The Taliban is winning

[Guest justme]

I beg to differ with this comment. I seem to recall being sent to a desert way back in 90 with no regard to a 12 months was to long mentality. Everyone that went over there knew it was going to be a long long time before we got home (even though that was not the case), and were ready to tow the line.

and in that desert you spent long, endless days and nights waiting for the "UN" to give the ok to go attack the Iraqi army, and then once those stupid a** had control again--the Kuwaitis would not even go back into their palaces until the stripped gold had been replaced....This country should have immediately ceased hostilities against the Iraqis, rearmed them and told them--you want Kuwait--it's yours--and then left.

When you have been shot at, blown up, and had to shoot back you can talk about willingness to "go to war". Every single person that is in the "war" is there voluntarily!

It isn't so much about the military willingness to go to war--but that of the nation itself...and I believe--this nation has forgotten what it means to fight a real war against a well armed, aggressive and determined enemy like the Japanese and the Germans--a war where not ten or fifteen might die in a single day, or where 3,000 die in 7 years, but where thousands die in a single day and where American losses r runs about 80,000 war dead each year...like the casualties received at Okinawa, and Guadalcanal, and in the push for Berlin--battles where entire cities were destroyed to retake them from enemy hands, like Stalingrad, Berlin, and other cities in occupied Europe.

I simply question whether this nation now has the wherewithal to fight a major theater war where losses totaled 80,000 or 90,000 a year each for year of the war. I simply don't believe this nation as a whole has the stomach to fight a total war anymore. That isn't disparaging the military--I do question whether the nation itself could now mentally sustain a war on the scale of World War 2 though...

Edited August 11, 2009 by justme

[DavidCBaker]

I look at it this way: we just aren't supposed to be there to begin with. As General Patton said: Americans love to fight. It's true. But we must have a fight worth fighting. When we fight to defend our families, we will always win. When we fight to please some politician's goals, we will always lose.

That's my perspective as well. Afghanistan will be what Iraq already is in the public's mind.

And maybe it should be. Less than half of all terrorist funding is in any way related to Afghanistan. We could save a lot of lives by fighting this war via the financial transactions side and less compromise with places like Saudi Arabia.

[Guest justme]

It is worth noting that they did not beat the soviets alone. The tide (correct me if I am wrong) didn't start to turn until we poured about a billion bucks into the region in the form of equipment and training.

The Russians were having problems even before we unofficially began funding and supplying the mujaheddin with stinger missiles. The Russians occupied the cities of Afghanistan yes--but the countryside was controlled by the militias, just like it is today.

I believe the stingers made a huge impact both physically and emotional for them.

The stingers were used mostly I think to attack the MI-24 Hind. Psychologically it would be a blow to have a group of goat herders and sheep farmers bring down one of the most powerful helicopters in your airforce...so yes, the stingers--and the number of stingers supplied to the mujaheddin did help.

They don't have a "Superpower" supplying and arming them, as far as we know anyway. While some comparisons can be drawn and SHOULD, we also need to keep in mind some of the differences.

As we have seen during the last 8 years--the new mujaheddin do not need a superpower to arm them. They do just fine on their own.

I see many more similarities than differences between the US and the Russians in Afghanistan.

[Guest HexHead]

I simply question whether this nation now has the wherewithal to fight a major theater war where losses totaled 80,000 or 90,000 a year each for year of the war. I simply don't believe this nation as a whole has the stomach to fight a total war anymore. That isn't disparaging the military--I do question whether the nation itself could now mentally sustain a war on the scale of World War 2 though...

I agree. Vietnam and the baby boomers anti-war movement has turned the US into a nation of *******. And the subsequent generations are no better. I'm horrified at how children are being raised today.

I'm not blasting the military here. It seems like the "good ones" that make it through to adulthood are the ones that volunteer. For the most part, the rest of the population isn't worth a .

[Guest jwb68]

As we have seen during the last 8 years--the new mujaheddin do not need a superpower to arm them. They do just fine on their own.

I see many more similarities than differences between the US and the Russians in Afghanistan.

That is not entirely true. They get weapons and expecially money from outside the country. Pakistan, Iran, the Saudis, Yemen there are many players. We are not the only people sinking millions into the country.

[Guest justme]

That is not entirely true. They get weapons and expecially money from outside the country. Pakistan, Iran, the Saudis, Yemen there are many players. We are not the only people sinking millions into the country.

I know--I was just pointing out that the Afghans have been defending that country against foreign invaders far longer than we have been a country. Afghanistan truly has no concept of time as we understand it--they don't think in terms of days and weeks--but in terms or years and decades...the new mujaheddin can fight on for years against us in that land, and in the end I fear we will be in the same situation as the Russians when they left.

The Afghans by and large have no fear of death as we do--dying in battle to them is an honor.

[Guest jwb68]

I know--I was just pointing out that the Afghans have been defending that country against foreign invaders far longer than we have been a country. Afghanistan truly has no concept of time as we understand it--they don't think in terms of days and weeks--but in terms or years and decades...the new mujaheddin can fight on for years against us in that land, and in the end I fear we will be in the same situation as the Russians when they left.

The Afghans by and large have no fear of death as we do--dying in battle to them is an honor.

I think 90% of the Afghans that fight do so because of factors that have nothing to do with ideology, nation building, religion or the like. It is mostly about survival. Literal...i.e. to put food on the table or figuratively as in whatever flag come flying through my village today I will support so that the my head is not cut off (talliban) or my door is not kicked in (U.S.) It is the 10% you really need to worry about. It has definately been a long war and will most likely continue to be a long war.

[Guest Muttling]

Afghanistan has often been referred to as the "Graveyard of Empires". The Soviets weren't the first to get eaten up in Afghanistan, but I pray they will be the last.

That said, it's nasty as crap terrain and a difficult culture to passify. Our military has the ability to operate there, but we loose many of our best weapon platforms. Our heavy armor won't fit on the roads/bridges. Our Apaches and Super Cobras can't operate at those altitudes. Our Black Hawks/ Pave Hawks struggle to operate at those altitudes and crash if you let them take on too much fuel during mid-air refueling.

The Soviet Hinds were eating the Mujahaddin alive untill we gave them Stingers and the Britts gave them training, but the Hind is as much a cargo helicopter as it is a gun ship and that makes it capable of operating at high altitudes with a lightened payload. That said, having the Hinds didn't prevent the Soviets from loosing once Stingers were introduced and today's RPG-7's can easily be modified to take out tail rotors.

By the Army's own counter insurgency manual, we are currently well under the number of troops we need to put down the Taliban (and that number doesn't account for a Pakastani border or those mountains.) It don't look pretty folks, give our troops the resources to win PLEASE.......or pull them out if we must.........but don't hang em out to dry.

If we're gonna win this one, we need to throw some resources at the problem. We are starting to do that and I hope it continues.

[Guest justme]

I think 90% of the Afghans that fight do so because of factors that have nothing to do with ideology, nation building, religion or the like. It is mostly about survival. Literal...i.e. to put food on the table or figuratively as in whatever flag come flying through my village today I will support so that the my head is not cut off (talliban) or my door is not kicked in (U.S.) It is the 10% you really need to worry about. It has definately been a long war and will most likely continue to be a long war.

By and large I think you are mostly right--for the Afghan fighting is literally a way of life--and possession of weapons is a status symbol. However, as fighting is a way of life in Afghanistan. I also think you are right--villagers tend to support whoever comes through--way of survival. That said, I also think many Afghans resent the presence of a foreign army on their soil--but who among us would be any different if the Chinese or the Russians were to invade the US? The Afghans fight because we are a foreign occupying army--just like they fought the Russians before us.

As for the other 10%--those are hard core for whom fighting is their profession.

This had been a long conflict. I won't call it a way, because it isn't. A war is what happened in World War 2. What we are doing in Afghanistan is simply a disaster. The US is not fighting this like it is a war--they are acting like policemen. We have forgot what it means to actually fight a war.

I am afraid that we will end up like the Russians when we finally exit that country.

[Guest justme]

The Soviets weren't the first to get eaten up in Afghanistan, but I pray they will be the last.

Don't count on it.

That said, it's nasty as crap terrain and a difficult culture to passify. Our military has the ability to operate there, but we loose many of our best weapon platforms. Our heavy armor won't fit on the roads/bridges. Our Apaches and Super Cobras can't operate at those altitudes. Our Black Hawks/ Pave Hawks struggle to operate at those altitudes and crash if you let them take on too much fuel during mid-air refueling.

We never intended to fight a war at the altitudes found in Afghanistan. We have seen what happens when you try to introduce armor into Afghanistan--the Russians did and paid a heavy price. Tanks and armor are open country vehicles--they are sitting ducks in a country like Afghanistan.

The Soviet Hinds were eating the Mujahaddin alive untill we gave them Stingers and the Britts gave them training, but the Hind is as much a cargo helicopter as it is a gun ship and that makes it capable of operating at high altitudes with a lightened payload. That said, having the Hinds didn't prevent the Soviets from loosing once Stingers were introduced and today's RPG-7's can easily be modified to take out tail rotors.

The MI-24 Hind is a beautiful piece of hardware. The job it was designed to do it does very well, and is still in service today. As a combat helicopter it was designed to operate at high altitude I agree, unlike the Apache, and Blackhawk

By the Army's own counter insurgency manual, we are currently well under the number of troops we need to put down the Taliban (and that number doesn't account for a Pakastani border or those mountains.) It don't look pretty folks, give our troops the resources to win PLEASE.......or pull them out if we must.........but don't hang em out to dry.

The advantage is on the side of the insurgency--it always has been. The insurgents have knowledge of the terrain, they have the local villagers on their side, they know the customs, they know every rock and hiding place.

If we're gonna win this one, we need to throw some resources at the problem. We are starting to do that and I hope it continues.

they threw resources at Vietnam and lost it--well technically the soldiers did not lose Vietnam, the gutless politicians in Washington did when they declared "cease fires" every time our troops started kicking the living ____ out of the enemy. All of the ceasefires gave the enemy time to regroup, and rearm and then they just came at us again--and every time ground was gained--the politicians in their infinite wisdom gave it back....

what is needed is the stomach to fight a war along with the equipment and manpower to do it. While we have the men and most of the equipment--minus the high altitude equipment such as the Russians have with the Hind--we lack a national stomach and the backbone to actually fight.

[Guest Muttling]

I want to disagree with you justme....I REALLY WANT TO.

But all I have is a wing and a prayer. As you compared, our troops aren't the problem....they're good....DAMNED GOOD and VERY DEDICATED.

To rephrase what I said before, back em up and give them what they need to win or pull them out. Don't hang em out to dry with political waffling.

I still think we're starting to do it right, but it's a start not a finish. We're beefing up our efforts to take the fight to the Taliban, build up the Afghan army, add to our forces, help the locals get onto wheat instead of opium, etc.

It's a start, JUST A START. We've got a long ways to go and political waffling will ensure failure. The COIN manual I referenced before has a lot of good concepts for winning this war, we need to buy into ALL of it and probably do more given the terrain. Instead, our politicians are still providing far less resources than it suggests are required victory. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I'm still praying you're wrong.....prayer and the gifted talents of U.S. grunts are all I've got at the moment.

[Guest justme]

But all I have is a wing and a prayer. As you compared, our troops aren't the problem....they're good....DAMNED GOOD and VERY DEDICATED.

I don't disagree with that. The problem isn't the soldier or Marine--it is the politicians in D.C.

To rephrase what I said before, back em up and give them what they need to win or pull them out. Don't hang em out to dry with political waffling.

Pulling out now is what should happen--because the country as a whole does not have the national stomach to fight a war the way it should be fought.

I still think we're starting to do it right, but it's a start not a finish. We're beefing up our efforts to take the fight to the Taliban, build up the Afghan army, add to our forces, help the locals get onto wheat instead of opium, etc.

it is too little, too late--we are dumping good money after bad. We should not be trying to build up Afghanistan--we should be pouring ALL of that money into our national infrastructure here at home--and I mean ALL of the money.

It's a start, JUST A START. We've got a long ways to go and political waffling will ensure failure. The COIN manual I referenced before has a lot of good concepts for winning this war, we need to buy into ALL of it and probably do more given the terrain. Instead, our politicians are still providing far less resources than it suggests are required victory. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

No nation in modern times has ever successfully invaded and conquered Afghanistan. I would think that sooner or later we would learn from history--but we never do. Afghanistan is just slightly less in size than the state of Texas--and in 10yrs time the Russians poured in over a half million troops--and still they lost.

I'm still praying you're wrong.....prayer and the gifted talents of U.S. grunts are all I've got at the moment.

Look at history--no nation has won in Afghanistan in modern times. It isn't the talent of the US forces that really makes the difference there. It is the terrain involved, the fact that the insurgency had the advantage due to their knowledge of the area, and the fact that the US is not truly fighting a war in Afghanistan--it is more of what they would call "a police action"--and I absolutely despise the term "police action"....

we also, as I have pointed out--simply don't as a nation have the stomach to fight a war anymore. We have become a nation that allows "world opinion" to influence us too much....We have some of the finest equipment and men available--but as a nation we don't have the stomach to truly use them.

Just remember--when the Russians left Afghanistan it did not take long for their nation to collapse---and it took them over a decade to recover. Of course after Afghanistan they invaded Chechnya--and fought nearly 15 years--and I think they are still fighting the insurgency...but I think they did somewhat better in Chechnya than in Afghanistan--not a lot better, but somewhat better--I give them that. The downside to fighting the way the Russians do--mass civilian casualties--but then Russians always tend to fight a total war...Chechnya, Stalingrad, Georgia--they do tend to fight hard--they virtually destroyed Grozny through artillery, bombing and tank fire in an attempt to drive the insurgents from it....

The question is--will Afghanistan break the US as well?

Edited August 15, 2009 by justme

[Guest Muttling]

Vietnam didn't break us. It was a wound that took more than a decade to recover from, but it didn't break us.

The Soviets we bleeding badly from other wounds (many self inflicted) and a broken military was salt in those wounds.

What's more, the Russians haven't really recovered from those wounds. The pride of their military (the Russian Navy) still can't launch a practice missile from a boomer without it going haywire.

We WILL survive Afghanistan. The only question is what role will the Stan play in the bigger picture and I don't think anyone knows that answer. The rules have changed, but no one really knows what that means.

Will Big Oil dominate????

Will the Euro become the dominant monetary force????

Will China become the ONLY super power????

Will Russia become more than a 3rd world country and resume it's place as a factor????

How will North Korea, Iran, and Israel play into all of this???

Will Pakistan's nukes stay out of the hands of terrorists? What will India do if Pakistan continues to degrade?

Let's be honest folks. The ONLY time in history that is more frightening than what we face now is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let us pray we get lucky again.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Muttling

[Guest 3pugguy]

Vietnam didn't break us. It was a wound that took more than a decade to recover from, but it didn't break us.

The Soviets we bleeding badly from other wounds (many self inflicted) and a broken military was salt in those wounds.

What's more, the Russians haven't really recovered from those wounds. The pride of their military (the Russian Navy) still can't launch a practice missile from a boomer without it going haywire.

We WILL survive Afghanistan. The only question is what role will the Stan play in the bigger picture and I don't think anyone knows that answer. The rules have changed, but no one really knows what that means.

Will Big Oil dominate????

Will the Euro become the dominant monetary force????

Will China become the ONLY super power????

Will Russia become more than a 3rd world country and resume it's place as a factor????

How will North Korea, Iran, and Israel play into all of this???

Will Pakistan's nukes stay out of the hands of terrorists? What will India do if Pakistan continues to degrade?

Let's be honest folks. The ONLY time in history that is more frightening than what we face now is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let us pray we get lucky again.

I hope you are right and you make good points. We have the bravest (yeah, I'm biased) and best force, but will need the support (unqualified, no strings) of the DC chickenhawks. That is always a hurdle for the forces on the front end of the conflict.

[Guest justme]

Vietnam didn't break us. It was a wound that took more than a decade to recover from, but it didn't break us.

It took about 15-18 years for the country to quit fully bleeding from Vietnam--and people like my grandmother who lost a son at the hands of the Vietcong never recovered. She hated the Vietnamiese people until the day she died, and in many ways she hated the country that sent him to fight a war that was not his war to fight, and then kept him there even after he was supposed to have returned home. So in some ways--the wounds from Vietnam which were inflicted not only on the people who were there, but on the country as a whole have still not fully healed to this very day. In several ways Vietnam--which my mother renamed--"Johnsons war" did great damage to this country--after Vietnam the nation as a whole lost its will to fight a war--it is as if the country is ashamed of being powerful. We have lost the national stomach needed to fight and win a war.

The Soviets we bleeding badly from other wounds (many self inflicted) and a broken military was salt in those wounds.

The Russians were not bleeding as badly as you might think--they had, and still have a top notch intelligence agency--at one time the KGB along with the GRU were the most feared intelligence agencies in the world. Russian weapons--the AK 47/74 are the most used weapons anywhere. Even the Israelis copied it when they made the Galil. The Russians had and still have their problems--but the loss sustained in Afghanistan has still not been recovered--those who fought there, like the American in Vietnam have been labeled and ridiculed.

What's more, the Russians haven't really recovered from those wounds. The pride of their military (the Russian Navy) still can't launch a practice missile from a boomer without it going haywire.

The Russian army works for virtually nothing. They have gone for months at a time without receiving any money whatsoever. The training the Russian army receives is quite brutal--some recruits have been brutalized so badly that they died. The physical training the Russian special force receives is much harsher than what their American counterparts go through. As for the Russian sub and navy force--they are in better condition than you might expect, as is the Russian airforce. They have begun regular patrols--and the Russian navy is again exerting itself with a global strike capacity--many would laugh at thinking of the Russians with any type of global reach or military might--but in 2007 they kicked the living daylights out of American trained and equipped Georgian troops, and I seriously thought I would see the US move in and attempt to push the Russians from Georgia by force. Russia is an empire far older than the United States.

We WILL survive Afghanistan. The only question is what role will the Stan play in the bigger picture and I don't think anyone knows that answer. The rules have changed, but no one really knows what that means.

We will survive Afghanistan--but what will we look like when we do? That is the question I have. The Stan will play a role in the transportation of oil.The rules have changed--and not for the better.

Will Big Oil dominate????

It already does.

Will the Euro become the dominant monetary force????

Yes, I believe it will. There is still resistance to the acceptance of the Euro in the UK, but everywhere else in Europe the EURO is the accepted currency, and there is a push now to make it the currency of global business--the British still have some national pride remaining and at this time seem unwilling to surrender their British Pound which is worth more than the Euro, but he British too I think will eventually come around.

Will China become the ONLY super power????

No, I think the nations that will have superpower status in the future will be the Russians, Chinese and possibly the US--although it seems like we are waning in national pride--which affects our power and ability to use it effectively.

Will Russia become more than a 3rd world country and resume it's place as a factor????

Russia is becoming more than a 3rd world country now--if they can get their economy back on track, and their military paid regularly, and instill some national pride back into their country--Russia will then truly be a nation to be reckoned with. Have they got work to do--yes, but so do we...our national infrastructure is falling apart now even as we pour tens and hundreds of millions into Afghanistan and Iraq--we worry more about the foreign countries than we do our own...you just got to love our politicians--they do have their priorities in order.

How will North Korea, Iran, and Israel play into all of this???

the DPRK continues to build up its military--it is a known fact that they now have nuclear weapons, and may soon have the missiles needed to deliver them. Israel--I think it is a matter of time before Israel attacks Iran, and then what happens next is anyones guess.

Will Pakistan's nukes stay out of the hands of terrorists? What will India do if Pakistan continues to degrade?

India and Pakistan have been in a shooting war several times--each hates the other. Once the nukes start falling--they could fall everywhere. Will the nukes stay out of the hands of the terrorists--probably not.

Let's be honest folks. The ONLY time in history that is more frightening than what we face now is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let us pray we get lucky again.

The entire Cold War was a frightening time--fear mongering was rampant--just like it is today. Edited August 15, 2009 by justme

[Guest Ghostrider]

I have but to laugh.

Never before has the old saw about ignoring history and repeating it come through so clearly and so profoundly.

Gutless government + world wide spread of an anti-american concept (socialism, islamization, whatever) + US corruption = more butt heads willing to attack us and the home grown socialists doing progressively more damage to our society.

God, I could tell you stories, but most simply put - follow the money.

If you apply that axiom to vietnam, you'll know why LBJ did what he did, and died rich, fat and happy.

[enfield]

I've changed my feelings about Afghanistan since BHO got elected. I know what our soldiers, marines and their families have been through in Iraq. I had a son-in-law wounded in Iraq and have another one there now.

Obama stated recently that his objective in Afghanistan isn't necessarily 'victory'.

In that case, I'm in favor of pulling out immediately and bringing our troops home. There'll be another battle somewhere, sometime, and maybe our President will try to win the next one.

[Guest Muttling]

The Russians were not bleeding as badly as you might think--

The Russians weren't bleeding? They went bankrupt and their economy collapsed. The cost of the war in Afghanistan played a large part of driving that final nail into their coffin.

they had, and still have a top notch intelligence agency--at one time the KGB along with the GRU were the most feared intelligence agencies in the world. Russian weapons--the AK 47/74 are the most used weapons anywhere.

The last 3 times they've tried to launch a ballistic missile from a submarine have failed. Two had software glitches that prevented launch and the third had to be detonated in flight because it went off course.

They have the technology, but not the money to maintain it much less advance it.

BTW....Mr. Kalishikov didn't originate the AK-47 design. He upgraded a Nazi design. Also, the Russians don't sell that many of them these days. China and South Africa are the big suppliers of AK's.

The Russian army works for virtually nothing. They have gone for months at a time without receiving any money whatsoever. The training the Russian army receives is quite brutal--some recruits have been brutalized so badly that they died. The physical training the Russian special force receives is much harsher than what their American counterparts go through. As for the Russian sub and navy force--they are in better condition than you might expect, as is the Russian airforce.

They're trying to recover, but even you point out the fact that they can't afford it.

On the subject of the quality of their military, you point to their minority. Their professional soldiers.

A very large part of their military is conscripts who do their mandatory 12 months of service and leave. The average U.S. soldier is barely getting finished with his initial training regime in the 1st year. Their special ops units and other elites are very good, but their average troops SUCK.

They have begun regular patrols--and the Russian navy is again exerting itself with a global strike capacity--

They're trying to. That was how they came about with the screwed up missile launches.

many would laugh at thinking of the Russians with any type of global reach or military might--but in 2007 they kicked the living daylights out of American trained and equipped Georgian troops, and I seriously thought I would see the US move in and attempt to push the Russians from Georgia by force.

.....and we totally obliterated the Russian trained and equipped Iraqi military TWICE.

However, the Russians fought Georgians with superior numbers. We were severely outnumbered by the Iraqi military and (in GW1) Bahgdad had a Russian designed air defense network that was billed as the best in the world, yet we wiped the map with them much more impressively than the Russians handled Georgia.

And we did it with our regular units, not just our most elite units.

No, I think the nations that will have superpower status in the future will be the Russians, Chinese and possibly the US--although it seems like we are waning in national pride--

Russians won't be there for a long time to come. They don't have the money for it and their industry is 3rd world.

the DPRK continues to build up its military--it is a known fact that they now have nuclear weapons, and may soon have the missiles needed to deliver them.

You need to do a bit more research on North Korea. They aren't building up, they are just maintaining what they already have and struggling to do so. Their farming system collapsed about 15 years ago, they can't even feed their people without our help and China's help.

The weapons they have detonated were both uranium based which means very heavy warheads. They have missiles with 1 ton payload capability, but don't have the technology to miniaturize a warhead and get it to fit onto the missile. They have to develop a plutonium warhead capability to put nukes on missiles.

The BIGGER concern (which everyone ignores) is their bio and chem pograms. They are believed to have stockpiled 5000 tons of agents and are known to have some of the most advanced chem/bio programs in the world.

The entire Cold War was a frightening time--fear mongering was rampant--just like it is today.

Yes it was. I remember it too.

[Guest justme]

The Russians weren't bleeding? They went bankrupt and their economy collapsed. The cost of the war in Afghanistan played a large part of driving that final nail into their coffin.

no, they were not bleeding as badly as you think. Yes their nation went bankrupt. But have you considered exactly why it went backrupt? The "Star Wars" program was one--the Russians were terrified of it--and yet Stars wars as a viable program never got off of the ground--it was a ploy, a misdirection to keep the Russians guessing and spending money. Afghanistan was the final straw that sealed their fate and helped cause their national collapse and the coup that overthrew Gorbachev--and installed Boris Yeltsin into power--and yet Yeltsin was an alcoholic. Russia has made quite a stride since the days of Yeltsin--but yes, they still have a LOT of work to do on their country.

The last 3 times they've tried to launch a ballistic missile from a submarine have failed. Two had software glitches that prevented launch and the third had to be detonated in flight because it went off course.

And as they refine their technology they will have glitches--but they will get the kinks worked out.

They have the technology, but not the money to maintain it much less advance it.

Absolutely agree 100%, and if they can get their economy back on track--that will change.

BTW....Mr. Kalishikov didn't originate the AK-47 design. He upgraded a Nazi design. Also, the Russians don't sell that many of them these days. China and South Africa are the big suppliers of AK's.

And yet they are still Kalishnakovs that supply every major and minor military in Eastern Europe, and Africa. Only western Europe uses anything other than an AK, or an AK design. Even the Israelis use the AK variant.

They're trying to recover, but even you point out the fact that they can't afford it.

And if they can get their economy back on track--their recovery will move rapidly. You have to realize--the Russians were born fighting.

On the subject of the quality of their military, you point to their minority. Their professional soldiers.

I point to history as well--the Russians defeated the Germans at Stalingrad, and the majority of other battles. Their conscripts are essentially unpaid--try working for nothing in the harshest climates you can find with little good equipment, not the best food, or clothing--and you will get lazy from time to time too and ask what is the point in all of this...As for the Russian Special Operations people--they are top notch, they really are. Their one problem--they don't handle hostage rescue as well as GSG-9, or Delta force does.

A very large part of their military is conscripts who do their mandatory 12 months of service and leave. The average U.S. soldier is barely getting finished with his initial training regime in the 1st year. Their special ops units and other elites are very good, but their average troops SUCK.

Again--they are virtually unpaid, have gone for months at a time without pay, have food that isn't the best, equipment which they don't have the money to maintain properly...I say they do alright with what they have. I mean they did defeat American trained and equipped Georgian troops....I thought I would see the Russian flag flying again from Tblisi. The Russians know how to fight a war--they don't play games like the west does--they will simply shell a town into rubble trying to evict the enemy from it and worry about world opinion later.

They're trying to. That was how they came about with the screwed up missile launches.

mistakes happen. They will get it right.

.....and we totally obliterated the Russian trained and equipped Iraqi military TWICE.

That Russian equipment you talk about--were the older MBTs and older type equipment. We have yet to encounter the newer MBTs that the Russians have. As for the Iraqi troops...it does not matter who trains them--an army is only as good as the people who fight in it..meaning the Iraqis are not worth crap. I would not trust an Iraqi soldier to guard a flock of sheep, let alone fight a war.

However, the Russians fought Georgians with superior numbers. We were severely outnumbered by the Iraqi military and (in GW1) Bahgdad had a Russian designed air defense network that was billed as the best in the world, yet we wiped the map with them much more impressively than the Russians handled Georgia.

That is one opinion. I saw the Russians walk over Georgia and just beat them bloody in no time flat. Russia is not a country to be trifled with--yes they have their problems. Yes they have a lot of work to do.

But look around at our own country--and tell me we don't.

And we did it with our regular units, not just our most elite units.

So did the Russians. It was Russian tanks, and air power, along with Russian infantry that handed Georgia its national head.

Russians won't be there for a long time to come. They don't have the money for it and their industry is 3rd world.

they are catching up a lot faster than you think.

You need to do a bit more research on North Korea. They aren't building up, they are just maintaining what they already have and struggling to do so. Their farming system collapsed about 15 years ago, they can't even feed their people without our help and China's help.

when you have nuclear weapons--you can afford to sit on your laurels. I understand the problems with North Korea...I also understand that they have an Army--that we would be hard pressed to handle without the use of nukes. We fought them once already--and it was a draw.

The weapons they have detonated were both uranium based which means very heavy warheads. They have missiles with 1 ton payload capability, but don't have the technology to miniaturize a warhead and get it to fit onto the missile. They have to develop a plutonium warhead capability to put nukes on missiles.

does not take a lot to wipe out a city. Think of the damage a 1 ton warhead would do on Tokyo, or Seoul...the economic damage alone would mean the DPRK would win even if they lost.

The BIGGER concern (which everyone ignores) is their bio and chem pograms. They are believed to have stockpiled 5000 tons of agents and are known to have some of the most advanced chem/bio programs in the world.

The Biggest concern right now should be China.

[Daniel]

are you russian by chance?

[Guest bkelm18]

are you russian by chance?

The avatar doesn't give it away?

[Daniel]

He has said the av was a play on present american policies. The russia fanboyism on the other hand seems pretty convincing.

sneaky ****ing russians

Edited August 16, 2009 by Daniel

[poak]

sneaky ****ing russians

[wjh2657]

Served 30 years in USMC, 6 years of that in country of Viet Nam. Wounded and decorated, enough to make new ribbons expensive to buy.

American public was told that we were defending "people" of Viet Nam against Commie "bad guys". Fact: RVN voted to be rejoined with NVN and go under communist rule in 1956. All of the Vietnamese worth their salt sympathized with NVN (they wanted reunion with the North). To win in Viet Nam for good, we would have had to kill all the Vietnamese.

American public are being told that we are protecting the "people" of Afghanistan against Taliban "bad guys" I haven't been there but I have talked to many who have. Feeling is pretty strong that we are in same situation again. People will support their "homies" against us when the chips are down. The Mujhadeen didn't kick out the USSR, the whole population did. Solution again: kill all Afghanis?

This is more like trying to police South Chicago with nothing but White Cops. No matter how good your intentions or your logic: the home folks just aren't going to buy it.

Does anybody really believe the new "Democratic" government of Iraq is going to be a real ally? They will rise up and support support their Muslim brothers in the terrorist movement against us.

As for being "casual" about casualties: Those who haven't buried their own children or grandchildren killed in war can quote "patriotism" all they want, people get tired of funerals. Those who haven't lost loved ones have no right to be critical. Enough die and many back here will want to end it. Only the dead themselves can call these people cowards and the dead can't speak, they have been silenced.

War, even under the most logical of reasons, is still a bloody and weary endeavor. Whether it is 4,000 dead or 40,000 dead, it is still a lot of dead loved ones that are missed.

The Taliban can just downgrade and hide and then come back out again, they make this thing last forever. They've done this for centuries, they just wear down the invaders. The Taliban will win because we will weary of coffins coming home. That was a big factor in the downfall of the regime' in USSR. Russian mommas got tired of burying their sons.

Edited August 17, 2009 by wjh2657

[Daniel]

Maverick pro-Taliban militant offers to help U.S. forces - CNN.com