Afghanistan Comparisons

I keep hearing comparisons of the miserable failure that was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to our current occupation of Afghanistan. They say the Russian's couldn't do it with 160,000 troops, we can't do it with roughly 60,000. They say we don't have the support of the people and neither did they. There is one similarity which I will discuss near the end though, and I'll keep it a secret for now. First lets talk about the troop numbers. We have fewer men there. Can't deny that. They are however, the best trained, equiped, mobile, and skillful soldiers in the world. The Soviet army was of regular soldiers, ill equiped, had a faltering air support, and also had major political pressure back home. The skill was not as great as that of our current forces. Our air force has uncontested supremacy. The Soviets had to face weapons we gave the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet airforce but I'll get to that later. Our forces have the full backing of the military and government of the United States. The home support might be faltering, but not that much to be noticable in public policy. Our troops have the best, and if any army can do it in Afghanistan, ours can and WILL. As for the support of the people, the Soviets had no support. They didn't even get help by many on their way in. We toppled the Taliban with 300 troops in coordination with the Northern Alliance. Only 300 and we toppled the entire regime of the Taliban making them run into Pakistan where they now have refuge. The Soviets did not have the support of the people. In response, they destroyed entire villages in retribution for their lack of victory against the Mujahideen. Our air strikes are limited, and most of them are successful. However, in many cases civilians are claimed among the dead instead of militant fighters. I believe there is distortion of the facts in many cases. I believe we do kill the militants in these airstrikes, the problem is the militants are attacking us from their homes or in the middle of civilian areas making airstrikes a difficulty in avoiding civilian casualties. The solution is not to kill fifteen civilians and one militant in the airstrike. The solution is to stop the airstrikes with 100% certainty and allow those fifteen civilians to join the police force and operate on the ground so our troops don't have to, and we won't have to rely on air strikes anymore. Now, there is a similarity between the two wars. The Mujahideen was supported by the United States with weapons. The Taliban is supported by Russia and Iran with weapons. Kalishnakov rifles and Dragon Mines are among the weaponry used by the insurgents we face. The military victory is indeed possible, however we can achieve this as soon as we get Iran and Russia to stop their support of the fighters we face. The weapons the enemy uses are given to them. We stop their supply, they stop fighting. Its that easy. This similarity stands out as almost forgotten by the public eye. Maybe they've never learned this reality. The news doesn't want to admit it because we would have a diplomatic souring with our "Democratic Russian" allies. However, its true, and the sooner people learn this the sooner our policy makers can address this. Hillary Clinton can tell Obama all about the KGB in Putin's eyes when they talk about the weapons the Taliban are using. Maybe then he'll believe it. Until we make these changes, we are stuck there until we figure out what to do with our current tactics.