Russia warns NATO that it repeats the same mistakes the USSR did in Afghanistan

[Skybird]

Which I think - and said many times - is true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7888566.stm

As they have an old word of wisdom about Afghanistan: "History shows that it's easy for any foreign power to get into Afghanistan - but it is incredibly hard to get out of that place again."

Yes and before the Soviets it was the British. Rudyard Kipling wrote:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."

The war between the Soviets and Afghanis is one the most cruel ever. Soviets executed a large part of the P.O.W.'s on the spot, the Afghanis did the same but also used some pretty nasty torture, like cutting off limbs etc. Really nasty stuff.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Yes and before the Soviets it was the British. Rudyard Kipling wrote:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."

The war between the Soviets and Afghanis is one the most cruel ever. Soviets executed a large part of the P.O.W.'s on the spot, the Afghanis did the same but also used some pretty nasty torture, like cutting off limbs etc. Really nasty stuff.

You misspelled god.

[Tchocky]

http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poe...sh_soldier.htm

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You misspelled god.

No. Kipling did.

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-y...itish-soldier/

[SUBMAN1]

By yes he did!

On the subject of the post:

Afganistan however - much much different than when the Soviets were there, so I'm having a hard time fathoming how they see it as the same? Crap, when the Soviets rolled into town, there was no choice, no government for the people by the people, it was the Soviets way or the highway (to the grave that is). Period.

Much much different. While I don't think they will achieve a pure republic over there, i think they can at least get them on the path to a normal stable government where democracy may take the to a state of being a republic in the future. So they may have to deal with an oligarchy for some period of time, though I hope they can break it and transition to a republic at some point.

The biggest difference between the war now and the Soviets war - This war is for the people, not against the people. So where everyone wanted to be a mahjadeen during the Soivets war, this time around, only the Taliban and Al Qeida are the only ones really fighting. This is why success in some form or fashion is a guarantee this time around.

-S

This war is for the people, not against the people.

Is it ?
Perhaps you had better tell the locals as before the invasion the Taliban were in terminal decline due to lack of support by the people but now they are back on the ascendancy with local support .
The main reasons for this could be put down to the simple fact that the department of defense did some very comprehensive papers on how to do afghanistan and what definately not to do ....but the people running the show didn't do hardly any of the "how to do Afghanistan" stuff and did nearly all of the "what not to do" things instead .
They studies even went to great lengths do describe why working with the United Front(northern alliance) as allies wouldn't be a good idea . I think the summary term they used was that it would result in the "lebanonization" of Afghanistan .

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

before the invasion the Taliban were in terminal decline

That is against every info on the status quo in summer 2001 that I ever have read, heared, and been told.

That is against every info on the status quo in summer 2001 that I ever have read, heared, and been told.

Perhaps you should visit Americas National Security Archive website then and read the Afghan and Pakistan papers .
You see because the conern was that as the Taliban had already reached the final stages of traditional Pashtun cycle of welcome and hostility while Al-qaida were still in the early stages the Talibans upcoming demise might create a bigger window for Bin-Laden to exploit .
Then you might understand why the neither the Northern alliance or the northwestern drug barons were ever going to get a real look in . And also how the coilition is reaching the final stages of the local welcome cycle .

BTW wasn't it someone of Kiplings era who said you can always rent an Afghan for a while but you can never buy one .

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The biggest difference between the war now and the Soviets war - This war is for the people, not against the people. So where everyone wanted to be a mahjadeen during the Soivets war, this time around, only the Taliban and Al Qeida are the only ones really fighting. This is why success in some form or fashion is a guarantee this time around.

-S

From what I've heard and read it doesn't seem like the average Afghani people are that friendly toward Nato there. Increasingly the body count is going up on both sides with no end in sight.

It could be said that the Taliban has gained from the half-assed US war there and in Iraq. And I see no exit strategy for the US. Hell, they're even still in Iraq, sort of.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

From what I've heard and read it doesn't seem like the average Afghani people are that friendly toward Nato there. Increasingly the body count is going up on both sides with no end in sight.

It could be said that the Taliban has gained from the half-assed US war there and in Iraq. And I see no exit strategy for the US. Hell, they're even still in Iraq, sort of.

What body count? Its even a tiny fraction as compared to Iraq, regardless that Iraq has one of the lowest body counts in history!

-S

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What body count? Its even a tiny fraction as compared to Iraq, regardless that Iraq has one of the lowest body counts in history!

-S

Excuse me, whUt? How does the bodycount in Iraq somehow make the past, present and future dead of Afghanistan somehow better? And what is the bodycount number, say per month, that you would see as high and what number as low?

[A Very Super Market]

I've never understood how people can expect a war to not have casualties. It just boggles me...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Perhaps you should visit Americas National Security Archive website then and read the Afghan and Pakistan papers .
You see because the conern was that as the Taliban had already reached the final stages of traditional Pashtun cycle of welcome and hostility while Al-qaida were still in the early stages the Talibans upcoming demise might create a bigger window for Bin-Laden to exploit .
Then you might understand why the neither the Northern alliance or the northwestern drug barons were ever going to get a real look in . And also how the coilition is reaching the final stages of the local welcome cycle .

BTW wasn't it someone of Kiplings era who said you can always rent an Afghan for a while but you can never buy one .

Rest assured, I have read quite some material on it. It's just not true that the Taleban were loosing control in the way you try to paint it - they were lacking wide sympathic support with different ethnic identities and even with their hosting Pashtuns, but were in control of key processes and functions of the country nevertheless, and they were in total control of the most important economic resource of Afghanistan as well: drugs, on which they even raised taxes, and controlled the trafficking of them. The american intel services surely are the last source of information I would trust in assessements of the ME and FE. Even without the Bush years having distorted their conclusions even more, their reputation for reliability regarding ME matters is not really impressive, I would say. It payed off badly for them that before 2001 there was a long phase of a dogma that rated ELINT over HUMINT, and distibuted resources accordingly. They got plenty of satellites and electronics, but they thinned out their human networks on the ground until it was blind and ineffective. And that is a mistake for which we pay until today. Especially with regard to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, this probably was one of the greatest errors the US intel community ever conducted, and then suffered from, after WWII, starting with the lack of translators for languages of the ME, leading over lacking infiltration of potentially hostile organisations connected to that region, and ending with a totally insufficient network of human spies and informants on the ground. So, if there is info from those years, an American stamp under it is no sign of quality, but a good reason to check it twice and then a third time, then turn the paper and check the backside three times again.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I've never understood how people can expect a war to not have casualties. It just boggles me...

Exactly. And for me, how anyone can see a true victory in war, since war is the final result of total failure of human compassion. I just don't understand...