Slashdot Log In
Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen
Posted by
michael
on Sat Sep 22, 2001 06:52 PM
from the daily-deliveries-of-coffins dept.
from the daily-deliveries-of-coffins dept.
DaHuNt writes: "A well written article about Afghan experiences by the Soviets... Food for thought... 'When Igor Lisinenko entered what he was told was an Afghan rebel base in 1982, he wasn't sure what to expect. It was, after all, his first assignment...'" Very good article. Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1346 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Why does everyone think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why does everyone think (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, reports abound that within the administration there is a battle going on. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice camp wants a full-scale, no holds bar invasion of Afghanistan -AND- Iraq. The Powell camp wants to take a one-bite-at-a-time approach to the whole thing.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear. On the contrary, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice (Who by all accounts is treated like a daughter by Bush) are running Defense and Foreign Policy. Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.
The US now has three battlegroups in the region or on the way. Another deployment is expected to be signed by Rumsfeld later today or tomorrow. 35,000 reservists have been called up. More maybe called up later. Make no mistake about it, the US
Re:Why does everyone think (Score:5, Insightful)
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear.
I think we need to pretty much forget everything before the terrorist attack. I think everyone has Bush's ear at this point, particularly Powell with his military experience.
The best evidence that Bush is not going to do anything rash is the fact that he has shown good, perhaps even remarkable, restraint. He clearly wants to have all his ducks in a row before acting.
Also remember the "Powell Doctrine": Go in with overwhelming force. On CNN the other day, he addressed this and said that he believes that, but also this war is going to take overwhelming force of all kinds, not just military.
Re:Implications are many and large (Score:5, Insightful)
You're putting credence in a report written by someone stupid enough to think it even makes sense to discuss whether "privacy rights" are "infringed" in the midst of a deadly serious war?
Oh, and in a war you shouldn't conduct rocket attacks against the enemy capital? Or is the crime that you shouldn't do it "sporadically"?
I'd guess you're looking at a report slanted to support the late-Clinton- early-Bush-administration policy of providing the Taliban with millions ($43,000,000 just several months ago, from Bush) in exchange for poppy eradication (which is part of why so many impoverished farm families have starved to death while the Taliban has rearmed). Some bureaucrat was giving that pathetic policy cover.
Comment about Poster Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know that the United States military isn't learning from British and Soviet mistakes?
The British attempted to take Afghanistan over 100 years ago, and you can not compare an army before aviation, remote sensing and mechnization to a modern army.
Same goes for the Soviets. The Soviets were an army of conscripts and as Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam show you, a conscript army isn't the same as a volunteer army. Also, the Soviets hadn't fought since WW2 or 1959-60 against the Chinese, albeit in Bridgade sized clashes. And like the Americans in Vietnam, an army that rusty will have problems.
Micheal should look to the SAS's exploits in Iraq in '91 and the Desert Rats in '40-'41 for examples of what a small cadre of highly trained and motivated fighters can do againt increadable odds. Or even look at Blackhawk Down for an indication of what Rangers and Delta Force can accomplish in a poorly planned mission. I'm sure that all the lessons learned in Afghanistan in the 80s by Delta Force and CIA as well as those lessons learned in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Sierra Leone by the Rangers, Delta, SAS, Force Recon and SEALs will be taken to heart.
Back when Desert Storm was still Desert Storm, all you heard were bags o' wind talking about how the United States Military was a paper tiger and couldn't invade Iraq because Iran couldn't invade Iraq in 8 years of fighting. Then when it turned into Desert Storm, they told us how many thousands of men would die because the M-1 used too much gas and was too complicated to use or because it was designed for Europe. Same thing is going on now, people are declaring the United States and United Kingdom beaten before they've had a chance to fire a shot back in anger. It's FUD.
All those soldiers are volunteers, give them a chance to prove themselves or be beaten.
Mistakes? (Score:3)
This is the sort of nonsense comment that really turns me off slashdot at times. As best as I can tell we have not repeated any of the Russian or British mistakes in Afganistan, nor is it likely that we are going to try to make Afganistan a colony or territory like the Russians and British tried.
Sure, nobody said this is going to be an easy job. But it is quite clear that it is not going to be done solely through military means, nor would it even be possible to do solely through military means.
On Afghanistan (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Colleagues,
As we reflect upon the tragic events of this week and an appropriate
"response," I thought you might like to see this letter from my college
roommate, Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I think he offers an
interesting perspective on Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.
Toivo Kallas
Department of Biology & Microbiology
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:14:27 -0700
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean
killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity,
but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked,
"What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a
TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost
track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few
thoughts with anyone who will listen.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no
doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in
New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in
bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master
plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden,
think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the
Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people
had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the
perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and
clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
I guarantee it.
Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow
the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted,
damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations
estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a
country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the
approximately two million men killed during the war with the
Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women
and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil
of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have
been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban.
They haven't been able to.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took
care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level
their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble?
Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their
infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine
and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at
least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the
Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of
those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have
wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be
a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it
would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the
people they've been raping all this time
So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and
trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground
troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what
needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly
to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral
qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill
that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get
Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their
way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than
that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through
Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would
have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where
I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between
Islam and the West.
And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he
did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right
there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There
are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity
as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can
constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam
would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can
polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion
soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a
billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's
point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west
would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the
war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?
I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are
the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait
us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We
can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.
Tamim Ansary
Michael's Moronic Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
What an ignorant comment! We have not sent in a single troop yet, and yet you feel you have a basis for making this claim?
Guess what? We have Russian advisors assisting us in our military planning. Just because the English and Soviets failed does not mean the lesson is "Don't touch Afghanistan". It certainly is not "Don't touch Afghanistan even if they harbor terrorists who kill 5,000 of your citizens."