Soviet-Afghan War General

sorry but English is good in explaining so I copy pasted from wiki
but I agree with the paragraph

God what a clusterfuck.

Black Cat user above me has it right, imagine if they rooted out the islamists and got the people on their side.

Do you think the Afghan war was just the soviets bombing everything?
rbth.com/international/2016/08/18/5-soviet-infrastructure-projects-that-survived-the-afghan-wars_622105
they did, however unless you want them to go the holocaust route, they cannot eradicate it wholly. Not to mention that the majority of the issues began after the CIA created the mujaheds and artificially revived fundamentalism, supported by an equally fundamentalist Pakistan.

The Vietnam War: (1964–1975)

US losses only

KIA: 58,300+
WIA: 153,300+

Planes lost: 3632
Choppers lost: 5229
Tanks lost: 600+

Afghan-Soviet war: (1979–1989)
Soviet losses only
14,500+ KIA
53,750+ WIA
125 planes lost
300+ Choppers
147 tanks lost

Despite the USSR fighting a CIA-funded, trained and armed group based in Pakistan, and being in a country far larger than Vietnam for the same amount of time, they lost almost NO major battles if any, and had comparatively fewer casualties.

The main issue, was that the USSR acted on a principle of trying to respect the international conventions, such as instructing its pilots to never directly engage aggressive actions of the Pakistani Airforce, and rarely venturing past the Afghan border after the terrorists. They also were trying to rebuild Afghanistan, not just destroy the terrorists. They were close to winning despite the issues, and had Gorbachev not pussied out, they likely would have eradicated the shit-hole fundamentalism gripping Afghanistan. Instead it is now completely in the hands of the Taliban, and only defacto controlled by the US vassal government in power.

Attached: Советский военнослужащий в Афганистане 1980-е..jpg (351x730 262.23 KB, 46.66K)

Neither did the Americans in Vietnam.
That's literally what burgers say about Vietnam. The problem with insurgencies isn't winning or losing militarily, its the fact that unless you can win the support of the people there you will never overcome the insurgency. If you cant overcome them then eventually you will lose a war of attrition. It's pretty hard to earn popular support (especially in a country as fiercely independent as Afghanistan) when you are seen as a foreign invader bringing death and destruction on the local people, which will be inevitable since all wars cause collateral damage and civilian deaths. It was a terrible policy decision that Brezhnev should have been able to foresee.

Your argument si just another "muh Soviet Vietnam" except that while the Vietnamese hated the USA(South or North), the afghans largely liked the soviets. Many including ex-Mujaheds regret the results of the soviets leaving.

In other words, in Vietnam the USA invaded a country to remove a system (communism) that was popular among the people. In afghanistan the USSR entered to assist the Afghani socialist government against CIA-trained terrorists who were a minority in the country. It's like the contras in South America.

Are their mag pouches obscenely large or is mine just tiny?

>Are their mag pouches obscenely large or is mine just tiny?
scnr

Attached: pffft heh.PNG (703x469, 109.61K)

If they were popular they wouldn’t have lost.

t. Mao
Geurilla forces literally cannot function without popular support.

Mujahideen were funded and supported by a lot of foreign power including US,Pakistan and China.

So? The aid given to them was military aid, rifles and stinger tubes. If it were a question of weaponry then the Soviets would have easily won, since no matter how much aid the Mujahideen got they were always inferior to the Soviet forces. In fact the Soviets never lost a major battle, just like the Americans in Vietnam. What Mao is talking about is the critical role sympathetic populations play in insurgencies, mainly they act as a logistic and intelligence network. They also act as a background with which to blend in, which is why geurilla forces can appear and disappear so easily. They may not have had a majority of support, but they had enough to allow them to function effectively. If that’s the case then the war is effectively unwinnable, since as long as that support base remains intact they can wage an indefinite war of attrition, which the Soviets could not.

They didn't they were winning. Gorbachev pulled out for literally no reason at all. The fact that it was 10 years long doesn't mean shit… they were trying to destroy a constantly re-generating enemy funded by the only other super-power on the planet.

Except that is precisely it, the USSR beat them in combat, but they kept fleeing over the border to Pakistan and assisted there by Pakistani military and airforces, who the USSR could not engage without causing an international war.
Yes and but that effectiveness was being ground down, and would have been extinguished if Gorbachev hadn't been such a cunt.
Not really, the USSR's losses were negligible and gains were high, while the Mujaheds were losing in the long run in all spheres.

Literally the exact same thing that happened in Vietnam. The US would pound the NLF and PAVN to shit and they would retreat across the border into Laos and Cambodia, regroup, and come back. This still doesn't address the fact that in order to move among the population and operate effectively they needed a sympathetic population. Without one they would have been ground down in short order, since they would have neither a base of recruits nor local intelligence, nor a population with which to blend in.

...

But seriously, In a gun fight I might be fiddling with my pouch for a second too long. I guess I'll just try and to wear it out in the hopes of it getting loose.

No, because the forces the USA pounded into dust were people's forces, supported by the people almost unilaterally and who were not artificially created unlike the Mujaheds.
And it was, the majority of afghanis supported socialism, and the soviets, however they lacked the armament and training the Mujahed terrorists did.
You're talkimn about it as if it's the uSSR's fault that 100% of the population wasn't anti-Mujahed, as if a population is a single united being that can only be one of the other.
LBJ did not inherit the Veitnam war, he started it, not only that but he and his successors put everything they had into that war, despite the anti-war protests.
US's losses were much higher compared to the USSR, despite the Mujaheddin being a far larger fighting force.
An anarchist defending Gorbachev, unsurprising.