China's strategy in Afghanistan.
- Thread starter ohan_qwe
- Start date
This foreword by Theodore C. Mataxis Brigadier General (Retired) perfectly describes/captures the American saga in Afghanistan. Despite possessing exceptional military leaders and an almost peerless military the American hubris and refusing to learn from history is what brought them to this current juncture. This was written for a book titled "The Soviet-Afghan War How a Superpower Fought and Lost The Russian General Staff Translated and edited by Lester W. Grau and Michael A. Cress"
As we enter the next millennium, our society is trying to adapt to the impact of an unprecedented and turbulent technological and social revolution. The impact of this revolution is similar to that of the Industrial Revolution on the agricultural society of eighteenth-century Europe and America. The Information Age, with its rapidly expanding technology, has already positioned its guideposts marking our future. Westerners, particularly Americans, love technology. Computers, VCRs, cellular phones, and CD players are commonplace in our homes. Our armed forces reflect this love of technology. We equip our forces with sophisticated equipment and, during times of tight budgets, expect technology to replace expensive manpower. Our view of future conflict is skewed by computer games, popular entertainment, defense contractor pronouncements, and an abiding belief in the omniscience of science. It is prudent for the armed services to incorporate or nullify new technologies as they appear, yet every future war will not be a high-tech war. The military must also prepare for manpower-intensive low-tech wars that may also threaten national interests.
A country or faction within a country can effectively fight a technologically superior state or coalition using guerrilla war. Guerrilla warfare is a test of national will and endurance in which technological advantages are often degraded or negated. In order for a guerrilla war to succeed, a portion of the local populace must support or acquiesce to the presence of indigenous guerril-las in their midst. There must be a willingness to accept considerable casual-ties-combatant and noncombatant. Guerrillas must have a safe haven and a source of supplies. What guerrillas do not need is military victory. Guerrillas need to survive and endure over the years or decades of the conflict. The guer-rillas remained when the French left Algeria and Indochina, the United States left South Vietnam, and the Soviets left Afghanistan. The side with the greater moral commitment, be it patriotic, religious, or ideological, eventually won because of higher morale, greater obstinacy, stronger national will, and the determination to survive.
Guerrilla war does not fit into the popular image of high-tech future war, but it may well be the future war that a high-tech country finds itself fighting. The Soviet Army, a modern, mechanized high-tech force, fought a guerrilla war for over nine years in Afghanistan. Despite their best efforts, the application of over-whelming air power, and the expenditure of national treasure and young lives, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the field to the defiant Muja-hideen guerrilla.
A wise army prepares for future war by examining the lessons of the past.
This does not mean that armies should prepare to fight as the last war was fought. Rather, they should draw lessons from the past that will guide the future.
The Taliban spokesperson here showed exactly why it's winning and why they're able to beat an Army that's well funded, supported by major powers politically and economically because of CORRUPTION AND CURRENT AFGHANISTAN LEADERS INDIFFERENCE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF HER PEOPLES SUFFERING.
As we enter the next millennium, our society is trying to adapt to the impact of an unprecedented and turbulent technological and social revolution. The impact of this revolution is similar to that of the Industrial Revolution on the agricultural society of eighteenth-century Europe and America. The Information Age, with its rapidly expanding technology, has already positioned its guideposts marking our future. Westerners, particularly Americans, love technology. Computers, VCRs, cellular phones, and CD players are commonplace in our homes. Our armed forces reflect this love of technology. We equip our forces with sophisticated equipment and, during times of tight budgets, expect technology to replace expensive manpower. Our view of future conflict is skewed by computer games, popular entertainment, defense contractor pronouncements, and an abiding belief in the omniscience of science. It is prudent for the armed services to incorporate or nullify new technologies as they appear, yet every future war will not be a high-tech war. The military must also prepare for manpower-intensive low-tech wars that may also threaten national interests.
A country or faction within a country can effectively fight a technologically superior state or coalition using guerrilla war. Guerrilla warfare is a test of national will and endurance in which technological advantages are often degraded or negated. In order for a guerrilla war to succeed, a portion of the local populace must support or acquiesce to the presence of indigenous guerril-las in their midst. There must be a willingness to accept considerable casual-ties-combatant and noncombatant. Guerrillas must have a safe haven and a source of supplies. What guerrillas do not need is military victory. Guerrillas need to survive and endure over the years or decades of the conflict. The guer-rillas remained when the French left Algeria and Indochina, the United States left South Vietnam, and the Soviets left Afghanistan. The side with the greater moral commitment, be it patriotic, religious, or ideological, eventually won because of higher morale, greater obstinacy, stronger national will, and the determination to survive.
Guerrilla war does not fit into the popular image of high-tech future war, but it may well be the future war that a high-tech country finds itself fighting. The Soviet Army, a modern, mechanized high-tech force, fought a guerrilla war for over nine years in Afghanistan. Despite their best efforts, the application of over-whelming air power, and the expenditure of national treasure and young lives, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the field to the defiant Muja-hideen guerrilla.
A wise army prepares for future war by examining the lessons of the past.
This does not mean that armies should prepare to fight as the last war was fought. Rather, they should draw lessons from the past that will guide the future.
The Taliban spokesperson here showed exactly why it's winning and why they're able to beat an Army that's well funded, supported by major powers politically and economically because of CORRUPTION AND CURRENT AFGHANISTAN LEADERS INDIFFERENCE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF HER PEOPLES SUFFERING.
One of the biggest lies being told about the Taliban is reports of "heavy fighting". Its a big lie.
Nowadays in with social media you get videos of action being posted daily. With the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, Armenia there a massive amount of videos being posted daily on twitter and other website.
There has been very little coming out of Afghanistan. All videos seem to show Taliban fighters strolling into town on motorbikes, 4x4s or even coaches. That's not something even a disorganised militia would do in a real kinetic situation.
I suspect what's really happening is the Taliban have made deals with local commanders and strolled in the next day or so to capture equipment, take over prisons and government buildings. It all looks like a show for the cameras.
After this and the Iraq debacle, shows how overrated western militaries and western military training are.
In the cold war China and the USSR trained militaries into competent forces that were more than a match for American soldiers on the battlefield. Anything trained by the US military seems likely to fall to a strong wind.
Nowadays in with social media you get videos of action being posted daily. With the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, Armenia there a massive amount of videos being posted daily on twitter and other website.
There has been very little coming out of Afghanistan. All videos seem to show Taliban fighters strolling into town on motorbikes, 4x4s or even coaches. That's not something even a disorganised militia would do in a real kinetic situation.
I suspect what's really happening is the Taliban have made deals with local commanders and strolled in the next day or so to capture equipment, take over prisons and government buildings. It all looks like a show for the cameras.
After this and the Iraq debacle, shows how overrated western militaries and western military training are.
In the cold war China and the USSR trained militaries into competent forces that were more than a match for American soldiers on the battlefield. Anything trained by the US military seems likely to fall to a strong wind.
I feel that it is important to remember that the developments in afghanistan are not that surprising as compared to other incidents in history. This whole situation is really quite similar to the collapse of the KMT in China from 1947-1949, which is many times larger than Afghanistan, yet it was only 13 months between the fall of Changchun and the fall of Guangxi. Just like the Kabul Government today, the Nanjing government was divided into political cliques and associated private warlord armies that had no common vision, and every sector of China was indirectly controlled by US "advisors" and "trainers". Both received massive amounts of US equipment and training, but soldiers were completely demoralised serving in poor conditions and under foreign direction. The whole war effort was artificially propped up with US aid. The Taliban is a smaller, more united, more disciplined force with a clear vision of the the future of their country, just like the PLA was back then, so they could continue fighting longer and harder than their opponents. Once the US withdrew their troops, the puppet troops knew that victory was too difficult against the far more persistent enemy so they surrendered.
you know what i would do if i were the taliban? gather up a few dozens of those captured hummers and drive them straight to kabul pretending to be a retreating force from elsewhere. given the chaos now it is impossible to verify anyways, and there must be people in the taliban who are somewhat familiar with the government forces' order of battle. once in the city these forces only has to wait for a signal to cause mayhem.
MwRYum
Major
Actually, most Chinese saw the redux of Vietnam 1976 in Afghanistan 2021...
Please don't compare the PLA, an organization with progressive, science based ideology that wanted radical reform to a system that was not working, to an organization that wants to go back to medieval era beliefs.
If ideology is different than everything is different just like a soldier fighting to defend their homeland is very different than a soldier that's part of a Nazi purging squad.
the point of comparison is on the importance of morale. the actual content of the ideology is a different issue altogether. and the Taliban are not invaders in Afghanistan anyway, but the ridiculous American-enforced corrupt mess in Afghanistan were the invaders. also, it is silly to start interfering in the way other countries run themselves, "medieval" or not.
antiterror13
Brigadier
1975