My good friend Napalm wonders: "What I can't figure out is what the Soviet Union was thinking when they invaded. The Afghans, being farmers under a tribal (four major tribes, several smaller ones) structure weren't exactly a threat to the Soviet Union, so what was the deal?"

The Soviets (or, rather, the Russians) have been wanting to get into Afghanistan for a loong time. It puts them one step closer to achieving one of their prime strategic goals - a warm water port. They've never had one, and their global naval strategy has been severely hampered by that lack.

Furthermore, it would have put them in a position to threaten the Straits of Hormuz, with a quick hop and skip through southern Iran to grab Bandar Abbas.

This scenario was one of the nightmares of Western military planners in the early 1980's. I particiapted in several exercises that wargamed this exact scenario.

He then opined:

"If we thought Viet-Nam was bad, it's nothing compared to the mess that will be Afghanistan." That seems to be the common wisdom, but I disagree. Ground operations in Afghanistan are feasible, and can be successfully prosecuted. I know this contradicts all the conventional wisdom - keep in mind, however, that this wisdom is in many cases coming from the very same sources that swore that any ground combat during the war with Iraq would result in heavy American losses.

Certainly, in modern history, both the Brits (twice) and the Russians (thrice) have suffered defeats in Afghanistan. Not commonly mentioned in these citations is the fact that the Afghans have been successfully conquered several times.

Not commonly realized is the fact that the "victory" of the Afghanis over the Russians was a Pyrrhic victory, one that cost the Afghan people over one million dead. A third of the population left the country to become refugees in other countries. In return, the Soviets lost 15,000, and 50,000 wounded.

It is highly doubtful that the Afghans could have prevailed had not they been heavily supported with arms and the other outside aid they received from the US, Saudi Arabia, and China. Given the current state of affairs, it is unlikely that the Afghans could get anything like those amounts of aid into the country.

Finally on this topic, the US military is much better than the Soviet army (trust me on this one - explanation of why that is true would be a very lengthy post) that invaded Afghanistan, and has the benefit of the wisdom garnered from analysis of the Soviet experience there. I am quite sure that we would not have as difficult a time as they had, in the event that it came to widespread ground combat there.

I am not advocating that we conduct any extensive ground operations, or an invasion of Afghanistan, simply pointing out that they are not doomed to failure before they have begun, and that should not be included in the list of reasons as to why that is not an appropriate action. More to the point is the argument that it would not accomplish much.