Posted on 10/06/2015 6:59:21 AM PDT by Trumpinator
Yeah, and the United States “almost won” in Vietnam. The United States never lost a major campaign, and the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong militarily.
You are missing the point of the article because of the headline.....
If you mean the guy who apparently helped put the Taliban in power and gave Osama Bin Laden a base to launch the 9/11 attacks, yes.
From your posting on Dr. Wheeler, one could argue that Reagan's intervention in the Soviet-Afghan War lead directly to 9/11, ~3,000 civilian deaths, and an ongoing butcher's bill of US and allied troops that numbers in the thousands of dead and tens of thousands maimed.
Similar sentiment in some RINO and Democrat circles would have us oppose Putin in Syria, which would just be repeating the same mistake. In other words, if we stand in Putin's way, what Syrian-based mass casualty attack will be forthcoming in the coming decade or so?
Point to ponder in light of our Founder's strongly discouraging the US from getting involved with foreign wars. Such intervention has consequences.
Seems I remember Clinton selling the mooslems Stingers.
This piece of commentary is about the Afghan War not Syria.
Mark Kramer, Harvard Cold War Studies Program; enough said from Harvard, the commie/ soviet propaganda wing. They probably say that the Soviets “won” the cold war” thanks to Gorbachev.
That is not what he is saying. Jeez. The guy is stating we could defeat the Taliban - see how. Jeez.
Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.
Here it is eleven years later, and the insurgency against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq marches on.
I'd say the point of the article was proven wrong by the march of time.
According to General Giap Linebacker II was devastating and a few more days of bombing and they were ready to give up. Of course the USA stopped bombing a few days to soon. The rest is history.
Well yes and no. Yes there were many points in the conflict when the Soviets had clearly won the day and the Afghans probably should have quit. But for a variety of reasons (some internal to them, some tied to US aid) they didn’t. In an attrition war the home team will always be the most motivated, and eventually will always win, because eventually the other side just gets tired of it. Even in a dictatorship the will of the people matters, and when those people decide they’re tired of burying their sons for a cause they don’t believe in the war will end.
That and Tet brought them out in the open and we shot them up real good after a slow start.
Between tet and carpet bombing they were done for in ‘72. We must of had some bad intel back then.
The issue is outside aid to insurgents and how that keeps them going. The Taliban frustratingly are both fought by and backed by Pakistan at the same time. It’s just a bizarre situation - probably because Pakistan is a failed state and within Pakistan there are competing factions.
That carrier was salvageable. It took a whole lot of torpedoes to send her to the bottom.
scorched earth doesn’t include burning opium fields, I gather. That should have been a priority.
The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91
Incorrect. WE kicked the soviets ass in Afghanistan. It was a proxy war.
There’s always going to be aid, because the occupiers will always have enemies.
The civilians had Walter Cronkite as their intel agent. That’s all it took.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.