I have doubts about whether support for the idea of continued engagement with the region post Sovites was/is 'widespread', but that a school of thought subscribing to that POV exists there is no question.
Hm, yeah. But actually that is not what I said, I was referring to a point of view held by historians, commentators and analysts. It is one of the many popular historical perspectives relating to the causes and effects of the Cold War, perhaps the most neutral PoV that suggests that the US and USSR both used conflicts in the world for their own short-term ends and essentially left the world a worse place. The reference to the post-war Afghanistan situation is part of it but nowadays that particular situation is being bought up frequency by all sorts of people to bring the current war in Afghanistan and the difficulties at rebuilding it into prospective. So I never suggested that this essentially
historical narrative is part of the worldwide leadership’s political manifesto or something. That was all S-2s talented misdirection attempt sir.
Those 10,000 nukes were made to be used when required. And rest assured they would use them without batting an eyelid instead of losing so many soldiers.
They obviously didn’t think the loses they sustained in Afghanistan were worth nuking a sovereign country allied with the US. Otherwise they would have done it, their bombs and jets did reach Pakistani territories…but nukes? Why would they think their own political, social, moral, diplomatic and eventually military/economic destruction is worth the destruction of Pakistan? Bottom-line is they didn’t use it, that proves the above statement is wrong. Everything else about this is useless, inconsequential and a hypothetical waste.
It was not used for one reason. Deterrence!
And the USSR armies did not roll through Europe because of the same reason, the USA threat of the use of nukes if that ever happened.
Actually this was not true before the deployment of Pershing 2 and Tomahawk cruise missiles in Western Europe (which was in the 80s), these missiles were considered the first serious threat to the Soviet doctrine of bulldozing through Europe in 15 days (the time it would take for western reinforcements to arrive through the Atlantic) which is what explained the violent Soviet objections.
But that’s beside the point, the point is that the US didn’t nuke North Vietnam and Korea, and the USSR didn’t nuke Hungry or Czechoslovakia or China who we fellow communists countries! (so you can’t even try and argue that the US would have nuked the Russians if they nuked some 3rd world ally). There are more considerations and consequences of nuking someone than just the fear of being nuked back, otherwise every nuclear power would have been nuking everyone else without nukes. So I don’t even know how you are trying to suggest that just because Pakistan wasn’t nuked means it was somehow irrelevant or anything less than critical in the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan.
AFAIK, the Russian army never lost any major battle. It was a battle of attrition with the Afghan militias. So I don't see your point.
You’re objection is pretty pointless. What would be your definition of ‘lost’ and ‘battle’ in this case? There were plenty of confrontations were Soviet formations were soundly beaten by the Mujahideen before reinforcements arrived (and Mujahideen withdrew to their original bases). There were plenty of Soviet operations that failed to achieve their goal i.e. pacification of a Mujahideen strong holds despite repeated attempts (take the ridiculous amount of times the Soviets tried to capture Panshir Valley for instance, and eventually forgot about it). And even further there were territories in Afghanistan that the Soviets were never able to contest except from the air (do read the book I was referred to).
Was there ever a conventional battle of any significant size between the Red army and Pakistani army?
Lack of conventional fighting in no way has any bearing on the fact that the Soviets lost primarily due to the efforts of Pakistan and its armed forces.
The modern day wars are about the resources that can be brought to bear by the respective sides. It has been like that since the WW-1.
There is OBVIOUSLY more to it, I’m not even going to try to argue with you on that. From the Battle of Thermopylae to the 6 Day War and further, history proves you are wrong. American aid to us was hardly a match to what the Soviets spent on their presence in Afghanistan, still they lost.
You may read the three POVs (Pakistani, USA and Afghanistani) that I have seen being bandied about. I mentioned them in the reply to AM. You naturally mention the Pakistani POV.
I don’t contest the fact that everyone has their own view, but you are obviously trying your best to ridicule the Pakistani prospective as can be seen by your first comment that started this little discussion.
That is not how the Afghans see it. I have seen their writings complaining bitterly about Pakistan robbing them of their due. The supplies did come for Afghanistan and not for Pakistan. You played liaison there and perhaps not a very honest one.
They were ours to give to which ever groups we liked, we were obviously more than just liaison.
I have no idea what you are referring to by ‘writings’ unless you came across the dairy of an Afghan Mujahideen field commander who thinks the Pakistanis are preferring his rival band (most probably because he was incompetent). In that case, please do share…
Why would it be otherwise as per your narrative? You were the driver of the gravy train, you got to handle the aftermath! It was your war after all, to protect yourselves from getting gobbled up by the USSR.
So any help you got was a bonus, no?
These is no doubt that the victory achieved by Pakistanis and the Afghans against the Soviets did serve America’s interest. And also there is also no doubt about the fact that Afghanistan as well as Pakistan suffered greatly doing what was obviously good for American interests (millions of refuges, mujahideen weapons filtering back across the border, being sold in our local markets, etc). It was logical, given that fact that the Americans appreciated our efforts and suffering during the war so much, for them not forget everything as soon as peace with the USSR became a priority. Think of it as a humanitarian compulsion if not a social and political commitment that they failed to honor. If the values America claims to represent were true, then this ‘bonus’ would not have been considered a bonus at all and rebuilding could have taken place (if it could happen with the Germans and the Japanese who fought America and got a ‘bonus’ then why for not the Afghans who fought America’s enemies?).
I don't think India supported any of the Afghan militias till 1991. We are discussing the period of the war and its immediate aftermath not the period after that. That would be a separate discussion.
That’s an interesting evasion, but unfortunately the point is that you aided/assisted those people despite knowing exactly what they were and what they did, even if it was after the Soviets left. So you can hardly accuse us of being self-serving or destructive as far as our associations with people like Hekmatyar are concerned.
I’m sorry for being part of what hijacked the thread everyone, I will say no more about it unless furthered engaged.
