Excellent article on Afghanistan

[Wdll]

While I can see how creating friendly forces from the local population could be one solution (Alexander the Great did it just fine), I disagree that pure violence wouldn't do the same. IF, USA wasn't at least trying to save innocent lives, IF USA was there to capture the land and IF there wasn't much democracy back there, an extermination strategy would work. Sure, it wouldn't make many friends elsewhere, but fear is a great motivator for peace.

I hope I am proven wrong, but I don't see any real long lasting victory in the area unless suddenly the population changes beliefs.

[Marcello]

The main differance between the Red Army of 1979 and it's Western counterpart was the quality of it's training and the focus of the doctrine. The Red Army was never designed for COIN, it was a heavy army designed to bash through NATO defenses.

If you are implying that the western armies have been doctrinally focused on COIN, sorry that does not fly.
Since WW2 the doctrinal focus was on stopping the Red Horde From The East: that was the primary task, sometimes pursued at expense of everything else (see for example the emphasis put on nuclear forces at the severe expense of conventional ones in the early Cold War).
COIN was an after thought most of the time; yes there were the green berets etc but it was a small niche and did not really influence deeply the Army as a whole.
Vietnam, the only major COIN (and mind you, COIN was just a fraction of what was going on there anyway) experience before Iraq, left the US Army with a sour taste when it came to COIN and the general reaction afterwards was "let's forget about and focus on the Fulda Gap".
The upper side of that was the US Army splendid performance in 1991. The downside was the mistakes post 2003, when the US military had essentially to relearn COIN from scratch.
Now COIN is a primary mission but it is just because of contemporary circumstances.

We are not using terror tactics to try and beat the people into submission

You could easily define a lot of what was going on in Afghanistan in the 80's as "terror tactics" and "beat the people into submission". But then a lot of what was going in Vietnam would fall under that category. From the liberal use of massive amounts of firepower in populated areas to the relocation of population.

Finally, the Russians were incredibly vicious during the war. Their only recourse to failed operations seemed to be dropping mines and sowing terror amongst the Afghan populace which only caused more anger and resentment. The tales of wholesale destruction of villages and violations of Afghan women have passed into legend.

Legend is a apt term. As you will probably recall the US was engaged in a proxy war against the USSR which included, shocking suprise, heavy use of propaganda. And Afghanistan is not a great place for fact finding missions after the fact.
No doubt there was an extremely indiscriminate usage of firepower by the soviets, at least by current standards, and lots of atrocities to boot. But contemporary tales were filtered throught the anti USSR propaganda and that cannot be overlooked in a critical analysis.
Mining operations for example were extensively carried out by the mujahedeen too (mines were one of the most sought after weapons back in Pakistan).

[Marcello]

Russian commanders just did not have the training or resources to nation-build.

The Najibullah regime outlasted (if briefly) the USSR itself while the US & Co were pumping aid to the Mujahedin even after the soviet withdrawal years earlier. Which means that at a minimum that the Army that the soviets had trained was at least somewhat effective. I would not bet much on the current crop in Kabul faring better.

The extreme major of Red Army soldiers serving in Afghanistan volunteered.

I doubt it. Any source for that?

What about counter-revolution? What about Hungary in 1956? What about Nazi insurgency in 1944?

It should be note that Hungary did not put up an organized resistance and the local conditions were not favorable to an eventual insurgency.
Whatever "Nazi insurgency" may have been around in 1944 was a small scale thing, just like anti soviet leftovers in the Baltics and such which were not eliminated until years later. Such things barely registered on the radar, if they did register at all. Large scale COIN abroad was something new indeed.

In addition, the Soviet divisions did fight in Hungary, Vietnam, parts of Africa, etc.

Soviets did fight in Vietnam, Korea and others places, but not as divisions or in major force generally.

[Anthony_Scott]

Originally Posted by [QUOTE

The extreme major of Red Army soldiers serving in Afghanistan volunteered.

Unlikely, except perhaps for SPETZNAZ units. Recall the Soviet military was a conscript force in it's majority and it would be unthinkable for men to volunteer to return to the war zone.

What about counter-revolution? What about Hungary in 1956? What about Nazi insurgency in 1944?

Both invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were considered "internal affairs" of the Warsaw Pact, and at any rate were "classic" operations, ie a permissive country with extant communist infrastructure and the local resistance was doomed from the start.
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_...Czechoslovakia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...lution_of_1956

The abortive Nazi resistance of 1945-1946 were handled with great efficiency and ruthlessness by the occupation forces of the allies and also suffered from not having the support of the German people. One would suppose 12 years of Nazi brutality was enough.

In addition, the Soviet divisions did fight in Hungary, Vietnam, parts of Africa, etc.

Soviets did fight in Vietnam, Korea and others places, but not as divisions or in major force generally.[/quote]

Indeed, Soviet aviators did fly combat missions over Korea during the war in the 1950's, although they were forbidden to speak Russian and had orders not to be taken alive. During the stress of combat against USAF Sabres the pilots would quite naturally forget the former and use Russian freely.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

In Vietnam Soviet troops numbered some 3,000 and the Soviets provided material, including the SA-2 that shot down USAF B-52 bombers. Their role in combat is unknown, although it is known that during the Son Tay raid that some Soviet advisers may have been killed but that has never been determined with any certainty.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivory_Coast

Soviet operations in Africa were the Ogaden War, involvement in Angola, and operations during the Congo Crisis of 1962, although personnel deployments were nowhere near those seen in the above mentioned Hungarian and Czech operations. Socialist interventions in Africa were largely proxy affairs, with Cuba providing the bulk of the land forces.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(1985–1991)

During the Cold War, if you said you were socialist or communist and hated the USA then the Soviets would support you, which is why Afghanistan is such a one-off. The US pretty much dropped Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, with Pakistan being left
with the job of relocating the refugees.

[Snipey]

The volunteer quote comes from a Russian movie about the Afghanistan War. Also, I'd like to point out that even if said movie is incorrect, the Red Army never had more than 10 percent in Afghanistan. One out of ten volunteering for glory, for a better wage, for excitement, for heroics, it's not that far fetched.

In Hungary there was an actual anti-Soviet Revolution, bankrolled by the US. In Czechoslovakia it was more of a "we're defending out lands" kind of event. Don't mix the two.

Also, you may be forgetting this, but the Soviets only took 15,000 losses in Afghanistan. In the Battle of Berlin, the Red Army lost over 80,000. In other words, it wasn't the devastating losses that made the Red Army withdraw from Afghanistan, and the Red Army could have kept on going. The major problem, the reason why the Red Army lost in Afghanistan, was the Brezhnev-Gorbachev Government. But to Americans, who are crazy about "Gorby Mania" this is hard to understand. The main problem is that Gorbachev was a disaster for the USSR, but only Gorbachev's "sunny side" was shown in the American Press, his treatment of the Red Armed Forces, of the USSR's farmers, of factory workers, of, well pretty much the common man, was rather poor.

And while you do cite all of the data, the Red Army/Red Air Force bashing aside, "combat stress" - well that happens to everyone and the Red Air Force spoke Russian even when they weren't in combat and flying over Korea. Also, you are just proving my point, and disproving the article's initial point, which was that the Red Army didn't have combat experience going into Afghanistan.

Also, I agree with Marcello on Soviet Atrocities: "Legend is a apt term. As you will probably recall the US was engaged in a proxy war against the USSR which included, shocking suprise, heavy use of propaganda. And Afghanistan is not a great place for fact finding missions after the fact. No doubt there was an extremely indiscriminate usage of firepower by the soviets, at least by current standards, and lots of atrocities to boot. But contemporary tales were filtered throught the anti USSR propaganda and that cannot be overlooked in a critical analysis. Mining operations for example were extensively carried out by the mujahedeen too (mines were one of the most sought after weapons back in Pakistan)."

Also of note, the Russian Army has had three successful wars, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, and the 2008 South Ossetia War.

In order to be great at understanding any military, one must separate politics from military, or one is doomed to failure, as your "hurrr durrr 'Semper Fi Georgia' thread" shows.

[Anthony_Scott]

I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:

1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.

2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.

3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.

4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.

And Lastly:

Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.

I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.

[Wdll]

Isn't that Keegan's book the one where he tries to look good by bashing Clausewitz?

Anyway, I think Snipey was more referring to propaganda and subjectivity when he talked about "politics".

[Snipey]

Originally Posted by Anthony_Scott

I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:

1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.

2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.

3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.

4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.

And Lastly:

Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.

I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.

1. My point is this: you have to understand the difference between military historians writing articles and politicians writing articles, and treat them as such. You have to know the purpose behind the article. Something written about Russia's army by the Jamestown Foundation is a joke, but something written about Russia's army by the Moscow Defense Brief, or even found on the CIA World Factbook is to be taken seriously. You have to learn the difference between the two.

2. I consider some of your posts, particularly about Russian discipline and Russian drunkenness to be bashing, as they come form sources who focus on hype and sensation, rather than reality. I am not saying you do it intentionally.

3. Battle Fatigue is a factor in every war. It was certainly a factor in Afghanistan, but not the deciding factor.

4. I never said Russian troops had the same bonus pay as US troops. That would be a silly assumption. If one was to merely look at the average wages in the US vs. Russia or the USSR, one would see that US wages are generally higher, so the bonuses would be greater.

If you want to know more about the Red Army, read David Glantz and John Ericson. And Sun Tzu is a must read, no questions here. As for John Keegan, I would agree with the Christian Science Monitor that the comparison of the Iraq War to WWII are innapropriate.

The thing about your Georgia thread, it happened many times, and you weren't the only one, so apology accepted You just happened to mention it on what I would consider to be a military website, so I had to say something about it.

The part that annoys me the most, is that the bashing is still going on to this day, and not just in the case of Russia. Many Marines unjustly get called Baby Killers. Russians are now calling "butchers of civilians" - even though their acts saved civilians. The media, politics, will drive anything, "if it bleeds, it leads". Political articles must be ignored, they must be trashed, and until people realize that political articles are written for the sole purpose of someone's monetary gain, and not to inform the read, we will have misunderstandings. I mean people are thinking that Russia will be invading Ukraine soon, which is the biggest bull**** I've heard.

I try to stay out of political forms, which is why I like this forum, but my main point remains: you have to separate politically written articles from those written by military professionals. And sometimes, credentials are a tricky business, as credentials are not hard to get at all. One must look at the content of the article itself, and not the credentials of the writer. The articles that I've seen you put up for discussion here, albeit I've only seen two, have been primarily politically-driven articles, rather than complex military analysis. And to me, that is the most dangerous path of them all, articles with a political purposes, disguised as military analysis. It's like a guy selling you a lemon and telling you it's the greatest car in the World.

An easy way to tell the difference, is to read their previous articles. If a person was wrong 20 percent of the time or more, he is not a professional military analyst, and should be ignored. Focus on the article itself, rather than the writer. Look for content, more political crap, or more military analysis. That's just my two cents, because I see you, and not just you, making the same mistake, trusting that crooked car salesman, and buying their articles, hook, line and sinker. I want to assist you by giving you a guide, I don't want a flame war, and I thank you for avoiding the latter; it is my hope that you follow the former.

[redcoat2]

Without wishing to be drawn into the debate I would just like to post a couple of links to articles about the Soviet-Afghan War.

The Soviet-Afghan War: A Superpower Mired in the Mountains
by Lester W. Grau, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc...redinmount.htm

Humping a Ruck Across Sunny Afghanistan, Summer of 1986.
A Snipers Paradise interview with a Soviet Spetsnaz vet of the Soviet-Afghan War.

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

[Wdll]

The last article/interview is wonderful.
Read it.

The interviewee seems to have the same opinion as I. The war there is not going to gain anything. The people of the area will not change and become friends.