Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Russia, Foreboding About America's War in Afghanistan
Today, as former Soviet soldiers watch American troops trying to pacify the same stretches of Afghan land they once fought for, aging Soviet generals and grunts alike are reminded of a war they'd rather forget.
Vladimir Kostyuchenko is still haunted by his three tours in Afghanistan as a helicopter pilot. While Russians are willing, and often eager, to predict utter defeat for U.S. efforts based on their own failure in Afghanistan, they're much less comfortable talking about the pain of reportedly having lost more than 14,000 lives in a war that ended in retreat.
Comparing wars is a process riddled with inconsistency - the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was far different from the American presence today - but on the eve of the anniversary of the Soviet war, the somber and at times anguished way that veterans in Russia spoke of their time in Afghanistan was a disturbing reminder of the hurdles that American forces now face.
The retired soldiers talk about Afghanistan in terms that echo the American experience in Vietnam: of winning battles but losing the campaign, watching the local population throw its support behind an insurgency and, finally, coming home to a country that no longer understood or supported their war.
As the Obama administration sends in 30,000 to 35,000 more troops by next summer - raising the total of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan to at least 140,000 - men such as Alexander Tsalko say they can't fathom why anyone would want to fight in that land of sharp mountain ridges and hot desert sands.
"Nothing was achieved while I was there. ... There wasn't anything good there; they fired at us, we fired at them," said Tsalko, who commanded a helicopter unit in Kandahar from 1982 to 1983.
Tsalko was later the deputy head of a Soviet state defense committee and then a member of a Russian government commission for veterans affairs. He's spent the last several years working for an organization that helps disabled veterans.
What are his thoughts in late December, the period when the Soviets thrust into Afghanistan with a troop buildup on Dec. 24 and Dec. 25 and then the overthrow of the government on Dec. 27?
"Bitterness and regret that we were drawn into this war," Tsalko replied.
In short, he said, "those who fought there do not want to talk about it when they're not drunk."
Unlike Russia's springtime celebration of its World War II victory over Nazi Germany, a national holiday that includes a triumphant, sparkling military parade in Red Square, the anniversary of the Soviet war in Afghanistan is hardly mentioned in the cold, dark days of December.
"It's especially difficult to remember those episodes that so many would like to leave behind," said Vladimir Kostyuchenko, a helicopter pilot for three tours in Afghanistan who's now active with an Afghan veterans group in Russia. "These generals at the top, they had no sense of reality. They gave us murderous orders. I still bear a cross because I fulfilled those orders."
Kostyuchenko, a slightly pudgy man with a friendly face whose helicopter was shot down in 1988, continued the thought: "Later we saw the results, and they were terrible."
Igor Rodionov, who from 1985 to 1986 commanded the Soviet 40th Army, its main military force, said it wasn't just the troops who were conflicted.
"On one hand, I was indignant when I understood what this decision to invade Afghanistan would result in. I could say that to my friends, but I could not say it out loud because I was a general," said Rodionov, who retired as a four-star general and later was a Russian defense minister and then a parliament deputy. "Our sacrifices were not needed."
Rodionov, who's now 73, looked down at a table in front of him and arranged a pen, plate of crackers and a napkin to demonstrate the flanks of a troop position. He gazed at them for a moment with a bemused expression, as if to recognize the absurdity of talking about the violence of war while pointing at a napkin.
Pushing the items forward, Rodionov said that commanders often sent their men to hunt for the enemy in villages on either side of mountain gorges near vital transport routes.
"We could fight for two weeks in this gorge, killing the Afghans," he said in a gravelly voice. "In return they kill our guys. We have used all our water, ammunition and food, and then we must go back to our rear position."
Rodionov pulled the pen, crackers and napkin back to their starting places: "Then the mujahedeen" - meaning holy warriors, the term used by Afghan fighters - "would return to the gorge, and the whole thing continues."
The Soviet experience, of course, isn't proof that the same fate will befall the United States, which is now more than eight years into its Afghan war.
While the Soviet invasion in 1979 was widely seen across the world as an act of wanton aggression, a broad coalition of countries supported the U.S. decision in the aftermath of 9/11 to topple the Taliban government in Kabul and hunt down al Qaida.
The Soviets were badly hobbled by Western and Arab financial and arms support for the Afghan fighters, especially U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which American pilots haven't had to face.
The current collection of insurgents and terrorists - though they include some of the same men the U.S. backed against the Soviets - aren't thought to receive anywhere close to that level of foreign help.
Still, the men who took part in the Soviet fight for Afghanistan say that no matter how smart the Obama administration's plans are for turning the tide, they stand little chance in a country that's known as the graveyard of empires.
"Afghans will fight foreign troops as long as foreign troops are there," said Lev Serebrov, whose time there was bookended by the Soviet invasion and retreat. He arrived in 1979 and stayed through 1981 as a lieutenant colonel and deputy division commander, and returned from 1987 to 1989 as a major general and deputy to the Soviet operations commander for the Afghan war.
"No one should go there armed," said Serebrov, who's now a deputy in Russia's lower house of parliament.
Kostyuchenko, the helicopter pilot, hosts a neighborhood remembrance of the war on Dec. 27, the date that Soviet forces murdered Afghan President Hafizullah Amin in order to replace him with a more loyal pawn. Killing Amin was the point of no turning back, Kostyuchenko explained.
On Sunday night, a group of old women, some of them wearing black scarves, will shuffle into a drab apartment on Mikhailov Street and light candles for their dead sons. The candles, from a nearby church, are thin so that they'll fit into the spent bullet cartridges that Kostyuchenko lines up in a row at a small exhibit about the war that he tends.
Tsalko, the veterans' issues advocate, didn't say whether he'd be attending any memorial services.
After speaking of the bad dreams and drinking that come after a war ends, Tsalko thanked a reporter for his time and headed toward the door. Putting on his scarf, long winter coat and thick brown fur hat, he had one last thought: "It's very hard to fight in Afghanistan. Your leadership will have to find a way out."



43 Comments so far
Show AllIt is Dejá Vu all over again...and again...and again.
Just look around you. In my city, already the Iraq/Afganistan veteran PTSD, homeless numbers are increasing, even as many homeless Viet Nam PTSD homeless pass on.
Their expressions are the same - just fewer lines and wrinkles.
Most of all, the alienation from the company of the citizenry at large is just as complete.
But I could be wrong !
Nikita K. didn't need to follow through on his 1950s promise to bury the US. The US is burying itself.
Yeah, and the Marx quote "Give the capitalists enough rope and they'll hang themselves" is also ringing true.
Trouble is, in the meantime they're mutilating everyone else.
I'm not sure it's, "It is Dejá Vu all over again... and ...".
The USSR didn't use anywhere near the military and private sector mercenary forces the U.S. and NATO are using, and British war history in Afghanistan is even less. This is not to say that I think the U.S. and NATO can win in Afghanistan, but they're using a lot more military power than has been used in the past in this country, and from an article that I recently read, there are relatively few, some hundred or so, Al Qaeda people, and only some thousands, not even ten thousand, Taliban fighters. And the USSR, from another article I've read, never used the air power that the U.S. and NATO have been employing or deploying.
I'm not sure that the present and past wars of imperialist, ... and foreign origin in Afghanistan are really comparable. Can the Taliban really win against everything the U.S. and NATO are doing; including the private sector mercenaries, and other black or covert ops? I don't know. But I wouldn't try to compare to past foreign invasions of the country, too much; a little, sure, but not more.
Some people also compare the present U.S. warring there to Vietnam, the USA's defeat there, but while there are similarities, there are also differences, and they shouldn't be ignored.
I'm definitely not root'in for the USA and NATO to win though, for I want their efforts to fail, Big-time so. But if we're going to do the comparisons analysis, then it should be thorough, instead, of superficial; and I have a feeling that when people compare the present war in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War, then while it might not be very superficial, it nevertheless seems to be to some degree or in some ways.
From what I read, the USSR did not aerially attack like the U.S. extremely does, and it also didn't have anywhere near the military forces that the U.S. has there; not when including U.S. mercenaries, anyway. And the U.S. was providing financing, arming, and training to the mujahideen against the USSR, which, therefore, wasn't fighting against only mujuhideen, but also their providers, the U.S., through the CIA anyway, and Pakistani ISI.
I don't think that the Taliban have any similar backing today. They might have some backing, but I guess it would not be at the level of governments backing them.
You are right - that the Soviets were fighting not just the mujahideen, but their backers as well. But the Soviets *did* use their air power. What tipped the scales against them was the use of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (SAM) - the Stinger - supplied by the US (CIA). This completely changed the dynamics of the war - the Soviets could no longer fly around the country without fear of being attacked from the ground. These missiles were so deadly and so effective, that the CIA spent tens of millions of dollars buying back the "left-over" Stingers - and was said to have paid up to $150,000 a piece. In contrast, the USA and its allies have been fighting two wars for all these years against enemies that don't have an air force, and, most importantly, air defense. And with no powerful backing by a rival superpower. So, yes, the comparison is not quite correct.
The USSR used air power, but apparently not to the extent that the U.S. does; not according to an article I recently (enough) read anyway. If I could recall the title and author for the article, then I'd look for the bookmark or a copy of the article, but I don't remember this information. However, and from what I recall, the article, unless it was a video, basically left the reader or viewer to understand that the USSR used relatively little air power compared to the U.S., and didn't bomb civilian areas and infrastructure; or nowhere as much as the U.S. does, anyway.
Re. the Stinger missiles, there was another recent article, or video, in which it was stated that some people believe that the Taliban might have used some of these during the present war in Afghanistan. These would be from the 1980's, I think the piece additionally said. If true, then I guess they don't have many of these weapons, for if they did, then we should've heard or read enough about this by now.
Two or three articles that I've read over the past few months or so also inform readers about the total number of foreign troops deployed in the present and prior invasions of Afghanistan, and none come close to the number serving in the present war there. Around 50 countries are contributing to the U.S.-NATO war there, today. Many aren't providing many troops, but it all adds up to a lot more than the 1980's war there; and if recalling correctly, the earlier British war(s) there had considerably fewer troops there than the USSR did.
In any case, I don't see why people compare the present US-NATO war there to prior invasions, since there are serious differences. How can we compare them without getting into the details we learn about when learning of the differences?
With that said, I suppose the Taliban having considerably mastered use of their mountainous areas remains some real advantage for them; but when we read that there are only several thousand of them, vs a hundred thousand or more foreign troops, then the picture doesn't particularly look very good for the Taliban winning, which they nevertheless might; eventually. They're right in saying that more foreign troops will provide them with more targets, though.
The national debt is at 14 trillion and growing. Add on the cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan and over 100 military bases around the world. Who will pay? LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ALONE! Maybe we can go to the Chinese communist party and ask for still more help?
Look again friend that is 1000 bases around the world. Yicks that is a big empire we have, no wonder we can't have health care!!
I noticed in the article they refer to the Soviet Occupation. And the usa is conducting a what!,
If this is not an occupation I don't know what else to call it..
How can you have a democracy with a stupid population? You can't it called a big lie.
or as we like to say we is in the twilight Zone reruns.. How long can the empire last, who knows..
Kinda of interesting to watch.
"the U.S. decision in the aftermath of 9/11"
9/11. 911. Oh sweet revenge. Oh sweet manipulation. How many thousands or women and children will be killed, maimed and mutilated by the utterance of that great lie?
Growing up in the u.s., I never would have imagined the Russians offering advise and good advise at that.
Who is listening?
The fact is that the Jimmy Carter's senior national security aide pushed for and got the president's OK to draw Moscow into that war in Afghanistan in 1979 to give Moscow it's
Vietnam," even though Moscow had nothing to do with the USA getting itself into that war for empire,
The Gipper continued this war of aggression against the Afghan people put in a puppet government whose more fanatical elements would be linked to the 9/ll attacks-- blowback some call it,
Moscow was fighting for a real reform government and lost, The USA and its gang are fighting for a corrupt, graft ridden, dope pushing, oppressive puppet government which deserves to go down to defeat and will with the triumph of the Afghan people and an end to Western security services' stooge pushing Heroin and all the problems it causes internationally,
AD
AD -- 11:09 --------- To clear a few historical points.
The USA involvement began after socialist Amin gained power and began to implement agrarian and civil rights reform.
He was opposed by Landlords and Fundamentalists.
The USA armed these rebelling reactionary forces.
At this point the Soviets invaded and murdered the good guy socialist Amin and, as the article said replaced him with a Soviet puppet.
Please do not put the Afghan government on a lower level than the USA.
Karzai would broker a Peace Treaty, Obomber has offers to negotiate for Peace,yet he rather Bomb.
I'll throw this thing out a 1000 times if I have to.Tony
PTSD
Pain, always the pain in the heart, the mind, and oh1 so much of the pain in the Soul! How is one to rid self of the one experience that will eat at a body from the inside out and leave a shell to walk around with this psychological cancer eating away at the very reason for living? To kill another for what the heart knows is not a valid justification will take the body and eat at it like a voracious animal and, yet, ask for some mercy and offer it’s suffering as penance for this unnatural deed and the Soul weeps for all who died and for the heart that killed. Post indeed; a pillar and a post to madness
Tears, how many, how many will it take for the peace, the peace that a home should bring and does not? How can a pain in the heart move the body to react with an outward danger to any that would be a friend, or lover, or helper, or any stranger? How is a war for lucre any more than a common criminal does when murder is done in the stealing of goods belonging to an other peoples or nations? The warrior and the politician will say nay, nay it is for the safety of all that others must die; weep not for the “others” for they are not worthy of any tears! The ears hear, the mind processes but the heart hurts and the body will know while the Soul weeps. Trauma is no more than a word for a spiritual death watch.
Sorrow; that sorrow which cries out! Cries out to anything, anyone that would relieve or cut out that which presses on the heart; simulating a heart attack in its total absorbs ion of this physical entity called sorrow and the mind; the mind that will try to rationalize what is happening and finds itself where there is no up or down, no logical next step to put body, mind and Soul back to a functional mode and get on with a life in a world that will be forever changed and the Soul weeps. Stress; in this context is a cover up; like telling someone who has a headache take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
Damned; is this not more appropriate, if anything is appropiate, for a human being that exists in a world that increasingly fades to grays and blacks while most around this entity have no clue of the pain, the suffering, the sorrow? Did I ever mention the guilt that is ever present and no one will ever talk about? Because then it would mean that it is wrong, so terribly wrong to have these soldiers out there killing and maiming other peoples that have no wish for their presence and are caught in a political and ideological struggle that is motivated by pure greed and the heart, the mind and the Soul that finally gets that fact will know that for all of their causes there will be effects and PTSD is one effect. Disorder; like talking about an unruly school room full of kids.
I cried writing this. Tony
mustbefree, I hear and feel you.
War is immoral, plain and simple.
"political and ideological struggle "
I don't buy this. It's all about wealth, death for dollars.
Politics and ideologies are tools used.
Buck;thanks for the words and what you say that "politics and ideologies are tools used" is so true it is scary.Tony
PTSD takes its toll on the nation, as well---collectively and individually.
From Wounded Knee to Nam to E Timor to Falujah to Kandahar, the wages of war are steep.
Many weep with you.
If I am a Russian government official inside the Kremlin, I would be laughing my ass off at the US Afghan military adventure.
Also their meddling in Central and South Asian affairs in the name of pertroleum is a hoot. Soon enough the US will learn that all their "wishin'and hopin'" won't change the reality of the mess into which they have stepped.
Poet
Where have all the flowers gone...long time passing...
When will they ever learn...
During the Soviet Afghan War the mujahedeen were financed thusly:
20% from the US.
20% from Saudi Arabia
60% from Islamic charities.
It has also been reported that several Taliban attacks were planned and FUNDED by Al-Qaida. This suggests that Al-Qaida is the money bags for the baddies in Afghanistan.
Are you guessing or are these facts?
The Mujaheedin, during the soviet war, were financed largely by the CIA. Either directly linking the US or through the Saudi govt. AQ, is the creation of the CIA. The Taliban also was funded by the CIA via the Pakistani ISI.
Those are facts. And what more? The CIA gave money to the ISI to doll out of Afghan fighters.
Arab foreign fighters came entirely on their own dollar. The group bin laden came with was there to promote wahabiism, the state religion of saudi arabia, amongst the mujahedeen. It received no US funds.
The terrorist group Al-Qaida was founded AFTER the end of the Soviet Afghan War in response to Iraq's threats against the Arabian peninsula and the arrival of US forces to Saudi Arabia. Read 1990.
The Al-Qaida we fight today is the product of the merger of Al-Qaida with Egyptian Islamic Jihad in 1999.
The Taliban was created with the help of the Pakistani ISI in Pakistan in the mid 90's as a means for Pakistan to exert control over its neighbor. Again, no US funds.
The "US created Al-Qaida" narrative sounds romantic, however the facts just don't stack up.
It's called blowback, you can never predict how you will reap the whirlwind.
There is a good discussion of this issue at:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=67;t=002327;p=1
guess who 3:21 ------- Your narrative is accurrate but there is one important thread that ties the whole narrative.
The Wahabiism that Bin Laden brought was installed in Pakistan in many new, Saudi and gulf states funded, wahabi madrasas.
The Talib came from these Madrasas , Afghan refugee camps, sons of Mujahadin
I believe Bin Laden, as did most fundamental mujahadin, received USA funds either directly or indirectly.
So USA funds and assistence sustained both Al Qeada and the Taliban though the USA may not have directly or purposely created either groups.
nice retort.
...then, of course, if that's not enough to help show the evil yarn... there is that wonderful photo of Zbig Brzezinski smiling next to a young USB who proudly shows of his machine gun.
www.nowpublic.com/world/brzezinski-and-bin-laden
then there is the proud Big Zbig proclaiming to the Jihadist they are righteous. Nothing like feeding religious extremists to do your dirty work. Then when they manifest and spin, and blowback begins to wield its ugly head... well, hmm. Maybe their 'cause' is no longer right?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk
Where are your facts? Sources please. It is not facts just because you say so. Pakistan ISI and the CIA are tied at the hips in that region. AQ is a US created BLOWBACK...When Bin Laden use was not needed anymore, the hit was on for Osama...And now OSama and AQ are kept alive for invasions and occupations of those regions for their natural resources. When the puppets are installed and stabilized Osama nad AQ will be pronounced dead or inconsequential. I think you have a romantic notion of the US spreading democracy around the world. The reality is that the US spreads destruction and theft.
guess who is right, and you make the same mistake that many people make about the Taliban - confusing them or conflating them with the Afghan mujaheedin that fought the Soviets.
The Taliban (as a fighting force) were created by the Pakistani ISI in Pakistan after the Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan. The Pakistani military/intelligence establishment (that has essentially been running the country for practically most of its 60+ years as an independent nation) has this idea of a "strategic depth" that having a "friendly" government such as the Taliban would allow, so they could "focus" on India. They probably also realize that Afghanistan, being a landlocked country, any pipelines from the Central Asian republics would have to reach a port either through Pakistan or Iran. So having a friendly government gives them enormous leverage in their mind. 'Taleeb' means student, and the Taliban were students of religious schools called madrassas, run inside Pakistan. The Pakistani military/intelligence establishment still has plans to play some kind of a regional "Great Game", with their nukes, friendly relations with the Chinese military, and a close working relationship with the CIA. They are not serious about real democracy within Pakistan - a fact that suits the USA very well.
I've mentioned this episode before: Kashmiri separatists operating out of Pakistan hijacked an Indian airlines flight from Kathmandu, Nepal to some Indian city, exactly 10 years ago this week - and flew it to Pakistan and then to Kandahar where it was held until the eve of Dec.31, 1999 - when the whole world was caught in the "millennium" frenzy. One passenger, returning with his wife from honeymoon in Nepal was killed by the hijackers. The aircraft and passengers were released in exchange for a bunch of other Pakistan-based militants from Indian prisons, taken to Kandahar and released. They quietly slipped into Pakistan, where one of the militants released from Indian prison went on to found another group called Jaish-e-Mohamed - basically targeting India, based in Pakistan. During the whole week that the aircraft (with the passengers inside) was at the Kandahar airport, the hijackers were in constant touch with their Pakistani handlers. When US troops (special forces, maybe) entered Kandahar airport after 9/11, India wanted whatever records there were pertaining to that hijack period two years earlier, but the Americans quietly refused to hand over any such material - because they needed Pakistani cooperation by now. The whole "war on terror" is a murky business whichever way you look at it.
...They probably also realize that Afghanistan, being a landlocked country, any pipelines from the Central Asian republics would have to reach a port either through Pakistan or Iran....
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valid if one accepted a world view that excluded the Russian and Chinese path ...which, today, is the current path of least resistance. Russia makes great headway within last 24 hours....
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20dfe82e-ef69-11de-86c4-00144feab49a.html
Interesting story on FT. What you refer to as the "path of least resistance" is from the point of view of the countries in Central Asia that have the oil and gas. But *NOT* from the p.o.v. of the American, British, French and Dutch oil companies. Linda McQuaig writes in her fantastic book, "It's the Crude, Dude: Greed, Gas, War and the American Way" about a sarcastic sign at some protest (and I think it's also on a T-shirt now) that said, "How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?" As far as these western oil companies are concerned, I think it's not even sarcastic. If it's up to the countries that have the oil and gas reserves, the world supply networks would look a lot different. And very likely, a pipeline would ALREADY be existing from Iran through Pakistan to India - which was under active negotiation by all three countries, until the US (Condi Rice, in public) specifically told India to back away from any such plans. No oil or gas should get sold without the involvement of western oil companies, if they can help it. Russia and China are clearly competitors. India is a nuisance for naively trying to find its own sources of supply, but easily brought under control with simple warnings.
Soviet Advantages:
- Afghanistan on the border
- Some Russified ethnic groups (Tajik, Uzbek) straddled the border
- No restraint on massive firepower
Soviet Disadvantages:
- Americans, Saudis, and Pakistanis were funding and funneling advanced weaponry to Mujahideen
- Holy War against a secular regime
- Poor health of troops, low morale
- Soviet economic crisis
End result: After almost 9 1/2 years, humiliating withdrawal with massive casualties, although the Najibullah regime lasted 3 more years.
US/NATO Advantages:
- Multinational coalition
- Free hand in Pakistan
- No international support for insurgents
- Muslim puppet regime
- Sophisticated weaponry
US/NATO Disadvantages:
- Corrupt, unpopular puppet regime
- Long supply lines
- US economic crisis (although military spending unaffected)
- ...
End result: After 8 years, no end in sight.
America has a lot to answer for,so many agressive acts of terrorism on others soil, now the blowback again.
Will America ever learn ?
America. A land born out of religious disssedents Eoropean social misfits indeed the die was cast and has endured over the years.
The settlers who introduced ethnic cleansing against the Native American Indians, who promoted slavery and bought the larger part of America from other countries.
America a land with no history, no culture,no future.
America, a land run by bankers and Zionists intent of feathering their own nests over the dead bodies of their innocent victims.
Get out of Afghanistan whilst you can America, looking at your track record starting from the Phillipines war up to now it is indeed a poor record.
Did you not learn from the Vietnam debacle I ask ?
Money for war but not for a caring society with a decent health care system and a basic welfare system for the less fortunate Americans.
I saw today a recent Newsweek Front page ...
it was titled:
"HOW WE WON THE VIETNAM WAR"...
talk about DELUDED history "reconstruction"....
You should have read the rest of the Newsweak story as it must have been about the Viet Kong!
Vidal Gore doesn't call it "the United States of Amnesia" for nothing, you know?
If you can find the books
The Bear Went Over the Mountain
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201996/Bear%20Went%20Over%20Mountain%20-%20Aug%2096/BrOrMn.pdf
PDF file of the whole book for those that can read it
and
The Other Side of the Mountain
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll11&CISOPTR=559&CISOBOX=1&REC=8
you will find interesting insight
That's how it goes.
"in the hearts of the people the grapes of wrath grew heavy for the vintage"- Steinbeck.
Seeing Obomber "with us" and any of a variety of crazies and fascists against us (I wonder who will be killed in the holocaust if they win?) I know that there is little hope except for this coming depression to strip away the scourge of positive thinking.
Why does the author of this piece, Tom Lasseter, find it necessary to perpetrate these asinine (and unsupported) clauses: "Comparing wars is a process riddled with inconsistency-- the Soviet occupation was far different from the American presence..."
Robert Greenwald, the moviemaker of "Rethink Afghanistan," feels no need for such pompous, gratuitous and pusillanimous qualification. He expresses the same overall viewpoint as that of Lasseter but with far fewer words and much more conviction in "Afghanisan War: the Soviet Lesson not Learned."
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/?utm_source=russia
..."Bitterness and regret that we were drawn into this war," Tsalko replied....
-----------------------------------------------------
You can blame Jimmy Carter for listening to his NSA Zbig Brzezinski for funding the Mujahideen to lure the Soviets into a proxy war. (Yes, Carter's policy)
Yep, one and the same. The same guy who convinced Jimmy Carter to tell the Shah of Iran to violently stomp down the Iranian revolutionary students. The same US president who allowed the exiled Shah onto US soil (after all other countries turned him away). The result? The US Embassy was taken hostage. People like to talk about "Red October" and the release of hostages after Carter left office, but few people are willing to admit the reason the hostages were first taken was as a direct consequence to Jimmy Carter's involvement in Iran..
Blowback is one thing, putting Brzezinski's favorite politician into power -0bama- is just asking for it.
And now that war is being made 'respectable' by giving the Nobel prize to the head of a war mongering nation...we can only expect more of the same. 54,000 + died in Vietnam. How many in Afghanistan/Pakistan?
"MOSCOW - Thirty years ago this week, the Red Army began its invasion of Afghanistan, a move that sank the Soviet Union in a decade of guerrilla war and hastened the collapse of the Cold War empire."
----------------
And 30 years from now, our kids will be reading the following:
"WASHINGTON - Thirty years ago this week, the USan Army began its invasion of Afghanistan, a move that sank the Untied States of Amnesia in a decade of guerrilla war and hastened the collapse of the Oil War empire."
And by that time China will have taken on the mantle of global empire and will doubtless invade Afghanistan, much as they have Tibet. Or so they would like to believe.
Chuk_it writes:
"You can blame Jimmy Carter for listening to his NSA Zbig Brzezinski for funding the Mujahideen to lure the Soviets into a proxy war. (Yes, Carter's policy)"
More specifically, Zbig told Carter he was trying to draw the USSR into its own VIET NAM, which is an admission that Viet Nam was a disaster for the United States, back in the late 70s when Americans were still in a state of denial (worse than today...).
Back in action today as a key advisor to Obama, Zbig Brzezinski has been in the news lately reiterating this story. What goes around comes around here, about as directly as it gets. For, despite some tactical and geographical differences, Afghanistan will become the Second Viet Nam for the United States, with, now once again (under Obama), our "Best & Brightest" in charge of the disaster.
Meanwhile, to those who have argued on this thread that the current Taliban are not as well-financed internationally today as were the mujahedeen fighting the Soviets, you are paying no attention to the world opium trade.
During the rise to power of the Taliban in the immediate post-Soviet period, they outlawed the opium trade. In their second iteration they are making a profit from it. That ought to tell you something about their portrayal in the MSM as religious zealots versus pragmatics. That the CIA has a very long history of involvement in international drug trade ought to tell you why the U.S. military in Afghanistan has permitted the Taliban opium trade to thrive.
Complicated, isn't it? Why do you think they call it The Great Game? The ground and drone war is moving east into Pakistan while the profits are moving west, into Turkey and Iran, thence farther west, into Europe, where a lot of people are in pain.
Opium should be considered a resource in these resource wars and it should be traded on the Commodities exchanges. Like corn and beans. Only far more valuable per acre.
Finally, generally never discussed in the MSM is the question, given that the Taliban now have money, where do they get the munitions they might buy with it? The US and NATO and other "allies" all active in Afghanistan, yet the Taliban somehow finds itself armed.
Has anyone else noticed what's happening on our Mexican border, people?! Afghanistan is now a tactical occupation. Meanwhile, Juarez is in a war zone. Read John Ross at CounterPunch... (just a little cross-promo)...
As for the PTSD part of this thread, I hope to have something to add later.
-30-