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.

Venezuela and World War 3

In the past year this South American belligerent against the United States has expelled United States ambassadors, encouraged other nations to do so as well, almost gone to war with Columbia with Ecuador, and signed nuclear deals with Iran and Russia, and allowed Russia's military to conduct operations in their waters in coordination with their own armed forces in a scenario which pitted Red forces against Blue forces in a mock invasion of Venezuela. Now recently the latest to expel our ambassadors has been Ecuador, kicked two out within a week. Now the second one didn't even have time to start his job, nevermind interfere in the affairs of Ecuador's government as they claim he did. I know Obama wants to try to give diplomacy a chance, however if they don't want diplomacy, why do we keep sending diplomats just to have them kicked out? Why waste the money to buy the plane ticket? Another item on the chain, why do we keep spending money for them to stop drug production when they keep producing drugs despite funding military forces to shut down such production? I believe one could say the better placement of our funds would be on our borders to prevent the drugs from getting into this country. The countries supportive of the United States efforts against drugs like Columbia, Brazil, and Mexico should continue to get our support (Mexico is a special case in which I would negotiate a military intervention in their civil war considering the paramilitary drug cartels are killing Americans as deep in our territory as Pheonix). However, if they don't want our support and call us imperialists and our presidents the devil, you know I'm talking about you Hugo, maybe we should stop funding their police divisions which protect their nation's facilities against drug gangs and allow their military units to be able to have the weapons necessary to fight them when the drug cartels do come out of hiding. Hugo Chavez wants a South America without the United States involved, lets give him what he wants. Lets stop buying his oil. Lets sanction his nuclear program like we do his close buddy Iran, who he says if we attack will mean a war with Venezuela. Thats right. They have a pact. If the United States goes to war with Iran, Venezuela will declare war on the United States. Now, you may say whats wrong with an alliance? Well, the last three times a major worldwide system of alliances formed, we had three world wars. World War 1, World War 2, and Cold War. In the first two Germany was the enemy. In the third Russia was the enemy. In the first World War we made Germany face punishment which drove the hatred that caused the second world war. Now that the third world war is over, and Russia was punished with a lack of involvement by the Western nations, was allowed to disentigrate as a people who, although different, were Russian. The independance of nations following their collapse is not wrong to have happened, the lack of interest in Russia's stability immediately following the collapse was a mistake. Now, we face another world war. Iran is leading the call for war, but Russia is the only power in this alliance that would make the war a possibility. Its the wildcard as its nuclear arsenal would not be used in conventional conflict, but if it can have Iran and Venezuela (who is also helping Bolivia and Ecuador develop nuclear technology) be reckless in using them against the United States and our allies directly in limited amounts, our standard MAD would be restricted, because their nuclear arsenal would be limited to the damage already done, and using further nuclear weapons would face reprisal from Russia, thus resulting in MAD, but they could make the bet that we would not put such an even into action unless the stockpile of Russian nukes were to be used, in which case MAD would still apply. The strategy of the third world war will be grand. It will be the first World War in which at least two of the major fronts will be conducted with guerilla warfare as the primary tactic of Iran and Venezuela. Russia may go more conventional, feeling its role as leader of the alliance will give it the better position to use tactics above those of its lesser allies, making them subservient after the conflict to Russia's leadership in the new world. However the war turns out, that will be part of the strategy employed. This has been another episode of the Ravings of a Madman. Thank you. Meow.