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.

it's all just a game

During the bombing of Iraq back in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm a flight of B-52Gs launching from and returning to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, struck targets inside Iraq. This was at the time the longest distance combat mission in history: 35 hours and 14,000 statute miles round trip, the pilots were practically home on time for their dinner with their family.

A record at the time it was nonetheless impressive, but today the round trip of killing people at the other side of the world has changed dramatically since now the pilots of these unmanned MQ-1 Predator drones literally mean the pilot doesn't have to leave home, as this PBS video details the pilots of them at their base in Nevada as they kill Taliban fighters in Pakistan.



What first came to my mind was its similarities to a video game, playing online shooters was always a great satisfaction (especially against strangers) because every time you shoot a person you know that some else will see the words 'You're Dead' across their screen, you haven't really killed anyone but it's still pretty fun and well worth it to know you pissed someone off that you'll probably never meet.

George Gittoes documentary Soundtrack To War details the PlayStation generation soldiers in Iraq and how different they thought the war was going to be for them.

This doesn't really run through with the Predator drone pilot since not only are they killing from medium altitudes but also from thousands of miles away, it's not at all the same psychologically.



Although Predator controllers do have to solve problems to succeed in the mission they don't risk their lives and in the end just have to finish the game before them regardless of how many civilians they kill in the meantime or the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Iran and the Taliban at war

The Taliban are of a different sect of Islam to the Iranians, having the Taliban a true force to be reckoned with bordering Iran was a serious threat, since 1996 on they controlled 95% of Afghanistan!

Following the Civil War in 1992 in which the mujahideen defeated the powerful Afghan government installed before the Soviets left in 1988 saw Afghanistan permanently torn to pieces by war, a real wild west.

Only two years after taking control over most of Afghanistan the Taliban launched a daring terrorist attack against the town of Mazari Sharif where Iranian diplomats were present, Taliban forces laid siege to the town cornering the diplomats in the basement of a building and murdering all of them, it was a horrible attack and one that saw Iran place it's forces on the border with Afghanistan.



Obviously the direct murder of diplomats was a direct attack on Iran.

And it was also obvious that throwing Iranian military men and machines into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban would have been a hopeless struggle, however there was a considerable buildup of Iranian troops and tanks on their border with Afghanistan, it was obvious they had to respond with considerable force to properly avenge the preemptive attack.



The Northern Alliance Iran's ally were huddled up in the Panjshir Valley, they used 19th century cavalry tactics in war, however they did have a handful of Mil Mi-35 Hind helicopter gunships with access to spares from their other ally the Russian Federation, they could have caused damage but would have thrown Iran into an un-winnable war, it seemed the best thing to do was to wait out the aftermath of the murder of their diplomats.

On September 10th 2001, al Qaeda put a clever sting operation in which the leader of the Northern Alliance Massoud was killed in a suicide bombing, Vladamir Putin suspected they were up to something and informed President Bush of his concerns.

The next day saw the 9/11 attacks and followed up starting on October 7th a month long bombing of Afghanistan, the US air campaign consisted of bombing caves, there was no real targets, Iran saw an opportunity and so did the US, bombing the Northern Alliance a route to Kabul they managed to liberate the city of Taliban forces, it was a rare incident of US and Iranian governments working together militarily.

However one has to wonder what would have happened if Iran with barely any allies would have had to take on the Taliban in a large scale border war or even a war which could have seen Iranian forces committed to fighting deep into Afghanistan!

when the real adversary is the people

I have wrote before about the unwinnable war in Afghanistan and how Obama's policy of throwing more "combat" troops at the problem means he is obviously not looking at past mistakes in the exact same kind of conflict, but the truth is all he is doing is securing vital US interests in Afghanistan namely the pipeline from the Caspian Sea, there are no bad guys anymore, the Taliban has virtually no hope of defeating the coalition in a way the rebels in the 1980's defeated and drew back the Soviets and are instead wrecking as much havoc as they can in Pakistan, but not getting very much success in defeating anyone.



What the coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan are really fighting (when they are fighting) is the people, which is whatmost of the soldiers fighting and ready to give their lives don't realize!

The Taliban are still active (not strong) and opium trade is at an all time high, (horrible pun) the attack on the village of Azizabad last year killed some 91 people including scores of women and children, in the documentary Afghanistan's Dirty War (YouTube link) several civilians state that the coalition force in Afghanistan have killed more civilians than the Soviets did during their war there in the 1980's.

Nobody likes foreign military occupation, nobody likes foreign soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on their land, a total military defeat of an adversary means nothing anymore, with a bit of will the people of a country rise up no matter what fighting for what they believe in on their land, two more examples here would be the War in South Lebanon which lasted from 1982 to 2000 and the First War in Chechnya which lasted from 1994 to 1995.

I will begin with the latter the war in First War in Chechnya which saw a poor Russia on the verge on economic collapse using military intervention to ensure the security of mountainous area of Chechnya, this begun with a heavy air bombing of it's biggest city Grozny which saw 27,000 people killed, the largest bombing of a civilian area since Dresden in the Second World War.

By the time ground forces of the Russian Army tried to seize Grozny it was met with heavy and horrible street fighting in a true dirty war.



Chechen guerrilla fighters (several of which were teenagers) armed with basic "garbage guns" mainly the Borz which was a very low cost sub machine gun made in very large numbers.

In the heavy engagements in Grozny several convoys (including ones with tanks) were taken out usually the first vehicle and the last vehicle damaged by precise fire (usually from high buildings where tank turrets could not angle up to) thus trapping other vehicles in the middle as sitting ducks in the narrow war torn streets of Grozny.



That war ended in 1996 due to virtually no support from the Russian public and even from several military officers and generals who mutinied before and throughout the war, a second war begun in Chechnya in 1999 which is lasting to this day, however Chechnya today is a federal subject of Russia.

The 1982 invasion of Southern Lebanon by the Israeli military saw them having total dominance over that land in their bid to eliminate PLO forces there, what it resulted in was the formation of Hezbollah not long afterwords which eventually ended forcing all Israeli forces out of Lebanon during an 18 year conflict, Hezbollah are considered heroes in Southern Lebanon and help their supporters or members aid after military engagements with Israel and work close with 'the people'.



Which is why the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006 was really an attack directly on the people, justifications for hitting civil places was because the "terrorists" hence Hezbollah were using them as human shields for their rocket bases, which is why attacks with cluster bombs (which could handicap innocent people in the best case scenario) dropped from F-16's killed so many people, but the truth was at best they were indiscriminate attacks against those various collections of Hezbollah members and civilians were really just to scare the people of Lebanon and break their will therefore weakening Hezbollah but also resulting in the deaths of nearly 2,000 people!


I'm sure bombing Beirut Airport halted tourists
who wanted to see that truly beautiful country!

Sounds like general terrorism to me!

Bottom Line: In retrospect it's very hard or nearly impossible to break the will of a proud nation of people or a nation of people with common beliefs or therefore defeat them without simply wiping them out!

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.

the Talibans final stand?

The current Taliban are a dissident of the mujahideen resistance which in the 1980's were supplied arms by the United States and proved to be the sand in the underwear of the occupying Soviets, they were even armed with the latest hand held FIM-92 Stinger missiles which they used to take down Soviet aircraft, the Russians were losing (literally) millions worth in hardware, in 1989 they withdrew leaving a powerful government in charge.



But civil war broke out which was to last until 1992, in 1989, the army and pro-government militias still had 1568 tanks, 828 armoured personnel carriers, 4880 artillery pieces, 126 modern fighter-bombers and 14 attack helicopters. Also, the DRA continued to receive massive aid from the Soviet Union, valued at two to six billion dollars a year, and Soviet military advisors were still present in Afghanistan. The government forces also came to rely on the use of large quantities of Scud missiles: between 1988 and 1992 more than 2000 of these were fired inside Afghanistan, the largest amount of ballistic missiles used since World War II. This considerable amount of firepower was sufficient to keep the mujahideen at bay.

Read that paragraph again, all that fire power and still not enough to keep the mujahideen at bay, although major fighting did continue the Afghan Army still proved to be tough but corrupt and many were negotiating with mujahideen rebels, by 1992 the war had come to the end and the afghan army had appeared to collapse after the mujahideen had destroyed half of Kabul!
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was no more.

The Taliban rose to power in 1996 but after the attacks on the World Trade in September 2001 the coalition responded with bombing Afghanistan in October, followed by a ground offensive of around 11,000 troops in December, following that Operation Anaconda in 2002 that hit the Taliban hard several fleeing to Pakistan, the war seemed to have cooled then.



Instead of hunting down the 50,000 or so in the mountains of Pakistan Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 bogging down the US Army there in the occupation, the Taliban then had five or so years, it was not until 2004 that it seemed to make a revival and now in 2008 it has sky rocketed, starting in his last year Bush had started to send troops to Afghanistan from Iraq and Obama has continued where he has left off.

They're no longer the thriving victorious warriors that they were back in the 1980's and now as the US completely control Afghanistan seem to be trying to bring order down in Pakistan, Gordon Brown has hinted several times of an attack on Pakistan (maybe even supported by India who at the moment has itchy trigger fingers).

For instance after Bhutto's assassination in late 2007 order came close to falling, US Special Forces had been readying for the seizure of all of Pakistan's nuclear weapon, (250 of which situated in ten bases across the country).

But the Taliban seem to be pushing for order to fall before their last attack since they've already proved they don't have the man or fire power to fight another war with the coalition since they've no longer anywhere to fall back too, they obviously realized this and after years of fighting seem to want to symbolize their downfall in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Or maybe get into the minds of the people since Pakistan at the moment is one bullet away from Islamic Revolution (think Iran in late 1978), and a revolution will leave the new leaders led by God knows who armed with 250 nuclear weapons including the means (ballistic missiles and F-16 fighter-bombers) to deliver them.