up once or twice before on iTulip. My position has been that we'll end up going home because we run out of money, not because the Taliban drive us out militarily.

[c1ue]

Re: Afghanistan

My impression is that Russia is presently using supply routes through its territory as the carrot/stick with us right now, and is a long way from the level of confrontation which you describe. Is your take different?

From my view - taken from those in St. Petersburg and Moscow thus not necessarily representative (though likely), Russia sees the US as being a two faced negotiating partner.

On the one hand, all this talk about peace and partnership to maintain a peaceful world via preventing Iranian nuclear arms, etc.

On the other hand, missile defense platforms in Eastern Europe, support for a confrontational Ukraine and Georgia, NATO expansion, etc etc.

Ultimately Russia considers the latter far more relevant than the former. The allowance of supply flights through Russian central Asia and former Soviet Central Asia is more of a monitoring tactic than anything else.

Should the US continue to commit more and more resources - this merely strengthens the Russian ability to directly hurt US forces committed to Afghanistan.

Think what would happen should the escalation in Afghanistan ramp to 120K or 150K troops, then Russia decides to shut down the previous supply routes. Maybe a 'rogue' SA battery or two finds its way into the mountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_9th_Company

But instead of a company, several divisions?

My position has been that we'll end up going home because we run out of money, not because the Taliban drive us out militarily.

Isn't that how all guerrilla wars end? Either the guerrillas are all dead, or the occupying forces lose the will to continue.

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

Actually, this is well documented that some Russians preferred shoes. Their boots sucked, so many troops wanted tennis shoes. They felt they could move better in them. I can't find the link now that I need it.

Nasty wound, but depends what hit the guy if a vest would help. The fact he's standing means it's probably shrapnel . A 7.62x54R round and he's dead anyway.

Interesting link interviewing a former Spetsnaz who served in Afghanistan

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

Andrei: I just hope that you learn from our mistakes and that all the boys over there make it home safely. I hope that the American people don't have to go through what our parents and relatives had to go through with the loss of loved ones. By God I hope they don't draw themselves into a long, bleeding conflict. If they're gona execute it I hope they're gona use stratagies over there like they say they're gonna, in and out quick. Because those people will not be ruled.

hmmm


Looks like they are getting US style boots

Goodbye to the Footcloth, Hello to the Sock
By Kevin O'Flynn, Moscow Times 19/12/07
Dec 19, 2007 - 11:12:51 AM

Portyanki, or footcloths, have kept soldiers' feet warm and dry since the days of Peter the Great. Notoriously difficult to wrap, they are the bane of many a new recruit and will be phased out by the end of next year, Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Isakov announced last month.

The scrapping of the footcloth comes as the first half of a two-part revolution in army footwear: Traditional Russian army boots, known as sapogi, are to be replaced by lace-up boots similar to those worn in the U.S. Army, Isakov said.

Footcloths have long been a symbol of the army. But while most countries switched to boots and socks, Russia stuck with the footcloths.

U.S. surgeon Malcolm Grow described the strips of cloth in a memoir of his time working as a doctor in Russia during World War I.

"When the foot became wet, they could unwrap the cloth, wrapping the wet part round the leg where it dries quickly, while the dry end is wrapped around the foot and keeps it warm," wrote Grow, who later became the first surgeon general of the U.S. Air Force.

The Russian soldiers told him: "We don't like socks."

...
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish...19_12_07.shtml

Behind the Iron Curtain: Portyanki

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

From my view - taken from those in St. Petersburg and Moscow thus not necessarily representative (though likely), Russia sees the US as being a two faced negotiating partner.

On the one hand, all this talk about peace and partnership to maintain a peaceful world via preventing Iranian nuclear arms, etc.

On the other hand, missile defense platforms in Eastern Europe, support for a confrontational Ukraine and Georgia, NATO expansion, etc etc.

Ultimately Russia considers the latter far more relevant than the former. The allowance of supply flights through Russian central Asia and former Soviet Central Asia is more of a monitoring tactic than anything else.

Should the US continue to commit more and more resources - this merely strengthens the Russian ability to directly hurt US forces committed to Afghanistan.

Think what would happen should the escalation in Afghanistan ramp to 120K or 150K troops, then Russia decides to shut down the previous supply routes. Maybe a 'rogue' SA battery or two finds its way into the mountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_9th_Company

But instead of a company, several divisions?



Isn't that how all guerrilla wars end? Either the guerrillas are all dead, or the occupying forces lose the will to continue.

Thanks for passing along the Russian perspective. I had read something similar in the Foreign Affairs issue I linked, but with the caveat that "hard" confrontation was likely to simmer down a bit until oil prices recover (which they are)... and that Obama seems more inclined to negotiate (in good faith) on the issues that Russia cares about.

As for how guerrilla wars end, in a previous thread on Afghanistan, a comparison to the French experience in Vietnam was made with a reference to the battle of Dien Bien Phu. My take on that was the French really were beaten on the battlefield in that case, because the guerrilla army had actually made the transition to a respectable field army with heavy weapons (artillery). That said, I would agree with your statement in general -- I just think that sometimes the will to continue is lost because there are too many battlefield losses of men and equipment, and in our case the will to continue may be lost because we simply need the money for something else (like, say, if our standard of living is converging with Poland).

[c1ue]

Re: Afghanistan

Dien Bien Phu is certainly an example of 'guerrillas' winning, but then again France's population in the '60s was about 48M vs. Vietnam's 37.5M

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/pe...tion&date=1964

Even with the population roughly split by the north vs. south, France absolutely did not have the manpower nor economic advantage to really press its occupation home.

The US in contrast had a population in 1964 of about 192M.

Better examples of guerrilla actions would be: Tibet. Malaysia. Chechnya.

But back to the original subject: Afghanistan.

Admittedly my population metric is quite broad, but Afghanistan doesn't have a Kurd equivalent. It doesn't have a broad enmity among all its neighbors. It doesn't have a terrain well suited for armored vehicles.

The exercise there is a complete waste of effort, money, and lives.

If terrorists were really the issue then we'd be occupying Saudi Arabia.

[ST]

Re: Afghanistan

I'm still not clear what the mission goal in Afghanistan is. I don't think most Americans are either.

War is God's way of teaching Americans about geography.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Afghanistan

A a quick search on Unocal should get you started in what I believe is the right direction

here are a few articles to start with

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm


http://books.google.be/books?id=MqrO...Cheney&f=false

Hi Diarmuid,

That was the direction before the war. Oil is the cause of, and solution to the endless wars in Afghanistan.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/war111901a.htm

I hurt from all the laughing about spreading democracy.