Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen

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.

Comments

Why does everyone think

[wiredog]

that the only option is a massive Desert Storm type of invasion? What I hear military people talking about is using special ops people for small targeted operations. At most we would have a division, the 82nd probably, sieze a small easily secured area to use as, in effect, a large firebase. Or possibly use the Northern Alliance areas. Anyone who thinks we are going to try and conquer Afghanistan is an idiot.

Re:Why does everyone think

[gengee]

The Guardian in London reported Friday, citing a cable from the US Embassy in London, that the US was trying to rally an international campaign to remove the Taliban. Having removed them, we would then sponsor a UN-run temporary government in the nation.

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 /IS/ going to, attempt at least, to remove the Taliban from power. Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government. Get ready for a long drawn out war:P

Re:Why does everyone think

[NumberSyx]

Besides most reporters don't know very much. Everyone knows how well the general media reports on technology matters. Why should the military be any different?

Huge difference here, with technology the reporters have these socially retarded geeks trying to explain these magical things to them using real big words. On military matters they get this tall good looking guy in a pressed uniform and shiny medals explaining things to them in sound bites. To the media, content is meaningless, style is everything. The Military learned this lesson well under Ronald Reagan.

Re:Why does everyone think

[szcx]

Cheyney wanting a full-scale invasion isn't entirely unexpected;

But that wasn't the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being "as bad as it could possibly be... But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn't die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney's staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait." (Throw in a Pete Rose rookie card?) None of this Walter Mitty posturing especially surprised Schwarzkopf, who points out that he'd already known Cheney as "one of the fiercest cold warriors in Congress."

And so, of course, you already know what Dick Cheney -- fierce cold warrior, vigorous advocate of the earliest and bravest possible attack, a man not afraid to take bold action with the lives of other men -- did during the Vietnam war, when he was just the right age to open his personal pandour's box and go put some of that martial ferocity into direct practice: He took five years worth of deferments, four as a student and one as a soon-to-be-father, and avoided serving in the military altogether. Which is not to say that he wasn't fiercely in favor of the whole sick mess.

Certainly the erstwhile fierce cold warrior feels a deep connection with the young men who went to Vietnam in his place. At the mostly sunny Republican nominating rally, last month, Cheney spoke movingly of his reaction to the somber sight of the graves at Arlington National Cemetery. Every time he choppered into Washington past the military burial ground, Cheney said, he looked upon "its gentle slopes and crosses row on row. I never once made that trip," he added, "without being reminded how enormously fortunate we all are to be Americans." See for yourself: The graves at Arlington National Cemetery are marked with blocky granite headstones - row on row of them.

Re:Why does everyone think

[Reality Master 101]

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:Why does everyone think

[pnuema]

My brother is a history teacher, and since he doesn't like computers much, I've had to learn some history so I can have intelligent conversations with him. US Military history quickly became my favorite topic. One thing I have learned in my studies has been this: with the exception of Viet Nam (a war fought by politicians, not the military) the US military has been characterized by one quality. They are almost completely unpredictable. When WWII broke out, the US military was the 16th largest in the world. Facist nations thought that an army of individuals could not possibly compete with their indoctrinated uber men. It was that individuality that gave the American GI the edge over the Japanese or German soldier. German soldiers, when spark plugs went out, abandoned the car. American soldiers welded bulldozer scoops onto tanks to attack hedgerows. Japanese soldiers died by the thousands in banzai charges. (To paraphrase Neal Stephenson, the only Japanese soldiers who figured out the Banzai charge didn't work were already dead.) American pilots changed tatics mid-war, from the dive bomb to the torpedo bomb. The Persian Gulf War was only another example. Pundits said the US would fight for years in a ground war in the desert. Instead, the coalition refused to engage the ground troops. They systematically cut the eyes and ears of the Iragi army, until they could attack the heart without risk. The most recent unpleasantness in Yugoslavia is another example. All I will point out on this one is Slobodon is in custody, and the US did not suffer a single casuality (that they tell us about). The point is, I don't think any one of us can predict what the US military will do. It has proven time and again to be inventive, resourceful, and above all, unpredicatable. Most of the slashdot readship probably falls within the top most 1% of the population in terms of intelligence. Do not forget that the people calling the shots on this one can probably cut that down to .25%. Moreover, they know their shit as well as you know yours. Now, anyone here want to step up and say that the slashdot readship, collectively, cannot solve ANY technology problem on the face of the earth? DO NOT underestimate these people. About the only thing I can say is that what we will see will likely be something that none of us expect.

Re:Why does everyone think

[deebaine]

Make no mistake about it, the US /IS/ going to, attempt at least, to remove the Taliban from power. Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government.

This is your interpretation of what the government has set in motion. Mine is different; I have seen few preparations for all out war. What I have seen is the rapid development of an effective and sustainable air bridge, able to ferry troops and planes overseas in a hurry. The moves of strike fighters to the Gulf area are insufficient to conduct large-scale offensive operations at this point; I suggest that they may be an attempt to relieve the carrier USS Carl Vinson and her battlegroup, currently responsible for enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq. This would allow the Navy to withdraw her to the relative safety of the Arabian Sea or simply to free up her air wing for other action. It is difficult to conceal large-scale troop movements, and if we are preparing to use force to remove the Taliban, it is not imminent (last I heard, the 82nd Airborne is still training and has not staged anywhere and no nation has yet granted permissions that would give the Army and Marine Corps a route to Kabul).

Before we all assume that they're going to do it wrong, let's give them a chance to do it right. After all, it is those in the military who are going into harm's way, and the United States military remains the most capable force in the world.

I have read the Guardian article that you sight, and I don't regard it as evidence of anything. It reports only that the US is "keen to hear allied views" on overthrowing the Taliban. And it doesn't even bother to quote the cable. I regard the Guardian's coverage of this event as leftist and in pursuit of a specific agenda, rather than a simple report of the news. My brother in London reports that the other British news sources are starting to turn against them for their slanted coverage. I at this point don't regard the Guardian's interpretation of anything as a sufficiently reliable source. And I haven't seen this story corroborated.

-db

Re:Why does everyone think

[Wolfkin]

Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.

If they were really hell bent on national isolation, they wouldn't be "SCARY FUCKERS", would they? They certainly wouldn't talk about invading other countries! Isolationism is when a country keeps its nose out of other nations' affairs.

How in the hell did "isolationist" come to mean "warmonger" in so many people's minds?

Re:Why does everyone think

[sql*kitten]

The Guardian in London reported Friday, citing a cable from the US Embassy in London, that the US was trying to rally an international campaign to remove the Taliban. Having removed them, we would then sponsor a UN-run temporary government in the nation.

You know, I don't really think the Taliban are the problem, at least not directly. They are isolationist in the extreme, and have no foreign policy agenda worth speaking of. The problem is that they took al-Queda in as guests, and guest is a loaded word in Islam. Once someone is your guest, Islamic custom holds that you must be prepared to defend them with your own life, if necessary. I'm guessing that the Taliban never imagined that this would entail facing down massed NATO armies and fleets lurking nearby.

The point is, the Taliban (which, incidentally means "students", not "death to the US" or anything quite as menacing) are caught between a rock and a hard place, and they don't oppose the West for the reason that most people think they do. Indeed, what they would like most of all is to simply by ignored by the rest of the planet.

The question is, what is stronger, their desire to be left alone, or their desire to uphold their tradition? If is the former, then there is scope for a deal: give us al-Queda and the US will guarentee that you are left alone. If not, then things are going to get messy.

Comment about Poster Comment

[Wyatt Earp]

"Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes."

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.

Re:Comment about Poster Comment

[rfsayre]

There's an interesting article from the Independent, a British newspaper, on conditions in Afghanistan that no amount of military prowess will change. Basically, anyone we send over there has a good chance of stepping on a mine.

It's interesting that you bring up Desert Storm as if it had nothing to do with the WTC tragedy. We may have the best soldiers, the best weapons, and the smartist scientists on our side. But how does continuing the foreign policy that made people hate Americans so much prevent this from happening in the future? I am shocked that people seem so ready to give up civil liberties yet are unwilling to consider a drastic change in foreign policy. The nations of the Middle East have seen through our "divide and conquer" policy agenda. It has to change. It's not about "good" vs. "evil", it's more like our interests vs. anyone else's.

So we can blither blather on about Navy SEALS, M-1 tanks, Delta Force, etc., but the fact is none of that shit will change the way other countries feel about us. Then again, that's not something I would expect a bunch of nerds with no friends to understand. So I guess you guys should get to work on Cave Sonar Linux or something.

Mistakes?

[the eric conspiracy]

Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.

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

[Brian Stretch]

This email has been making the rounds, and happened to meander my way:

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

Re:Implications are many and large

[e_lehman]

The northern alliance seems quite willing to assume what we regard as their right to lead Afghanistan, and I don't imagine that it could be worse than the Taliban.

From the 1999 US State Department human rights report:

"Women and girls were subjected to rape, kidnaping, and forced marriage, particularly in areas outside of Taliban control."

"Masood's forces and the Northern Alliance members committed numerous, serious abuses. Masood's forces continued sporadic rocket attacks against Kabul. Anti-Taliban forces bombarded civilians indiscriminately. Various factors infringed on citizens' privacy rights. Armed units of the Northern Alliance, local commanders, and rogue individuals were responsible for political killings, abductions, kidnapings for ransom, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and looting."

Michael's Moronic Comments

[smack.addict]

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."

Re:Implications are many and large

[wytcld]

"Various factors infringed on citizens' privacy rights."

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.

Re:Kill them with kindness.

[IronChef]

I would far, far, prefer Indian culture to American, and that has nothing to do with economics.

Then move; it really is that simple.