PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Soviet Generals warn of failure in Afghanistan

david_slupper
10-08-2006, 11:44 PM
British troops will be forced to flee Afghanistan, say former Soviet commanders who oversaw Moscow's disastrous campaign against the mujahedeen in the 1980s.
In a withering assessment of the "hopeless" campaign being waged there, they have told The Sunday Telegraph that mounting casualties will drive out Britain and its Nato allies. Chillingly, Gen Ruslan Aushev, who was injured during fighting with mujahedeen rebels, predicted: "You will flee from there."

The former Soviet commanders point out that they had enjoyed the advantages of a functioning and politically sympathetic domestic government in Kabul, and a 100,000 strong Afghan army on their side. Its equivalent today is a quarter of the size and still being trained by coalition forces.

"It was a 100,000 strong army with aviation, armoured vehicles and artillery," said Gen Aushev. "Their officers were trained in Moscow and they were more or less battle-ready. Now I just don't see the Afghan army."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LHPQFWYGHRYZXQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2006/09/24/wafg124.xml

Pretty scary. Especially when it comes from people who have been there and done that.
clutch-monkey
10-08-2006, 11:54 PM
hasn't afghanistan always had a history of repelling invading armies?
Nocturnal
10-08-2006, 11:57 PM
Yup, and the Russians were willing to be much more brutal than we are.
MooCowzRock
10-09-2006, 12:00 AM
Yup, and the Russians were willing to be much more brutal than we are.

Damn us and our mercy and compassion!
Nocturnal
10-09-2006, 12:03 AM
Damn us and our mercy and compassion!

Even the worst among us are better than many others.

That doesn't mean I have to like it though.
MooCowzRock
10-09-2006, 12:05 AM
Even the worst among us are better than many others.

That doesn't mean I have to like it though.

True. I didnt mean it as an actual point, though, I'm just being stupid...:bigwink:

There is a hint of truth to it, though.
Nocturnal
10-09-2006, 12:14 AM
High morality is costly at times, that is true enough. I think it's better in the long run though.
weister42
10-09-2006, 01:33 AM
Yup, and the Russians were willing to be much more brutal than we are.

They'll be rendered helpless with chemical weapons:eek: can't exactly pull the trigger when ur fingers are rotting off
MooCowzRock
10-09-2006, 01:35 AM
I have to admit, though, it sems like we arent doing enough in Afghanistan. I dont understand how they could actually be taking it back, even a little tiny bit of it, with how many troops we have versus how many Taliban there are...As we leave Iraq, we oughta move some troops to Afghanistan for another year while we move the rest back home...
weister42
10-09-2006, 01:43 AM
Tell Bush that. We can't do shit.
MooCowzRock
10-09-2006, 01:50 AM
Tell Bush that. We can't do shit.

Wish I could. Not a whole lot a 17 year old can do. I'm working on getting into journalism, though, so I'm planning on it...
JerkyMyTurky
10-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Damn us and our mercy and compassion!

It had nothing to do with mercy and compassion. If the U.S. could destroy the Taliban with one push of the button, they would. They can't do that and they did not want to do the job right. They took control of one main city, Kabul and declared victory by establishing the gov't who only has control of Kabul, while the majority of the south was still in Taliban/warlord control. There was so much talk about how Afghanistan would not be let down again and it was just that, all talk. The U.S. doesn't give a shit about the Taliban or al queda in Afghanistan. They were too preoccupied in declaring victory in Afghanistan and getting into Iraq. Afghanistan is going to be let down again. It's like building a house, but not finishing the job and the house is not suitable for housing. We hand the job to another contractor, who doesn't have the means to finish building the house. We claim we did enough and move on to building another house.
GotheriK
10-09-2006, 11:31 AM
Have we really been doing that bad in Afghanistan?
Nocturnal
10-09-2006, 11:35 AM
Depends on what you mean by bad I guess.

We certainly havn't made much progress in pacifying the country.
david_slupper
10-09-2006, 12:27 PM
Have we really been doing that bad in Afghanistan?

I wouldn't say we've been doing terrible, but progress certainly hasn't been made. The Taleban is still strong, al-Qaeda is still in Afghanistan (which is why we're there in the first place), Bin Laden hasn't been found, and there doesn't seem to be any end to the fighting, since the Taleban are still strong and in control of large parts of the country.
.Communist
10-10-2006, 12:46 AM
The Russian actions were supported by the government and a section of the people, ours aren't... the difference: nobody is funding the rebels this time around....

Well, nobody that we know about....

What happened to Bin Ladens millions again?
Sandalhar
10-10-2006, 02:35 AM
Hm. Soviet Casualties in Afghanistan were similar to those in Vietnam. I don't think Afghanistan is another Vietnam, on contrary, I think Afghanistan is cake walk, compared to what the Soviets suffered.
.Communist
10-10-2006, 02:36 AM
Hm. Soviet Casualties in Afghanistan were similar to those in Vietnam. I don't think Afghanistan is another Vietnam, on contrary, I think Afghanistan is cake walk, compared to what the Soviets suffered.

Exactally my point, we are facing a far weaker enemy, but with less support... weather or not our 'superior forces' are enough to make the difference remains to be seen.
dysphunktion
10-10-2006, 02:43 AM
You just have to compare the two Armies along with the monstrous leap in technology we have had since the Soviet invasion. There really isn't much chance of us going down the same route as our Rusky friends did. Sure, we'll have some casualties but most likely nothing in comparison to the aforementioned country.
Shameonyou
10-11-2006, 01:34 AM
I just think its funny a former Soviet general, who was using inferior Soviet technology, is even attempting to compare Russian efforts to our own. The Soviets got their asses kicked because they didnt have things called 'air support'(primarily because the mujahadin were using our Stinger missiles, hahah stupid soviets) or 'unmanned aerial vehicles' or even digital comms/gps for that matter. We've lost 3,000 troops in both afghanistan and iraq over 3 and a half years? FOURTEEN THOUSAND TROOPS died on Iwo Jima in the matter of TWO WEEKS. FIFTY THOUSAND reds were killed in afghanistan over 7 years. Obviously, the terrorists have alot of catching up to do if this General wants to be proven right.
david_slupper
10-11-2006, 07:48 PM
You just have to compare the two Armies along with the monstrous leap in technology we have had since the Soviet invasion. There really isn't much chance of us going down the same route as our Rusky friends did. Sure, we'll have some casualties but most likely nothing in comparison to the aforementioned country.

Well, there's no way they US could suffer 100,000+ deads, since we only have around 20,000 soldiers there. But my point is, if the Soviets couldn't beat the mujahadeen with such amounts of troops and machinery, then our prospects of winning a complete victory don't seem very high.

About technolody, we've certainly made great advances in technology, but so have the terrorists. They've improved their techniques, and they've develop new ways to inflict damage on more advanced army. Just take a look at what IEDs are doing to US troops in Iraq.
kevinsmith
10-11-2006, 08:17 PM
High morality is costly at times, that is true enough. I think it's better in the long run though.

Only if you believe in an afterlife, unfortunately.
Face Plant
10-11-2006, 08:28 PM
Its a mountainous country so its tricky to quell all resistance and airpower is almost useless. Switzerland was avoided by the Werrmacht not because they collaborated with the Nazis, but because the Swiss had powerful mountain fortresses with plenty of artillery trained on the valleys below.
yb-yellow
10-11-2006, 08:37 PM
Canada has alot of troops their, for rebuilding efforts. We have dead soldiers every week routinely. but i am glad we are fighting for once and helpin the War efforts. We never took part in Iraq (which was smart) so I am glad we are in Afghan.
Nocturnal
10-11-2006, 09:11 PM
Only if you believe in an afterlife, unfortunately.


I disagree. I don't believe in an afterlife, but I'd rather not live out my years with the pain of a crime (or knowing that my nation did something of the sort).

Plus there are very real gains. Public relations is a very powerful force.
Liberator13
10-11-2006, 09:51 PM
Depends on what you mean by bad I guess.

We certainly havn't made much progress in pacifying the country.

I don't think we went in with intentions of pacifying the country. Afghanistan is one of those places that will almost always have violence.

Now, the Taliban is gaining more and more influence every day. We need to throw more people there, unfortunately. I think people would be more willing to go to Afghanistan than Iraq though.
Nocturnal
10-11-2006, 09:59 PM
I don't think we went in with intentions of pacifying the country. Afghanistan is one of those places that will almost always have violence.

Now, the Taliban is gaining more and more influence every day. We need to throw more people there, unfortunately. I think people would be more willing to go to Afghanistan than Iraq though.

We pretty much went there for revenge/justice/security, but I can't pass on the old "you break it, you bought it". It would have been tough, but considering our past use of the country (and the moral aspect of our endeavor there) it would have been a better goal.
Liberator13
10-11-2006, 10:01 PM
We pretty much went there for revenge/justice/security, but I can't pass on the old "you break it, you bought it". It would have been tough, but considering our past use of the country (and the moral aspect of our endeavor there) it would have been a better goal.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely on this one, but I don't know how feasible it would have been.
Nocturnal
10-11-2006, 10:37 PM
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely on this one, but I don't know how feasible it would have been.

Hard to say. Afghanistan can't be pacified by force, but with enough international assistance, many things would be possible.
J.T.
10-12-2006, 02:47 PM
The russians were about to walk off with that war because of their air superiority. It was only after America gave the Taliban stinger missiles the war turned in their favor.

Shit, now they're using our stinger missiles on us those dirty motherfuckers!

Same with Saddam. We helped him kick Iran's ass with our technology (example- putting guidance systems on his scud missiles) and then he goes and invades a friendly Muslim neighbor. Ignorant. These people cannot be trusted.
Nocturnal
10-12-2006, 04:19 PM
The russians were about to walk off with that war because of their air superiority. It was only after America gave the Taliban stinger missiles the war turned in their favor.

Shit, now they're using our stinger missiles on us those dirty motherfuckers!

Same with Saddam. We helped him kick Iran's ass with our technology (example- putting guidance systems on his scud missiles) and then he goes and invades a friendly Muslim neighbor. Ignorant. These people cannot be trusted.

Actually, Saddam was promised Kuwait as his prize in return for going after Iran. Saddam even made a point to ask us if he was cleared to take over Kuwait before he invaded. He told him that we did not have an opinion. Oops.