I calculated the casualty rates years ago in a debate on Iraq being like Vietnam (which I disagree with). I was making a point that given the nature of the enemy and other things it was more akin to Afghanistan and Israel's occupation of S. Lebanon. Anyway, that's not the point.
Soviet KIA is a difficult figure to find, although I settled on a figure I found quoted in both Soviet and U.S. Military reports. Another fun part was calculating the number of days starting in Dec. of 1979 and going to 1989. Anyway, it's the number (roughly) that I came up with.
You are correct, though, the the USSR was teetering ... but more teetering in an economic way, not a military way. The Soviet military was massive, and the losses they sustained in Afghanistan were very small compared to the overall size of their forces ... in both men and material. They had more than enough military might to keep fighting in Afghanistan, but their political leadership threw in the towel and got out. The Afghan rebels outlasted the Russians in the all important will to fight.
The same, IMHO, can be said of Vietnam ... yes, we had a large number of casualties, but the American pull out was driven by domestic politics. The homefront turned against the war and the NVA and VietCong simply outlasted us.
The same could be said for Israel's occupation of S. Lebanon. The Israeli public turned against the slow but steady stream of IDF fallen returning from there. The IDF's casualties were never high, but over time the public mood soured and it had a political impact resulting in the unilateral withdraw of Israeli forces in 2000.
And Iraq today is a battle of wills between America and the terrorist forces operating inside Iraq. They can never defeat our military, but they can work on the mood and perception of the American public (and our media is oh so happy to help them in this) and that can have an impact in Washington and on our elected political leadership.
These type of conflicts are very difficult, esp given the PC limitations we seem to operate under.
I don't know who said it, but I've seen it written; "we have the ability to destroy our enemies, but not the will ... our enemy has the will but not the means ... we're in a race to see who gets what first."
I do believe this is the reality we face in the world today. This is a fight of Will.
But I still contend they got out because of their other problems, mainly. And how the losses they were taking were too expensive to replace, considering they were broke and politically on the brink.
The SU was bleeding cash, and Afganistan was part of that.
Same with Vietnam. Surely the 50,000+ didn't destroy our military. But it did seriously deplete it, and if it had continued it would have been a *massive* problem. It was already becomming a massive problem, in fact.
And I would argue that Israel pulled out of the occupied territories only because 'enlightened minds' inside Israel thought it would work, that it would gain peace. Their occupation worked too well. They became complacent.
A war of attrition is won by causing the other side to bleed more than they're able to sustain long-term. Clearly both Afganistan and Vietnam were in that boat.
Iraq and this war were clearly wins.
Altho it is only halftime. But our side is up 50-10. Sure, the other team is declaring a moral victory -- "No one thought we'd score at all, so 10 points is a major victory!!!".
So? I laugh at 'moral victories'.
We have a 'military victory'. If they think they won, too -- great! I couldn't care less. A few more victories like that, and they'll continue to stay in the stone age while we continue to soar to the clouds.