I have been very impressed by all the opinions in the thread about the Viet Nam War!
However, I have an impression that the Soviet Veterans of the Afghan War 1979-89 can claim that they never lost the war either - they have been pulled out!

They have recently celebrated the 15th anniversary of that pull-out...
And the puppet Afghan regime has not fail for another 3 years after that.

What would be your take on that war?
The American media has been very clear on that account - it has considered as the DEFEAT of the Soviets in there.
The same as Viet Nam.. So, I could see some analogy between these tragic events and would like to know your opinions.
Please, do not dwell on the political differences between the "democracy" and "communism", bad guys vs. good guys etc. Let's talk about military aspects only!

I voted yes, with American support the Afghanis were able to paralyze the Soviet military, making them prisoners of the Afghan cities, the Fedayeen fighters, with the aid of American weapons and supplies VIA the SIS, were able to launch ambush after ambush, not just on Soviet troops, but their armor too. Unlike Viet Nam, where the American forces were able to force their way through pretty much whenever they decided to go somewhere (the problem was they were not ordered to go to the right places early enough in the war to make a difference, and yes, I mean North Vietnam.) the Soviets were repeatedly stopped and forced to turn back, I can't remember the name but one Fedayeen commander in I think in the same mountains Osama is now rumored to hide in, repelled three Soviet attacks, all with armor and air support, and the largest of which consisted of 10,000 troops. He did this with only 1,500 men. Plus, the Soviet military was much more brutal towards the Afghan citizens than the American soldiers in Vietnam, or so I am told. The Soviet military failed because their goal was to bring the revolution to Afghanistan, they could not do this while they were in country and their certainly was no lingering effect afterwords. The government that the Soviets left in power, in a final twist of irony, was expected to only hold Kabul for six weeks against the Taliban, yet they managed to hold out for three years, outliving the Soviet Union.

I voted yes

The red soldiers did there job, and whooped the afghans up and down the country. They lost the same way we did in vietnam.

Rather like Vietnam, the soldiers held their own, but the politician's crumbled

Not really......they managed to hold their own but like Vietnam, the politicians at home pulled them out to save face.

The soldiers did not loose the war the polititions lost it for Russia.

I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.

Originally Posted by shocktroop

I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.

I wouldn't agree with your statement that the Soviets didn't have the experience fighting the rebels. The had a very succesful campains against the rebels in Central Asia in the 30-s, Chechnya - in 1942, Western Ukraine and the Baltic states in the 40-s and the 50-s.
However, they were not succesful in Afghanistan...

Originally Posted by shocktroop

I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.

What the f**k is this then?

Ask any Afghani fighter what his worst nightmare was during the war and he will say the Hind.(which was usually followed by a mig carpet bombing session).
Yes technically they lost as they never held their objective,but as I was enlightened in the vietnam thread I now have to agree with the previous member who said the Soviets kicked ass but were let down by the politicians.