Pakistan and Russia have pledged their support, that much is true. Pakistan have agreed to act as an intermediary between the US and Taleban, whilst both countries will share intelligence with the US. Both countries are likely to allow the US to use their airspace in order to reach Afghanistan.
There is absolutely no way that Pakistan or Russia, or any former republic of the Soviet Union, is going to allow US troops on the ground.
The Russians have already said as much, and Pakistan is currently between a rock and a hard place. It has to offend either Taleban or the US, not a particularly attractive choice given its proximity to Afghanistan.
The first US soldier to set foot on Pakistani soil will trigger a civil war in that country because, surprise surprise, this is a nation the people of which do not believe they owe the US any special favours.
While we’re at it, aside from the Stinger missiles, our military support for the mujehadin was actually pretty inconsequential. Most of their support came from Islamic nations and private sources. Bin Laden was one, as were many other wealthy Saudis. Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan were other supporters. Individual fighters came from all over the world, bringing with them what they could scrounge. The Soviets were defeated by a true “people’s movement”. How ironic.
For an excellent analysis of the conflict in Afganistan, look up “A Quick and Dirty Guide To War”, by James F. Dunnigan and Austin Bay.
I have always felt that the following quote by Ho Chi Minh pretty accurately explains why America withdrew from Vietnam and why Russia was defeated in Afganistan…
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.
Who can defeat an attitude like that?
Markxxx, the land occupied by the current country of Afghanistan has considerable value, mostly because it exists on what used to be major trade routes from the south-western portion of Asia to the central and eastern portions. People have been fighting over that area back as far as the birth of Jesus that we know of, probably longer. It wasn’t for lack of value that the English and the Russians had to admit inability to militarily control the country.
And not to hijack the thread, but the person early on who asserts that the United States didn’t lose in Vietnam has some really unusual concept of our role in the war there, our goals, and our results.
“If we started an action, could we do better? If so, why?”
I think this is the important part of the question, actually an EXTREMELY important question. I would say no, but i’m no expert. Could someone more informed answer?
Actually, i think that we could a jillion times better than russia (sic) in afghanistan, if for no other reason than that all of our electronic equipment is better. computerized weapons , satellites, anything computer related put the whole vietnam business and soviet union/afghan fighting in the same class as caesar’s gallic wars. Now, that’s hyperbole, so don’t anybody get their underwear in a bunch! think about it! also, on the internet, put offer of say 10 thou per head on every terrorist suspect brought in for questioning, and you’d have bin laden sooner than you could say ‘Nuke Kabul’! Also, we could nuke Kabul!
First of all, I think it’s worth noting that we’re not talking (as far as I know) about going to war with Afghanistan. We’re talking about going in, getting OBL, breaking up Al Qada, and getting out. There will be resistance from the Afghan military and from segments of the population (not to mention Al Qada itself), but I don’t see this as an occupation.
Now, as for this recent post:
It has been widely pointed out that part of Al Qada’s success is due to their using low-tech weapons and tactics that our high-tech surveillance can’t detect.
There already is a bounty on OBL’s head of $5 million. Been in effect for a year now, I think. Fat lot of good it’s done so far.
The average annual income in Pakistan is $500 per year. That is not a typo. I imagine in Afghanistan it’s even less. Web penetration in the remote villages and farmlands is probably not extensive.
There are other threads which debate whether the massive slaughter of innocent civilians is a viable course of action for the US.
We will never “win” in Afghanistan unless we commit the resources and manpower to maintain a permanent standing army of occupation, which somehow I believe we will be less inclined to do after the 1000th body bag. Think Somalia with a lot more difficult terrain.
We need to get Bin Laden and get out unless we plan on nation building and the Russians and Chinese might decide they have something to say about us doing that on their doorstep.
You have to first understand that money might mean a lot to a typical stoolie in the US, but money doesn’t mean much to dedicated fanatics. Bribery doesn’t work usually with hard-core fundamentalist of any kind. Their goal is much more important than your earthly money.
“Nuke Kabul” is also a great war cry which would have little to no effect on the average Taliban-Afghani. They would continue to kill ground troops until the last man. Once again, the cause is greater than a life. Read the Ho Chi Minh quote above.
Still it was quite easy to go around Afghanistan for trade routes. There was no reason for the British to control it when they controlled the sea routes. It was mainly to stop Russia who only needed a southern port.
Britian and Russian never committed anything near full time resources as they did for Egypt (Britian) or east Europe.
There isn’t much in the country in terms of resources that would require them to defeat it in whole to use these resources. Such as the surrender of the Boers was required to fully exploit Gold and Diamonds in South Africa.
Certainly it would be difficult to conquer Afghanistan due to fanatacism and opposition by Islamic groups, but not because they have a history of being inconquerable. So did they Japanese and they went down anad would have nuclear bomb or not.
In thinking about occupying Afganistan, y’all have forgotten four critical points:
We have no easy logistical route. Russia put over 100,000 troops into Afganistan, and even with a short easy supply route, they still failed. Do you really think we’d do better with a supply chain stretching around the globe, with no direct access to Afganistan except by sufferance of Pakistan, Russia, or Iran? Limited supplies==no occupation. Period.
The terrain is the enemy of the occupier. We could occupy the wide, flat areas, but that’s only a small part of the country. Afganistan is has some of the most defensable terrain in the world. It is so high that helicopters are frequently restricted to flying through valleys because they can fly high enough to clear the ridge lines. The valleys are frequently nothing more than wide canyons with lots of places to hide. This is the country of the foot soldier, where armor is largley useless, and ambush anti-aircraft fire can come from hidden locations invulnerable to direct assault. In an enviroment like this, fancy electronics mean little. The Russians had good-quality electronics, litterally centuries ahead of what the Mujehadin were using (which is to say: None), and still had their asses handed to them in the hills.
The Afgannis are hardy and self sufficient. The only way to beat them is genocide. This is the tactic the Soviets tried, and it failed them. The Taliban is making better use of the exact same tactic, but for them it’s working, perhaps, because they’re using it more sellectively. In Afganistan, war and feud are as much a part of the culture as waking up in the morning. The hill tribes consider a good fight to be a break from the tedious drudgery of daily survival. This is a country where the manufacture, appreiation, and use of fine firearms is an art, a touchstone, a central facet to their culture. Occaisoinally, they’ll actually waste a bullet or two in goat shooting contests (pride is the only reason they’d use a bullet on a goat. That’s normally knife-work). The goat is placed 800-1000 yards away, and you’d best not be third in line if you’re in the contest, because you’ll never get a chance to shoot. Number One or Number Two will have hit the goat already.
The average Afagannni isn’t our enemy, anyway. The Taliban may have 50,000 adherants. There may be 20,000 members of al Queda. They are our enemies, and we don’t even need to kill all of them. Just their leadership. The typical Afganni will be quite pleased to see the Taliban and their thugs tossed into the fire, but they don’t have the means any more, because the Taliban has starved them, impovershed them, and driven them off the land. But, if we try to occupy Afganistan, you can bet that the Taliban will reverse that trend long enough to band a large and deadly force together. Afgannis may fight each other, but they love to fight invaders, and will do so preferentially.
Remember the sarcastic advice we kept hearing during the Vietnam war? “Declare victory and pull out.” People back then were already familiar with how bad news can be “spun.”
Tranquilis
There seems to a disconnect between your third and fourth points. If the afghanis are so tough that the US can not hope to defeat them, how is it that only 50,000 taliban can subjugate them?
sam clem, your naivete is touching! but you are one of the cool ones on the pages here! 1) Nuke kabul was NEVER meant by me to be a cry…it was meant to be a done deal! you nuke a country’s capital, and you will se how soon they would be ready to give up one person, even one with 300 mil. (witness hiroshima…not even the capitol) 2)No country or army would go on till the last man! this was the same thought in ww2 about japan, and we see how soon they caved in after the nuke thing! 3)now, for the most important part, the $$$, you have some of your friends get a bounty for something like 100,000 times your monthly pay on their heads,= the bounty on you-know-who’s head…see how quick you are to roll over! 4)the religious thing is easier to overcome than my money! for some years i lived among religious fundamentalist zealots, and one of the most amazing things that i ever saw was how little character they had. Their leadings from their higher power almost invariably followed the money trail! (I was one of them, but, since i was the poorest of the group, and actually had no money neither anyone willing to buy me, well, you can see how i could afford to be a bit more principled). best wishes, and thanks for not whining like others!
. I doubt that you lived in Southeast Asia or the Middle East. Bible-thumping fundies in OKLA ain’t the same. The people we are dealing with, whether Viet Nam or Afghanistan, are in for the long haul. I don’t think you have a clue. But I’ll apologize now if you served overseas.
And, just as a friendly suggestion, try to punctuate, capitalize, spellcheck, and write in paragraphs, etc. It will get you a lot of mileage around here. And you seem like a decent type.