I don't really agree with simplistic assessments. There should be no question that Soviet Afghanistan and today's Afghanistan are two very different bags of feces. The chips that were laid down in Soviet Afghanistan included active hi-tech assistance to the enemy from the CIA, mass executions at local Communist Party headquarters, not to mention the massive numbers of soldats from the Soviet Union.
Buge got my joke. To quote the current general in reporting to his political masters, "Numbers alone cannot win Afghanistan, but lack of numbers will most certainly lose it".
He has it right, and understands that NATO lacks the backbone for a long counterinsurgency. And even the key NATO players have long worn out their joints. Peacetime Canada never really could assemble the numbers, and the UK will never be the military power it once was up until the end of Argentina.
If this is an eulogy, NATO and the States both messed it up in the get-go, both politically in choosing the wrong people at the wrong time (not that after Masoud's death by a suicide car bombing a week before 9-11, there were many clear-cut leaders to choose from). They won the initial invasion not with shock and awe, but with CIA, special operations, and donkeys with truckloads of weapons, ammunition, and US dollars, but didn't expect to fight a counter-insurgency that would linger on with fighters bred in Pakistan, and experts and funding from Saudi Arabia.. We liberated the country from tyranny.. they have freedom! If we make their lives better, what more could they want?
Turns out some food, good government and security from Tribal warlords fit that bill...
The ruskies also had to worry about Paki and local fighters, but US interests and expertise doing the pushing, both through knowledge and money. The Ruskies also didn't have the fiscal assistance from China through investing in mining sites as they are now.. At least there's a couple of towns in Central Afghanistan that can benefit from salaried workers. Also having Iran next door was beneficial to the western province. The lucky bastards got trade, doctors and electricity from the mix. The government of that day in Iran I imagine would have other things on their minds...
However, back to the shortcomings, I digress:
I've been hearing increased debate in some circles also blaming not only Bush Jr for failing to "Select and Maintain the aim" (this folks, by the way, is the
first principle of war) in getting distracted through the invasion of Iraq, but also, rather controversy, Bush Snr for liberating Kuwait, another middle-eastern non-democratic state.
After Iraq took out Kuwait, they had the means to take out Saudi Arabia. Oil prices may have gone up, but one of the most evil (imho) states currently running in humanity would have been taken out by a moderately less-evil dictator. Oil would have spiked in the initial onset, but Hussein did have a hold on the oil better than we have it now in Iraq.
Think of Gadaffi in Libya invading Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Al-Q would most likely have blown up the twin towers, but they probably would not be as advanced right now, where they have
Internally-implanted suicide bombs that can go through metal detectors.
I bet you all feel safer going through those airport metal detectors already!
Back on track, the game isn't over just yet. Iraq was going through Genocide when Petraeus took it from the brink with many US soldier's lives. Lets see what McChrystal has to offer. You won't find a better man for that job anywhere.