Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: A comparison of Soviet and Coalition actions in Afghanistan [Trey vs. Volh Vseslavich]

  1. #1
    Trey's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Evergreens
    Posts
    3,886

    Default A comparison of Soviet and Coalition actions in Afghanistan [Trey vs. Volh Vseslavich]

    This debate is prompted by VV's post #57 in the "Captured US Soldier Video Released" thread.
    Namely, where he makes the statement that the "US isn't better in any way than Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Same , different time."

    This is patently false, and I shall lay out why below.

    To compare the the actions of both the US and the USSR, a good place to start is by simply looking at the number of casualties.

    The Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan lasted roughly 8 years. Over the course of this occupation, it is estimated that "Over 1 million Afghans were killed. 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.
    Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants)."

    Sources:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars...tm#Afghanistan
    Kaplan, Soldiers of God (2001) (p.11)
    Hilali, A. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co. (p.198)
    Via: Wikipedia


    The US led coalition invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has lasted almost 8 years now, making it quite fitting for a comparison. However, while the time span of operations is of nearly equal length, the casualty rate is microscopic in comparison to the Soviet invasion.
    Estimates for civilian casualties range from "11,760 - 31,357+", This includes both direct & indirect deaths. While high, the numbers are nowhere near to that of the Soviet occupation.

    Another way to judge the actions of the two is what damage they have done to the country's agriculture and infrastructure.

    "Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or government forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or government troops(That is over the course of one year!), according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [67]

    The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets and Afghan communist soldiers in 1987.[69] Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10-15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet and government forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside to kill and maim.[70]

    A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines. A 2005 report estimated 3-4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and government land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found over 80% of the children refugees unregistered and child mortality at 31%. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age."[71]

    Sources:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Kaplan, Soldiers of God (2001) (p.11)
    Kaplan, Soldiers of God (2001) p.188
    "MINES PUT AFGHANS IN PERIL ON RETURN," By ROBERT PEAR, New York Times, Aug 14, 1988. p. 9 (1 page)
    Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, H. (2002). Children of war: the real casualties of the Afghan conflict. Retrieved December 11, 2007
    Via: Wikipedia

    The Soviets and their allies engaged in a systematic program of destruction of Afghanistan's agriculture. This was devastating not only to the farmer's welfare, but to the rest of the country who relied on their output. Namely, children disproportionally suffered. Furthermore, the use of landmines was devastating. Nearly 1 in 20 could no longer walk due to them. The worst part about landmines is that they tend to target and harm civilian populations the most, because they linger even after the war.

    The US led coalition has made no attempt to starve the Afghan population, nor have they used landmines. Their is simply no comparison here.
    While it can be said that the US led invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan has created a power vacuum which allowed for abuses and atrocities, the Soviet government actively partook in them.

    Although this post was rushed, I believe my point was made. I await your reply.
    Good Luck
    for-profit death machine.

  2. #2

    Default Re: A comparison of Soviet and Coalition actions in Afghanistan [Trey vs. Volh Vseslavich]

    First of all, I am not going to deny, that Soviets have done much more civilian casualties to civilians of Afghanistan, than Coalition forces.
    However, I'd like to point out that Soviet Army and Coalition are fighting in totally different conditions. They were fighting different enemies, with different weapons and technological abilities. But what remains the same is their attitude towards civilians. We can see that by the way US army (which is currently one of the primary forces in Coalition) treated civilians in Vietnam, which can easily be compared to actions of Soviet Union in Afghanistan, since they were fighting in similar conditions.
    Lets compare the enemies, that Soviet Union had to encounter to Taliban:
    The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[5] and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[6]
    .....
    Many Muslims from other countries volunteered to assist the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant experience in guerrilla warfare. Some groups of these veterans have been significant factors in more recent conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[8] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan

    As we can see, Soviet Army had to face a guerillia war against insurgents which were gaining large amount of material support from US, China and other wealthy and powerful countries. Also, lets not exclude the factor, that majority of Afghanistan's territory is very comfortable for insurgency.
    Coalition, on the other hand, faces insurgents as well, but insurgents don't get as much foreign support as Mujahadeen did, not even close.

    Another factor that affects casualty rates is technological abilities. Coalition forces have access to various technological devices that allow them to minimise casualties. Soviets in Afghanistan didn't have that, therefore it led to bigger casualty rates and damage to the infrastructure.

    Also lets not forget various violations made by Coalitions forces in Afghanistan:

    Torture:
    In March 2002, ABC News claimed top officials at the CIA authorized controversial, harsh interrogation techniques.[212] The Bush administration declared that al-Qaeda members captured on the battlefield were not subject to the Geneva Conventions as it was not a conventional war, and al-Qaeda members do not wear uniforms, as set by the convention.[213]Amnesty International stated on April 26, 2007, that a new deal to let Canadian officials visit enemy detainees in Afghanistan is aimed more at saving political face than keeping prisoners safe.[214]
    The possible interrogation techniques included shaking and slapping, shackling prisoners in a standing position, keeping the prisoner in a cold cell and dousing them with water, and water boarding.[212] The U.S. operated a secret prison in Kabul where these techniques are claimed to have been employed.[215]

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Controversy_over_torture



    White phosphorus use:
    White phosphorus has been condemned by human rights organizations as cruel and inhumane because it causes severe burns. There are cases that have been confirmed of white phosphorus burns on the bodies of civilians wounded in Afghanistan caused by clashes between U.S. and Taliban forces near Bagram. The U.S.A. claims at least 38 instances in which militants had used white phosphorus in weapons or attacks.[217] No independent report has confirmed the use of phosphorus by the Taliban. Military specialists, the Afghan government, and experts on the Taliban have said that insurgents have never been observed using white phosphorus. The only forces on the battlefield known to use it are the United States and NATO. In May 2009, Colonel Gregory Julian, a spokesman for the overall commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, confirmed that Western military forces in Afghanistan are using the chemical.[218][219][220]

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#White_phosphorus_use


    Use of depleted uranium:
    Mohammed Daud Miraki has documented through photo graphic images life behind ordinary Afghans on his website. www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com He has also documented in his video made in 2005 and 2006 traces of depleted uranium contained in the US bunker buster bombs dropped on the areas during the invasion in 2001.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Traces_of_Depleted_Uranium


    As I already mentioned earlier, if you want to compare Soviet army to Coalition forces, you have to understand that they were fighting different wars. Soviet war in Afghanistan was much more fierce and violent, and led to bigger casualties, than current war. However, my main point is that attitude of Soviet army and Coalition forces towards civilians is similar. We can see that by looking at civilian casualties and conditions in Vietnam war.

  3. #3
    Trey's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Evergreens
    Posts
    3,886

    Default Re: A comparison of Soviet and Coalition actions in Afghanistan [Trey vs. Volh Vseslavich]

    Quote Originally Posted by Volh Vseslavich View Post
    First of all, I am not going to deny, that Soviets have done much more civilian casualties to civilians of Afghanistan, than Coalition forces.
    However, I'd like to point out that Soviet Army and Coalition are fighting in totally different conditions. They were fighting different enemies, with different weapons and technological abilities. But what remains the same is their attitude towards civilians. We can see that by the way US army (which is currently one of the primary forces in Coalition) treated civilians in Vietnam, which can easily be compared to actions of Soviet Union in Afghanistan, since they were fighting in similar conditions.
    Lets compare the enemies, that Soviet Union had to encounter to Taliban:
    As I already mentioned earlier, if you want to compare Soviet army to Coalition forces, you have to understand that they were fighting different wars. Soviet war in Afghanistan was much more fierce and violent, and led to bigger casualties, than current war. However, my main point is that attitude of Soviet army and Coalition forces towards civilians is similar. We can see that by looking at civilian casualties and conditions in Vietnam war.
    That was made after your assertion which this whole debate hinges on. We are not talking about Vietnam, we were not talking about Vietnam, and we will not talk about Vietnam. You said that there is no difference between the USSR and the Coalition in Afghanistan. That is what this is about. Nothing else. Unless you want to go ahead and try to prove that, this is over.
    for-profit death machine.

  4. #4

    Default Re: A comparison of Soviet and Coalition actions in Afghanistan [Trey vs. Volh Vseslavich]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trey View Post
    That was made after your assertion which this whole debate hinges on. We are not talking about Vietnam, we were not talking about Vietnam, and we will not talk about Vietnam. You said that there is no difference between the USSR and the Coalition in Afghanistan. That is what this is about. Nothing else. Unless you want to go ahead and try to prove that, this is over.
    I brought up Vietnam in order to show an example of how US army treated civilians while being in same conditions as Soviet Army was in Afghanistan. Thus its relevant to the debate and proves my point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •