Print
Email
>
>
Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan Provides Grim Lessons for the U.S. Exit
Recent
Tags
14 Ohio-class SSBNs 2011 budget 2012 Election 450 Minuteman III ICBMs 50/50 737 787 787 Dreamliner A&D A2/AD A320 A330 AA/AD AAV ABL Abram Acquisition Reform Acquisitions ADAS ADS Advanced Distributed Aperture System Advanced Hawkeye AEA Aegis AEHF Aerostat AESA Afghan surge Afghanistan Agility Aging Air Fleet AgustaWestland AH-1Z Air Defense Air Dominance Air Force Air Force Modernization Air France Air Logistics Center Air Logistics Centers Air Mobility Air National Guard Air Power Air Superiority Airborne ISR airborne laser airborne surveillance Airbus Aircraft Carrier Aircraft Carriers Airlift Airpower AirSea Battle Al Qaeda Alliances Alliant Techsystems Allies Alternate Engine Al-Yamamah American Enterprise Institute America's Future Ammunition Industrial Base Amphibious amphibious warfare AMPV AMT Anniston Anti-Access Anti-Access/Area Denial Apache APL ARFORGEN ARG Armored Vehicles Arms Control Arms Sales Arms Transfers Army Arnold Punaro Arrow Ashton Carter Asia Asia- Pacific Asia-Pacfic Pivot Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific Pivot Asia-Pacific Region Asia-Pacific Strategy Assymetric Warfare AT-6 ATK AUSA Austal Australia AW609 AWACS B-52 Babcock & Wilcox BAE Systems BAE-EADS bail out Bain Capital BAMS Barack Obama Barbero Bath Iron Works BBP BCA Bechtel Beechcraft Benghazi Better Buying Power Bin Laden Bio-Engineering Biofuel Biohacker Biotechnology Black Hawk Blackhawk Bloomberg Bloomberg Business News BMD BMDR Boeing Bombers Boston BRAC Bradley Bradley Fighting Vehicle Britain British Military British Ministry of Defense Brookings Institution Brown budget Budget Control Act Budget Debate Budget Deficit Budget Drills Byron Callan C-130 C-17 C-2 C-5M CAPE Cargo Containers Cargo Screening Carrier Strike Group carriers CENTCOM Central Africa CH-47 Chabraja Chief Executive Officer China Chinook helicopter Chuck Hagel CIRCM climate change closing tank plant Cluster Bombs Cluster Munitions Coast Guard Collaborative Defense Comanche helicopter Commercial Space Common Infrared Countermeasures Common Vertical Lift Support Platform Communications Competitive Engagement Competitiveness Computer Sciences Corporation Concurrency Conflicts of Interest Congress Consolidation Constellation Contingency Support Contractors Continuing Resolution Contract Services Contracting Core Corzine cost Counterinsurgency Counterterrorism CRH Critical Enablers Critical Infrastructure Crowdsourcing Crusader artillery CSAR CTF Customer Pay CVLSP CVN CVN-78 CVN-91 Cyber cyber attack cyber defense cyber offense Cyber Security Cyber Threats Cyber Warfare Cybersecurity Cyberwar Cyberwarfare DARPA DB-110 DCAA DDG 1000 DDG-1000 DDG-51 debt Debt Agreement Defense Acquisistions Defense Acquisition System Defense Acquisitions Defense Budget Defense Business Board Defense Contract Requirements Defense Contractors Defense Contracts Defense Cuts Defense Downturn Defense Drawdown defense funding cut Defense Industrial Base Defense Industry Defense Planning Defense Priorities Defense Procurement Defense Sector Defense Spending Defense Stocks Defense Strategy Defense Weather Satellite System deficit Deficit Debate Deficit Reduction Delta Delta Air LInes Democrats Democrats & Defense Department of Defense Depot Depot Maintenance Depots Deputy Secretary Of Defense deterrence Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant DHS Dick Cheney Diversification DLA DOJ Donald Rumsfeld Dong Feng Dreamliner Drive down cost Drone Drones DRS Technologies DWSS DynCorp E-2 E-2D E-3 EA-18G EADS EASE Economic Growth Economic Recovery Economy Efficiency Drive Efficiency Initiative EFV Egypt EH101 EH-101 Elections Electric Grid Electric Power Grid Electronic Attack Electronic Warfare EMARSS energy security Energy Strategy Environmentalism EOTS EPA EPAA Erin Moseley ERP EU euro crisis Europe European Union eurozone EW Excaliber Exelis Ex-Im Bank Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Export Controls Export Financing Export-Import Bank F/A-18 F117 F-15 F-16 F-22 F-35 F-35 engine F-35B FAA Fairfax County Fajr 5 rocket FCS Federal Reserve Fighter Sales Fincantieri Finmeccanica Fire Fighting Fire Resistant Environmental Ensemble fiscal cliff FMS FMTV Force Posture Force Protection Force Readiness Force Structure forcible entry Ford class Foreign Arms Sales Foreign Military Sales Forest Service Franco-British security FREE free speech Free Trade Future Combat System Future Combat Systems future warfare Gaddafi Gadhafi GAO Gates Gaza GBI GCV GE GEN III General Dynamics General Electric General Martin Dempsey General Mattis General McChrystal General Odierno General Schwartz GFE GISP Global Hawk Global Influence Global Strike Global Zero GMD GMR Goldman Sachs Gordon England Gorgon Stare Government Accountability Office GPS III Great Britain Greece Greyhound Ground Based Interceptor Ground Combat Vehicle Ground Mobile Radio Gun Control guns versus butter Hagel Hal Rogers Hamas Handheld Manpack Radio Hapag-Looyd HASC Hawker Beechcraft Hawkeye Healthcare Helicopters Heritage Foundation HH-60G High-Speed Rail HMS Homeland Defense Homeland Security Homeland Security Air Fleet Hu Jintao Human Spaceflight Humvee Huntington Ingalls Hybrid Drive Hybrid Strategies Hybrid Threat Hybrid Threats hybrid warfare Hypersonic Hypoxia ICBM IED Immelt Improvised Explosive Devices Incremental Funding India Industrial Base Industrial Policy Inherently Governmental Insitu Insourcing installations abroad Integrator Intellectual Property Intelligence Community IR&D Iran Iran Sanctions Iraq Iron Dome ISR Israel IT Providers ITT ITT Corporation ITT Defense J-20 Jacksonville Jammer Jammers Japan Jay Johnson Jay L. Johnson Jeffrey Immelt Jet Engines JFCOM JIEDDO JLENS JLTV Jobs Bill Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Forces Command Joint Heavy Lift Joint Operating Environment Joint Stars Joint Strike Fighter Joint Tactical Radio System Jones Act JSTARS JTRS KBR KC-45 KC-46 KC-X Kent Kresa Kiowa Kiowa helicopter Korea L-3 Communications LAAR Lake City Larry Prior LAS LCAAP LCS LEMV Leon Panetta Libya Lieberman Life Cycle Costs Light Air Support Lima Lima Army Tank Plant Linda Gooden Linda Hudson lithium-ion batteries Littoral Combat Ship Lockheed Martin Logistics Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) LRS LUH Lynn M1 M-1 Mabus Maersk maintenance MANPAD ManTech manufacturing Marillyn Hewson Marine Corps Marine Highway Initiative Marine One Marines Marinette Maritime Transport Mars Massachusetts M-ATV McNerney MDA MEADS MECV merger MEU MH-60 Michael O'Hanlon Middle East Middle East Unrest Mid-term election Military Military Communications military cuts Military Depots Military Electronics Military Pension Military Preparedness Military Readiness Military Retirement System Military Satellites Military Space Military Spending Military Strategy Military Vote Mine Countermeasures Mine Warfare Missile Defense Missile Defense Agency Missile Security Missile Tracking Satellite Mitt Romney MMPDS Modernization MPC MQ-9 MRAP MRC MRO Multiyear Contract Multiyear Procurement MV-22 NABCO NASA National Defense National Guard National Intelligence Estimate National Military Strategy National Research Council National Security National Security Appropriations Bill National Security Review National Security Strategy National Taxpayer Union NATO Navistar Navy Navy Acquisitions Navy Marine Corps Intranet Navy SEAL Navy SEALS NCADE NDAA Net Assessment NETCENTS Network-Centric Warfare Networks New Mexico New START Next Generation Enterprise Network Next Generation Jammer NGEN Nick Chabraja NIE NIFC-CA Nigeria NII Nimitz class NLOS-LS NLRB NMCI NMD Non-Proliferation Norm Dicks North Korea Northrop Grumman November Election NPR NRO NSA nuclear Nuclear Detection Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear Energy Nuclear Power Nuclear Reduction Nuclear Shipbuilding Nuclear strategy nuclear triad Nuclear Weapons Nunn-McCurdy O&M Obama Obamacare Odierno Office of Air and Marine OH-58 Ohio Ohio Class Ohio Replacement Oil O'Keefe OMB Operations and Maintenance Osama bin Laden Oshkosh Oshkosh Corporation Osprey Outsourcing overheating P.W. Singer P-8 P-8A PAA Pacfic Pacific Pakistan Panetta Partner Capacity Partnering Patriot Pave Hawk PBL Pentagon Pentagon Budget Pentagon Cuts Pentagon Spending PEO Soldier Perchlorate Performance Based Logistics Performance-Based Agreement Performance-Based Logistics Persian Gulf Phalanx Phased Adaptive Approach Phased Adaptive Architecture Pilot Training PLA Navy Poseidon Pratt & Whitney Predator Presidential Helicopter Private Contractors Procurement PSSD PTSS Public Interest Research Group Public Private Partnership Public-Private Partnership Public-Private Partnerships Pyongyang QDR QHSR Raider Rapid Equipping Force Rapid Fielding Initiative Rare Earth Ray Mabus Raytheon Readiness Reaper Rebalancing Reconnaissance Helicopter Reelection REF Regulatory Burden Republicans Reset Restart F- 22 RFI Richard Aboulafia Rifleman RIMPAC Rivet Joint RMD 802 Robert Gates Robert O. Work Robert Stevens Rocket Industry Rocket Motors Rocketdyne Rolls-Royce Romney Ron Epstein RPV RQ-170 RQ-4 RQ-7 Rules of Engagement Russia S-300 S-97 SAIC Samsung satellite Satellites Saxby Chambliss SBINet SBIRS Scan Eagle Seapower Secretary Donley Secretary Gates Section 808 Sentinel Sequestration Shadow ship building Shipbuilding Should Cost Methodology Sierra Nevada Sierra Nevada Corporation Sikorsky Situational Awareness SLAMRAAM SM-3 Smart Defense Smart Defense Initiative SOF Soft Power Solar Electric Propulsion Soldier As A System Soldier Equipment solid rocket motor SOSCOE South Korea Space Space Based Infared System space disaggregation Space Launch Space Shuttle Space Tracking and Surveillance Satellite SpaceX Space-X Special Operations Special Operations Forces SSBN SSBN(X) Standard Missile Standard Missile 3 START START Treaty Stealth Helicopter Steel Strait of Hormuz Strategic Architecture strategic arms control Strategic Arms Treaty Strategic Review Stryker STUAS submarine Submarines Subsidies Super Committee Super Galaxay Super Hornet Supply Chain Supply Chain Management Sustainable Defense Sustainment swing states Switchblade Syria T-38 T-38 Trainer Tactical Communications Taiwan Taliban Tanker Tankers Tea Party Teal Group Technical Data terror terrorism Testing Requirements Textron THAAD The Economist Theater Express Tiltrotor Tilt-rotor TLSP Trade Deficit Trade Policy Trade Subsidies Transformation Trident Trident submarine Troop Reduction Turkey Tysons Corner U.K. U.N. Investigation U.S. Army U.S. embassy in Cairo U.S. Manufacturing U.S. Navy U.S. Strategy U-2 UAS UAV UAVs UCLASS UH-1Y UH-60 UK United Kingdom United Technologies Unmanned Aerial System Unmanned Aerial Systems Unmanned Aerial Vehicles unmanned air systems (UASs) Unmanned Aircraft Urgent Operational Needs US Ports US101 USFS USS Missouri Utah V-22 V-22 Osprey Vertical Lift Virginia Virginia-class submarine WAPS war War On Terror WARN Washington Weapons Programs Weapons Spending Wes Bush WGS White House Transparency Measure Wichita Wideband Global Satcom Wikileaks William Perry WIN-T World Trade Organization WTO Yemen York
<< Previous
Next >>

Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan Provides Grim Lessons for the U.S. Exit


Because the Soviet Union is no more, it is relatively easy to both forget that it spent almost a decade in Afghanistan and dismiss the possibility that there is anything to be learned from Moscow’s experience in that long-benighted country. The Soviet Union was one of the big losers, on the world stage as well as in Afghanistan. The United States, despite lots of current writings by so-called declinists, so far is not. Besides, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and its subsequent struggles in that country were in the context of the Cold War. Had the United States not intervened in support of the Mujaheddin, the Soviet Union might well have been victorious in Afghanistan; of course, had it not been for Moscow’s defeat and withdrawal and our abandonment of our erstwhile Afghan allies, the Taliban might never have come to power and Al Qaeda would not have had the safe haven from which to launch the September 11 attacks.

So while it is easy to dismiss the Soviet experience in Afghanistan it would be a mistake. Unfortunately, much of the Soviet experience in the 1980s mirrors our own some twenty years later. Although the Soviet and U.S. interventions were the result of different triggering events and the two pursued distinctive initial strategies, both ended up with a similar long-term strategy of attempting to stabilize the country and create a viable Afghan government and security forces while using foreign military forces to suppress the insurgents.

Comments by senior Soviet leaders about the reasons for Moscow’s failure in Afghanistan are eerily similar to those being made today. In a 1986 Politburo meeting focused on the Afghan situation Premier Mikhail Gorbachev remarks, “The goal we posed was to expedite withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and at the same time to ensure an Afghanistan that is friendly to us. This was to be achieved via a combination of military and political means. But there is no movement in any of these directions. Afghan government positions have not strengthened.” Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko chimes in with “social conditions in Afghanistan made it impossible to solve the problem in short order...” The Deputy Minister of Defense, later Chief of the Soviet General Staff, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev then delivers a devastating assessment of the security situation:

There is not one military objective that has been posed and not achieved, but there is still no result. The problem is that military results are not being reinforced by political ones …
We have lost the fight for the Afghan people. Only the minority of the people support the government. Our army … is capable of maintaining the situation as it is. But under these conditions, the war will continue for a long time.

Like the Obama Administration today, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet leadership struggled to find a viable exit strategy. The Kremlin’s goals then were remarkably similar to those articulated by Washington: execute a relatively speedy withdrawal, maintain the current Afghan regime in power, deny the opposition a clear victory, maintain the ability to conduct counter terrorism operations post withdrawal and create the conditions for a political resolution of the civil war. In the Soviet vision, if the regime in Kabul had a sufficiently strong military and were supplied with enough military equipment it could survive as first among equals in a patchwork of autonomous regions. Moscow clearly gave up on any idea of stabilizing the country.

For a time, this strategy worked. It certainly enabled the Soviet Union to get out of Dodge. However, there was no political settlement. Despite rosy claims by military and intelligence officials, the Afghan security forces never acquired the skills and will necessary to defeat the opposition. No amount of Soviet military assistance, including air support and hundreds of SCUD rockets, was sufficient to overawe the insurgents. Moreover, the presence of safe havens in Pakistan made it impossible to create a stalemate on the battlefield. Finally, the Afghan government remained weak and riven by internal dissent. Over a period of approximately four years, the Mujaheddin closed in on the Afghan central government, reducing its zone of control until finally the city of Kabul itself was besieged and overrun.

The grimmest lesson from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan is that Soviet foreign policy and intelligence experts warned that the failure of the pro-Moscow regime to survive would likely result in “Islamist fundamentalists coming to power.” Despite assertions by the administration that Al Qaeda has been decimated and driven from Afghanistan, is there any reason to believe that having made virtually every mistake Moscow made, our withdrawal will not result in the Taliban’s “reconquesta” of their country and the recreation of a safe haven for Al Qaeda?

Daniel Goure, Ph.D.

Note: This blog is based on a briefing by Katya Drozdova, PhD, ”Stabilizing Afghanistan and the Region: Lessons learned from the Soviet Era: Mining Afghan Lessons from the Soviet Era (MALSE) research program.”

Return to Early Warning Blog
<< Previous
Next >>
1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
P: 703-522-5828 | F: 703-522-5837
©2009 Lexington Institute. All Rights Reserved.
Website designed by Borcz:Dixon | Powered by Agency of Record