Friday | August 28, 2009 Friday
Despite deploying up to 120,000 soldiers, supported by 300,000 Afghan government forces, the Soviets failed to crush the insurgency by Afghan mujahideen fighters who were backed by U.S. guns and money and had bases inside neighboring Pakistan. Some 15,000 Soviet troops were killed before Moscow decided the war could not be won and pulled out its forces in 1989. By that time, 1 million Afghans had lost their lives and another 5 million become refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. The tables are now turned and the United States is considering whether to send another 25,000 troops to add to the nearly 70,000 Western forces locked in a bitter stalemate with Taliban-led insurgents in south and eastern Afghanistan. “I tell you this for sure, that if NATO and America put all their attention on fighting, and invest only in the military, they will not win,” former mujahideen leader and ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani told Reuters. And the Soviets also tried to bring progress to deeply conservative and traditional Afghanistan and in many ways their record was more impressive than that of the West so far. Most of Afghanistan’s roads, ministries, major schools and hospitals were Soviet-built. Even now, many of the upper echelons of the civil service, army and police are Soviet trained. But any gains the Soviets made through development and building the Afghan government’s capacity were scuppered by the resentment and anger their devastating bombing raids caused. That is a lesson U.S. and NATO forces should learn from the experience of their former Cold War adversary. “I don’t think NATO has fully understood just how serious this issue is,” said a Kabul-based Western analyst. “They certainly have done what they can to try to avoid civilian casualties from air strikes, but I just don’t think they have grasped how central it is to informing the views of the nation.” Source:CNSNEWS.com My question is are those who are sent to fight in Afghanistan being sent to die for a commander in chief who does not believe in victory? He has cut the defense budget,as this report indicates. The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion. A senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said in a TV interview. “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” Obama told ABC News.First of all Hirohito never left his palace in Tokyo. A senior general of the Japanese arm signed the surrender. Strange such a supposedly smart man does not know this! This statement from the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is troubling to me. The troops are sent 10,000 miles to potential death or crippling wounds and their CIC does not want victory. Sounds strangely similar to the attitude of McNamara during the Vietnam debacle!! Obama, apparently is preoccupied with the quest to socialize our health care industry to pay attention to the fact that last month we had 4 killed in Afghanistan, and this month is is worse, casualties in the eight years the USA has been fighting there. More warriors were killed last month(44), and although August is not over it is the worst month (45) than any month in the last 8 years! We have presently 64,000 troops in Afghanistan in harms way for a commander in chief who apparently does not think victory is the Object of their sacrifice!