It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
November 26, 2010
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan --- The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.
On Friday, the U.S.-led coalition will have been fighting in this South Asian country for as long as the Soviets did in their humbling attempt to build up a socialist state. The two invasions had different goals - and dramatically different body counts - but whether they have significantly different outcomes remains to be seen.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The truth is that the War in Afghanistan was pretty much the last straw that financially and morally broke the back of the Soviet Communist System.
"The Soviet war set Afghanistan back dramatically from what had been a weak but functioning state. NATO has, by contrast, helped Afghanistan to a 10 percent annual economic growth rate, 7 million kids are now in school, and most people have access to basic health care within a two-hour walk," O'Hanlon said.
The United States and its allies, however, have made strategic mistakes, including taking their eyes off Afghanistan and shifting their attention to the war in Iraq. In those crucial years, the Taliban and their allies surged back and took control of many parts of the Afghan countryside and some regions in the south - especially parts of Kandahar and Helmand.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Whoot...we won! Take that USSR...we totally stayed longer than you...in your face Gorby!
meh...make lemonade out of the lemon we are given
I wonder if there is any other collaborating info on this claim?
"The Soviet war set Afghanistan back dramatically from what had been a weak but functioning state. NATO has, by contrast, helped Afghanistan to a 10 percent annual economic growth rate, 7 million kids are now in school, and most people have access to basic health care within a two-hour walk," O'Hanlon said.
CIA director Leon Panetta called the war in Afghanistan "a very tough fight," and acknowledged that "there are some serious problems." Panetta said that the Taliban "is engaged in greater violence" now than when President Obama took office, and said that they're stronger in some ways, but weaker in others, noting that "we're undermining their leadership." Panetta said that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is now "relatively small."
"I think at most, we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less
And one other note, Americans are people united by money. As long as their government can afford to pay the troops, they will fight. I'm confident enough in saying that Russian and Chinese forces have enough Soviet experience that even if they can't afford war, they will still fight for their interests with even more volition.
The Western commanders are thinking three steps ahead. Problem for them is that the Russians and Chinese are thinking in the present. If they engage in strategy contrary to what the West predicted, then the entire Western strategy falls to pieces and by the time they reorganize they will already fall behind.
It is common American divide and conquer strategy to incite conflict in the regions they want to control. They usually fund both sides (like Iran and Iraq) so they can beat eachother into submission, then the US moves in to provide "stability". I see the US engaged in long and economically exhausting wars, while Russia and China continue to modernize their forces. They are just waiting to provide their own "stability".
Nice post Proto, now you just need to realize that the CIA does not represent the people of he U.S., but the ICs who control this rogue branch that we seem unable to neutralize.
There will always be a share of super wealthy, from all nations, who go around doing bad stuff where ever they can take advantage. If seems you want to portray the Chinese and the Russians as the good guys, and the Taliban as well. They are not the good guys.
You also seem unable to help but bring up race as a factor.
The power of the west does not come from our military, our military gets its power from our economic success, and our economic success comes from the ability of our people to establish representative governments and create far more just societies than those you seem to admire.
The U.S. nor Britain is the problem, the problem is ruthless people in positions of power all over the world, and the third world nations have more than their fair share.
Personally, I have no sympathy for the Taliban. They kill school girls and their families for daring to go to school. That is evil.