Guerra en Afganistán (Parte II)

[Mantusa10]

Por nada porque que el resultado a sido nada estamos casi igualito que el 9/11 todo igual los talibanes en control , los pakistanís y chinos a lo suyo ...

[spooky]

Pero se han prevenido ataques y desarticulado muchas redes terroristas.

[VirtusF.]

Hay algunos que siguen sin entenderlo...los 600.000 efectivos no serían todos estadounidenses. Pero vamos, que en Vietnam Estados Unidos desplegó más de 500.000 soldados.

Lo que han gestionado fatal los estadounidenses es el tema de Pakistán. No han sabido presionarlos ni intimidarlos.

[Mantusa10]

Mucha gente piensa que china se va a enredar en Afghanistan y no tienen la menor idea de la política en el area ...
China es una dictadura los derechos de los afganos le importan un bledo
China tiene las mejores relaciones con los interesados Iran y Pakistan ,en el caso de Pakistan son sus mejores aliados en el de Iran sus mejores socios comerciales ...

China comenzara si los talibanes no son completos tarados a financiar proyectos de minería y carreteras para su nueva ruta de la seda , sin importar si las mujeres afganas son un parche en la pared , todo esto con la total cooperación de Pakistan y Iran ....

Los chinos tienen muy buen chance de volver Afghanistan una colonia china de materias primas ....

[Mantusa10]

Pero es que presionar Pakistan es de lo mas facilitó , cuando su principal socio comercial en china y su principal enemigo la India ...

Vaya que USA es muy buen socio de India y muy mal socio de China ....

Si la unión sovietica en la cúspide de su poder no pudo como nosotros ....
No me vengan con retirar los billones que les damos en ayuda que entonces si pare la mula ....

[Mantusa10]

Por 20 años supuestamente se desarticulo las redes terroristas que nos amenazaban , pero los terroristas volvieron al poder entonces estamos como al principio ....

Hay un debate en USA muy serio si el terrorismo hay que enfrentarlo con 100 000 tropas y 2 trillones en tesoro o esto es un.asunto policial y tener una immigration controlada , desde los países musulmanes , con restricciones bien pensadas sin caer en discriminación podrian dar mejor resultado y costar mucho menos sangre y tesoro ...

[VirtusF.]

Lo mismo le paso a los soviéticos que controlaron el pais mas efectivamente que USA ,...

Esto simplemente es falso y una patada a los libros de historia.

[Mantusa10]

Traiga los libros de historia todas las provincias de Afghanistan estaban en manos de los soviéticos y el gobierno comunista de kabul , los Mujahideen solo sostenian combates limitados y se retiraban a Pakistan y Iran , el gobierno dejado por los soviéticos duro 2 años después de la partida de estos , los talibanes tomaron el pais antes que USA pudiera evacuar al último soldado que estaba programado para el 31 de agosto ...

[VirtusF.]

Alma de Dios, si los soviéticos apenas controlaron las ciudades y la Ring Road

[Mantusa10]

Claro por eso un gobierno que solo controlaba unas pocas carreteras sobrevivio 2 años y solo se cayo cuando los Rusos cortaron todo el suministro de combustible y armas ...

[Mantusa10]

El mito de la derrota Rusa en Afghanistan es solo eso mito perdieron 14 800 efectivos , USA perdio en Vietnam cerca de 50 000

Toma los libros y calcula cuantos aviones y helicopteros perdio Rusia en Afghanistan contra los que perdieron los norteamericanos en Vietnam y USA no fue derrotada en Vietnam ....

[spooky]

Pues derrota es dejar de insistir y retirarse cuando se da cuenta que no se van a lograr los objetivos.

[VirtusF.]

El Afganistán controlado por los soviéticos y este mapa es generoso :

[Mantusa10]

This is one of the most persistent myths of Afghan history. It has been trumpeted by every former mujahideen leader, from Osama bin Laden and Taliban commanders to the warlords in the current Afghan government. It is also accepted unthinkingly as part of the western narrative of the war. Some western politicians go so far as to say that the alleged Soviet defeat in Afghanistan helped to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. On this they agree with Bin Laden and al-Qaida's other leaders, who claim they destroyed one superpower and are on their way to destroying another.

The reality is the Afghan mujahideen did not defeat the Soviets on the battlefield. They won some important encounters, notably in the Panjshir valley, but lost others. In sum, neither side defeated the other. The Soviets could have remained in Afghanistan for several more years but they decided to leave when Gorbachev calculated that the war had become a stalemate and was no longer worth the high price in men, money and international prestige. In private, US officials came to the same conclusion about Soviet strength, although they only admitted it publicly later. Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great."


4. The CIA's supply of Stinger missiles to the mujahideen forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan

This myth of the 1980s was given new life by George Crile's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War and the 2007 film of the same name, starring Tom Hanks as the loud-mouthed congressman from Texas. Both book and movie claim that Wilson turned the tide of the war by persuading Ronald Reagan to supply the mujahideen with shoulder-fired missiles that could shoot down helicopters. The Stingers certainly forced a shift in Soviet tactics. Helicopter crews switched their operations to night raids since the mujahideen had no night-vision equipment. Pilots made bombing runs at greater height, thereby diminishing the accuracy of the attacks, but the rate of Soviet and Afghan aircraft losses did not change significantly from what it was in the first six years of the war.


The Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was made in October 1985, several months before Stinger missiles entered Afghanistan in significant quantities in the autumn of 1986. None of the secret Politburo discussions that have since been declassified mentioned the Stingers or any other shift in mujahideen equipment as the reason for the policy change from indefinite occupation to preparations for retreat.

5. After the Soviets withdrew, the west walked away

One of the most common promises western politicians made after they toppled the Taliban in 2001 was that "this time" the west would not walk away, "as we did after the Russians pulled out". Afghans were surprised to hear these promises. They remembered history in rather a different way. Far from forgetting about Afghanistan in February 1989, the US showed no let-up in its close involvement with the mujahideen. Washington blocked the Soviet-installed President Mohammad Najibullah's offers of concessions and negotiations and continued to arm the rebels and jihadis in the hope they would quickly overthrow his Moscow-backed regime.


This was one of the most damaging periods in recent Afghan history when the west and Pakistan, along with mujahideen intransigence, undermined the best chance of ending the country's civil war. The overall effect of these policies was to prolong and deepen Afghanistan's destruction, as Charles Cogan, CIA director of operations for the Middle East and south Asia, 1979–1984, later recognised. "I question whether we should have continued on this momentum, this inertia of aiding the mujahideen after the Soviets had left. I think that was probably, in retrospect, a mistake," he said.

6. The mujahideen overthrew Kabul's regime and won a major victory over Moscow

The key factor that undermined Najibullah was an announcement made in Moscow in September 1991, shortly after a coup mounted against Gorbachev by Soviet hard-liners collapsed. His longtime rival, Boris Yeltsin, who headed the Russian government, emerged in a dominant position. Yeltsin was determined to cut back on the country's international commitments and his government announced that from 1 January 1992, no more arms would be delivered to Kabul. Supplies of petrol, food and all other aid would also cease.
Un mapa de que año y cual es la realidad que refleja ni el famoso valle de panjshir estaba en manos de los Mujahideen en 1988 cuando los soviéticos se retiraron , simples mitos que repetidos una y otra vez se vuelven verdades ...

[VirtusF.]

El mito de la derrota Rusa en Afghanistan es solo eso mito perdieron 14 800 efectivos , USA perdio en Vietnam cerca de 50 000

Toma los libros y calcula cuantos aviones y helicopteros perdio Rusia en Afghanistan contra los que perdieron los norteamericanos en Vietnam y USA no fue derrotada en Vietnam ....

Es que nadie discute la derrota estadounidense en Vietnam...por cierto las bajas estadounidenses en Vietnam 58220, para ser más o menos exactos.

Las bajas soviéticas casi ni se saben. A los 15.000 teóricos muertos hay que sumar 50.000 heridos, casi 11.000 inválidos, 115.000 enfermos de hepatitis, 31.000 de tifus....

Material: un mínimo de 120 aviones, 333 helicópteros, 150 carros de combate, 1.300 vehículos blindados y de transporte de personal, 430 piezas de artillería y morteros y más de 11.000 camiones. Vamos una victoria en toda regla.