The reason NATO is failing is Afghanistan is that they aren't fighting a conventional army, but a guerrilla army, and fighting for people who don't want to be "freed".[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Jag85"]
NATO is also doing horribly right now in Afghanistan...
The difference is that the Soviets were slightly outnumbered by the Mujahideen, whereas this time it's NATO that's heavily outnumbering the Taliban:
Soviet-Aghan War:
170,000 (115,000 Soviets & 55,000 Afghan allies) vs. 200,000-250,000 Mujahideen
NATO-Afghan War:
480,916 (100,330 NATO & 380,586 Afghan allies) vs. 29,050-40,100 Mujahideen (25,000 Taliban, 50-100 Al-Qaeda, 4000-15,000 Haqqani)
The Soviets fought the Mujahideen when they were at their peak, when they were being supported by weapons & funding from the US & Pakistan. On the other hand, NATO is struggling against a much more weakened Taliban, which has no major backers.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan is entirely justifiable, but there is no excuse for NATO to be doing so terribly in Afghanistan right now...
Jag85
Yes, but the Soviets were also fighting a guerilla army in Afghanistan, except in their case that guerilla army also received arming & funding from the US and Pakistan. The Afghan guerilla army that NATO is fighting has no such backing.
But yes, the lack of support from the local people has a lot to do with both failures, but the NATO failure comes out looking a lot worse considering the much better odds they had compared to the Soviets.
See, I don't see the mission as a failure. NATOs main objective once they went in was to over throw the Taliban/al Qaeda government in Kabul - success. Then the next job was to rebuild afghanistans army by providing training, equipment etc - sluggish progress, but progress nevertheless. Then was to assist the ANA/ANP in creating a stable and safe state - Afghanistan seems to be better than it was but still along way to go Back to retraining an armed forces, once basic is training is done they will need to test themselves and show the people they are fighting for, they can protect them. What better way to prove to the locals than having somebody to fight? I know it sounds awful to say it but its true. They will get experience and will bond with each other. Again I know it sounded bad but I believe NATO wanted to weaken Al Qaeda and let the ANA/ANP get rid off the rest.
Log in to comment