previous post next post  

Heh.

By The Armorer on May 2, 2008 | | Comments (7)
"The obvious models for intervention were Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviet General Staff planned the Afghanistan invasion based on these models. However, there was a significant difference that the Soviet planners missed. Afghanistan was embroiled in a civil war and a coup de main would only gain control of the central government, not the countryside. Although participating military units were briefed at the last minute, the soviet Christmas Eve invasion of 1979 was masterfully planned and well-executed. The Soviets seized the government, killed the president and put their own man in his place. According to some Russian sources, they planned to stabilize the situation, strengthen the army and withdraw the majority of Soviet forces within three years..."

"...Invasion and overthrow of the government proved much easier than fighting the hundreds of ubiquitous guerrilla groups. The Soviet Army was trained for large-scale, rapid-tempo operations. They were not trained for the platoon leader's war of finding and closing with small, indigenous forces which would only stand and fight when the terrain and circumstances were to their advantage."

So, doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Wanna guess the source?

It's from The Other Side of the Mountain: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War. Written by former Afghan Army Colonel Ali Ahmad Jalali, and Lester Grau, an analyst at the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Published by the USMC Studies and Analysis Division, USMC Combat Development Command.

In 1995.

It's what I'm currently reading.

Share This Article:

Categories:

7 Comments

By Blackhawk on May 2, 2008 6:17 PM
Have you read his previous book, The Bear Went Over the Mountain? Told from the Soviet's side. Some of the battles are the same ones in The Other Side.
 
By don on May 2, 2008 8:02 PM
Sounds like a very good book. But be careful. While the setup you describe sounds similar to what confronted the U.S. in Iraq; i hope the book clearly defines what the Soviet goals were. Remember, the Soviets had been planning or leading up to this for a long time. The tactical move was swift, and probably not planned for that exact time; but they had been approaching it for some time. If you look at the Soviet writings from the 60's and 70's; they did the only verifiable population census and "knew" that to dominate that would have to kill and make refugees of 5 million of the population. Which they did. They also wanted control: the natural gas; the gems; and the access to the warm water ports. They also were able to put missile and bomber assets at Shin Dhan--from which to take out Diego Garcia, among other targets. All I'm saying is that in comparing similities between force structure; tactics etc... make sure you have a complete view of comparative goals as well. That will give the lessons of the two conflicts much more meaning.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 3, 2008 7:04 AM
One shouldn't read too much into it, Don. Iraq 2003 and Afghanistan 1979 are not complete analogues. It was just... the similarities are interesting - and some of them - the focus on the coup-de-main approach (the essence of Rumsfeld's concept of war) and how it didn't achieve the results we expected (because of what *did* turn out to be underlying, but not obvious, parallels - and the difficulty in swapping mindsets. We were ultimately more flexible, I think, and have done a better job, thus far, with raising the bar with indigenous forces, which is where the Soviets foundered. Blackhawk - yes, I actually have both.
 
By Rivrdog on May 4, 2008 12:04 AM
These "by-the-gallon" comparisons are odious. History reminds us what the price of gasoline USED to be, and no amount of comparing gasoline pricing to the price of 18-year old Scotch single-malt Whiskey is going to change history. Just for grins, what is the LOWEST price any of you ever paid for gas? For me, it was 17.9 cents per gallon, in a little independent station right behind the Annheiser-Busch brewery in St. Louis, in 1963. So, please, PLEASE, P.L.E.A.S.E. stop giving us these comparisons, they don't mean a thing, and they distract one from careful consideration of what should be done about the major issues involved with petroleum marketing.
 
By Ming the Merciless on May 4, 2008 4:46 PM
Sorry, man, but "Coup de main" mean "HELPING HAND", probably what the commies had in mind for their fellow local subversive in Kabul under King Daoud... So, "Grand Coup" will mean Masterful or daring strike, "Mauvais coups" are criminal acts by scumbags. So the Soviet invasion is both a "Mauvais Coup" and a "Grand Coup"... With a "Coup de Main" from idiotic friends like the Russians, it is far worse than having ennemies. You end up hanging with your balls cut off and your intestines on the ground...
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 4, 2008 10:00 PM
Ming - from the French, coup-de-main means "blow of the hand." In military parlance, it meant assault by "other than artillery." The official DoD definition is: "(DOD) An offensive operation that capitalizes on surprise and simultaneous execution of supporting operations to achieve success in one swift stroke." Without addressing the merits of the rest of your comment... because it's late and I'm tired, I'll will stand by my usage of the term.
 
By Andrew on May 5, 2008 1:34 PM
Two more titles on the subject that are worth reading are "the Bear Trap" by Yousef & Adkin and "Hidden War" by Borovik. Assume you're familiar with "Feast of Bones" Fiction but well researched. (Of course I'm biased as my platoon Sgt. in Grenada offered a case of beer to anybody who got a Soviet, perforated or no.)Like the blog.