Re: [GZG] FTverse colinies

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
n Atkinson wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Chris <sepplainer@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Does the Soveit/afgan conflict. Make a fair example? I don't think it
does
>>  but that is as close as I can come after some thought.
>>     
>
> If you consider the fact that the Afghans made very little progress
> before they started getting high-tech missiles shipped in, it kind of
> skews it.  The majority of the Russian troops were also exceedingly
> ill-trained, and the doctrine they were working with was garbage too.
>
> And you still can't point to a lot of "battlefield defeats" but to
> political effects.  In fact, the Sovs didn't actually pull out of
> Afghanistan until the sequence of events that would lead to the
> collapse of the Soviet Union was already in motion.
>
> John
>   
True enough but then how often do "insurgents" not have outside help?

Don't forget too that the Soviets did deploy quite a few special forces 
units (mostly if not entirely Spetznaz, possibly some interior ministry 
types) and still lost numerous small engagements. Yes, the Soviet system

did collapse but whether the Afghanistan pull out is a cause or an 
effect of that is still a major historical debate. The US pulled out of 
Vietnam but it was in no way collapsing. And yes the irregulars were 
being backed by NVA, but not to fight major engagements until the last 
year or two with one exception. Insurgents, guerrilias, rebels, freedom 
fighters, assymetricals, whatever don't win by fighting major 
battlefield engagements, they win by making it politically untenable for

the major power to stay.

If you want a battlefield example then the early stages of the Tet 
offensive. Yes the US "won" but it was touch and go for a while.

Tony.