The Military History Thread

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

...I just despair when someone tells me that Afghanistan has some "strategic importance"...

Of course you are right, Afghanistan is "strategically important" to almost no one on the planet, except for the people who live there... unless (in more or less recent times)...

You are Russian, and want to get closer to India... or

You are English, and don't want Russians getting closer to India... or

You are Soviet, and wish to spread Socialism and prevent unrest in a difficult area... or

You are American, and are paranoid about the USSR... or

You are American, and need to kick some butt after 9/11 and have no other butt to kick... or

You are weak-willed, and feel obliged to lick US-ass at cost of your citizens' lives/treasure/reputation etc etc...

Aside from that, the land itself is strategically meaningless, imho. I share your frustration, Comrade

[savage560]

Originally Posted by palo5

It's exactly as you say

The USSR gave them billions of aid long before 1979 - infrastructure, education, you name it. But too many Afghans didn't want it. They particularly hated education of girls, among other things

I believe this

The ones who did not want this progress were the religious fanatics, who the US used to what the Reagan & both Bush administrations thought were in the best interests of their policies,but of course it back fired, in the long run.The main purposes ,of couse were to severely curtail or eliminate Soviet & then Russian dominance there. Also of course then to extend US influence exclusively to this area.Why?A location to monitor the Russians & ex -Soviet Republics,China & Pakistanis (our supposed allies),look at its proximity.Also I have heard things like natural gas & other resources in the area,could be controled by US dominance?

Other Islamic countries that are progressive allow women to achieve academic & professional status, but thanx to the US,it was eliminated in this area,when they supported the religious fanatics there.The US policies made the area more unstable over the long run.

[deepsepia]

One interesting calculus is to look at nations' war aims entering a conflict, and ask "who got what they were aiming for?"

"wars of national liberation" seem the most reliable in achieving their goals. Wars beyond frontiers are much more doubtful propositions: Talleyrand once said "up to the Rhine the conquests belong to France, beyond the Rhine they belong to Napoleon, let him keep them if he can"

He couldn't -- compare France's frontiers in 1793 to 1815

On that note: one rarely observed datum -- consider just how little the "loss" of Vietnam impacted US interests. Today, Vietnam's strategic interests (terrified of China) line up very well with the US. They'd have us back in Cam Ranh Bay, if we wanted

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

...On that note: one rarely observed datum -- consider just how little the "loss" of Vietnam impacted US interests. Today, Vietnam's strategic interests (terrified of China) line up very well with the US. They'd have us back in Cam Ranh Bay, if we wanted

They surely want peaceful outcomes

Being terrified of China is something they can live with, but being defended by America is a sure disaster, because in the worst case they'll trash the country (again)

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by savage560

The ones who did not want this progress were the religious fanatics, who the US used to what the Reagan & both Bush administrations thought were in the best interests of their policies,but of course it back fired, in the long run.The main purposes ,of couse were to severely curtail or eliminate Soviet & then Russian dominance there. Also of course then to extend US influence exclusively to this area.Why?A location to monitor the Russians & ex -Soviet Republics,China & Pakistanis (our supposed allies),look at its proximity.Also I have heard things like natural gas & other resources in the area,could be controled by US dominance?

Other Islamic countries that are progressive allow women to achieve academic & professional status, but thanx to the US,it was eliminated in this area,when they supported the religious fanatics there.The US policies made the area more unstable over the long run.

How US thought at that time, found per chance studying some other issues. I'm speaking of the support of the Mujahideen of the CIA at 3. July, 1979 , before the Russians entered Afghanistan at 24. December, 1979. (That was new to me too ).

Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Adviser (NSA) of Jimmy Carter) in 1979:
"This covert operation was an excellent idea. They caused the Russians fell into the Afghan trap [...].

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt."
(quoted of the Canadian Globalization critic Prof. Michel Chossudovsky)

That's what the US are proud of .....

[tygrkhat40]

The arming of the Mujaheddin was something done by the US with a short-term goal in mind, making the Soviet Union look like we did in Vietnam. And that succeeded. But little or no thought was given to what would happen when the Soviets did what we eventually did in Vietnam, which is leave.

Considering that a great deal of the US foreign policy deals with the Middle East due to our insatiable oil habit, doing things to make the region unstable seems to be counterproductive.

[bombermouse]

To me it made sense to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Everything that has happened since he eluded capture then has been a waste of lives and resources, Afghani and American.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

To me it made sense to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Everything that has happened since he eluded capture then has been a waste of lives and resources, Afghani and American.

Haven't you read the posts before ???

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Haven't you read the posts before ???

Yes I have, why do you ask?

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Yes I have, why do you ask?

Sorry 'bombermouse', I misinterpreted your post. Now I got it.