Africa Speaks
Race and HistoryNews and Views
Terms of Service | Translator | Nubian School | Channel Africa | Recommended Books

Articles Archive: Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6

Race and History Forum

Soviet Union's Afghan lessons

'New war' to be fought with unprecedented secrecy ...
Soviet Union's Afghan lessons

MOSCOW, RUSSIA: Veterans of the Soviet Union's Afghan war in the 1980s know the perils of waging a war in Afghanistan.

Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British, and finally the Soviet Union all sent their armies into Afghanistan, only to be beaten back.
Soviet forces fought a war against the Mujahadeen that lasted over ten years in terrain which many veterans say rendered the inhospitable country a virtual fortress.

The war, which began when Soviet forces invaded in 1979, claimed nearly a million Afghan lives and 15,000 Russian troops, with a further 50,000 wounded.

Leo Korolkov, a Russian veteran who trained Soviet special operations units, similar to the US Delta Force and British SAS, told CNN's Jill Dougherty: "Modern weapons, rockets, laser-guided missiles - they're useless against these mountains.

"I feel sorry for the people who are going to be thrown into those deserted mountainous regions where the enemy knows every single rock, every cave.

"No maps, no computer training can prepare you for it."
Korolkov says the chances of finding Osama bin Laden are slim because there are numerous places he can hide.

In their protracted war with the Mujahadeen, the Soviet forces faced guerrilla tactics, including ambushes and suicide attacks. Korolkov says he saw critically wounded Afghan fighters still clutching their weapons and firing until their last breath.

Many of them, he says, used drugs before launching operations.
He says they were the most effective force he has ever faced, honed on 20 years of continual war.

He added: "These fighters can bring any country, even a superpower - be it Russia, the United States or Europe - to the brink of catastrophe."
John Garnett, chairman of the Centre of Defence Studies, at London's King's College, said the US should avoid mounting any ground-based action in Afghanistan.

Garnett told CNN: "The British had terrible experiences in that part of the world in the 19th Century and the Russians have had awful experiences not so long ago.

"Getting involved in ground warfare in Afghanistan... is a very difficult proposition indeed and I think, on the whole, the United States should avoid it.

"I don't think you can just bomb the Afghan people into the ground. That would be a terrible mistake and would lose the United States a lot of the support and sympathy it now enjoys.

"The critical thing about whatever the United States does it that it must carry the world community with it, otherwise that support will evaporate.

"I don't think it can do very much in terms of breaking the will of a population. I think the more focused the American response is, on actually getting (Osama) bin Laden and terrorists organisations, the better.

"If the Americans decide to widen the conflict to attacking countries that might harbour terrorists, and there are many of them around the world - one thinks of Syria, or Algeria, Iraq perhaps, even Pakistan - then I think sympathy for the United States might begin to evaporate."

'New war' to be fought with unprecedented secrecy

WASHINGTON: America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, Pentagon sources said Monday.

Planning for possible military action has been "highly compartmentalised" to ensure the fewest number of people possible have access to classified war plans, the sources said.

According to Pentagon officials close to the process, the Bush administration has decided to clamp down on even routine information because it could prove of some use to potential terrorists.

"I want to make it clear to the American people that this administration will not talk about any plans we may or may not have," President Bush said Monday. "We will not jeopardise in any way, shape or form, anybody who wears the uniform of the United States."
In response to the attacks, the US Defence Department has stopped posting on the Internet the general location of US warships. The department's Web pages that show ship location haven't been updated since September 10, the day before hijacked airplanes struck the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

In addition, the Pentagon currently has no plans to allow reporters to deploy with troops, or report from warships, practices routinely carried out in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Sources said the Pentagon is drawing up "high-end" and "low-end" options for military action.
The "high-end" options include air strikes against countries that support terrorists, while "low-end" plans include the use of special forces to capture or kill terrorist leaders, such as Osama bin Laden, sources said.

The actual plans are under close guard and have not been shared with news agencies. The rationale, according to Pentagon officials: Terrorist organisations lack the intelligence-gathering capacity that nations possess, relying instead on news organisations to find out what their enemies are doing.

Trinicenter Int. | Africa News Links | 9/11 Home | Latest News | Sources | Search | Homepage

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. is a 100% non-profit Website.