same difference: American Iraq and Soviet Afghanistan

As the "the Naughties" come to close one has to wonder if the world has become better, worse of indifferent, we as a people (in the west) have become used to the American occupational wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the subsequent (sometimes daily) casualties that go with them), the former one has to wonder with detailed hindsight was a wise move to any stretch of the imagination.

The policy of using direct military might to promote an ideology over a third nation was something that drove the Americans to arming the Afghan Mujahideen rebels against the Soviet Army when they intervened on behalf of the socialist Afghan government in Kabul on Christmas Eve in 1979.

Regardless of the fact that 1,000,000 Afghans were slaughtered during the Red Army's nine year presence in the country the truth is from their point of view their comrades were being slaughtered since these rural dwellers of Afghanistan where being armed with high-tech portable anti-tank and anti aircraft guns, something that one their position couldn't take lightly.

Now lets look at Iraq since 2003:

The US had it's fair share in the killings of millions in Central America the same time the Soviets were doing their deeds with the Afghans, but when a third party arms insurgents (in this case Iran to insurgents in the Shia south of Iraq) the Americans don't take this too kindly when they feel the hurt it can cause:



What is different in this case however is the fact that the United States invading Iraq and the Soviets intervening in Afghanistan was that the US went in with the ideals of promoting freedom and democracy, however ended up bogged down in a bloody war with thousands of Iraqis fighting an occupational power for their own freedom instead of having their country transformed into a geopolitical platform for the countless cooperation's to promote their free market ideals.

Well over a million Iraqis have been killed in the past ten years, and probably a million more from the ten years before following the sanctions imposed after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

The Iraq War has proven over the years that the US Army isn't fit for what it's doing there and most Iraqis resent them for what they have done, the same as the rural Afghans did with the Soviets back in the 1980's, making it okay (in one sense for the Americans) to arm the Taliban of its day, of which Ronald Reagan called:

"the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers"

The dissidents of which American forces in Afghanistan are saying is the main threat to eventual peace and democracy spreading across the region!

The Solution:

The western world should adopt a limited government when looking at countries such as Iraq (and Iran) and under the United Nations if necessary the powers of west (and east) should intervene unilaterally to secure regions directly threatened by these so called rogue states, instead of empires from both sides of the world competing on spreading ideals into indifferent countries and in turn ending up being hypocrites in their own modern history.

the 'Twin Towers ship' and Afghan stabilization

The USS New York sailed up the Manhattan river today, it's commissioning ceremony watched over by relatives of 9/11 victims, along with members of the emergency services and the public, while it's motto being "Strength forged through sacrifice. Never forget."



This ship partially made with steel from the Twin Towers will probably be shipping marines to Afghanistan, while bearing with it the horrific memories of the attacks on the World Trade Center before going to war.

Afghanistan has of course been in the news a lot lately as Obama continues his war there in an attempt to stabilize the country in a manner similar to that of the Soviets (who also tried to spread and enforce their political ideology on the Afghan people).



The troop surge started by Obama is expected to reach something like 600,000, these troops will be used to secure a state of 11,000,000 people and stabilize it while maintaining a strong presence, while this may all be about spreading democracy in the region and destroying the Taliban (as Bush and Obama have both said) there is a major flaw.



Looking back on history once again Afghanistan is a soldiers graveyard, and increasing troop sizes for the United States Army to act as a regional tribal force to secure the smaller villages and towns across the mountainous region, this attempt to stabilize it may be a joint NATO effort of countries involved in Afghanistan (see map above) to secure oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea while keeping a NATO force present in the region will probably deter Afghanistan from ever joining the Shanghai Cooperative Organization.

the morality in supporting the Mujahideen

The same savage Taliban that US forces (increasing rapidly none the less) are currently engaging and bombing in Afghanistan today rose to extreme powers and dominance in the 1980's, but one has to wonder if supplying these savages with up to date equipment to kill is moral or not.



In 1978 a communist government came into power in Afghanistan, in 1979 Soviet military advisers begun arriving and in late 1979 they invaded;

Hard working B-actor turned president Ronald Reagan (see above) wasn't going to appear weak or let the situation go out of hand (Carter lost the popularity vote after the failed Operation Eagle Claw to rescue American hostages in Iran), decided not to directly intervene with the Soviet invasion but hurt them in the long term, and he did just that.

With his administration funneling millions to the rebels each year giving them hundreds of AK-47's and RPG's, SA-7 surface to air missiles and the infamous FIM-92 Stinger heat seeking missile, this meant that the rebels were able to lay waste to cargo planes resupplying the Soviet forces whom only controlled a 20% of the country while they laid hell in the countryside.



After nearly ten years of over 250,000 well equipped trained terrorists terrorizing them the Soviets were finally forced to withdraw in 1988, those mass forces withdrawing were still bullied by the advancing rebels some even having to return to help the democratic government that had being installed there;



It had been no cheap war for the Soviets, the well armed and motivated rebels had managed to down 118 plans, 333 helicopters (mostly gunships) and take out 147 tanks, a huge material loss, and on top of this dead were 15,000 Soviet soldiers!

Some (the US ambassador seen here for example) at the time were happy that the Soviets had been defeated and drawn out of the Middle East often citing the fact that the rebels were now free.



Well lets say after the Afghan Civil war that ended in 1992 with a rebel victory after they overthrew the democratic Afghan government installed by the Soviets, that's when they were "free", and free at their expense to murder people, beat women, the free people under the Taliban weren't allowed employment, education and sports for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and beard trimming.

Maybe George W. Bush disagreed with Ronnie on what was truly defined on freedom so in 2001 after 9/11 launched Operation Enduring Freeing sending US and British forces into Afghanistan to secure a pipeline from the Caspian Sea free the Afghan people once again.


It was of course only in late 2001
pictures like this begun coming out!

This begs the moral question on supporting the mujahideen, not only did the US make it possible for the Taliban to control Afghanistan in the first place, but also the thousands of human rights abuses that were made possibly because of it and that ultimately led to even today with over 21,000 US troops present Afghanistan still remains a failed state.

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.

Obama to continue the 'real' War on Terror

After 9/11 Bush launched combat operations against Afghanistan, major retaliation started in an airstrikes involving Tomahawk missiles and F-18's before the ground operations were launched, some 11,000 troops involved in the Battle for Tora Bora in December 2001 and Operation Anaconda in 2002, these were the major operations in Afghanistan the remains of the Taliban have fled to the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan where they have been making border skirmishes.

Last summer saw some activity including gunships but nothing big.

President Obama plans to put more effort into the war there to finish them off, it seemed Bush lost the objective when he bogged down the US Army in occupying Iraq and losing the main objective that had been started after 9/11, that is fighting the real terrorists!