Soviet war in Afghanistan

[Joe McCarthy]

Any opinions on this war?


The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year proxy war during the Cold war involving the Soviet Union, supporting the Marxist-Leninist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan against the Afghan Mujahideen guerrilla movement and foreign "Arab–Afghan" volunteers. The mujahideen received unofficial military and/or financial support from a variety of countries including the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and China. The Afghan government, with the Soviet Union as its ally, received different aid from the government of India under Indira Gandhi.

The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979 under Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev. The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989 under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has sometimes been referred to as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" or "the Bear Trap".


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Evstafiev-40th_army_HQ-Amin-palace-Kabul.jpg/250px-Evstafiev-40th_army_HQ-Amin-palace-Kabul.jpg


The headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army in Kabul, 1987. Before the Soviet intervention, the building was Tajbeg Palace, where Hafizullah Amin was killed.

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/SovietafghanwarTanksHelicopters.jpg/200px-SovietafghanwarTanksHelicopters.jpg


Soviet ground forces in action while conducting an offensive operation against the Islamist resistance, the Mujahideen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Evstafiev-spetsnaz-prepare-for-mission.jpg/380px-Evstafiev-spetsnaz-prepare-for-mission.jpg


A Soviet Spetsnaz (special operations) group prepares for a mission in Afghanistan, 1988.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WFe1vG7AiBc/TE-JMrp8PsI/AAAAAAAADII/Z_AVzb95PKg/s400/776px-August_1985_Muja.jpg


Three mujahideen in Asmar, 1985.

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/BMD-1_in_Afganistan.JPG/250px-BMD-1_in_Afganistan.JPG


Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 in Kabul

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Ismail_Khan2.JPG/250px-Ismail_Khan2.JPG


Mujahideen leader Ismail Khan walks among his fighters.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5076202475_7348fe6b9d.jpg


Afghanistan War Memorial, Kiev, Ukraine

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/AfghanAirForce1.jpg/250px-AfghanAirForce1.jpg


Afghans commemorating Mujahideen Victory Day.

[Mosov]

Soviets carpet bombed Afghanistan during their invasion without much regard. They didn't care what the civilians thought about them, hence, they lost the war.

[Joe McCarthy]

Soviets carpet bombed Afghanistan during their invasion without much regard. They didn't care what the civilians thought about them, hence, they lost the war.

It's interesting that the media does not focus more on this war given the nature of the atrocities and bloodshed:


One 1986 report on Afghanistan read: "In three small villages near Qandahar, last year, the Soviets killed close to 350 women and children in retailiation for a Mujahidin attack in the vicinity. After slitting the throats of the children, disemboweling pregnant women, raping, shooting and mutilating others, the Russians poured a substance on the bodies which caused instant decomposition."


About a million Afghans, 1/16 of the country's population, died in the conflict. Yet we don't hear much about a 'Soviet Holocaust' or whatever.

[Mosov]

It's interesting that the media does not focus more on this war given the nature of the atrocities and bloodshed:



About a million Afghans, 1/16 of the country's population, died in the conflict. Yet we don't hear much about a 'Soviet Holocaust' or whatever.

Well I don't think it was a "Holocaust" but just disregard for civilians during the war campaigns. If everything was done more professionally, Soviets may have won the war. It should be a lesson to the current NATO forces in Afghanistan.

[Joe McCarthy]

Well I don't think it was a "Holocaust" but just disregard for civilians during the war campaigns. If everything was done more professionally, Soviets may have won the war. It should be a lesson to the current NATO forces in Afghanistan.

It was certainly a genocide of sorts at the very least.

And I dare say the NATO occupation has been conducted more professionally, even if only in the sense that we haven't just wantonly massacred people.

[Mosov]

It was certainly a genocide of sorts at the very least.

And I dare say the NATO occupation has been conducted more professionally, even if only in the sense that we haven't just wantonly massacred people.

No a genocide signifies a governmental intention to exterminate a certain race. Soviets had no such intention, they just wanted to bring Afghanistan under their control.

NATO occupation has been more professional thus the results have been better for NATO than was for Soviets.

[Joe McCarthy]

No a genocide signifies a governmental intention to exterminate a certain race.

Bit of an ironic opinion given the wailing over the 'Armenian Genocide', no? Or are you now going to claim the Young Turks were trying to exterminate a certain race?

[Mosov]

Bit of an ironic opinion given the wailing over the 'Armenian Genocide', no? Or are you now going to claim the Young Turks were trying to exterminate a certain race?

No it's not an ironic opinion. Turkish Government along with military elements were intent on eliminating Armenians in Ottoman Empire. They were partially successful at it as no Armenians are left in the western portion of our ancestral land where we have lived for ages. What happened in Afghanistan was war crimes against humanity, but it was not genocide as they had to intention of cleansing/eliminating the Afghan people.

[Joe McCarthy]

No it's not an ironic opinion. Turkish Government along with military elements were intent on eliminating Armenians in Ottoman Empire. They were partially successful at it as no Armenians are left in the western portion of our ancestral land where we have lived for ages. What happened in Afghanistan was war crimes against humanity, but it was not genocide as they had to intention of cleansing/eliminating the Afghan people.

What evidence is there of a deliberate, preconceived decision by the Turkish government to annihilate the Armenians as a group? That is the standard, pedantic definition of 'genocide' if we're to get strictly technical.

[Mosov]

What evidence is there of a deliberate, preconceived decision by the Turkish government to annihilate the Armenians as a group? That is the standard, pedantic definition of 'genocide' if we're to get strictly technical.

There's a lot of evidence of correspondence between government officials and Western diplomats, which clearly spell out what was being done. For example, the US ambassador's interactions with Talat Pasha - made clear of his intentions towards the Armenians. You also have an organised effort by military elements in cleansing and eliminating Armenians. The Genocide label is also accepted by much of academia and people specialising in studies of Genocide.

http://www.voelkermord.at/docs/Scholars_Denying_IAGS.pdf

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.244/current_category.5/affirmation_detail.html

[Gaztelu]

The Soviet War in Afghanistan and the current conflict involving NATO (along with failed attempts from the British, Greeks, and Mongols to conquer that land) have proved that Afghanistan is the graveyard of armies.

[Joe McCarthy]

There's a lot of evidence of correspondence between government officials and Western diplomats, which clearly spell out what was being done. For example, the US ambassador's interactions with Talat Pasha - made clear of his intentions towards the Armenians. You also have an organised effort by military elements in cleansing and eliminating Armenians. The Genocide label is also accepted by much of academia and people specialising in studies of Genocide.

http://www.voelkermord.at/docs/Scholars_Denying_IAGS.pdf

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.244/current_category.5/affirmation_detail.html

Well, there is a good bit of academic disagreement here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#cite_note-BBC_News-23


While some consider denial to be a form of hate speech or politically minded historical revisionism, several western academics have expressed doubts as to the genocidal character of the events.[121][122][123] The most important counterpoint may be that of British scholar Bernard Lewis. While he had once written of "the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished",[124] he later came to believe that the term "genocide" was distinctly inaccurate, because the "tremendous massacres"[125] were not "a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government."[126] This opinion has been joined by Guenter Lewy

In any case, we have had several people, particularly in the carnage that went on in the Balkans during the 90s, that have been tried for genocide without it being thought that they had a preconceived plan to murder a whole people as a group. Even the Srebrenica massacre only holds that the Bosnian Serbs attempted to target the Bosniaks of the city as a group, not the totality of the Bosniaks. I think your technical usage of genocide is thus unwarranted even in terms used by international tribunals.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Soviet War in Afghanistan and the current conflict involving NATO (along with failed attempts from the British, Greeks, and Mongols to conquer that land) have proved that Afghanistan is the graveyard of armies.

Not really. The British basically achieved their objectives in the Second-Anglo Afghan War even if it didn't end as well as they would have liked. The real disaster was the first war.

[Mosov]

Well, there is a good bit of academic disagreement here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#cite_note-BBC_News-23

No there isn't a good bit of academic disagreement. If you actually read the links I posted, most of the academicians that are "disagreeing" with the Genocide have deep connections with the Turkish Government. For example, the leading historian to deny the Genocide has been funded by Turkey, even given award by Turkish Government. On the other hand, you have specific Genocide scholars affirming the legitimacy of the Armenian Genocide. I'm sure there also some fringe historians that deny the Holocaust. If you want to believe those fringe historians and ignore academia, the affirmation of respectable genocide scholars, be my guest.


The fact of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman government has been documented, recognized, and affirmed in the form of media and eyewitness reports, laws, resolutions, and statements by many historians, states and international organizations. The complete catalogue of all documents categorizing the 1915 wholesale massacre of the Armenian population in Ottoman Empire as a premeditated and thoroughly executed act of genocide, is extensive.



• 126 HOLOCAUST SCHOLARS
affirm the incontestable fact of the armenian genocide and urge western democrates to officially recognize it.
(Source) (View New York Times article)

• 150 DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS & WRITERS
commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and condemn the Turkish government’s denial of this crime against humanity.
(Source)

• TURKISH HISTORIANS RECOGNIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE:
Halil Berktay • Taner Akçam • Murat Belge • Ahmet Insel • Bulent Peker • Salim Deringil • Ercin Kursat Ahler • Ali Ertem • Murat Peker • Fatma Muge Gocek • Engin Akarli • Koray Caliskan • Dilek Kurban • Yunus Tuncel

• OVER 30.000 TURKS APOLOGIZE:
My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize to them.
(Source)



Brief list of those states which have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide:

• Town council of Cerchiara di Calabria, Italy - 2011
• Brazil, Campinas (Sao Paolo), Resolution - December 16, 2011
• Sweden_Parliament_Resolution - March 11, 2010
• U.S._House Committee_Resolution - March 4, 2010
• U.S._House Committee_Resolution - October 10, 2007
• Chile, Senate, Resolution - Jule 07, 2007
• Argentina, Law, January 11, 2007
• Argentina, Senate, Special Statement - April 19, 2006
• Lithuania, Assembly, Resolution - December 15, 2005
• European Parliament, Resolution - September 28, 2005
• Venezuela, National Assembly, Resolution - July 14, 2005
• Germany, Parliament, Resolution - June 15, 2005
• Argentina, Senate, Resolution - April 20, 2005
• Poland, Parliament, Resolution - April 19, 2005
• Netherlands, Parliament, Resolution - December 21, 2004
• Slovakia, National Assembly, Resolution - November 30, 2004
• Canada, House of Commons, Resolution - April 21, 2004
• Argentina, Senate, Declaration - March 31, 2004
• Uruguay, Law - March 26, 2004
• Argentina, Draft Law - March 18, 2004
• Switzerland (Helvetic Confederation), National Council, Resolution - December 16, 2003
• Argentina, Senate, Resolution - August 20, 2003
• Canada, Senate, Resolution - June 13, 2002
• European, Parliament, Resolution - February 28, 2002
• Common Declaration of His Holiness John Paul II and His Holiness Karekin
II at Holy Etchmiadzin, Republic of Armenia - September 27, 2001
• Prayer of John Paul II, Memorial of Tzitzernagaberd - September 26, 2001
• France, Law - January 29, 2001
• Italy, Chamber of Deputies, Resolution - November 16, 2000
• European Parliament, Resolution - November 15, 2000
• France, Senate, Draft Law - November 7, 2000
• Lebanon, Parliament, Resolution - May 11, 2000
• Sweden, Parliament, Report - March 29, 2000
• France, National Assembly, Draft Law - May 28, 1998
• Belgium, Senate, Resolution - March 26, 1998
• Lebanon, Chamber of Deputies, Resolution - April 3, 1997
• U.S., House of Representatives, Resolution 3540 - June 11, 1996
• Greece (Hellenic Republic), Parliament, Resolution - April 25, 1996
• Canada, House of Commons, Resolution - April 23, 1996
• Russia, Duma, Resolution - April 14, 1995
• Argentina, Senate, Resolution - May 5, 1993
• European Parliament, Resolution - June 18, 1987
• U.S., House of Representatives, Joint Resolution 247 - September 12, 1984
• Cyprus, House of Representatives, Resolution - April 29, 1982
• U.S., House of Representatives, Joint Resolution 148 - April 9, 1975
• Uruguay, Senate and House of Representatives,Resolution - April 20, 1965
• U.S., Senate, Resolution 359 - May 11, 1920
• U.S., Congress, An Act to Incorporate Near East Relief - August 6, 1919
• U.S., Senate, Concurrent Resolution 12 - February 9, 1916
• France, Great Britain, and Russia, Joint Declaration - May 24, 1915
(Read and download the original resolutions)



Brief list of those organizations which have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide:

• Mercosur Parliament, Resolution - November, 2007
• Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - August, 2007
• The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity - April 9, 2007
• Human Rights Association of Turkey, Istanbul Branch - April 24, 2006
• International Center for Transitional Justice Report Prepared for TARC - February 10, 2003
• European Alliance of YMCAs - July 20, 2002
• Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Declaration - April 24, 2001
• Le Ligue des Droits de l’Homme - May 16, 1998
• Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Declaration - April 24, 1998
• The Association of Genocide Scholars - June 13, 1997
• Parlamenta Kurdistane Li Derveyi Welat - April 24, 1996
• Union of American Hebrew Congregations - November 7, 1989
• Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Verdict of the Tribunal - April 16, 1984
• World Council of Churches - August 10, 1983
• UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities - July 2, 1985
• UN War Crimes Commission Report - May 28, 1948
• UN General Assembly Resolution - December 9, 1948
(Read and download the original resolutions)



The official transcript of the verdict of the court martial conducted by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1919 against the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. It was first published in the Official Gazette (Takvim-i-Vekayi), No. 3604.

“Prime Minister Talat Pasha and Minister of War Enver Effendi, now expelled from his military career; Djemal Effendi, Minister of the Navy, likewise expelled from the service; Dr. Nazim, Minister of Education-these were the principal criminals (fayili asli) and their guilt has been determined by a unanimous vote.
In accordance therefore with the abovementioned paragraphs in the law code, Talat, Enver, Djemal and Dr. Nazim are sentenced to death.”
July 5, 1919 (1335); Military Court: NAZIM; Head of the Secretariat empowered to Record the Minutes of this Military Tribunal: Abidin Daver; Official organ: No. 3604.
Published in the Official Gazette of Turkey (Takvimi Vekayi), no. 3604 (supplement), July 22, 1919


In any case, we have had several people, particularly in the carnage that went on in the Balkans during the 90s, that have been tried for genocide without it being thought that they had a preconceived plan to murder a whole people as a group. Even the Srebrenica massacre only holds that the Bosnian Serbs attempted to target the Bosniaks of the city as a group, not the totality of the Bosniaks. I think your technical usage of genocide is thus unwarranted even in terms used by international tribunals.

Actually:

However, in line with a majority of legal scholars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that, in order for actions to be deemed genocide, there must be physical or biological destruction of a protected group and a specific intent to commit such destruction. To date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.[8]

[Joe McCarthy]

No there isn't a good bit of academic disagreement. If you actually read the links I posted, most of the academicians that are "disagreeing" with the Genocide have deep connections with the Turkish Government. For example, the leading historian to deny the Genocide has been funded by Turkey, even given award by Turkish Government. On the other hand, you have specific Genocide scholars affirming the legitimacy of the Armenian Genocide. I'm sure there also some fringe historians that deny the Holocaust. If you want to believe those fringe historians and ignore academia, the affirmation of respectable genocide scholars, be my guest.


People like Bernard Lewis are not 'fringe historians'. It's moronic to suggest they are.

Anyway, I'm going to try and get this thread back on track, assuming anyone cares to discuss the Soviet war in Afghanistan rather than the Armenian... whatever it was.

[Mosov]

People like Bernard Lewis are not 'fringe historians'. It's moronic to suggest they are.

Anyway, I'm going to try and get this thread back on track, assuming anyone cares to discuss the Soviet war in Afghanistan rather than the Armenian... whatever it was.

You are the one that brought up the Armenian Genocide in this thread. As I said most historians that argue against the Genocide are supported by Turkish Government in one way or another, either financially or other means. That being said, they are a very small minority just like Holocaust deniers, the wide consensus in Academia is that the Genocide occurred, and the fact that you are ignoring the consensus of a wide range of genocide scholars, legal experts, and so forth that I have posted here is pretty baffling. Not to mention the overwhelming evidence from various archives that exist.

I guess you reject the resolutions brought forth by organisations such as International Genocide Scholars and the International Centre for Transitional Justice...hilarious...

[Joe McCarthy]

Here, incidentally, is the Wiki info on Princeton historian and authority on the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis - the guy our Armenian friend just compared to 'Holocaust deniers':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis


Bernard Lewis, FBA (born May 31, 1916) is a British-American historian, scholar in Oriental studies, and political commentator. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West, and is especially famous in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.

And yes, there were genocide cases brought beyond Srebrenica:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/karadzic/trial/indicted.html


Milan Kovacevic- a Bosnian Serb doctor, who was charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in helping to set up and orchestrate three prison camps in the Prijedor region, where detainees were raped, tortured, and killed. Kovacevic was arrested in July 1997 and pled not guilty when his trial began in July 1998. He died in custody on August 1, 1998 of a ruptured aorta.

[AR89]

My questions about this conflict are: why did the soviet lose? How relevant was the effort of the U.S.A. in the result of the war? The current situation in Afg. is a result of this war? (Without this war, there would be today talibans?)

I don't know very much about this war, I would like to read some opinions.

[Mosov]

Here, incidentally, is the Wiki info on Princeton historian and authority on the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis - the guy our Armenian friend just compared to 'Holocaust deniers':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis


Again, his views are fringe and reflect a tiny minority view supported by Turkish state. For you to take this one man's view and hold it against all of academia and all of the scholars and historians that have affirmed Armenian Genocide is absurd and rather insulting.


Lewis' views on Armenian Genocide were largely criticized by well-known historians and genocide scolars including Alain Finkelkraut, Yves Ternon, Richard G. Hovannisian, Albert Memmi, Pierre Vidal-Haquet[1][1], he was considered as a "notorious genocide-denier".[1][1][1][1][1] According to historian Yair Auron, "Lewis’ stature provided a lofty cover for the Turkish national agenda of obfuscating academic research on the Armenian Genocide".[1]

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg526/scaled.php?server=526&filename=capturebyy.png&res=medium


And yes, there were genocide cases brought beyond Srebrenica:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/karadzic/trial/indicted.html


What's your point? Legal scholars have only labelled Sebrenica as deserving the Genocide label.

It's funny how some people here think they are more informed and authoritative opinions than legal scholars that have established careers in these issues.

[Joe McCarthy]

The current situation in Afg. is a result of this war? (Without this war, there would be today talibans?)


Well, we need to recognize that Afghanistan was sufficiently secular that a Marxist-Leninist regime was able to come to power. The long term effects of the Soviet attack were to radicalize the country, cause refugees to flee to Pakistan (many of which studied in madrassas and became the nucleus of the Taliban), and later lead to the confusion and factionalization of ex-muj warlords that allowed for the rise to power of the Taliban and their sheltering of the international Islamist terror group al Qaeda.

So yes, we can blame the Communists for the current Afghan clusterfuck.

[Geminus]

So yes, we can blame the Communists for the current Afghan clusterfuck.

Not to forget the Americans who armed their good friends, the Taliban, against the evil communists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1357632/Taliban-still-have-Reagans-Stingers.html

[Joe McCarthy]

Not to forget the Americans who armed their good friends, the Taliban, against the evil communists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1357632/Taliban-still-have-Reagans-Stingers.html

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

[Gaztelu]

People seem to be confusing the Taliban with the Afghan Mujahideen.

[RagnarLodbrok666]

People seem to be confusing the Taliban with the Afghan Mujahideen.

Branch of supporting militants just supporting mujahideen that went rogue and founded its own regime?

[Joe McCarthy]

Branch of supporting militants just supporting mujahideen that went rogue and founded its own regime?

The Taliban was not founded until 1994. Many of them were of course student refugees studying Islam in madrassas in Pakistan during the war. In general the muj were involved later with the US-backed Northern Alliance that overthrew the Taliban, though there were exceptions.

[Sarmatian]

To fully understand the purpose of the Soviet-Afghan war one have to take into consideration location of Afghanistan and political situation in it just before war started.
Lets say you want to plan an offensive against USSR. Its huge territory and positioning of its nuclear missiles pose a serious problem. To minimize your losses you have to shut USSR's strategic forces as quick as possible and for that you have to be able to reach far deep into Siberia.
From that perspective Afghanistan is the best foothold. Its placed approximately in the middle of USSR's south border. So it was quite reasonable for Soviet government to be concerned about Afghanistan falling under NATO's influence. To eliminate the dangers Soviets had to destabilize the region to the point where no powers could use it for whatever purpose.

Overall the main objective of the war was successfully completed with a few downfalls. However the downfalls lead to modernization of military equipment and reorganization of the army with appearance of various units of special purpose (Alpha-group, Specnaz etc).

[morski]

Well I don't think it was a "Holocaust" but just disregard for civilians during the war campaigns. If everything was done more professionally, Soviets may have won the war. It should be a lesson to the current NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Soviets had conscript army just like the Americans in Vietnam.

[Joe McCarthy]

Overall the main objective of the war was successfully completed with a few downfalls

Successfully completed? LOL. The Soviets were forced to withdraw, the Marxist regime was toppled, and Russia ended it with less influence in the region than it had before the war coupled with the US having more. On top of that it set in motion events which led to NATO actually putting a troop presence in Afghanistan which is there to this day.

From a strategic perspective it was a total debacle, and helped destroy the Soviet Union to boot.

[Sarmatian]

Successfully completed? LOL. The Soviets were forced to withdraw, the Marxist regime was toppled, and Russia ended it with less influence in the region than it had before the war coupled with the US having more. On top of that it set in motion events which led to NATO actually putting a troop presence in Afghanistan which is there to this day.

From a strategic perspective it was a total debacle, and helped destroy the Soviet Union to boot.

You are looking at it from typical British-like imperialist perspective.

You don't need to have an influence in a region to make it impossible to be used as reliable military outpost. Just destabilize it, make natives to become reluctant war-like partisans that hate any outsiders. Do Americans have control over Afghan territory? No. Do they have support of local population? No. That means Soviets succeeded.

The Soviets withdrew their troops when they realized there is no way they can actually take control over Afghanistan. It is important to understand it was not retreat but well planned and organized withdrawal.

The chain of events that lead to fall of USSR started long before the war was over. It is possible the outcome of the war accelerated the process but didn't have much impact on it.

[Joe McCarthy]

You don't need to have an influence in a region to make it impossible to be used as reliable military outpost. Just destabilize it, make natives to become reluctant war-like partisans that hate any outsiders.

Afghanistan was already destabilized before the war. That's why the Soviets went in. They were trying to restore stability by crushing the rebels. They failed, of course, but they didn't produce instability. It already existed.

I don't think the Soviets were needed to make Afghans hate occupiers. The British and others are familiar with Afghans on that issue.

[Sarmatian]

Afghanistan was already destabilized before the war. That's why the Soviets went in. They were trying to restore stability by crushing the rebels. They failed, of course, but they didn't produce instability. It already existed.

I don't think the Soviets were needed to make Afghans hate occupiers. The British and others are familiar with Afghans on that issue.

There is a huge difference between pre- and post-war Afghanistan. Initial goal was indeed to stabilize the power of pro-Soviet puppet but during the course of war it appeared to be impossible to accomplish.