This question is based on a conversation I had with a friend last night. I considered just asking a general question (“What’s winter like in Afghanistan?”) but think the question is more suited to debate.
Hitler invaded Russia in June, with ground troops, expecting to win within a few weeks. He didn’t. Instead his army got bogged down in the hellish Russian winter. A similar thing happened to Napolean.
Could the same thing happen to American troops in Afghanistan if the country is invaded in late September/early August? Does this country have harsh winters like Russia? At first I thought no, it couldn’t, being a desert and all, but logic took over. Desert doesn’t equal hot. Mountains, high plateau. A recipe for harsh winters if I ever saw one.
So, if the US sends in ground troops, will they get bogged down in the harsh, Afghani winter? Is technology sufficiently improved since WWII that winter shouldn’t be as much of a problem? Are the situations analogous in any other way?
Well, our soldiers definitely have adequate clothing and accessories. So long as Pakistan allows us to base operations there we can supply our troops.
They also don’t have to march halfway across a continent, wearing out their moral and gear and supplies.
So, winter may or may not be harsh, but we should be able to handle it with little complications. They at least get snow there, so they have some sort of cold winter, BTW.
I don’t think the situations are that comparable. Unlike the Germans in Operation Barbarossa, the US is unlikely to base any moves around massive armoured thrusts. The Russian winter played hell with German panzers, and I can’t see Bush sending M-1s against rifle-armed militiamen in the mountains of Afghanistan.
If any large-scale action is to be taken (which I don’t assume for a second is necessarily the case – the more soldiers in, the more that may not come out) I think it’s more likely to be heliborne air assault troops or mountain infantry specialists. The latter – I think it might be the 10th Infantry Division (Mountain), but I could be wrong – will be better prepared and equipped for the conditions than the Germans were in Russia.
The main problem with the Russian winter/spring wasn’t so much the cold as the lack of mobility due to snow, and later mud. Afghanistan is a dry country, so those elements are less likely to play a role.
While the terrain in Afghanistan is incredibly bad for a traditional ground assault, my (uneducated) guess is that the barren ground and arid climate would make it perfect for night assaults with thermal imaging gear. All the more reason to expect any potential attack to be by special forces instead of conventional infantry or armor.
I don’t think anybody’s talking about a massive invasion to occupy and pacify the entire country. The idea is simply to uproot the various terrorist outfits which use Afghanistan for their bases. The limited objective means a greater likelihood of success. On the other hand, as I recall, Pershing didn’t have a helluva lot of luck hunting down Pancho Villa in Mexico.
Oh, yeah, and Geronimo was captured only with the help of Indian scouts from rival tribes. I suspect that, without substantial assistance from at least some of the Afghan people, a NATO expedition to Afghanistan is gonna be SOL.
I don’t think Bush and the USA can win a war in Afghanistan. You can’t bomb them back to the stone age, they are already in the stone age. It will be Vietnam all over again, maybe worse.
The other night a guest on Charlie Rose (can’t remember his name) was making a point about the difficulty armies throughout history have had in invading Afghanistan. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Brits (twice), the Soviet Union. All failed in their attempts to invade this mountainous country and Russia lost its empire.
It seems that our biggest problem in a ground war is the fact that the enemy has an overwhelming advantage in navigating the many mountains and caves that distinguish Afghanistan and that are the home to Osama Bin Laden.
The winter of 41’ was especially brutal, approaching -40 at times. Hitler refused to send his troops warm winter uniforms until it was freezing. Then, they took up a collection from the civilian population of Germany. Still, by the time the Germans were encircled and divided by the twin pincer move from around Moscow and were in full retreat, most German soldiers did not have warm clothes.
The cold weather should not be underestimated. But I do not see any parallels. I don’t see Bush giving the order to deny troops warm clothes, or telling them to fight until death with no strategic withdrawls.
The real problem is avoiding a fight against all Afghanis, like the Soviets faced. I hate the expression, but a “hearts and minds” campaign is essential there. We need to make it clear to them it is Osama, his network, then out. So if there is an analagous situation, we need to not be like the Germans were to the Ukranians. Many Ukranians viewed the German Army as liberators, until they met the Nazis. The Panzer groups and Wehrmacht were generally not especially hard on the civilian population–with some notable exceptions. But the follow up groups, the SS and the rest ruined any “hearts and mind” strategy for Germany.
While I agree with the assessment that mountainous terrain gives the defenders the advantage, always has, always will, we have many more ways today to look for the enemy and avoid the big ambush. ROVs (remote operated vehicles) are one example.
