As it says on the tin, is there any way they can truly defeat or at least seriously cripple the Mujahideen to secure all or most of Afghanistan? What kind of military and/or political moves could they make to accomplish this? Could chemical weapons or utilization of the KHAD work? Or perhaps they could convince the Afghan government to make political/religious concessions to the rebels? What's your thoughts?
Can the Soviets win in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Yuhi33
- Start date
Give a captured Stinger to an allied terrorist cell, to use on a civilian airliner.
Once it is traced to stingers given to the Mujaheen, hopefully that will lead to a cutoff of Stingers.
Then continue with using air power to kill any rebels with fight, and to drive the population to Pakistan.
As said above nobody wins in Afghanistan EVER. You might just get a central government that (insert invader of choice) can accept and with whom they can work, but military occupation not a chance!
They were but they were beginning to run out of money and enthusiasm. Even they were suffering from too many bodybags going home. Even without the stingers they would have given up in another couple of years.
Define victory. The problem with defeating Afghans is not that they are undefeatable, it's the fact that they are ungovernable, making any military victory moot since victor can't reap the benefits.
Actually decission to withdraw has been made fairly early, 1984 or 85, before stingers (or any other significant aid) started showing up. Gorby (you know, the winner of Nobel Peace Prize) wanted to get some sort of peace with honour so he decided to inflict as big defeat as he could.
What Soviets could do on military front.
More troops. Soviet contingent was small to begin with from which you have to subtract troops guarding road convoys, guarding military instalations and sick any you were left with precious few who could be used for offensive sweeps.
Better leadership. Soviets went through the period of dying leaders at crucial point, where leadership with vision was needed. Avoid that so after Brezhnev dies you get somebody who can stay in saddle for a while and who actually has an idea what he wants to do.
Combined with above faster switch to mobile, heliborne sweeps as opposed to initial slow armoured/mechanised sweeps. Though that becomes problematic once MANPADS show up so Soviets need to do it fast, before Reagan decides to increase aid. Reducing violence to low(er) levels could mean Us sticks to low level aid as Mujahedeen are seen as lost cause.
However all this doesn't automatically lead to "victory" as Soviets would still be unable to "win" in classical sense.
Actually decission to withdraw has been made fairly early, 1984 or 85, before stingers (or any other significant aid) started showing up. Gorby (you know, the winner of Nobel Peace Prize) wanted to get some sort of peace with honour so he decided to inflict as big defeat as he could.
What Soviets could do on military front.
More troops. Soviet contingent was small to begin with from which you have to subtract troops guarding road convoys, guarding military instalations and sick any you were left with precious few who could be used for offensive sweeps.
Better leadership. Soviets went through the period of dying leaders at crucial point, where leadership with vision was needed. Avoid that so after Brezhnev dies you get somebody who can stay in saddle for a while and who actually has an idea what he wants to do.
Combined with above faster switch to mobile, heliborne sweeps as opposed to initial slow armoured/mechanised sweeps. Though that becomes problematic once MANPADS show up so Soviets need to do it fast, before Reagan decides to increase aid. Reducing violence to low(er) levels could mean Us sticks to low level aid as Mujahedeen are seen as lost cause.
However all this doesn't automatically lead to "victory" as Soviets would still be unable to "win" in classical sense.
Did they actually conquer it or just claim it as part of their empires at a safe distance? If they did fair play!
Afghanistan isn't ungovernable my any means; for decades before the 1973 coup Afghanistan was a stable monarchy that was developing quite well. What happened was that between 1978 and the present multiple civil wars essentially destroyed any kind of national coherency. People no longer identified with the nation or central government as for long periods the Afghan government either didn't exist or was at war with its people. They instead turned towards local tribal groups or alliances for protection and services.
So the question is can the Soviet Union win the war with minimal damage to the structure of the nation and popular loyalty to it?
Afghanistan has been conquered numerous times and retained by various empires for centuries.
Well, "developing quite well" and "series of civil wars" don't quite go together, do they? If it was developing quite well then why were people so disatisfied that they embarked on civil war?
Probably not, Soviets intervened because situation was already spinning out of control.
Well, "developing quite well" and "series of civil wars" don't quite go together, do they? If it was developing quite well then why were people so disatisfied that they embarked on civil war?
Probably not, Soviets intervened because situation was already spinning out of control.
The 1973 coup by Mohammad Khan ( An attempt to gain personal power more than anything) destabilized Afghan politics, and his split with the Soviet Union gave impetus for the Afghan communist party to seize power. Following that the communist party's policies caused widespread revolts and unrest, exacerbated by internal fighting within the party. Then the Soviets launched their own coup, then the unrest expanded into a full civil war, then the Soviets withdrew, leading to another civil war which has yet to truly end. So essentially the series of coups in the 70s and attempts to form a one party and later socialist state, combined with massive violent repression and power struggles, led to all out civil war.
This. And people that say that Afghanistan is a graveyard should really read William Dalrymple's Return of a King.
I'd say that leadership is the biggest issue.
Also Timur, the Mughals, and some Persian dynasties, right?
Also, the idea that even Alexander failed to conquer Afghanistan is not really accurate. Hellenic rulers were in charge of the area for well over a hundred years. Kandahar might even be named after Alexander.
Flocculencio
Donor
Well, "developing quite well" and "series of civil wars" don't quite go together, do they? If it was developing quite well then why were people so disatisfied that they embarked on civil war?
As others have said, the 1973 coup threw things totally out of whack. Try reading Strange Rebels by Caryl Christian (a history of the major political shifts of the 1970s).
Up 'til then, Afghanistan was a slowly developing country with a growing urban middle class, and a sleepy stop on the Hippy Trail where visitors could get cheap hashish.
40 years of war will kick the shit out of a society.
You know, I wonder and it may be tied to any scenarios with Afghanistan..
What does the country have as strategic ressources, things worth fighting to get it, to make cash of, etc? Is there petroleum, rare materials, ores, etc? Or at least strategic stuff points like to put a pipeline or road?
This could make or unmake such plot.
What does the country have as strategic ressources, things worth fighting to get it, to make cash of, etc? Is there petroleum, rare materials, ores, etc? Or at least strategic stuff points like to put a pipeline or road?
This could make or unmake such plot.
Really for the Soviets to win in Afghanistan they must not act like the Soviets. Simply investment, support, and limited action to promote the local government could help. However even then the Afghan middle class is not really secure in a communist state. Said middle class was the educated group making Afghanistan improve itself. it was never going to be a industrial, intellectual, or cultural giant but it was getting to that decent enough level that nations strive for.