The Afghan War Is Harder to Fight than the War in Iraq

Published in Lianhe Zaobao
(Singapore) on 30 Mar 2009
by CHen Youwei (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Edward Seah. Edited by Katy Burtner.
After Obama became the president of the United States, he decided to end the Iraq War within a specific time in a bid to counter the Bush administration's erroneous policies, and to turn the U.S.'s focus on the War on Terror to Afghanistan. It is estimated that the strength of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will increase from the present 34,000 to 66,000 in the next one or two years.

Why did the U.S. turn its attention to fighting the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, despite not having won the Iraq War after six years of fighting? It is because it was only today that the policy-makers in Washington realized that the terrorists' lairs and Bin Laden's bases are not in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. If the U.S. is not able to eliminate these forces in Afghanistan, the whole of the Middle East and West Asia region will never have peace, and the U.S. and beyond will not be safe either.

According to Mr. Obama's plans, the U.S. will increase its number of troops in Afghanistan to twice its current strength. With the additional troops from other member countries of NATO, the combined forces will reach 100,000 men. This is considered a lot for a mountainous battleground (Ed: At present, NATO forces stand at about 30,000 strong).

However, not only do the 100,000 strong troops have to fight a war, they would also have to guard their bases and stores, maintain logistical supply routes and clear the passage of strategic channels, as well as seal off the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to prevent Bin Laden's forces from passing through. A diluted 100,0000 strong army will be too little to last a long battlefront such as this.

Lessons from Russia and Britain

Years ago, the strength of the Soviet Union's troops when it invaded Afghanistan was more that 100,000. Yet, when they fought the Afghan guerrillas, the Soviet forces still had difficulties in coping.

In order to learn from the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan 30 years ago, the United States Special Operations Command (U.S.S.O.C.) has recently invited Soviet veterans who fought in Afghanistan to train U.S. troops who would be going to the frontline in Afghanistan. They advised the U.S. to reinforce the sealing off of Afghanistan's southwestern border and to join the Afghan government forces' operations in squadron and platoon formations at the same time to achieve the "battle nucleus" effect.

But can the experiences of the defeated Soviet army help the U.S. army win the battle?

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, it mobilized 1.5 million troops and countless aircrafts and tanks over the course of the war, and paid a heavy price of $40 billion in military expenses and a body count of 15,000 troops. The war had nearly exhausted the Soviet Union of its finances and national power. Every foot soldier used up up to 90 kg worth of resources at the frontline every day. The food, ammunition and equipment that more than 100,000 soldiers needed every day were transported by tens of thousands of vehicles.

One of the Soviet army's most famous battles was when it mobilized a mechanized infantry comprising of more than 300 tanks and armored vehicles to suppress the Afghan guerrillas on May 12, 1980. In the end, they were fiercely attacked by the guerrillas in the steep Panjshir Valley between the Salang Pass. The entire Soviet army fell within an hour.

This undoubtedly repeated the 19th century British colonial army's history in Afghanistan. On June 1, 1842, an armed uprising broke out in Kabul to resist the British colonial rule. The 4,500 defending British troops in the city were incapable of suppressing the uprising and all they could do was only flee with 1,200 civilian staff and their families to Jalalabad 90 miles outside of Kabul.

In the end, when they reached the Kurdish mountain pass, they were ambushed from every side. The British troops scattered and their families suffered from hunger and cold. Only one doctor out of the 15,000 survived. The Afghans allowed him to live so that he could return home to relate the massacre.

In his book “Notes on Indian History,” Karl Marx recorded this incident: “On Jan. 13, 1842, the sentinels on the city wall of Jalalabad saw a man in British military uniform from a distance, scruffy and tattered, riding on the back of a horse. That man was Dr. Brydon. He was the only fortunate one of the 15,000 British who escaped from Kabul to survive. He was on the verge of death due to starvation.”

The sleeping mountain kingdom that resists powers

From ancient times, Afghanistan had been a mountain kingdom that was cut off from the rest of the world. The country was covered with lofty ridges and towering mountains; its soil was barren and its weather atrocious. About 600 B.C., the revered monk Xuan Zang passed by an ancient kingdom which was then known as Tochari in the Hindu Kush mountain regions.

The over 3000 tribes in Afghanistan had always been self-governing, and the village chiefs and religious elder held the power; the central government was weak and powerless. The majority of the population, the Pushtus, were a transnational people who were spread all over the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This mountain kingdom, closed up, economically backward and culturally unenlightened, seemed to be still lying in deep sleep in the 18th and 19th centuries and was very far from the modern world. The entire country and its people made their living from planting poppy flowers. Globalization, information explosions and modernization had totally nothing to do with them.

The Afghans, however, have always been a tough and unyielding people, and they have always had a tradition of resisting foreign powers. The characteristics formed from the above geographical, historical, cultural and religious factors became the hotbed for the rise of the Taliban.

The violent activities of the Taliban have now reached its highest degree since its fall in 2001. The United Nations issued a warning that the situation in Afghanistan will likely worsen this year.

I have pointed out in writing years ago that Osama bin Laden was hiding in the villages at the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He had very deep dealings with the chiefs of the villages on both sides, and so the U.S.'s $25 million bounty on him was useless. No matter how the U.S. reinforced its troops and how sophisticated their intelligence-gathering methods were, it would be very difficult to dredge him out from the countless mountains and caves of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has different conditions from Iraq. Iraq is not a mountain kingdom; it has wide and flat plains that are convenient for traffic, which is the ideal ground for the U.S.'s display of its modern military prowess. In Afghanistan, there are only 30 persons per square kilometer. The majority of the population lives in the Hindu Kush mountain region. The annual average temperature in the capital city of Kabul is -3 degrees Celsius.

Afghans have very strong nationalistic sentiments. Whether it is the common folks, the Muslim clerics, the village chiefs, or even the Taliban insurgents, their common point is that they want to be the master of their own country and their own land. They will not allow foreign powers to dominate and control their country.

At the same time when Mr. Obama announced reinforcing troops in Afghanistan, he also declared that he would carry out a new “pull out from Afghanistan” plan. Judging from the various situations mentioned above, the Afghanistan War is obviously harder to fight than the Iraq War.

Whether American troops who have turned their attention to Afghanistan will be able pull out from it after winning the war or perish in this faraway land lies in the hands of fate.


阿富汗战争比伊拉克更难打

奥巴马当上美国总统之后,针对布什政府的错误决策,决定限期结束伊拉克之战,将美国反恐战争的重点转向阿富汗。预计在今后一两年内将使驻阿美军人数从现有的3万4000增加到6万6000。

  为什么伊拉克战争打了六年没有打赢,美国却要移师阿富汗去对付那些卷土重来的塔利班叛乱分子呢?因为华盛顿的决策者今天才醒悟到,原来恐怖势力的巢穴和本拉登的基地不在伊拉克,而在阿富汗。如果不能清除阿富汗的这些势力,整个中东西亚地区就永无宁日,美国本土与海外的安全也难有保障。

  按照奥巴马的计划,美国在阿富汗的兵力要增加一倍,加上北约成员国派出的军队,兵力总数将达到10万人。对于这个山国战场来说,也不算少了。(编按:目前,北约的部队约有3万人。)

  可是这10万兵力不但要打仗,还得守护营地仓库,保持后勤供应线路与战略通道畅通,封锁阿富汗与巴基斯坦边境以防本拉登的人马出入。这么漫长的战线,10万兵力化整为零,就太少了。

  这有如《孙子兵法》所说,“备前则后寡,备后则前寡,备左则右寡,备右则左寡,无数不备,则无数不寡”。

俄英前车之鉴

  当年苏联入侵阿富汗的兵力超过10万之众,对付阿富汗的游击队仍然感到捉襟见肘。据英国《经济学家》周刊当时估计,苏联要想在阿富汗“粉碎叛乱”,“需要投入50万兵力”。以此相比,奥巴马想以10万兵力实现赢得阿富汗战争的目标,无疑是对客观现实估计不足。

  为了借鉴苏联30年前在阿富汗战争中的经验教训,美军特种作战司令部最近邀请当年在阿富汗作战的苏联老兵,给即将奔赴阿富汗前线的美军授课。他们建议美国应加强封闭阿富汗西南边界,同时以班排形式参加阿政府军的行动,发挥“战斗核心”的作用。

  但是苏联败军之将的经验谈,就能帮助美军赢得战场上的胜利吗?

  1979年苏联入侵阿富汗,前后出动150万军队和无数的飞机坦克,付出了400亿美元的军费和死亡1万5000兵力的沉重代价。这场战争几乎耗尽了苏联的财力国力,每个士兵每天在前线消耗的物资多达90公斤,10多万军队每天所需的粮食、弹药、装备要用上万辆次汽车运送。

  最为典型的战例是,1980年5月12日,苏军出动拥有300多辆坦克和装甲车的一个机械化步兵团去进剿阿富汗游击队,结果在查普查勒山口两边陡峭的峡谷中遭到猛烈袭击。仅仅一个小时之内就全军覆没。

  这无异重蹈了19世纪英国殖民军在阿富汗的覆辙。1842年1月6日,喀布尔爆发反抗英国殖民统治的武装起义。城内4500名英国守军无力镇压起义,只好携带1200文职人员和家属逃离城市,往90英里外的贾拉拉巴的方向撤离。

  结果是,一行人到达库尔德山地隘口时,遭到四面八方的突然袭击,英军四处逃窜,家属饥寒交迫,最后1万5000人只有一名医师幸存下来。阿富汗人给他留一条活路,只是为了让他回去报告这场血腥大屠杀的经历。

  马克思在《印度史编年稿》中记下了这个事件:“1842年1月13日,贾拉拉巴德城墙上的哨兵眺望到一个穿英国军服的人,褴褛不堪,骑在一匹马背上。这个人就是布莱顿医生。他是从喀布尔逃出来的1万5000英国人当中的唯一幸存者。他因饥饿而濒临死亡”。

反抗强权的沉睡山国

  自古以来,阿富汗是一个几乎与世隔绝的山国。崇山峻岭覆盖全国,土地贫瘠,气候恶劣。公元600多年前中国高僧玄奘,就经过当时称为吐火罗古国的兴都山脉地区。

  阿富汗3000多个部族向来各自为政,部落首领与宗教长老掌握实权,中央政府软弱无力。占多数人口的普什图人是一个跨国民族,散居在阿富汗与巴基斯坦两国边境地区。

  由于闭关锁国,经济落后,文化闭塞,这个山国似乎还沉眠在18、19世纪的睡梦中,离现代世界相差十万八千里。整个国家和人民主要依靠种植罂粟花为生。什么全球化、信息化、现代化,跟他们全然无关。

  但是阿富汗人历来民风强悍,威武不屈,具有反抗外来强权的传统。由以上这些地理环境、历史、文化与宗教因素所形成的特点,就成为塔利班兴起的有利温床。

  现在塔利班的暴力活动已经达到2001年它垮台以来的最大程度。联合国发出警告,阿富汗的形势今年可能更形恶化。

  几年前笔者曾为文指出,奥萨马·本拉登就隐藏在阿富汗与巴基斯坦边境的部落中间。他和两边部落的首领关系很深,美国出价2500万美金悬赏捉拿他根本不起作用。不管美国增加多少兵力,拥有多么先进的情报搜索手段,也难以从数不尽的高山深穴中把他挖出来。

  阿富汗的条件与伊拉克不同。伊拉克不是山国,拥有广阔的平地空间,方便的交通,可以使美国现代化的军事力量有用武之地。阿富汗每平方公里只有30个人,大部分人口居住在兴都库什山谷地区。首都喀布尔的年平均温度是摄氏零下3度。

  阿富汗人具有强烈的民族主义情绪。无论普通老百姓,穆斯林教长,部落首领以至塔利班叛乱分子,他们的共同特点是要做自己国家和本乡本土的主人,不容外来强国占领和操纵这个国家。

  奥巴马在宣布增兵阿富汗的同时,还宣称要将来执行一项新的“从阿富汗脱身”计划。但从以上各种情况来看,阿富汗的战争显然比伊拉克更难打。

  移师阿富汗的美军,将来究竟能在打胜后从阿富汗脱身,还是会不幸地葬身在这个遥远的山国,只能有待于命运之神来决定了。 
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Singapore: Trump’s America Brings More Chaos, but Not Necessarily More Danger

Singapore: No Ukraine Cease-fire – Putin Has Called Trump’s Bluff

Singapore: Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy Meltdown – for Friends and Foes

Singapore: In Trump and Musk’s America, Echoes of China’s Past Emerge

  1. It’s interesting they are finally bringing in Soviets to help train them. Of course, now that the war has lasted almost as long as the Soviets war, you’d think the US would have better sources of training than ex-Soviet soldiers.

    Maybe it’d be better to bring in the Taliban people who are still friendly to the US to train the soldiers. Learn the culture before being thrown in there. And for those who don’t know better, a person being Taliban does not make him an enemy.

  2. afghan will be obama’s vietnam.

    he is going down the same road as LBJ during vietnam. few americans understand this.

    he listens to his generals and they will lead him down a lonely road. ie like lbj.

    most americans did not even know who the viet cong were.

    they afghans will bleed us slow and our treasure fast.

    we are already bankrupt as china knows this but continues to loan us money while we spend it on wars and prove to them and their people that capitalism does not work.

    we are an imperialistic country now we pay for the price for our imperialism.

    few americans will understand my words but china knows them well as we lose our middle class and our republic.