| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Goncharov: NATO repeating Soviet mistake in Afghanistan |
| 2008-09-02 |
| MOSCOW - The recent events in Afghanistan have again called into question the effectiveness and professionalism of NATO and the anti-terrorist coalition in that country. First, a French task force from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was ambushed, and lost 10 soldiers. On Aug. 22, more than 70 civilians were killed during an operation in the Shindand District in the Herat Province. The media reported that this operation was conducted by the coalition forces, that is, the U.S. Air Force. This event set the whole country in turmoil. Now Afghan President Hamid Karzai insists on revising the status of international forces in the country. They are represented in Afghanistan by the U.S.-led international anti-terrorist coalition and the U.N.-mandated ISAF mission under NATO's general command. The goal of the former is to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban commandos, while the latter is designed to guarantee stability on the territories from which they are ousted. Operations conducted by these two missions are incomparable. The coalition is much more prone to make mistakes, and it has to prepare thoroughly for each operation. But what prevents the United States from doing so, all the more so since it already has some bitter experience? During a similar operation in the Deh Raud District in the Uruzgan Province in July 2002, a U.S. aircraft bombed a wedding. Ironically, the bomb This was the first blunder, and the sides did not give it too much publicity. But this time, Karzai has expressed strong displeasure with the U.S. army and accused it of inability to coordinate its actions with the Afghan army. In turn, the U.S. command blamed the Afghan army for insisting on the bombing and indicating targets. This is a familiar situation. Actions seem to have been coordinated but there is no one-man rule, or responsibility. The Afghan government is certainly right in insisting on a change in the status of the coalition troops. Judging by everything, it would like the coalition not only to coordinate its operations against al-Qaeda with the Afghan side, but have them endorsed by the latter. What happened with the French soldiers is quite different. They were ambushed 31 miles from Kabul. Never before has NATO sustained such losses in a single combat, especially near the capital. The French public had a predictable and immediate reaction. One French newspaper put it bluntly: "Faut-il partir?" (Is it time to leave?) It is also alarming that Kabul was rocketed for the first time in nearly five years. Perhaps the central government is losing its contacts with the population in the Kabul Province. This is all but the only province where NATO more or less controls the situation. But Herat was also considered a safe province until recently. Maybe, it is indeed time to go. But then what was the point of going into Afghanistan? It seems that NATO has been extremely unlucky in Afghanistan recently, and I feel sorry for the troops. I remember the appearance of the first ISAF units in that country in early 2002. Without any delay, NATO started persistently building the Afghan National Army. I spent almost 15 years in Afghanistan in the field of military-technical cooperation alone and took direct part in the Afghan army's development, and I can spot the difference. I think that NATO is conducting its mission in Afghanistan professionally. The current trouble was easily predictable. The two international missions consist of 60,000, which is obviously not enough to destroy al-Qaeda commandos, guarantee reliable stability in the entire country, and actively contribute to the recovery effort. However, both NATO and the United States repeated the Soviet mistake in Afghanistan by carrying out missions that should be fulfilled by the Afghans themselves. They planned a 70,000-strong ANA, which is not adequate at all. Now they are talking about 120,000 and even more, but the time has been lost. Meanwhile, the current Russian Ambassador Zamir Zakirov emphasized many times that stability in Afghanistan directly depends on its army and that its strength was obviously inadequate. Now the United States and NATO will probably change their attitude to Russia's Afghan experience and advice. After all, cooperation with Moscow on Afghanistan should not be limited to the transit of NATO cargoes through Russian territory. --- ABOUT THE WRITER Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti; Web site: http://en.rian.ru/. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 Its STRAAATEGERY. "WAR OUTSIDE OF IRAQ" > The US is winning in Iraq but lost ASIA + AFRICA, wid ISRAEL being steadily surrounded by FUTURE NUCLEAR STATES + POL FACTIONS + TERROR GROUPS. Radical Islam is also deliber targeting and prioritizing attacks agz non-US Allied/NATO troops as they know via the MSM-NET THAT RUSSIA = VLADVEDEV VIEWS AL-QAEDA + TALIBAN, ETC. AS US PROXIES FOR US-LED/CENTRIC, PDENIABLE COVERT DESTABILIZ, DOMINATION AND IMPERIALISM IN ASIA, as per OWG-NWO. Also good for ANTI-US ASYMMETRIC ECON WARFARE > to intentionally induce the USA-USGovt to "BUST THE BUDGET" unto UNRECOVERABLE PRO-HYPERINFLATIONARY OVERSPENDING AND OSAMA/ISLAMIST DESIRED NATIONAL ECON COLLAPSE, as per MSM-NET reports of US Budget probs. As times before, MILPOL DIALECTICISM + PRAGMATISM-REALISM, ETC. IS NOT SOLELY A WESTERN OR EVEN SECULAR INTELLECTUALIST METHOD. SHENANDOAH [James Stewart}] > future Sheriff ROSCOE COLTRANE = JOHNNY REB SOLDIER [paraph] > "In case no one told you yet, boy, the South doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning this Civil War ... I swear to God I never saw two Armies = Americans get so bloodily/ bloodthirstily hyped up and violent over a Cow before"! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-09-02 20:11 |
| #10 Hold on, I thought they were _your_ friends, dude, I've seen the news reports of Assad falling all over himself to support Russia in invading Georgia. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-09-02 16:42 |
| #9 Yes, AS that will be a black day---to your Arab buddies. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-09-02 15:10 |
| #8 But the one thing the Soviet did have that we don't is a direct line of supply. We are very vulnerable and our vulnerability increases geometrically as our troop count increases arithmetically. We need a secure supply line or a quick exit. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-02 15:09 |
| #7 what NS said. Theres got to be a way of expressing a middle point between "its all hunky dory in Afghanistan" and "its just like the Soviet intervention" The russians are really big on not quite apt comparisons lately. WRT Israels defense budget. Israel gets $3billion a year. They could probably get along with out it, and its the right (to which Grom belongs, I guess) which is eager to wean from it. Partly cause they prefer the freedom of action to the money. Partly cause the money helps center left govts build coalitions by giving funds to religious parties that otherwise would be more natural allies of the right. So its not all cut and dried. OTOH I do agree that American greatness is based on the ability to stick to things and achieve the difficult. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-09-02 14:58 |
| #6 As far as I've heard, there are not tens of thousands of US or NATO troops hooked on heroin, something that happened to Soviet troops. US equipment isn't suffering 50% failures due to poor maintenance and a very hostile natural environment. Goncharov is full of it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-09-02 13:55 |
| #5 One day, G(r)om, you're going to get your wish and there will be an American administration that doesn't like long, difficult tasks or make hard decisions. And Israel's defense budget is going to go "POOF!" in a cloud of smoke. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-09-02 13:20 |
| #4 The Sovs suffered 15,000 deaths and 500,000 other casualties, mostly illness due to unsanitary conditions. Nato has a ways to go. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-02 13:16 |
| #3 Me, I'd rather try teaching calculus to cats. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-09-02 12:55 |
| #2 So NATO is bullying the population, deliberately randomly killing innocent villagers , raping, pillaging and acting like a 19th century power? Yep, just like what the Soviets did..... not. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-09-02 08:13 |
| #1 Goncharov: NATO |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2008-09-02 07:16 |