a 'long term' plan of action is needed to win the war in Afghanistan

So Obama is planning to send a further 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, what this will achieve in this unstable region I do not know, but what I do know is that the last time a super power faced down the former Taliban rebels was in the 1980's.

Yes when the USSR helped back a communist government they then entered a ten year war with the mujahideen, 115,000 or so Soviet forces controlled five major cities while the guerrilla's thrived in the countryside taking down Soviet aircraft with American FIM-92 Stinger missiles causing huge air material losses for the Soviets.



The Soviets main base of operations was Bagram air base where troops and combat aircraft were based, they relied in their long term fight against the rebels on resupplies from the Soviet Union, huge An-124 transport planes had to deploy large amounts of flares to avoid being hit by the heat seeking missiles in the hands of the rebels.

With huge material losses on their hands in around 1987 the Soviet forces relied on head Spetnez special forces to hit back at the rebels, with only limited success however.



The Soviet occupation was a failure and they left the communist government of Afghanistan with huge military material including 1568 tanks, 828 armoured personnel carriers, 4880 artillery pieces, 126 modern fighter-bombers and 14 attack helicopters to continue the fight against the US backed and funded mujahideen.

But the mujahideen had them beaten and by 1992 they were pretty much history. In 1996 the Taliban controlled 95% of Afghanistan and obviously endured freedom since they were no longer occupied by the Soviet Union.

After September 11th Bush ordered coalition forces into Afghanistan to hunt for Osama Bin Laden, on October 7th British and American submarines opened fire on Taliban forces by firing Tomahawk missiles from submarines while F/A-18 Hornets (from the USS Carl Vinson) flew sorties against Taliban positions destroying their fragile infrastructure, some 11,000 troops were deployed by December joining forces with the Northern Alliance.



Yes charging the enemy with your allies cavalry, I have to admit they were actually doing things right back then, apart from in 2002 when they let the Taliban and Al Queda flee into the mountains on the Afghan Pakistan border.

But when the coalition forces secured Bagram Air Base as their own base of operations (like the Soviets did) they stumbled upon burnt out Soviet trucks and broken down T-55 tanks and the like.



Former shadows of the failed Soviet occupation linger in the American one as now the dirty war sets in as Obama seems to think he will solve the problem and make the region more steady by throwing more troops at the problem, but unlike the small amount of troops in 2001 that seemed to be doing the job just fine, Bush pretty much had the Taliban beaten in no time the way he employed special operations (probably saving his real punch for Iraq at the time).

But what's going on now is a reminiscent to the Soviet occupation in the 1980's, more troops are going in that need more material resources which need to be airlifted in.



The problem of course is the cost, more resources needed which was happening the Soviet Army of 115,000 at the time, and since Afghanistan is a landlocked country that can be a little difficult around countries that aren't friendly towards the US (like Iran) and the fact that the Taliban are wrecking havoc in nuclear armed Pakistan.

Special Operations are what are needed to bring down the Taliban, and they should have been deployed to defeat the 50,000 or so lunatics while they were hiding in the mountains.

And the US forces at present even though they are large should live off the land instead of being dependent on massive air deliveries day in and day out!

This war needs to be thought out in the long term, a long term plan of action if it is going to be eventually won.