Home › Discussions › The Soviet Victory That Never Was
The Soviet Victory That Never Was
Summary --
The Soviet Union came closer than many think to achieving its objectives in Afghanistan. How it almost managed to win -- and why it ultimately did not -- should serve as a lesson for U.S. policymakers today.
Related
Postscript, April 9, 2009
With its new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Obama administration has taken ownership of an orphaned conflict. But can it achieve victory, and how?
Snapshot, November 22, 2009
By lowering its sights and concentrating on order, the international community has helped to stabilize Tajikistan. The same cheap, simple approach could work in Afghanistan, too.
Snapshot, April 15, 2009
The Taliban and al Qaeda may not pose enough of a threat to the United States to make a long war in Afghanistan worth the costs.
User Comments
Does Afghanistan want to be a Puppet US state?
that's the question.
Lavishing resources indeed!!
Afghanistan in the late 20-21st century and India in the 19th century are just 2 examples of naked imperialist self-interest masquerading as a "civilizing mission". India was a large captive market that was looted of its treasure and deliberately kept de-industrialized and starving (thanks to cash crops like cotton and indigo being forced down the throats of its farmers) to serve British industry. Similarly Afghanistan is just a pipeline conduit to the warm water ports of Pakistan, so the West is not dependent on Russian goodwill to keep it supplied with oil.
Afganistan
The article is good lietrary work. Youth in school or college students will like it interesting to read. But Afganistan, soviet invasion and then Najibullah and Pakistan. It is not the history or the facts on which fight in Afganistan can depend upon..The only dangerous factor in all this is the country called P. When soviets were there P was instrument wrongly for A. Now when A is in Afganistan. P is same instrument for C. In South Asia such an intrument is called "Hathyar"(weapon). Hath- Hand,Yar-friend. indicating that Hathyar is friend in whose hand it is .Best solution for A to fight is to take control of P the weapon.
Contemporary Afghanistan
It is great to read some international thoughts about the dilemma the world is facing with in the Central Asia. Thanks to the Editors of Foreign Affairs for this.
Anyway, I do believe that there could be more analysis from the scholars and defense decision makers from allying countries that are gathered together under ISAF flag. Afganistan is a complex security problem that has a lot of local triggers in provinces and regional or international triggers abroad. So, complex, open-minded and broad discussion is highly welcomed at all levels.
Cordially
Andrius Bivainis
Lithuania
Central Government and Tribes
Afghanistan is tribal therefore the best a central government can do is co-opt the tribes. They are not ready to enter the 20th century much less the 21st century.
A strategy to seriously consider in order to deny terrorist a safe haven is pull major combat forces out and go to a strictly Counter-Terrorist strategy with a small footprint.
Tribal
Afghanistan is tribal therefore the best a central government can do is co-opt the tribes. They are not ready to enter the 20th century much less the 21st century.
A strategy to seriously consider in order to deny terrorist a safe heaven is pull major combat forces out and go to a strictly Counter-Terrorist strategy with a small footprint.
The WAR differs
The Soviet war was an invasion but US war is war on terrorism. The best option to win war is not wining hearts and minds but to fix the failure state (Afghan Government). We are evidencing an increase in insurgency and increase in number of Taliban due to the government failure. Karzai's cabinet has nothing to offer but corruption. Taliban's fighter gets 3 times more salary than our police receives.
The situation and war totally differs from the Soviet invasion.
1978 is not 2001
Though there is a basic similarity between what is called Soviet invasion and that of the US in Afghanistan, the circumstances under which the Soviets sent troops into Afghanistan and what the US are totally different. Similarly, the resistance against Soviets, chronically and geographically, is so much different with what we see with US existence in Afghanistan. We can see these differences in the following forms:
1- Soviets had only communist block support for its invasion while there was a majority vote against Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 UN Security Council. The US has international support for its existence in Afghanistan.
2- There were millions of refugees after invasion of the country by Soviets. Refugees are retuning home after US presence in the country.
3- Anti- Soviet resistance had the support of NATO countries plus China. Anti- US "invasion" has only secret support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some Arabic States of the Gulf.
4- Soviet invasion of the country faced an overall national resistance. It is only part of Pashtun population living along the border with Pakistan who supports Taliban. Even this support is denied. Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbiks and other ethnic groups are totally against Taliban- even if they don't trust the US as a reliable ally. They have no choice other than to be with the Us. That is why the safe areas in the country are only the areas where non-Pashtunes are living. Even amongst Pashtunes, it only part of Pashtune population who are with Taliban and against the US. While majority of Pashtunes also back the US existence in the country- in practice. Though deep in their heart, most Pashtunes are not so much against Taliban. That is why the government, mostly run by Pashtunes, didn’t draw any clear and strong anti- Taliban stance. It is 8 years they are looking for “moderate Taliban”- the alchemy.
5- Soviets occupation lasted only 9 years (1979 -1988). For the US too, it is already 9 years of existence in Afghanistan. all people of Afghanistan was against Soviets at the 9th year, except the communist Party, and were happy for Soviet leave. But right now, in Afghanistan US withdrawal is a nightmare for most people who have had experienced Taliban role. They know that Karzi has done nothing to enable the nation to resist against Taliban. People don't trust Karzai as he was a member of them and has showed in 8 years of his rein that all he wants from opposition to Taliban to remain in power.... So people don't trust Karzai or Taliban.
As a man from Afghanistan who has lived all the recent 30 watching closely the situation in my country, I can say that we have problem as a nation- a nation that must have been made. The US has left Karzai alone to run his dirty ethnic business. On his turn Karzai has left the power at the hands of a extremist ethnic-nationalist party- known as Afghan Nazi party in Afghanistan. The US and UN, instead of helping nation building process in the country, has left a very dangerous trend to creep into the country’s policy making body's that has led the country to a full ethnic stalemate. Still Karzai has kept this party in Charge of Economy, finance, education and Interior Ministries....
I don't know why analogy has taken over all political commentaries, Once Afghanistan is compared to Tajikistan, the other time US presence is compared to the Soviets or even next time Afghanistan is compared to Vietnam. Most of time these commentaries are based on some myths - Vietnam, graveyard of Emperors, Soviet occupation....
Saboor R., Thanks for Your
Saboor R.,
Thanks for Your insightful comments. It is important to hear minds like Yours before the deployment to Afghanistan. I look forward to hear more of Your minds about current problems in Afghanistan.
what history are you reading?
While i think this is an interesting article, i am curious to understand what history you are referring when you say that UK lavished resources on India in the nineteenth century?
To make such a broad and incorrect remark to support yours idea about Afghanistan weakens your essential argument with which i agree.
Cordially
Borovik's Hidden War.
The article would have one believe that the Soviet decision to send troops into Afghanistan was a rational political decision , however in Aatyom Borovik's book The Hidden War the author contends that first of all at that time Brezhnev was barely capable of holding a serious conversation for more than a few minutes at a time and further that the politburo never even voted on the issue prior to Brezhnev's ordering the troops in . It is true that later Andrei Gromyko stated that the Politburo reached a unanimous decision to send in troops but I would suggest that if this ever occured it happened after Brezhnev's order not before.
afghanistan
The encouragement of democracy has to be seen as neutralized of, say, the notion of some "christian" egg to replace the "Islamic" egg for example or any other egg of similar vintage. The movement of states involved in Afghanistan has to be from states that are neutral from such associations and notions. It helps in the longer run and helps win friends more easily. That sensitivity has to be there - and it does not pertain merely to one region. The internet has rendered the world a global village. The bad news is that illiterate peasantries socialized in conflict and war mind-sets of medieval orientations make things worse by attempting to draw lines between points. Anyone who is aware of kindergarten drawing classes where one joins the points to form a picture would know the possibilities of the wide variety of pictures emerging. Or in simpler words, a picture of a camel will look like a camel to someone aware of how a camel looks like. But it can end up in a shrub or a bush or a just about anything to someone who is not aware of how a camel looks like or how the lines are supposed to be drawn! That is cognitive confusion and unfortunately - they cause wars in many parts of the world!
afghanistan
The problem with Afghanistan, apart from its terrain, lies in its socialization. A problem that has merited attention elsewhere too.
It is less about academic questions and debates over sociology and the root-cause versus instrumental theorists and theories.
It is more about a real war that is on and how does one draw lessons from the past actors. To that end, the terrain and the socialization of the populace is what is the problem. A problem rendered thick with the religious egg that has been used to knead a dough the entire world is finding unpalatable.
It goes without saying that similar doughs of differing labels do not and can not work.
The real problem at hand is: how does one win a war in Afghanistan and defeat such doughs and the creation of such doughs elsewhere?
The answer is too sobering an account as this article outlines in one fashion and one dimension of it, in one region of the world.
Cold analysis and warm humour does it - to counter the chatter-boxes. Cold analysis and very caliberated responses, flowing from that cold analysis, helps in sending certain precise messages - in the battle field and in the drawing boards of the war strategists and negotiation tables. The notions over addressing the root cause problematique comes later - while it has to be addressed elsewhere in the world - irrespective of the label of the dough!
editorial oversight
Congratulations on this excellent article. Let us hope someone close to the President puts on his glasses and reads it to the end.
In sending my congratulations to the editors, I must remark that here again what you publish from foreign contributors is, almost without exception, head and shoulders above the US Establishment figures whose mediocre, self-serving pieces take up far too much of the best 'real estate' in your journal. Does anyone read the fat cats? I think not, judging by the paltry number of Comments I see on your electronic version of the magazine.
cordially
Gilbert Doctorow
Brussels