Talk:Soviet–Afghan War

ation of Afghanistan, nor can I find anything about the Mujahideen insurgents' posistion towards women (i.e. objects to be bartered with) --66.227.111.238 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union didn't cared abou such isues. During soviet times in central asian republics non officialy was allowed poligamy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Women under and before Soviet occupation is a tabu topic in Afghan history today because it is heavily ideological. The reason is that gains in women's rights started to be rolled back significantly after the fall of the Najibullah government. This is not to say that Afghanistan was a paradise for women before that, but the accounts on the situation of women during and before the Soviet occupation are almost non-existent and based on personal accounts while contrasts of the situation during the Taliban and after the US invasion have been much publicized. The Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA, a secular, anti-fundamentalist organization rooted in the Maoist movement) is one of the few Afghan women groups that have some credibility among Western sources now. The Feminist Majority invited RAWA to the U.S. in March 2000 for the Feminist Expo, and Eleanor Smeal [president of the Feminist Majority] spoke at a RAWA protest rally across from the White House in DC in April of the same year. Speaking with US congress members, RAWA representatives have emphasized that the word "Revolutionary" does not have the same meaning in Pashtun as a communist uprising as it does in English (5–925PDF 2001 AFGHAN PEOPLE VS. THE TALIBAN:THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM INTENSIFIES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 31, 2001), but that RAWA is a pro-democracy group advocating women's rights in Afghanistan since 1977. Although RAWA was heavily anti-Soviet, an article posted on their site from The Guardian, July 20, 2002 by Natasha Walters ("Bare faced resistance") reports that "I had to keep reminding myself that Kabul was not always a dystopian city - that once, in the 1970s and 1980s, it was cosmopolitan, with women walking down the streets in miniskirts, crowded jazz clubs and colourful parks. It's also important to remember that Afghan women were not always victims. In the 80s, 40% of doctors and 50% of university students in Kabul were women - and though such liberation did not extend throughout Afghanistan, many urban, educated women lived lives of relative freedom." I have heard similar comments through the internet from Afghan refugees, now living abroad in reference to college life in Kabul as a "fashion parade." My guess is that this part of history is being suppresed now to make it right.Otherwise I cannot explain why it is so hard to find unbiased reports on the topic. Vescalant (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

"The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine year war between the Soviets and anti-Soviet forces which were fighting to depose Afghanistan's Marxist government. The Soviet Union supported the government while the insurgents found support from a variety of sources including the United States,and Pakistan."

The Mujahadeen were fighting to overthrow the Afghan communist government since it took power in the April 1978 revolution, how exactly were they "anti-Soviet forces"? The Soviets didn't get involved until December 1979. "Anti-Soviet forces" implies that they went to war only after the USSR invaded Afghanistan, which is not true. It makes more sense to call the mujahadeen "anti-government insurgents".

Or just rebels. The USSR was only involved after the government asked for help and for th USSR to step in, so it was not anti-soviet forces as you have said. --M-Mann.

"The USSR was only involved after the government asked for help and for th USSR to step in" - Dude, you are in serious need of some de-programming!!

From what I've read (D.S. Richards "The Savage Fronteir") that BK(?) took power with the express understanding that (as inevitably took place) the USSR would back him. It's hard, in that light, to separate the government the Mujahedin were fighting from the USSR. That said, I might like 'Soviet-backed government' better than the other two alternatives.

What is the basis for describing the Afghan mujahedin as islamic fundamentalists? This would be an appropriate term for the foreign arab jihadis who came to the conflict, but not for the majority of the mujahedin, who were simply afghans who practiced islam as their culture dictated. An example of fundamentalist islamic afghans would be more like the Taliban of the 1990 which came out of the more extreme kind of islam taught in fundamentalist madrasses in pakistan during the 1980s.Walterego 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of information about the war

War crimes, and allegations of war crimes, that were commited by both sides. The Soviet's bombing of Afghan villages, the mujahadeen's torture and murder of the Soviet POWs.

Terrorism and terrorist acts that were carried out by the mujahadeen? For example they used Stinger missiles to shoot down several civilian airliners, they also attacked public schools and murdered teachers.

The foreign jihadis who fought in Afganistan a.k.a "Afghan Arabs"? There were tens of thousands of them.

Afghan casualties? Afghan military casualties, Afghan civilian casualties, Afghan insurgent casualties.

Injected with POV

The following changes must be made to this article:

- The mujahideen must be described as external Arab invaders.

- The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan. Rather, it deployed troops in order to assist a regime whose regime was under attack by an externally supported and organised rebellion.

- Perspective must be shown in concern to the repression endured by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan under Daoud.

- Babrak Karmal was the former Deputy Prime Minister under Taraki who had been demoted to the insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia.

These all seem like POV-skewed statements to me. The Mujahideen were not entirely external, nor were they necessarily "invaders." And the same principle applies to the Russians. In addition, you point out no details as to what this "repression" is, and fail to show why the ambassador post is insignifcant. --S.M. 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

POV statement is to call USSR deployment of forces an "invasion". Here I refer to a definition of invasion as a "military offensive consisting of large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof". The facts say there was not a single reason from the above-mentioned definition to attach the label "invasion" to the Soviet operation in Afghanistan, which was aimed at supporting the government currently in rule and aiming at preserving the country from partition, securing its economy and growth (here I can refer to the docs proving that larger part of money was spent on rebuilding the country, there should be a separate chapter maybe on the USSR efforts to rebuild the country, infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals and so on). Anyway, the term "invasion" is clearly POV and should be eradicated. In addition, we can add a chapter on media war (like in the Russia-Georgian war article) describing how the western media (and much less the Soviet media) distorted the reasons and consequences of the Afghanistan operation. --Victor V V (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Soviet occupation was an invasion. The Soviet Union installed a new regime by force, and sent troops into the country to support their puppets. The attack on the presidential palace by Spetsnaz, killing the president, followed by the invasion of airborne forces and the 40th Division. I believe that this cannot be described as anything other than an invasion.

Contributors who do not even know that Soviet troops killed the Afghan president, are hardly qualified to comment on this topic.

124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Major edit on September 1st

I've noticed a major edit on September 1st, which basically re-wrote the article. It shifted more focus from actual invasion to political games around it, and it re-introduced a lot of slippery points. I wonder if we:

• should salvage some of the information from the older edit into separate article for the actual invasion, which at this point accounts for less of the half of total text
• bring back the war table
• patch minor glitches

---

Adopted redirects for Google: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet Union Invasion of Afghanistan, The Soviet Union's Invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet Attack on Afghanistan, Soviet Union Attack on Afghanistan

---

This is an excerpt from an article I wrote for a private mailing list 5 days or so after the September 11 attack. It has been updated for the Wikipedia.

BTW - The numbers in the What was Wagered and What was Accomplished section are taken from "A Quick & Dirty Guide to War" (ISBN 0-688-06256-3) by James F. Dunnigan and Austin Bay. The numbers in this book are a composite from many sources themselves. There exist [[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Afghanistan other sources]] for this information, no one source can be regarded as 'correct'. With all these caveats in mind, I do not believe that any of this information can be regarded as copyrighted, except with regard as to form, which I have changed from the original. I hope this is enough due diligence as to possible copyright issues.

---

Thanks much. Here's a quick question. If I screw up such an edit, and end up really causing problems with the DRoA page when I port their more detailed information here, (along with some of my own that I removed the first time - I figure better to be a bit too detailed than not enough if we are going through all the trouble of creating a special page and all.....) due to my inexperience and lack of faith in my own ability, what can be done? (Still having problems with those vicious run-on sentences! <GRIN>)

I took 'Be bold!' to heart, but I still feel uncomfortable with editing and moving material that obviously took someone a long time to put together. On the other hand, no one has replied to my post on the DRoA Talk page about these changer either. Sorry for so much hand wringing, I'm certain I will slowly get the hang of it. dobbs

For each page, we keep the previously saved versions. You can see them by clicking the History link on the left or bottom of your screen when viewing an article to get a list of them. If you screw up, we can still read the old version and use it to edit the new version, or if you really screw up (which I don't expect), we/you can just put the old back. So, just go ahead and edit! Jeronimo

---

Ok, the new info is up. This page isn't really just a timeline anymore, so I'm unsure if it needs to be renamed. I've changed the 'Soviet Invasion' heading into a link that points here, I'm not certain how to or what else I would point here.

Again, neutral POV insights would help. I've really tried to change much of it to be as neutral as possible. For instance, while EVERYONE I have ever read, spoken to personally, or heard of, accepts that the invasion and resulting war was unprovoked agression by the U.S.S.R. against the Afghani's - SOMEONE must of at least thought up the party line that they were 'helping out' their socialist brethren. Thus, my attempts to re-write all that. I hope my studied assumptions on Soviet geostrategic goals is not out of line. While it is written neutrally (I hope), it is still subjective (even if well researched). I think that is acceptable for an encyclopedia, is there something "official" in the Wikipedia universe (talk area perhaps?) to steer me towards? Thanks again.

---

Ed, I'm not sure if "supporters of the Soviet Union" is a correct statement to add as a qualification. Certainly right-wingers in the US have never supported the Soviet Union, yet they currently support the idea that the Soviet reaction to the Islamist issue on their southern border was prescient of our current troubles. Take their ambivalence toward the Russian suppression of Chechnya, for example..... Dobbs 00:26 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC) excuse me buddy, but there was no such fact as "Russian suppression of Chechnya". There was Russian military operation on the Russian territory against the international militants in Chechnya republic, the militants sponsored by international terrorist and Islamist organizations through Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Kingdom and USA. Two of the Chechen militant leaders accused of killings and plotting against democratically elected government of Russia are still living in UK. Any talks of "suppression of Chechnya" simply misguide the reader, not reflecting the state of events. I would advise you not to make such mistakes here furthermore. --Victor V V (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Label the advocates any way you want, as long as it's clear who's doing the advocacy. Some people support -- and some people oppose -- both the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the 2001 "War on Terror" that toppled the Taliban. I would rather see the various advocates identified, rather than some vague statement that "some" support or oppose a given act. --Ed Poor

---

The events that took place on the timeline after the 'Start of the Invasion' heading can all be given as the 'starting' point of the 'actual' war. Moving troops into enemy territory in order to remove the government is starting a war, even if it is sneaky and not realized. The same comment can be made about cutting telephone cables and removing equipment from service - all of those things are things that start wars as well. Thus my change. Dobbs 21:07 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

---

Upon looking again, NPOV looks better than I thought. Brain fart. Sorry. [[User::Williamv1138]]

---

Some of these anti-personnel mines were shaped like pens, or dolls, or other shiny trinkets, known as 'dolly bombs', intended for children to attempt to pick up." -- Was there ever any evidence of this? Sounds like an urban legend ... 11:55 Feb, 2004

---

This seems to be one of those insidious non-NPOV titles. The Afghanistani government invited the Soviet Union in, so I don't know where people get off calling this an "invasion". Of course, you can argue this point, or put points in the article, but don't try to stick your POV in the title. If this is to be called an "invasion", then we might as well talk about the US invasion of South Vietnam since it is the same scenario - a superpower invited in by the government. Either way, the title should be neutral, and not reflect one POV. -- HectorRodriguez 22:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They weren't invited in. They sent troops into Kabul and deposed Hafizullah Amin and his government. It was clearly an invasion. Hans Zarkov 17:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong: they were repeatedly invited in, both by Amin himself when he came to power in September 1979, and his predecessors. Being not familiar with the facts doesn't automatically make it a "clear invasion".

The government of N. M. Taraki repeatedly requested the introduction of Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. ... On 14 April the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan ... After a month, the DRA requests were no longer for individual crews and subunits, but were for regiments and larger units. On 19 July, the Afghan government requested that two motorized rifle divisions be sent to Afghanistan. The following day, they requested an airborne division in addition to the earlier requests. They repeated these requests and variants to these requests over the following months right up to December 1979. (ISBN 0-7006-1186-X)

---

Any proof that chemical weapons were used in Afghanistan?

---

No proofs whatsoever. Unlike U.S. in Vietnam and Japan, USSR never used chemical or nuclear weapons against civilians or regular combatants from rural regions.--Victor V V (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Not correct. Chemical weapons were used by the Red Army during suppression of Antonov rebellion.--SinisterCat (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Info on war needed

The article right now seems to only be about the beginning of the conflict; it doesn't discuss how the conflict progressed and what happened in the end. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Someone seems to have removed part of it. Fred Bauder 23:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is this a copy-&-paste job from somewhere ?

The following is an unwikified version of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by Anon. User:12.46.110.123. The original version has been restored. I don't know this topic, so I shouldn't merge the two versions. Please feel free to do so.

In 1979, the USSR took control of the Afghan capital, Kabul, and tried through the following decade to gain control over the whole country and its people. The invasion was a failure, costing thousands of lives and having serious consequences still felt today.

To better understand the reason for the Soviet invasion and failure, first one must understand the geography and culture in Afghanistan. The land is mountainous and arid. Jagged, impassable ranges divide the country and make travel difficult. Due to these physical divisions, the people are extremely provincial, with more loyalty to their specific clan or ethnic group than to a government or a country. The people are Muslims, and extremely religious and conservative. The majority ethnic group is the Pashtun, but there are over ten minority groups.

Starting in the 1950s, the USSR began giving aid to Afghanistan. The Soviets built roads, irrigation and even some oil pipelines. In the 1970s, a Communist party overthrew the monarchy and tried to institute social reforms. The rural populations saw land distribution and women's rights as alien to their traditional Islamic culture, a culture in which polygamy, covering of women, and blood for blood practices are accepted. The Communist governments in Kabul in the 1970s lacked the popular support of the rural population.

The Invasion

The Soviets sent troops into Afghanistan in 1979 for a number of reasons. First, they wished to expand their influence in Asia. They also wanted to preserve the Communist government that had been established in the 1970s, and was collapsing because of its lack of support other than in the military. Third, the Soviets wanted to protect their interests in Afghanistan from Iran and western nations.

The Soviets brought in over one hundred thousand soldiers, secured Kabul quickly and installed Babrak Karmal as their puppet leader. However, they were met with fierce resistance when they ventured out of their strongholds into the countryside. Resistance fighters, called mujahidin, saw the Christian or atheist Soviets controlling Afghanistan as a defilement of Islam as well as of their traditional culture. Proclaiming a "jihad"(holy war), they gained the support of the Islamic world. The US gave them weapons and money. The mujahidin employed guerrilla tactics against the Soviets. They would attack or raid quickly, then disappear into the mountains, causing great destruction without pitched battles. The fighters used whatever weapons they could take from the Soviets or were given by the US. Decentralized and scattered around Afghanistan, the mujahidin were like a poisonous snake without a head that could be cut off. There was no one strong central stronghold from which resistance operated

Effects / World Response

Afghan refugee's eyes represent the anguish brought upon her by the Soviet Invasion (Denker, 1985).

The Soviet invasion had a devastating effect on the Afghan people. Because the rural population fed and housed the mujahidin, the Soviets tried to eliminate or remove civilian populations from the countryside where resistance was based. Soviet bombing destroyed entire villages, crops and irrigation, leaving millions of people dead, homeless or starving. Land mines maimed unsuspecting Afghans, especially children who mistook them to be toys. Refugee camps around Peshawar, Pakistan sprang up and quickly became overcrowded, unsanitary and insufficiently supplied. In addition, many internal refugees fled from their region.

The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan elicited a strong reaction from all over the world. The United States condemned the occupation immediately. We sent hundreds of millions of dollars worth of guns and food to Afghanistan to aid the mujahidin and the refugees. The United Nations voted to condemn the action, and repeatedly exhorted the USSR to pull out. From throughout the Arab world, people gave money and aided the mujahidin. One of these benefactors of the war was Osama bin Laden. Although the primary reason for the Soviet withdrawal was their military failure, diplomatic pressure from around the world may have hastened it.

Top

Soviet Withdrawal / Reprecussions

In 1989, Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan. Fifteen thousand Soviet soldiers and countless Afghans had been killed in the decade-long war. Billions of dollars had been spent each year to support troops in Afghanistan. Unable to defeat the mujahidin and pressed by world opinion to leave Afghanistan, Soviet leader Gorbachev decided that the USSR had to get out. In part, the tide of the war had been turned by the introduction of US-made shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles in 1987. With these missiles, the mujahidin shot down Soviet planes and helicopters every day, increasing the monetary and human cost of the war, and making Soviet strike tactics ineffective. Demoralized and with no victory in sight, the USSR's forces left Afghanistan.

The war had far-reaching effects on Afghanistan, the Soviets, and the US. Several million Afghans had either fled to neighboring Pakistan for refuge or had become internal refugees. In addition, millions more had died from starvation or from the Soviet bombings and raids. Among the survivors were a generation that had known only war, hatred, and fear. Homes, animals, and precious irrigation systems were destroyed, leaving the country barren and in ruin. Also, thousands of miniature land mines dropped by the Soviet planes continued to pose a hazard to the Afghan people long after the war with the USSR ended.

The USSR was also affected greatly by its failure. It lost fifteen thousand troops, but the true damage done was in the degradation of its image, and the billions of dollars it spent during the war. This fall from invincibility and vast expendature of money to finance the invasion in part caused the USSR to fall apart in the early 1990s.

One long-term effect of the Soviet invasion and pull-out was the establishment of a weak state full of religious hatred and hatred of richer nations: a breeding ground for terrorism. Though supplying the Afghan resistance with American guns and anti-aircraft missiles seemed like a good idea for the US in the 1980s, and was the reason for the Soviets’ defeat, now as the US invades, they are met with their own guns. The significance of the sophisticated guns has yet to be determined. In light of the US involvement today in Afghanistan after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it is especially important to understand the history of the Soviet's involvement there so we can avoid making the same mistakes.

Thanks. -- PFHLai 07:07, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Soviet Deaths

What's the source for the 22,000 figure cited for Soviet deaths? Most sources I see list the deaths as 13,000-15,000 depending upon the source. ---B- 08:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The most reliable source for Soviet casualties is Krivosheev (for instance, here's afghanistan - http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter6.html#6_12 - sorry, in Russian only). His data is - 15 051 Soviets lost their lives (or went missing and are still not accounted for). Out of those 14 427 were from the Soviet Army, the rest being KGB, MVD and civilians. Out of this 14 427, 9 661 were KIA, 2 457 died of their wounds (including after leaving afghanistan) and 287 were MIA. The remainder died in accidents (1 795) or from disease (833, including after leaving afghanistan). 53 753 were wounded (all causes, hostile and non-hostile), while 415 932 were sick. As for material lost, it includes 118 airplanes, 333 helicopters, 147 tanks, 1314 ifv's and apc's (BMP, BMD, BTR), 433 guns and mortars, etc. With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

10-year war?

24 Dec 1979 to 2 Feb 1989 looks more like 9 years to me. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan War

This war is in need of name. I find "Afghan War", "Afghanistan War", "War in Afghanistan", "Invasion of Afghanistan", "Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", "Mujahadeen Jihad", Afghan-Soviet War" and "Soviet-Afghan War", to name a few. It needs to be standardized. nobs

• Encarta calls it the Soviet-Afghan War. --24.247.126.44 14:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is honestest encyclopedia in the whole world. Amen. Look at this opus from it: "Soviet-Afghan War, war between military forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and anti-Communist guerrillas in Afghanistan..." Why they're anti-communists? May be they're capitalists or another one what i mean? Correctly, they're anti-soviet, but "objective encyclopedia" have another point. You may don't believe me, but if you have own mind you'll understand that it's just a propaganda. --Al3xil 22:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

the name has to be changed into Soviet-Afghan War. The current name is nonsense.--TheFEARgod 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is complete shit. Leave the Soviets out of it. They were supporting the government and the western powers supported the other guys. It's just propaganda "oh, the big bad soviets invaded afghanistan". Leave the soviets out of this.

-G

This is for G

• File:Bunny-pancake.gif

  WTF

(ForeverDEAD 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)) Hey buddy, use neutral language when you mention the Great Soviet Union and the Great Russia. --Victor V V (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the war was not against Afghanistan, but against U.S-backed mujaheddins, the operation was conducted upon request from Afghanistan (represented by Afgheni government, wasn't it?), therefore one of the options would be to call it something like "Soviet-Afghan peacekeeping operation". This reflects the historical facts much more that "invasion" or "war against Agfhanistan". --Victor V V (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the two million people killed in the Soviet-Afghan War were killed by the Soviets. The "Afghan Government" the Soviets were supporting was imposed by the Soviet Union. Sounds to me like a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. CMarshall (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

pov

umm, the vietnam war article doesn't start as "the american invasion of vietnam was an 18-year war that wreaked incredible havoc and destruction on vietnam." nor does the invasion of iraq article start "the american invasion of iraq in 2003 is a war that is continually wreaking incredible havoc and destruction on iraq." etc. etc. ...much rhetoric...this article appears to be heavily biased against the USSR, & doesn't significantly discuss the US reaction against the invasion and its consequences (one sentence?)... then again i am not going to put in the effort to edit it, so whatever, if someone who already has an account and knows how to do this stuff wants to maintain the credibility of wikipedia, then go for it! anyway, just an observation. (ooh sorry i forgot a subject last time so i did something and now it has one!)

Alpha group strength

December 27, 1979 - 700 KGB spetsnaz special forces troops, Alpha Group, in Afghan uniforms storm the Presidential Place in Kabul, taking heavy casualties, killing President Hafizullah Amin. "

IIRC only ~50 of them were actual Alpha fighters - two groups with two APCs each (Thunder - 25 men and Zenith - 24 men). The others were an unclear entity - moslem division that blocked retreat from the palance and reinforcements to it. Alpha casualties were 5 men and two APCs.

All right, but the article shows "heavy casualities". I have changed it to "light casualities".

Article Introduction

" as a pre-emptive war against Islamist terrorists."

This is far fetched. The pre-emptive doctrine did not exist then and in any case was definitely not used in Afghanistan. Neither were there Islamist terrorists then, particularly in that part of the world, with their purpose being solely Islam and terrorism.

The pre-emptive doctrine has existed for a very long time, I'd be surprised if it hadn't existed for millenia, but certainly since the Prussian Bismarck.[1] It is, however, far fetched to say that is why the Soviets went in. JoshNarins 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Romans applied the doctrine regularly.

There is no doubt that the Afghan communists were facing a mounting islamic insurgency. But it wasn't a pre-emptive war by the Soviets, much less a war against terrorists.124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Army didn't invade Afganistan

The Red Army were renamed to the Soviet Army in February 1946

Pre-assault assassination attempt

I've recently seen a Russian TV program investigating the beginning of the war (they looked at official Soviet documents, talked to witnessed - seemed pretty professional to me). What they stressed in particular was that the USSR decided to carry out the Presidential palace assault only after an assassination attempt had failed. Apparently, they were able to infiltrate the palace kitchen and poison Amin's food. Amin ate the poisoned food but ironically, there were some Soviet doctors working in Kabul at the time. They obviously didn't know of the upcoming assassination and 2 of them came to the palace when called upon. They were able to save Amin, barely, and that's why the assault was launched. When all the shooting began, they were still at the palace. The doctors apparently hid in a cupboard and were shot by advancing Soviet troops, who shot at all closed doors and cupboards upon entering a room.

Unfortunately, I don't know if this research is confirmed in any non-TV sources. --Bicycle repairman 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source that confirms the poisoning: Afghanistan. However, this says that he was poisoned at the actual time of the attack. --68.41.14.137 20:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the innovations incorporated into the constitution were a multi-party political system, freedom of expression, and an Islamic legal system presided over by an independent judiciary. The Afghanista was an atheist State from 1978 to 1992. Francesco

Not Truth. Babrak Karmal and Mohammad Najibullah make sure to appase some part of the afghan population by including Islam in government. Messhermit 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on people

Only someone with no scholarly aptitude would not concur that the invasion by the Communist Soviets was illegal. This was codified in the annals of the United Nations documents during the illegal invasion by the Secretary General of the UN.

Maybe a Copy of the Treaty of Friendship that the USSR and the DRA signed could clarify if there was really an invasion or a request for military assitance. Messhermit 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? It was completely legal from Soviet point of view. We do not have international laws that are stronger than national. DarkFighter 04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Noffense, but the first paragraph is not mine. That's why I put that previous statement. Messhermit 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Soviet Union" is no more! Kaput! Done! Finished! Over! Lost in a big way! So who cares????

The Russians care, because The Russians (the original creators of The USSR) have inherited all the responsibilities and rights of the USSR, and therefore have the right to defend the interpretation of historical facts, protecting it from POV and bringing own vision, based on documents, including recently declassified documents from The Russian archives.--Victor V V (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the Communist regime in Afghanistan was, at least in the beginning, asking numerous times for aid from the USSR. The regime was being destabilized by the Western backed Mujahedeen.72.78.23.18 (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and this should be added to an article, showing the USSR efforts to stabilize the country and rebuild its infrastructure, while defending the stable governmental structures from western-backed Mujahedeen. The documents proving the western destructive involvement prior to deployment of USSR troops have already been cited in the article (including Zbigniew Brzezinski book), so we need to add the info concerning the actual USSR efforts, disregarding the POV propagandist (anti-Soviet) vision as outdated. These 2 reports by Russia Today show how the Russian military analysts view the situation today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POfcpYku7eI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXQz4PAiMWI --Victor V V (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Stingers capability

"shoot down Soviet jets and helicopters frequently, easily, and without loss on their own side" - not likely. It was not that frequently, NOT easily (on all accounts no more than 10% of missiles shot down anything, VVS changing there tactics constantly, modifying their aircraft and increasing operating altidude), and Stinger launch positions were heavily bombed afterwards and in process of air strikes. Also Soviet Special Forces were in constant search for Stinger teams, eventually capturing some missiles and launchers. From "Hot sky of Afganistan" - [2] (Russian): "Effiency of all jamming systems against MANPADs on Mi-8 helicopter was 70-85% (counted by number of misses and hits)" That was in 1982. Also total lossed in 1985 were distributed as following: 27% - small arms 40% - 12,7 mm DShK MG 27% - specialized AAA installations 6% - MANPADs

So I deleted the citation above. Stingers should be mentioned, of course. DarkFighter 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened was, the presence of stingers forced the Soviet helicopters to fly a high altitude. Up there the effeectiveness of the stingers was about 10%, but that also limited the effectiveness of the helicopters. Jokem (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Serious vandalism in the beginning of the article. Some one should check the author and block the ip address.Akupta321 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this trash about teddy bears with explosives and child killing. Never proven. Not a single reliable source. Civilian casualities were large, but that was because of large-scale artillery and air strikes collateral damage.

We've got some more valdalism on our hands, 65.9.175.20...Please ban this IP. Thanks administrators, Bogdan 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

What's wrong with adding this link?

Memories of war veterans (from Russian side)

ellol 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• If it was deleted, I apologise. Unfortunately, some IP user started writing biased opinions supporting the Mujahiddin, and I reverted to the previous version. I think the website is ok, so feel free to post it again. Messhermit 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Combat Losses and Casualties

I am in possession of a very reputable source for combat losses and casualties. Krivosheev's "Combat Losses and Casualties in the Twentieth Century". I will be updating this page with a new section on this.

Actual soviet casualties according to the Russian General Staff Report are in the region of 26k, which includes roughly 3000 officers... much higher than both the admitted figures and the 'independent' ones cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"engineer plants"? what?

Sounds like a mistranslation from Russian. --HanzoHattori 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably means "Engineering Plant", as in construction machinery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMarshall (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Title - invasion?

Google Print search: "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" used in 476 books; "Soviet war in Afghanistan" used in 190. Why not go with a more popular title?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has not been paying attention to earlier discussion. You should first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You should also head to your local library and seek a copy of Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness, and Cooperation signed by Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in December 1978 -- one full year before the deployment of Soviet divisions. Frankly, this is an encyclopedia and not an agitprop outlet where documents published by the US Congress found in your little Google search are to be cited. Looking at the first two pages of your search results, half of them are propaganda pamphlets published by the US Congress.

I'd say "Soviet war in Afghanistan" is sufficient as a title. "Invasion" implies just the time of the advent of forces, and not the years of counterinsurgency to follow. It is also antagonistic to those who saw the intervention as a legitimate support of the local government. To the anonymous poster above: your assertion the Library of Congress is half-filled with "propaganda pamphlets" is incorrect and rather an antagonistic POV. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and also, yes, it is definitely admissible to use the results of Google searches to back assertions. Of course, some resources found on the web will be more authoritative than others. Play nicely. --Petercorless 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edit reverted

Someone just expunged a bunch of background about the war, and I restored it. However, there seems to be an unbalanced POV in the areas I just put back in. While there is a lot of good information, there is a bias that seems to creep in through the text. Let's see if we can make it more neutral, shall we? If you want to edit information, try to make it more neutral before simply deleting entire sections, or bring the issue up here on this talk page. --Petercorless 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of POV. For example the soviet intervention is called "brotherly aid" whereas the US involvement is labeled "US subversion". Some passages refer to the Mujahideen as "terrorists". I doubt they saw themselves as such... Further on, about a UN resolution condemning the invasion: "the resolution was interpreted as illegal". Was interpreted by who? Also, there is a heavy emphasis on the mujahideen atrocities, but no mention of the Soviet and Parcham war crimes. Etc etc.. It needs a major reworking to weed out the POV.--Raoulduke47 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Raoulduke47: Anytime editors ignore established, respected scholarship on a subject while simultaneously citing the works of unknown, unestablished, fringe scholars, then the editors are pushing their own POV. Unfortunately, this is what you and Scythian1 are doing in this article. Kenmore (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I could to take out POV and cited both sides as best as I could. I have not found a quote of Soviet dismissal of the UN 6th Special Emergency Session's resolution. If anyone might have any particular details to add there, that would give the Soviet rationale. However, I made sure to keep it as balanced as possible. --Petercorless 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! It's much less POV now. However some passages are still heavily loaded: i removed some bits that called the Muj terrorists, per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism, and another that said they skinned their victims alive. Another passage contained a unsourced claim that they had chemical weapons.

The "Afghan insurrection" section should describe, at least briefly, the various stages of the war and the major battles: the insurrection in Herat, the Panjshir valley offensives and the siege of Khost.Raoulduke47 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comanders Indirect Roles

Perhaps an extra name should be added to this, Jihadis including Osama Bin Laden were involved in this war.

To the anonymous poster... It may be true that OBL was involved in Afghanistan, but at the time, he was a financier and not a military commander. --Petercorless 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Date confusion in the article

There seems to be confusion with the dates in this article.

In "The Saur Revolution" section, it says: "On April 27, 1978, the PDPA overthrew and executed Daoud along with members of his family."

Then, in the "Initiation of the insurgency with U.S. and Pakistani support" section it says: "In June of 1975, fundamentalists attempted to overthrow the PDPA government."

Those dates don't seem to fit together.

Well spotted. What happened was, in 1975, militants of the Jamiat Islami("fundamentalists") tried to overthrow the Daoud govenrment, not the PDPA. I'll be rewriting that passage anyway to provide a better assessment of the origins of the insurgency.Raoulduke47 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos

It's all Soviets! A single photo of even one Mujahid would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Done! Raoulduke47 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli

The Casus Belli is listed as the treaty of friendship between the Soviet Union and the government they installed in Afghanistan. Considering "Casus Belli" means "Cause of the War", I doubt that the cause of the conflict was a treaty of friendship between two allies, unless I'm interpreting this wrongly. Could someone either correct me or review this? Thank you 86.151.29.180 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Casus Belli was a the treaty of friendship between the Soviets and the Marxist Government. That "friendship" meant that the Soviets had cause to go to war because the Marxist government asked for their help against the conservative/religious mujahdeen, who were attacking the Marxist Government. This war was not the Government of Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, it was the government of Afghanistan + the soviets versus a counter-revolutionary Islamic insurgency/rebellion. Please keep in mind, I am describing, and I am not endorsing the motives or activities of any of these parties. -Samson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.125.137 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Casualties

I have a pretty reliable source that pegs the 40th army casualties at 26,000 dead. I feel like this should be put somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where. What're your thoughts? Here's the link to my source:

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grasovpreface.pdf You can find the figure on the 3rd page of the file.

Shortcord 02:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Try changing the "Official Soviet personnel strengths and casualties" section to "Soviet strength and casualties", or something of the kind, and then add that figure. Don't forget to point out that it is an estimate made by Russian officers. Raoulduke47 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought: 53,753 wounded and 415,932 sick, and only 13,833 killed or died from wounds and diseases? But, the thing is it's the official figure. I they said "3 killed", it would be still. If there are reliable independent estimates (CIA?), they may be included. --HanzoHattori 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That figure comes from a book (The Soviet-Afghan war: how a superpower fought and lost) that is the translation of a study written by members of the Russian general staff who served in Afghanistan. Would you consider that a sufficiently reliable source?Raoulduke47 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Book/names pls. --HanzoHattori 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Full ref: Russian General Staff(translated and edited by Lester Grau and Michael Gress)(2002); The Soviet-Afghan war: how a superpower fought and lost; University Press of Kansas; ISBN 0-7006-1185-1 , page 43 Raoulduke47 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely consider the Russian General Staff a reliable source. Shortcord 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

According to History Channel (Declassified series), the CIA est. Soviet casualties at 70,000 in 1984 (I guess they didn't mean merely sick). --HanzoHattori 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really trust the CIA on this issue. According to Robert Kaplan, their main source of information on Afghanistan was the Pakistani ISI, who would inflate the importance of mujahideen successes at their convenience. In one instance, the ISI told the CIA that Kandahar airfield was closed because of mujahideen rocket attacks, but when Kaplan went there he saw Soviet planes landing every day. This was all part of the agency's policy of delegating the conduct of operations to the Pakistanis. Raoulduke47 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

Quoting the article as it is now: "Most observers including the US government and ISI [Pakastani intelligence] maintain ... that participation in the conflict by Osama bin Laden and other Afghan Arabs had minimal military impact and was unrelated to CIA programs."

The references given for this are unconvincing. Of course the CIA -- hardly known for truth telling -- is going to deny involvement. And "most observers" is ridiculously vague. Does it mean 51%? Are the majority of these "observers" conmen and fools and the minority sincere, objective and wise? The above sentence may not not have been written with the intention to deceive, but it needs a lot of work. -- random user.

nothing about creating of "Al Qaeda".--Berserkerus 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. Raoulduke47 19:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Afghan government forces

Commanders, strenght, losses needed. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More on the Kabul forces needed

It's too Soviet-centric since 1979. The gvt forces were more effective (more numerous and better armed) later then they were in the first few years. --HanzoHattori 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani involvment

I can understand that some of us would like to downplay the role of Pakistan in this conflict, but that is not justified. Pakistani support to the Afghan resistance significantly predates US and Saudi involvment. Hosting the major resistance parties in Peshawar was the result of Pak. decision. When the massive aid programmes started, it was the ISI who was charged with distributing the funds and weapons to each party. Moreover Pakistan provided training and operational and strategic guidance to those Muj. commanders who would accept them(ie not Massoud). And,last but not least Pakistan was the only other nation to be militarily engaged in this war, with the insertion of advisors, commandos into Afghanistan, and during several dogfights between Pak fighters and DRA/Soviet planes.

So no, Pakistan was not just an intermediary, and this is not just my POV, as it can all be traced to reliable sources. It is true that the ISI arms distribution programme was fraught with corruption, and certainly not devoid of unfairness and, to a degree, of self-interest. But that does not alter the fact that Pakistan was more involved than any other nation supporting the mujahideen.Raoulduke47 13:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Combatants in Infobox

Since you all seem to have a problem with the order of the combatants in the Infobox, how about a compromise and put the "supported by" list in alphabetical order? --Bejnar 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How about putting civilians in a separate category, akin to Vietnam War article, to maintain NPOV? With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection with putting civilians casualties in the casualties3 slot. It was already done some time ago and then reverted for some reason. Raoulduke47 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

Casus belli means justificaton for war. There are many wikipedia editors who remove casus belli altogether. This war definetly had a casus belli. After extensive research I have decided to add the following:

Casus belli: Mujahideen insurgency against PDPA; Request by DRA Government for a Soviet invasion under 1978 treaty.

Please respect this and don't edit or remove it. Thanks to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.142.50 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no "request for invasion". The invasion was resisted by the Afghan government (no wonder - The Soviets came to kill the president). --HanzoHattori 11:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Amin did request military assistance from the Soviets to help fight the insurgency, but obviously he didn't ask them to come and kill him! Anyway, the reasons for this conflict are many and complex. I don't think its advisable to try and simplify them and squeeze them into the infobox. Raoulduke47 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for war was Soviet love for oil. Since CCCP didn't have any economy, all empire was built upon oil money;) And from Afganistan you can gou to oil rich middle eastern countries.

Well, this is an original point of view. However, it is not documented as well :) It's recommended to take a look at the Operation Cyclone and DRA domestic policy to learn more the situation in these days. As for the oil money, the nowadays wars show what could be happened if Soviet Union was aside in 1978. --Fastboy (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Defeat leaded to fall of the soviet empire

At least one of reason for fall of soviet Empire of evil, was defeat of inwasion in Afganistan.

[are you typing like that on purpose...?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a source, and type away...72.78.23.18 (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Herat casualties

This article claims 27,000 were killed in Herat. This is irreconcilable with the analysis of competent military observers and the fact that Herat at the time had a population of some 80,000. This source puts it at 5000 [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadjin (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are varying estimates for the casualties that followed the Herat uprising. For example, O. Roy in Islam and resistance in Afghanistan' indicates the estimates varied from 5,000 to 25,000. The figure given in the article is 24,000, not 27,000, and it is the higher estimate, but you are not entitled to delete it, as a reliable source has been provided. Also, there is absolutely no justification in removing the whole "initiation of the insurgency" section: that is nothing more than vandalism and if you do it again, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. --Raoulduke47 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to propound your confused and unsupported ideas about what happened in Aghanistan. It's clear from your posts that you are not well read about this historical epoch. You are ignoring the works and conclusions of mainline scholars and basing your articles solely on what you have read in fringe publications. People are trying to reason with you...you cannot expect to deal with them by having them "banned" from Wikipedia. I intend to talk to the editors about your posts.

Kenmore (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

lol! Kenmore, it's you who's getting confused here... Who are these "people", who are trying to reason with me in particular?? If you check on this Hadjin you'll see that he is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user. I was civilly and quite appropriately reminding him of the rules of wikipedia, and other users agreed with me and also reverted his unwarranted deletions. The account has now been blocked through no action of mine. Maybe you should choose your friends a bit more carefully, eh? Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadjin was trying to point out that you are being unreasonable by refusing to check, consider and balance all data from all available sources. You are failing to think critically about the credibility of your sources, too. It looks like you have a phantasmagoric POV about this war, and you are trying to validate your POV with whatever isolated, dubious single source you can find out there. Again, I ask why you refuse to read or reference this article with Mark Urban's "War in Afghanistan"? Kenmore (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can admonish me if you like, Kenmore, but for the moment it's you who are siding with sockpuppets and threatening others with flame wars, and generally behaving like a troll. In fact, in your anxiousness to contradict me, you seem to have forgotten that this thread was about the casualties of the Herat insurection. The sockpuppet Hadjin was not all questioning my editing, he was just being disruptive, like all socpuppets. You seem to have projected your own concerns into his behaviour, a psychiatrist would probably find that very interesting, but I don't. And he was citing The bear went over the mountain by L. Grau as a source, not Mark Urban's works, so I don't see how that has suddenly appeared in this discussion. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadjin's point is that there are more sources to consider than just the single source you settled on. I agree with him.

As for "The Bear Went Over the Mountain", the authors argue that the war was something of a military defeat for the Soviets. However even this book does not carry that argument to the extreme degree that you are Scythian1 do in this article.

The article needs to be balanced. Kenmore (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over impact of war

Raoulduke47 and Wolfkeeper disagree over wording in the lead and Soviet war in Afghanistan#Ideological impact section. I propose leaving the lead the way it is and changing the Soviet war in Afghanistan#Ideological impact section to:

Mainstream sources generally credit for the fall of the Soviet Union primarily on internal economic and political problems, such as balance of payments problems and food production

Main article: History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)

but some American and Islamist sources saw the Afghan war and the part they played in it as the cause.

Some, particularly American neoconservatives, believe American and Muslim funding of the Afghan insurgents was not only responsible for the Soviet defeat but for the fall of the Soviet Union itself.

Some Islamists believe the insurgency, but not the United States, was responsible for the fall of the USSR. Osama bin Laden, for example asserted that the credit for "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahidin in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."

Bin Laden emerged from the war as "the undisputed leader of the Arab Afghans" and returned to Saudi Arabia a hero and celebrity. According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid "more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad" during the course of the Afghan War. With its end an "international brigade of jihad veterans, ... outside the countrol of any state, was suddenly available to serve radical Islamist causes anywhere in the world." These Arab Afghans fought in the Algerian civil war, waged attacks on France in 1995, and forming much of the membership of Al-Qaeda.

--BoogaLouie 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that certain aspects have been neglected, and should be given greater attention, but I don't agree with your formulation. In effect, you've created a section with a vague title "ideological impact", that will serve as a dumping ground for various extremist claims. That is not acceptable. --Raoulduke47 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Such edits have to be notable and from verifiable sources. And I actually read the reference that the war lead to the breakup of the soviet union, it was all very vague.WolfKeeper 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is nonsense? What edits are you referring to, and how are they connected to the present discussion? You'll have to be more clear, Wolfkeeper, if you want to be understood.

If you are referring to the theory that the war in Afghanistan contributed to the dissolution of the USSR, then that is completely verifiable. It is backed by a source written by academic researchers, working for the University of Washington, that ranked 17th in the classification of the world's best universities. You won't find many more reputable, or reliable sources than this. It was good of you to read the article to the end, but if you didn't understand it, then that's your problem.

One might, of course argue over the relative importance of each factor that lead to the demise of the Soviet Union, but that does not justify your grossly partisan attempts to present this theory as pure neocon propaganda. Also, you're rather badly placed to point at a lack of sources, as your version was purely based on a controversial, politically skewed documentary. If this is the limit of your knowledge on these matters, and you can't do any better research than that, then I suggest you refrain from editing this article alltogether. --Raoulduke47 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"If you are referring to the theory that the war in Afghanistan contributed to the dissolution of the USSR, then that is completely verifiable." The one article you cite (Reuveny and Prakash)is the only study out there -- out of literally thousands -- which argues that the war had a "profound" impact on the USSR and caused its collapse. That no other scholars make such outlandish claims should tell you something about the authority of this one article. Even Reuveny and Prakash themselves admit in their article that their views are unusual, isolated in the world of academia, contrarian and controversial. Further, anyone who reads the article can see that the authors grossly exaggerate the role played by the Soviet Afghan veterans in the country's post-war society, and that they are vague and hyperbolic about alleged Soviet military "defeats". That you would regard this one article as being more citable and authoritative than the many other studies which are more sober and balanced in tone says much about your lack of research on this subject. I hate to be harsh in tone, but it's the truth.

Kenmore (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the rise of international jihadist movements, then you should create a section for that called "Development of international jihadist movements", or something of the kind. The consequences for the Soviet Union should also be treated in a separate section. --Raoulduke47 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much about international movements, it's more about islamist movements, it's not really the same thing, and I would be opposed to that particular section title.WolfKeeper 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. More opposition, but no constructive suggestions. Why am I not surprised? And why do you object to "international" in favour of the more vague "islamist"? Please voice your objections in a cogent manner, or this argument isn't going to go very far. --Raoulduke47 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet deaths way under rated

Soviet forces in Afghanistan suffered a greater death toll .. in many places it states that the death toll is 15,000 + but many Afghans who Lived in Kabul at the time remeber by the time Soviets left Afghanistan... Najibs government released information as well as many international documenteries stating Soviets lost about 52,000 men in the conflict in Afghanistan. My fathers friend who was a pilot(not by choice) says that there wasnt a day where you wouldnt see tons of soviets in body bags by the number waiting to be air lifted by the infamous black cargo planes known in the soviet union as (evil's chariot)bringing bodies of fallen soliders from Afghanistan. It also states that half of the death tolls are from sickness or soliders who fell ill.. yes this could be true to some extent but the article totally underestmaites the Afghan rebles effectiveness in fights and major battles... most Soviet soldiers were killed in Ambushes , Hit and runs , Stinger missiles air strikes , and the 2 major battles of Panjshir which cost alot of Soviets thier lives. Im not asking the article to be changed but I just want to inform certain people who do not know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.128.120 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Soviet archives are a more authorative source on Soviet losses than whatever numbers were alledgedly released by other parties. 52 thousand deaths would mean 17-18 deaths per day (2976 days); even this inflated number does not prove what "your fathers friend" said. However, the reality was that there were (on average) about 5 fatalities each day of the war. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has changed correction of the combatants?????

I added the groupe of participators of the conflict who very affected the situation of the opposing parties and the result of the war. I didn't wrote that they all personally took part in hostilities but it is wrong to confine number of the participators!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.46.22 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Pakistan and the USA probably should be included to the combatant list (USA probably under the aide tag). It is interesting, that the article even containing a phrase about limited war waged by Pakistan, but it is not included among the belligerents. Concerning the USA, its crucial involvement is inevitable; similarly, the article about Vietnam lists Soviet Union among combatants.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.63.144 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC) 

Ummm..What about

How this war supplied the taliban and Bin Laden with weapons that are now helping to kill the people who gave them to the afgans, and how it gave OBL the influence in Islamic extremists to plan 9/11 alot of people agree that this is one of the milestones in planning of 9/11 and yet there is very little or no mention of how this war has directly causes most of the 21st centuries problems--Matterfoot (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that addresses the claim, and add it to this article citing the source. Kingturtle (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a good sized article on the Arab Afghans --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also expanded Ideological impact section a little. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact of the war on the Soviet Union is misunderstood

I eliminated the introductory paragraph which states that the war was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is nonsense. The Afghan conflict did not have much of an impact on the Soviet Union at all.

The Afghan war was really just a military and political sideshow for the Soviets. It was always regarded by the Kremlin as much less of a priority -- militarily, economically and politically -- than the Soviet Union's tense international standoff with the United States, NATO, and China.

The war did not have a "profound" impact on the Soviet Union, as the article incorrectly stated before I corrected it.

Just read Russian history to get some perspective. Wars that had a "profound" impact on Russia or the Soviet Union were conflicts that were far larger in military, political, and economic scope than was the Afghan war. The fighting in Afghanistan did not impact Russia/Soviet Union on a scale that was anything comparable to other major conflicts in history, such as the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, or even the 1940 Soviet-Finnish War.

It is far fetched to imagine that a small regional conflict such as the Afghan war could have caused the Soviet Union's collapse.

Gorbachev pulled his troops out of Afghanistan because of dire economic circumstances within the Soviet Union itself. This economic meltdown was caused by the demands of the Cold War confrontation with the United States. It was not caused by the Afghan rebels.

The Soviet military was not driven from Afghanistan by the rebels. On the contrary, the Soviet army was strongly entrenched in Afghanistan and it was under no military pressure to retreat.

The war was an embarrassment for the Soviet military because the vaunted Soviet army could not destroy the rebels and end the conflict. That is not really the same as a defeat.

NATO's experience against the Taliban today is more or less the same experience the Soviet army had against the Afghan rebels in the 1980s. No victory, no result, but at the same time, no defeat. Just interminable, desultory skirmishing.

Kenmore (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than omit supported claims that this war was a factor in the demise of the Soviet Union, this article should include such supported claims *and* include supported claims that this war did *not* lead to the demise of the Soviet Union. Kingturtle (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to consider the merit of the "supported" claims. No respected authorities in academia, journalism, or affairs of state seriously argue that the war was a contributing factor to the Soviet Union's collapse. Any well known figures who make this argument are just hyperbolizing.

To include such "supported" claims in this article would be to seriously undermine the article's credibility.

Kenmore (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find sources that claim it wasn't a major factor, by all means include them. Your argument makes no sense at all and certainly isn't a basis to remove material that represents the majority opinion among writers on this subject. If the Soviet army couldn't even win a "sideshow" war, than it obviously wasn't in same league as the U.S. military, which would make the Cold War a bit of farce. Kauffner (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner: thanks for your input, but you are confused. No responsible scholars espouse your argument; it is advanced only by hyperbolic and ignorant journalists. Please read my posts for more information on the subject, including reputable sources. Read British journalist Jonathan Steele's articles for perspective. Kenmore (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So if someone disagrees with you, they are "hyperbolic and ignorant", either that or "confused." Only if they agree with you can they be considered "responsible scholars." How convienent! What part of Russia do you come from, anyway? I am aware that not all writers agree on this issue, but to just leave out the majority view cannot be justified. Kauffner (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, Jokem, but please do not remove others' comments. The integrity of the record on talk pages is of paramount importance; see WP:TPO, and WP:Civil#Removal of uncivil comments. I struck them instead, which marks them as not helpful to consensus, but preserves their place in the discussion. Anarchangel (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet's began planning to withdraw in the early '80s, not in 1985

I eliminated the sentence which states that the Soviets began planning to withdraw at the end of 1985. This is an error. In truth, the Soviets were planning to withdraw their troops as early as 1982. By 1985, the withdrawal plan was nearly fully developed. The only questions were the timetable of the withdrawal, and whether the Soviet generals would be permited to try to destroy the guerrillas prior to withdrawing.

This information is based on what research of Selig Harrison and Diego Cordovez in their book Out of Afghanistan : the inside story of the Soviet withdrawal. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 450 p. Call number & location: 958.1045 C67 1995 Main (IRC))

I saw Harrison speak on this issue at Hampshire College in 1988. That was shortly after he and Cordovez published their data in one of the foreign policy journals that same year (I don't remember which one).

Harrison points out that as early as 1980, there was a fierce debate in the Kremlin between so called "hawks" (Brezhnev, Gromyko, etc.) and the younger generation of Politburo members, whom Harrison called "doves". This younger generation of Soviet leaders was more liberal in approach than the older generation, and they were disgusted with the fact that their leaders had sent an army to Afghanistan in the first place.

According to Harrison, serious withdrawal plans were laid out starting in 1982, under Yuri Andropov. After that it was just a matter of time until the younger Soviet leaders replaced the older leaders, at which point the withdrawal from Afghanistan would be accelerated.

The intentions of the Soviet leaders to leave Afghanistan, from the early '80s onward, had little to do with battlefield realities in Afghanistan itself.

When Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he relented to his generals entreaties to give them one more year to destroy the guerrilla movement. Against his better judgment, Gorbachev relented. For the next year (1985-86), the Soviet army drastically increased its battlefield aggression and its use of elite spetnasz commandos in an effort to finish the guerrillas off. The guerrillas came close to collapse (in private conversations U.S. State department personnel were even calling the Mujahideen the "Muja-has-beens" at that point), but the guerrillas managed to survive. By the end of 1986, Gorbachev informed his generals that he was not giving them any more time to destroy the Mujahideen, and he proceeded with the withdrawal plan.

The introduction of the Stinger missile to Afghanistan in mid-1986 was what enabled the guerrillas to remain in the fight. The missile did not turn the tide of the war, as is often mistakenly believed. Rather the missile ensured that the guerrillas would survive the blistering Soviet offensive of 1985-86. Because of the Stinger, there would be no quick end to the fighting in favor of the Soviet army.

The Soviet generals were angry at Gorbachev for cutting their offensive short. They believed they could end the war -- even in spite of the Stinger missile -- if only they had more troops. But Gorbachev denied the generals the extra resources they wanted. For the generals, withdrawal without destroying the guerrillas was tantamount to a defeat, or at least the perception of defeat.

By the end of 1986, of course, Gorbachev had too many other domestic and international priorities of an urgent nature to attend to, and he would not allow himself to be swayed by his generals' advice to remain in a war that he regarded as being of only peripheral importance to the Soviet Union in the first place. Kenmore (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Change name

I believe this page should change title (redirect) to Soviet-Afghan War. 69.234.201.82 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. "Soviet-Afghan War" is inappropriate because it exaggerates the importance, scope, and scale of the conflict internationally. The Soviets sent a limited military contingent to interfere in an Afghan civil war that was already being fought before the Soviets arrived, and which continued to be fought after the Soviets left.

"Soviet-Afghan War" makes the war sound like a full-fledged war between two fully mobilized nation-states, on par with huge conflicts such as the Franco-Prussian War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Sino-Japanese War, etc. The Soviet intervention of course was not that far reaching in scope or goals.

Kenmore (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have a counter idea. Everything you said were exactly the same as what happened to Cambodia. Vietnam also sent troops to Cambodia and occcupied the country, but very limit. Not to mention that there are already the civil confict between various Cambodian factions before and after the Vietnamese invasion and occupation. Yet the article still called Cambodian-Vietnamese War, described as a full-scale war. So, depend on your ideas above, I think as if that article should redirect to Vietnamese war in Cambodia, same as this one. 69.234.201.82 (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Limited contingent" was actually limited, so much that the Afghan communists always outnumbered Soviets (even if were mostly worse troops, and prone to desertion/defection). It was just "Soviet involvement in Afghanistan". --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As of the war in Cambodia, you should discuss it on its page. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is biased

This article talks about damage to Afghanistan but is silent on aid given by the USSR thereto. Infact, as of 2004, Russia was still the top investor in this country with almost $8 billion in debt which easily exceeds the gross domestic product of Afghanistan.Anwar (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mujahideen" or "mujahideen"?

--84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen article says mujahideen, so I'll correct this article. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There were some raids into Soviet Tajikistan

Soviet Union territory. (Are not mentioned.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "raids" consistently of nothing more than a few isolated rocket attacks. They were not significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.54.165 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DOES NOT COMPUTE

" After the war the USSR published casualties figures broken down by year.

Soviet casualties by year
1979	86
1980	484
1981	298
1982	948
1983	446
1984	346
1985	868
1986	333
1987	215
1988	759
1989	53

"

It's not 14,000. Remove this. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is close to 6,000.Biophys (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is not even clear where this Table came from.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This table should be kept, since this is official info on Soviet casualties. See: http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/victim.htm. --Fastboy (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And the rest of the article repeatedly states the official figure is 14,000-15,000. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it states that casualties were at least 40,000 according to Western sources (see at the bottom).Biophys (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So the source is (Russian): газета "Правда" от 17.08.1989 года (Newspaper Pravda from 17.08.1989). This is newspaper "The Truth" by Soviet Communist Party. This "source" is as good as any professional disinformation; one can not take it seriously. One can only tell: "according to Soviet propaganda sources...".Biophys (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, this source tells: 40,000 "according to Western sources", and it also gives several mutually contradicting numbers from Soviet sources. This Table contradicts all other estimates, Soviet and Western. Why do we need it?Biophys (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, the original table was probably wrong copy-pasted. First of all, it should look like:

Soviet casualties by year
1979	86
1980	1484
1981	1298
1982	1948
1983	1446
1984	2346
1985	1868
1986	1333
1987	1215
1988	759
1989	53

Which gives the total number close to 14,000. Secondly, it does not matters, if someone does not like Soviet propaganda, U.S. or someone's else propaganda. Like I noticed before, this is officially confirmed numbers. All other estimates are good to know, but they remain only "estimates" from non-official sources. My opinion, official numbers should be noticed at first, and other estimates should be referenced then. --Fastboy (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then let's simply tell that the casualtes were 14,000 according to Soviet soutces, and at least 40,000 according to Weastern sources. That is what your source claims. It means than the number of casualties is disputed. What for do you need this Table with disputed numbers?Biophys (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to remember that the term "casualties" does NOT mean dead or killed; casualties are dead, wounded, missing, and captured.--172.191.243.216 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this mention is enough. I didn't noticed before that this table is not only one mention in the article. --Fastboy (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian support

There was a citation needed tag on the following sentence:"Notably, India, a close ally of Moscow during the Cold War, supported the Soviet invasion and provided crucial logistics and intelligence support to the Soviet army." I have found a bbc article mentioning the Indian support, and so have added the citation, currently #30.72.78.23.18 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when was India a "close ally of Moscow during the Cold War?" Was not India one of the major players in the league of non-aligned states, or whatever it was called? Please... This is rubbish! Jersey John (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

India wasn't physically involved in the conflict. If you had to include all the nations that provided support in the manner which India did during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan,there would be many other nations on the side of the US such as Egypt,a significant portion of NATO etc. So I reccomend the removal of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.230.119 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The source SPECULATES an Indian involvment, India unlike other countries involved has never confirmed that it has been a part of this war, so you cannot add a country's name without any confirmation from the government.Magicalpoem (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• India involvement in the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was just political. There is no evidence of a Indian military involvement. But, both the regimes of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi fully backed the Soviet Union and were pretty open about it in the media. The India intelligence establishment is also believed to be involved but that does not account to military involvement. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Some sources : [4] [5]

India was a non-aligned state . A few edits ago another user 119.152.172.24 left this remark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USSR_stamp_I.Gandhi_1984_5k.jpg A proof that india support russia during Russian invasion of Afghanistan among the edits (this same user returned India to the list of belligerents). On Wikipedia, propagandist rubbish ought not to be tolerated. Until a valid reference is provided, The following lines shall be removed from the article: "Supported by': India" in the Belligerents section and "India Gandhi" from the Commanders section. I request that these users/vandals refrain from editing this article, else serious action is warranted. 68.40.201.232 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mujahideen Victory

Unregistered user(s) continue to delete six sourced references that specify that it was a Mujahideen victory. What they offer instead is their source purporting that it was "inconclusive" engagement. He/she further improperly rejects the six cited sources without providing independent scholarship as to the merits of the sources. The unregistered user is in no position to offer their speculative assessment as to the weightiness of the sources. Indeed, this article continues to be the subject unwarranted edits exemplified by recent unregistered users' deletions. Scythian1 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is a more authoritative source of scholarship on the war: 1) books that are full scale studies of the war, or 2) books on other subjects (i.e., not about the war itself) which make isolated, peripheral comments about the conflict?

You are claiming that the second category of books (i.e., books not intended by the authors to be analyses of the war) are authorities on the subject, and that the first category of books (i.e., full scale, scholarly research devoted to analyzing the war) are "speculative" and lacking "merit", and should be dismissed.

I do not believe that any reasonable person would agree with your historiography.

Kenmore (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your math is kind of weird Kenmore. You've removed six sources to replace them with only one, but without citing a page number, or which passage you are referring to, so you can't actually prove that you've read it. I have actually read this book(the 1991 revised edition, rather than the out-of-date 1988 edition), and there are certain issues with it. While it is certainly detailed and informative, the author takes a very pro-Soviet and pro-DRA stance, especially in the last chapter that hardly deserves its name "analysis". In the preface to the 1991 edition, Urban himself admits that his views are controversial and isolated, and were subject to much criticism. His views are no doubt politically motivated, probably by admiration for Gorbachev, which was a frequent theme at that time in the West. There are obviously other studies of this conflict, such as Isby's War in a distant country, or Maley's excellent Afghanistan wars, that are equally reliable, and whose authors do not share Urbans' views.

So you're the guy who's been asserting that the "mujahideen never won any victories"? I'm not surprised that such a biased and evidently incorrect utterance should come from you. If you had taken your own advice, and read Mark Urban's War in Afghanistan, you would have seen that there were several instances of mujahideen battlefield victories, especially over the DRA(Urban, p.228-229, p.255, p.219; p.173). And yes, one could say that, whenever they chose to apply adequate means to achieve their tactical goals, the Soviets were able to maintain battlefield superiority over their opponents. But in the long run, this didn't change anything because in a guerilla war, battlefield results are irrelevant, unless they seriously alter the strategic situation. The US in Vietnam, or the French in Algeria could very well claim to have "won all the battles", but in the end they both lost the war. Soviet operations didn't change anything to the strategic situation, that was that the mujahideen always controlled 80-90 percent of the country. In fact according to Urban(p.286) the DRA held even less territory in 1988 than it did in 1979.

As for your commentary that the mujahideen "couldn't interfere with the withdrawal", that is another demonstration of ignorance and bias. It is a well-known and established historical fact that the mujahideen didn't attack the retreating Soviet army because the Soviets had concluded ceasefires with local commanders.(Urban p.251) The mujahideen may not have been able to prevent the withdrawal, but they could have foiled Gromov's plan for a peaceful withdrawal without casualties. In the event, they didn't intervene because they had no interest in doing so. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Raoulduke47: thanks for taking the time to argue your points here in detail. I do not have Urban's second book in my personal library, so I intend to visit the library (hopefully today) to review it again. What I remember about the second book from an earlier reading, however, is that in the final chapter, Urban states that even as of 1990 (when the book was written), he did not regard the Soviet military intervention as having been a failure or a defeat. More on this later.

Yes, certainly the mujihadeen won victories over DRA forces at certain times in the war. However they enjoyed no such successes against the Soviet military (with the possible exception of the Battle of Jadji, summer of 1987). Thus, when I stated the "mujihadeen won no victories", my point was that they did not achieve any success on the ground against the Soviets that compromised the Soviet military position, or which could have forced the Soviets out of the war.

Usually, the consequences of mujihadeen victories over DRA forces is that Soviet units would intervene in the wake of the DRA defeats, force the mujihadeen back, and retore the original DRA-Soviet position. This pattern, admittedly, did tend to be an annoyance and an embarrassment for the Soviets because it evinced Soviet political failure in building-up the effectiveness of the DRA war machine.

You are correct in stating that conventional battlefield outcomes in guerrilla wars tend not to impact the strategic balance of the war, or its long term outcome. However the Soviets themselves appeared to understand this in Afghanistan, which is evinced by the fact that they rarely undertook any ambitious, large scale offensives aimed at permanently conquering land or totally destroying mujihadeen guerrilla infrastructure (Lester Grau gives examples of these limited Soviet operations in one of his books...I'll give you the specific footnote later today).

As for the fact that the Soviets controlled only a limited amount of Afghan territory throughout the war (10% to 15%), this is because the Soviets deliberately chose to limit themselves to control of the cities and major provincial towns only. The Soviets realized that taking control of the countryside and the mountain ranges would have required the use of an additional 200,000 to 400,000 soldiers to serve as an occupying force, something the Soviet leaders never intended to do in Afghanistan in the first place.

The Algeria analogy you raise is a good one. In Algeria, the French military actually the upper-hand in the conflict, strategically and tactically. The war was terminated by French president Charles de Gaulle for political reasons, not military reasons. de Gaulle did not want France to be bogged down economically, socially and politically by its connection to the Algerian colony. That is similar to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, as the Kremlin had been making plans since 1982 to withdraw its forces for political reasons (a strategic goal given urgency later in the 1980s by the Soviet Union's impending economic meltdown, which Gorbachev was desperately trying to avoid by cutting Soviet commitments all around the globe). The Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was not driven -- based on current available evidence -- by the military situation on the ground. It is interesting to note that in both the Algerian and Afghan examples, the French and Soviet military leaders resented the decisions made by their respective heads of state, as they felt that their military accomplishments were being spoiled uneccessarily.

Concerning the mujihadeen leaders' willingness to negotiate truces with the Soviets as the latter were withdrawing in 1988-89, this is because the guerrillas knew that attacking the Soviets would be futile and costly. Remember that the retreating Soviet columns were heavily protected by dense tank columns and large fleets of helicopter gunships. Strategic points on the withdrawal routes were secured ahead of time by Soviet forces. And, of course, the guerrillas wanted to avoid having their territories raked by overwhelming Soviet artillery bombardments, such as that unleashed by Gromov in late 1988 in the area of the Panjshir Pass in order to ensure that the area was cleared of guerrilla ambush forces.

Isby and Maley have written fine accounts of the Afghan war. However neither author gives the military situation the same kind of comprehensive, extensively detailed, and painstaking military analysis that Urban's books do. I do not believe that Urban was motivated by any admiration for Gorbachev or the DRA, either. His writing and analysis strike me as being exceptionally cold and objective.

Lester Grau writes excellent material on the Soviet-Afghan war, and certainly he states that the Soviets were defeated. But, so far, Grau's works are limited to analyses of tactics (micro analysis), sometimes giving actual battlefield examples to support his points. None of Grau's books describe the unfolding of the war on a macro level from 1979 to 1988 in such a way as to enable the reader to see, on a factual level, how exactly the Soviet military position became vulnerable and how this necessitated a withdrawal.

I am waiting for someone to publish a thorough, factually based analysis of the war showing that the Soviets did indeed suffer some kind of weakening of their military position, and that this failure drove the Kremlin's decision to retreat from Afghanistan. Maybe some day somebody can prove that the Soviets really did lose their air support in 1987, and that this made them feel so vulnerable they decided to retreat. Or maybe someone can prove that the morale of Soviet infantrymen was so poor in 1987 that their leaders could no longer send them out on patrols, or use the troops effectively in large scale operations. Both arguments were theorized in the late '80s by Western observers, but evidence supporting these theories never really materialized (as Urban himself points out).

Kenmore (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When you speak about lose/victory, it's important to determine the primary reason of the Soviet withdrawal. What prevented Soviet forces from staying in DRA - an order, or the mujahideen's hostility - the right answer could be given only based on historical facts and not rumors. Yes, Soviet forces didn't change the strategic situation: their mission was failed. But what was their mission? Now with the cold war is over (hopefully), the anti-soviet point of view is obviously dominating. It could be difficult to answer these questions in a neutral point of view without using pro-soviet sources. The good idea may be to describe two (or probably several?) point of views as soon as the historical facts are still under heavy pressure of propaganda.--Fastboy (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

This article is specifically dealing with the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and NOT the Afghan Civil War. The 40th Army had accomplished all of its stated objectives and did not suffer any significant tactical defeats. The end of the Soviet engagement in Afghanistan is marked by the withdrawal (which was planned, rather than forced), which in no way qualifies as "Mujahiddeen victory" since the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, allied to the Soviet Union, was left in control of the country and actually outlived the Soviet Union itself. Therefore, stating that the campaign ended in "Mujahiddeen victory" is an anachronism in definition . The current page provides a misleading and fundamentally biased view on the result of Soviet involvement. Pages like these tranish Wikipedia's image as a credible and free source of information. Absolutely appalling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.107.138 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note:

The recent IP trolling was probably banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who has targeted this article before. All of his edits can be reverted instantly and without discussion. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who made edits yesterday without signing in. I was not aware of the IP/sign-in rule. Irregardless, however, it is Scythian1 who is initiating an edit war. Until recently, everyone working on this article was satisfied with "inconclusive" as being the war's result in the information box.

If I wanted to, I could easily find six or seven sources that regard the war as "inconclusive", but where would that get us? In the end, footnoting is only as valid as the credibility and appropriateness of the source being used as a reference. Please see my reply above to Scythian1 for more.

Kenmore (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After the stinger missile instroduced in 1987, Soviet aircraft started dropping like flies and the hardliners led by Defense Minister Sergei Sokolov were discredited. INF, Soviet withdrawal, Russian elections, and later Polish elections are all direct consequences of this. If the Soviets had won in Afghanistan, the hardliners would have been calling the shots. This is "inconclusive"? Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The stinger missile did not have the decisive impact on the war that you claim it had. The missile did indeed blunt Soviet offensive capacity, but it did not turn the tide of war in favor of the mujahideen. As for Sokolov, the ebbing of his political fortunes was due to his being on the wrong side of a Kremlin power struggle; he was one of the older generation "hawks" who were being supplanted by younger generation "doves" such as Gorbachev. This had little to do with events in Afghanistan.

The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Polish elections, Russian elections, etc. were due to the meltdown of the Soviet communist system...they were not caused by the military events on the ground. Kenmore (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The stinger missile made the war unwinnable for the Soviets. But apart from stinger issue, the conclusion of the war is that the Soviets were forced to withdraw and the Kremlin hardliners were discredited. Sokolov would been a hero if he'd been able to win the war. Gorbachev's policies didn't arise in his mind spontaneously, but were a response to the fact that hardline policies had failed. Kauffner (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all counts. The Soviet military was actually grinding its way indecisively to a slow, long-term victory on the ground when the withdrawal was announced in 1987. See my link below (Bauman analysis) for a balanced analysis of what happened, and what were the confluence of events (military and political) that influenced the Soviets to leave. The Soviet army was certainly not "forced" to leave Afghanistan.

Truth be told, the Soviet military experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s was not much different from NATO's experience in Afghanistan today.

Again, the Kremlin's plans to leave Afghanistan began in 1982...this was long before the stinger missile appeared. See more posts above for more on this.

Sokolov and the "hardliners" were not discredited by the war. They were out of favor because they stood for old-style ways of thinking that Gorbachev and the younger generation of Soviet reformers wanted to discard.

Gorbachev's policies were forced on him by the fact that the Soviet system was proving to be inadequate in economic, industrial and technological competition with the West. This realization is what led to Gorbachev's reforms, not Afghanistan.

Gorbachev scrapped the USSR's military involvement in Afghanistan because it was an economically and politically costly venture that was getting in the way of his reforms. It was part of a world-wide pattern of Soviet disengagement and retrenchment forced on the Kremlin by grim economic realities. Kenmore (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You call it a "economically and politically costly venture", I say they were forced out. It's not really a substantive difference of opinion. You're just spinning every event in the most pro-Soviet way you can. The stinger was of course just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The Soviets were willing to sacrifice economically as long as it seemed like that they had a winning system militarily. Gorbachev had already been in office for two years in 1987, but he couldn't put through any major reforms until after ousting Sokolov. If you look at Russian history, the big political changes occurred after major military defeats, like 1905 (Japan) or 1917 (WWI). To put the emphasis and on how young, hip, and smart Gorbachev was -- you make it sound like he was making one smart move after another until finally the Soviet Union collapsed. Kauffner (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read a great deal about Russian history, and I can assure you that there is no comparison between the 1980s Afghanistan situation and big, lost wars such as the Russo-Japanese War or WW1. The Japanese War and WW1 were major conflicts that taxed the entire Russian system economically, politically, socially and militarily. Afghanistan, by contrast, was just small scale skirmishing.

Compare the Soviet experience with the US's present involvement in Afghanistan. Nobody would think to compare American military operations there today to our larger, deeper experiences in WW1, WW2, or the American Civil War. There is a vast difference in scope and scale. The comparison can't be made in the US/NATO case, and it doesn't work in the Soviet case either.

Kenmore (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that it wasn't a Mujahideen victory is ridiculous. The Soviet Union wanted to help install a stable communist government, they weren't able to as the Mujahideen forces grew with every year, and the communist government of Afghanistan collapsed two years after the Soviets withdrew. That's very similar to the US withdrawing from Vietnam in 1973, two years before the South Vietnamese government collapsed. The general concensus on the Vietnam War is that communists won, the general concensus on the Soviet-Afghan war is that the Mujahideen won. There's about a thousand reliable sources to back that up. Sure there's probably some writers who disagree with that conclusion, but those theories are fringe theories. Let me sum it up. Soviet Goals;

• Suppress Mujahideen insurgency (failed)
• Help stabilize the communist government/army so that it could suppress Mujahideen insurgency on their own (failed)

Mujahideen Goals;

• Push Soviet troops out of Afghanistan (succeeded)
• Overthrow the communist regime (eventually succeeded as well) Grey Fox (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your understanding of the situation – especially its military aspects – is quite simplistic. Please read my posts above, including my link to the Bauman article. Putting the war into the wider context of what happened in the Soviet Union and in world diplomacy during the 1980s is not subscribing to “fringe theories”. It’s important to get some perspective here. Also, you need to consider the authority of your sources; the fact that a “thousand” such sources use hyperbolic terms in summarizing the Soviet experience in Afghanistan doesn’t give their hyperbole the weight of established fact, or the credence of respected scholarship.

As for your other points, it is known that the Soviet army never made a serious attempt to destroy the insurgency on a nationwide basis. The Soviet military goal was to strengthen the Afghan communist government army so it could resist the insurgents on its own. In this respect, the Soviets were successful. This was proven by the fact that the Afghan government army did in fact successfully resist the insurgents for three years following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

It’s important to understand, too, that the Afghan communist government collapsed in 1992 because Boris Yeltsin cut-off its economic and military aid, and not because it was defeated by the insurgents. A decisive development here is that General Dostum, a major figure in the communist government at the time, decided to switch his allegiance to the insurgents. That, ultimately, is what opened Kabul to the mujahedeen.

Now, because of hyperbolic journalism and bad history articles like this one, an entire generation of Americans has wildly inaccurate ideas of what in fact happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Amazingly, they believe that the Soviets suffered a catastrophic and fateful military defeat, like the Battle of Waterloo or Dien Bin Phu. Kenmore (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

my friend

hello , does anyone remember a man called Juris Interberg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.66.106 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

superb analysis of the war by Dr. Robert F. Baumann

This article is one of the of the very best synopses of the Soviet-Afghanistan War I have yet to see. It explains fully how the Soviets lost the war in spite of having the upper hand militarily throughout the conflict.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/soviet-afghan_compound-warfare.htm Kenmore (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Change title

Why this war called "Soviet war in Afganistan" and why used "cold war propagandistic terms" like "Soviet war in Afghanistan", "Soviet-Afghan War", "Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", etc. Yes, this terms have rights to existence, but not to use theirs as an article title, it isn't objective. How about Iraq war or Vietnam war?

It is my opinion that this article should be merged with the Afghan Civil War article (since the two are ridiculously linked) or find a suitable name, that is, an objective name, free of Western bias. This article should also become semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro magalhaes86 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New name proposal

I suggest renaming it to War in Afghanistan (1979-1989) in line with War in Afghanistan (2001-present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is universaly known as the Soviet war in Afganistan and not War in Afghanistan (1979-1989), just like the Iraq war is known as the Iraq war and the Vietnam war is universaly called the Vietnam war. It should be called like the majority calls it, be it propaganda or not.89.216.236.45 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

as I see from google only wikipedia and its mirrors use that name --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I also often see the name Soviet-Afghan War. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 207.233.67.8, I just googled it up and Soviet-Afghan War does make more appearances, in that case change it to Soviet-Afghan War. But War in Afghanistan (1979-1989)? No, no, no way.89.216.236.45 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

results

Why does the results section not say Soviot defeat, did they achive thier aims?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

This question has already been answered several times over in previous posts. See above for the discussion.

Kenmore (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Combat Losses and Casualties

• Are there any reliable sources for the numbers?
• I think it is a mistake to count civilian casualties only on the Mujahedin side, as Mujahedin attacks on major Afghan cities killed civilians, too. The civilian casualty-numbers should not be considered part of any side, but as a separate group.

Tājik (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign supporters on infobox

Stop putting China, the United States and all the rest of these countries on the belligerents infobox. I have seen it happen twice in the recent days. They didn't participate in the war, and that is like counting Yugoslavia on the 1982 Lebanon War because they gave weapons to the PLO. --dicttrshp (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Grey Fox (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This point is quite disputable. If the economic, intelligence and trainee involvement is large-scale, the participant should be included among the belligerents, even if the personnel involvement is not large. Compare this with the wiki's Vietnam war article, where USSR is listed among belligerents. According to the delineated definition, the multifaceted help of the USA to the insurgents was definitive and it should be listed among the combatants, while China's involvement was of secondary importance and it, thus, shouldn't be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.63.144 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitelisting ruswar.com

I propose to add an external link to www.ruswar.com that site was placed on blacklist for unknown(?) reason.

Outcome of conflict

In this conflict, the mujahideen's resistance drove Soviet forces out of Afghanistan, toppled the government, and ultimately assumed leadership of the nation, though they were ultimately toppled by the Taliban. The focus of this article is on the outcome of the mujahideen's conflict against the Soviet Union and the Afghan government they supported. The insertion of "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen victory" is precise and accurate. "Mujahideen victory" continues to be removed without explanation. I have now reinserted it, along with a Library of Congress study reference whose very title is "Mujahideen Victory." Afrique (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read more about the war before you set yourself up as a penultimate authority on the subject. The facts as you state them here are grotesque oversimplifications. The article itself is so poorly sourced and awkwardly edited that it is now a joke. Did you insert the information about the New York Times and Time in the introductory paragraph? That data really shouldn't be there. Very few of the people contributing to this article have any sense of perspective when selecting sources. Please study these links:

http://www.albion.edu/library/eval.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm

Kenmore (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, even if something is obvious, it needs to be sourced. And excuse me, without explanation? Please assume WP:good faith, I have no issue with it being called a victory, all I wanted was a source, which you supplied. As long as everyone is okay with the source, we're good to go. I'd prefer a source that actually refers directly to the conflict as a victory for the mujahideen, because it doesn't necessarily refer to the defeat of the Soviet invasion as it does to the implementation of a mujahideen government. Do not use WP:synthesis. I'll give you some time to find another source, I won't revert you in the meantime. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• A mujahideen government wasn't even implemented in the first place, unless the Northern Alliance compromised the entire mujahideen (which the Taliban, Hezbi Islami etc also belonged to). --Nicolaert (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone contributing to this article should start here (soon!):

http://www.albion.edu/library/eval.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm Kenmore (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I had multiple citations included, including ones from Soviet military officials themselves conceeding their defeat in the war. They did not defeat the mujahideen militarily and the government they fought to protect collapsed. That's a defeat by any definition. Afrique (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, you are ignorant of the facts. Woefully so. I have provided you with several links -- here and on your talkpage -- which outline the truth about the war. It would behoove you to read those articles before discussing the subject with others. Kenmore (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrique: I have just read your four sources. Ironically, two of them actually undermine your argument; these sources tend to substantiate the arguments of your opponents on this board. Consider the following.

Footnote #1

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/121.htm

This article states that after the Soviets left, Najibullah successfully resisted the mujihadeen until his Soviet funding was cut off by Boris Yeltsin in 1992. The article also argues that this termination of funding caused Najibullah's government to fragment politically, which led to renegade communist elements joining the mujihadeen. That's what your opponents on this board are saying. Your claim that the communist government was overrun by the mujihadeen as a direct result of some imagined defeat of the Soviet army is undermined by this footnote.

Footnote #2

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DF153FF934A15752C0A96F948260

This article also undermines your argument that the Soviets left Afghanistan because of a military defeat. Halfway down the article, it is written that the Soviet Union's economic demise is the likely reason why Gorbachev decided to disengage from Afghanistan. Except for the informal remark by one Soviet diplomat, the entire tone of the article supports your opponents' argument that economic and political turmoil within the USSR was the reason for the Soviet withdrawal. Incidentally, I remember reading this article the very day it was published in 1989.

Footnote #3

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=98777&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=MostWatchedVideos&videoChannel=2602

This source is just a news snippet that does not qualify as a reference for a Wikipedia article.

Footnote #4

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/904847.html

This article might tend to support your argument, as it references newly released Russian documents that, supposedly, explain Gorbachev's motives for withdrawal in 1985. The problem with this article, though, is that it is just written by some journalist who is not likely an authority on the war, and who has a deadline to meet. Journalists can be notoriously irresponsible with respect to what they write in articles. I would need to see the newly released Russian documents before making a judgment as to what exactly they say. Newspaper articles should not be used as sources to support complex arguments about historical subjects anyway.

Kenmore (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily confusing yourself. There may well be multiple factors that contributed to the mujahideen's victory and the Soviet Union's defeat. But even if you accept that, it does not change the fundamental fact of the outcome: The Soviet Union's military objective was to stabilize the communist government in Kabul. They failed to do that, were forced (or chose) to withdraw, and that government then collapsed and was replaced by one comprising leadership elements from the Northern Alliance mujahideen. "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen victory" is, if anything, understated. One could go further to say it was a "Soviet defeat." We do not say that. One could go still further to say it was such a devastating defeat that it was a major contributing factor to the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. We do not do that either. As it stands, we merely document the broadly-accepted facts that the Soviets withdrew (true) and the mujahideen prevailed, as in militarily toppling the Soviet-supported government (true). Afrique (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confusing myself? Quite the contrary;…you are confusing yourself, and I can prove it by matching your statements against passages from the source -- your very own citation -- that you mistakenly believe supports your argument.

You argue that the “Soviet Union’s military objective was to stabilize the communist government in Kabul” and that they “failed to do that”, and that “the mujihadeen prevailed, as in militarily toppling the Soviet-supported government.”

To prove your point, you cite a Library of Congress article (Footnote #1) as your source. http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/121.htm

You are clearly confused about what the article is saying. In fact, the information in the article refutes your argument in multiple ways. The quotes below are taken from the article:

1. The article states that “for nearly three years…the Kabul government had successfully defended itself against mujihadeen attacks.” How could the Soviets have failed to stabilize the communist government if -- according to your very own source -- the government was strong enough to defeat the mujihadeen for three years following the Soviet withdrawal?Kenmore (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The outcome we have cited states that the Soviets withdrew (true). It states the mujahideen achieved victory, which they did when they toppled the Najibullah government and assumed governmental control of the country. Afrique (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Further, the article states that during and following the Soviet withdrawal, “Kabul’s officials had arranged cease-fires” and “neutral zones”, and that “as the civil war developed into a stalemate in 1989, such arrangements proliferated into political understandings.” In addition, the article states that “many mujihadeen groups were literally bought off with arms, supplies and money to become militias defending towns, roads and installations” on behalf of the communist government. Clearly, in order for this to have happened, the Soviets must have succeeded in stabilizing and strengthening the communist government. Your very own source proves so.Kenmore (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They did not stabilize it if it collapsed--and, as I mentioned previously, one could go further (as many have) to suggest that not only did the mujahideen prevail in Afghanistan, but their victory was a major contributing factor to the breakup of the entire Soviet Union. Afrique (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Finally, and most impressively, the article states explicitly that when Boris Yeltsin cut-off financial support to the communists in 1992, “Najibullah’s political support ended and the money dried up”, and that this caused factions in his government to switch sides for political and financial reasons, which led to a new government formed by a coalition of communist defectors and elements of the mujihadeen. How can you insist that the mujihadeen overran the communist government militarily when your very own sources say something different?Kenmore (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Najibullah was forced to step down in April 1992 because of key mujahideen military victories. He was forced to flee the country (to India) to preserve his very life. Afrique (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, I am wondering if you even took the trouble to read your very own source. Kenmore (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All five sources indicate that the mujahideen won the war and the Soviets departed--the only two facts cited in the box. There could easily be 100 such citations because it is a factual representation of what happened. Afrique (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your latest comments are further proof that you do not comprehend what is written in your very own sources, or that you have not even bothered to read the sources. Incidentally, Najibullah never fled to India. He remained in Kabul until 1996, when he was killed. I find it stunning that you are not aware of this. Kenmore (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

His family fled for New Delhi for fear of their safety. Najibullah was killed by the Taliban faction of the mujahideen. The Soviets left the country (Soviets departed). And the mujahideen won the war, toppling the Najibullah government and assuming control (Mujahideen victory). That is all that is represented here--and both are historical facts. Facts represented in mainstream newspaper articles. Facts represented in statements by all participants in the conflict. Facts represented in whole books dedicated exclusively to the topic of the Soviet defeat and mujahideen victory. Facts acknowledged by everyone, except you, apparently. Afrique (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

These "facts" are disavowed by your very own sources.Kenmore (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that Najibullah fled to India? I am interested in hearing you explain yourself. Kenmore (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, why do you believe that the Taliban were a faction of the mujihadeen? The rest of the world knows that the Taliban were the enemies of the mujihadeen.Kenmore (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Combat Losses

The current Soviet Losses figures are un-referenced. Here are some referenced figures, but I do not know how to enter them to that box on theright hand side so anyone who does, please take these as you desire.

Soviet Combat Losses of the Soviet-Afghan War 35,478 wounded 13,310 killed 311 missing

Taken from a speech by General Aleksei D. Lizichev in 1989, and found in -

Hauner, Milan (1991) The Soviet War in Afghanistan: Patterns of Russian Imperialism, Philadelphia, University Press of America

Data in the information boxes probably shouldn't be referenced at all. Generally, references belong in the body of the article, and they are supposed to document very specific claims (i.e., discrete facts), which taken in conjuction with other discrete facts, support whatever generalization that part of the article describes.

The book by Lizichev that you mention should be referenced in the part of the article that discusses casualties. Counterclaims about Soviet casualties should be mentioned and referenced, too.

Credible sources place Soviet battle casualties anywhere between 13,000 and 28,000, approximately speaking. You should probably find the four or five most respected sources and explain their claims in the footnotes. It is hard to know exactly how many Soviets died in battle. This is because the Soviets did not always include wounded troops who later died of their injuries as being among those killed in combat.

Just remember to find quality sources. Generally, newspaper articles and fringe publications are not regarded as quality sources. Inappropriate sources also include scholarly articles for which the war itself is not the subject of the article, and which only mention the war in the form of general remarks made on an tangential basis.

It is also inappropriate to attempt to validate a claim or statement by adding five or six footnotes at the end of a sentence. This is especially true if the references are poor. In such cases, the contributors are confused in that they believe the more footnotes they add, the more credible their point is. That is not how social science research papers are supposed to be written.

Kenmore (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New, comprehensive and sensible "results" box for the front page

Soviet war in Afghanistan
Part of the Cold War, Civil war in Afghanistan
Soviet soldier in Afghanistan, 1988.
Date December 27 1979 – February 15 1989 Location Afghanistan Result military stalemate, followed by Soviet withdrawal(1)(2)(3)(4) communists retain control of urban areas; mujahideen control the rest of Afghanistan ongoing stalemated warfare between communists and mujahideen mujahideen assume control of Afghanistan in 1992, when the communist government collapses due to termination of Russian aid (5)(6) political failure of communism in Afghanistan foreign policy defeat for the USSR Afghanistan descends into deeper civil and political strife conditions are established for Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists

On 2/23/09, I edited the results section of the warbox so that it looks as it appears here. I believe this is most the sensible way to settle the issue of what information should appear in the box. All of the salient facts concerning the outcome of the war are listed, and the reality of the military stalemate is supported by references to four excellent, well known scholarly works on the subject.

This edit, really, should mark the end of the squabble of who won or lost the war, or of what the factual outcomes of the war were. It is important to note also that Najibullah's government survived for another three years after the Soviets left.

The facts surrounding the collapse of Najibullah's government in 1992 should be addressed in the article that discusses Afghanistan's ongoing civil war. The reality is that Najibullah's government did not collapse as a direct result of the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989.

This new "results" box is also historically accurate in that it lists the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan as an undeniable foreign policy defeat, and as a failure in state-building for communism.

Finally, the historical truth that the Soviet war was a direct cause of Afghanistan becoming a haven for militant Islamic terrorists is listed in the box as well.

If anyone disagrees with this new "results" box that I have created, perhaps it would be best for that person to discuss their objections here on the talkpage before initiating an edit. That way, we can avoid an edit war. Thanks. Kenmore (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of war's outcome in the Information Box

First, I think it was your obligation, Kenmore, to include these controversial "results" on the discussion page, as opposed to simply again reverting them to your preferred description, especially given that: 1.) The prior wording of "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen victory" was properly referenced with numerous mainstream citations; 2.) Several editors already have taken issue with your description of this war as a "stalemate," when the Soviets withdrew under pressure and the government they were there to support collapsed and leadership was then assumed by the mujahideen; and 3.) Broad, conventional wisdom dictates that the Soviet withdrawal and then the collapse of the Najibullah government represents a victory for the mujahideen, not a stalemate.

Second, references should appear as links to their original sources, not as your representation of them on this page (as you did below and in the citation section). A reader should not have to dig these books up, interpret their meaning, or wrestle with your likely distortion of their meaning as it relates to the war's outcome.

The prior description of the war's outcome as "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen victory" is the accurate description. While I asked Kenmore not to continue reverting it, he/she has gone ahead and done that anyway. The current description of the war is both inaccurate and improperly referenced. The Soviets withdrew under great pressure (as they themselves concede) and then, when the government collapsed, the mujahideen went on to prevail in this war, toppling the government and assuming leadership of the country. That is no "stalemate." The description should be changed to reflect this, and there were at least half a dozen legitimate references previously included to support "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen victory" as the most accurate description of the war's outcome (including New York Times articles, etc.). Afrique (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrique: thank you for your input. Your dedication to developing this article is admirable. As for how to judge the quality and appropriateness of references, I'm sure everyone will agree that the following articles provide excellent guidelines:

http://www.albion.edu/library/eval.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm

Kenmore (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

References for the new results box:

1. Two books by prominent war correspondent and military history scholar Mark Urban discuss the stalemated nature of the military situation in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. See War in Afghanistan, St. Martin’s Press, 1987, and the sequel, War in Afghanistan, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. The second edition discusses the reasons for the Soviet withdrawal.

2. An excellent new publication on the war is The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan, by Gregory Feifer, Harper Collins, 2009. Feifer’s research underscores the stalemated character of the war, and explains how Gorbachev sought to withdraw from the conflict because he wanted to concentrate the USSR’s resources on reform at home.

3. The Soviet Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost, by Lester W. Grau, University Press of Kansas, 2002. Despite the wording of the title of his book, Grau’s excellent analysis reinforces the reality that the Soviets and mujahideen were locked in an unbreakable stalemate for the duration of the war. Grau’s thesis is that by incessantly pressuring the Soviet army’s logistical capabilities (control of the roads and airborne transportation), the mujahideen insured that they could resist the Soviet occupation indefinitely.

4. Compound War Case Study: The Soviets in Afghanistan, by Robert F. Baumann, Army Command and General Staff School (CGSS), 2001. This article, which is widely available on the Internet, is an excellent study of the multiple factors that influenced the Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. Baumann’s thesis is that the Soviets maintained an indecisive military advantage over the insurgents throughout the conflict, but that this advantage was offset by sharp Soviet reversals in other (i.e., non-military) dimensions of the conflict, such as economics, ideology, politics, and diplomacy.

5. The stalemated relationship between the communists and the mujahideen, and the manner in which Najibullah’s government crumbled upon losing its Russian aid in 1992 are succinctly described in this Library of Congress Country Studies/Area Handbook Series article: http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/121.htm

6. The loss of Russian aid in 1992 caused many elements within Najibullah’s government to switch allegiance to the mujahideen. This development was the catalyst behind the fall of the communist government, as until then, the mujahideen were not militarily powerful enough to defeat the DRA army in battle. One historian describes the situation thusly: “When Najibullah lost control of the Soviet aid for his regime, his government started to disintegrate. Soon, many segments of the government, particularly the armed forces, were absorbed into the regional organization of the internal front of Mujahideen. The expansion of the internal front of the Mujahideen and the increase of their influence in large territories, in particular the establishment of the National Commanders Shura (NCS), changed the balance of power toward Mujahideen’s influence in Afghanistan. This development caused the collapse of the Najibullah government and the establishment of the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA) in 1992.” From The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region, by Neamatollah Nojumi, MacMillan, 2002. (page 212).

Kenmore (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this seems to be a rather sensitive area, but I cannot help but agree that the list of results currently in place is ludicrously out of synch with other war articles. Most wars featured on Wikipedia are summarised by a few words, if not two lines. I beleive you have allowed your constant debates on the subject of what precisely happened overshadow the quality of the article, as the results box is now convoluted and clearly the result of a personal squabble rather then a succinct analysis. It may seem helpful to reference endless texts to prove each point, but this does not diminish from the unnsecary level of detail for what is supposed to be a brief summary of the wars concluding end-state

Whilst I doubt you would care to listen, "my two cents" on the subject is that you have confused the military stalemate with the political consequences of being unable to obtain a victory. Much like the U.S forces in Vietnam, withdrawal from Afghanistan marked a political failure, a concession that the mujahadeen had outlasted their will to remain. Again, much like the U.S in Vietnam, the Soviets were never going to actually lose militarily, but in such a war military defeat was not the threat; it was the matter of time that was crucial. When the mujahadeen proved they were willing to carry on indefinetely, that was their victory. Remeber, it is the making of a political condition, and not the military outcome, which decides the victory of a counter-insurgency war.

In essence, "military stalemate" is irrelevent. What is relevent is that the Soviets left before Afghanistan had been pacified. The result was a Soviet Defeat, and the box should reflect this.

If you still want to argue that point, reference the Vietnam war results box. Just like the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S were militarily stalemated, but this does not diminish the political reult of withdrawl, a concession of their political goals. Thus it was a defeat, and this article should utilise this uniform logic.

Finally, I would like to point out that The Soviet Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost is not wirtten by Grau as you implied. It is a report compiled by the Russian Cheifs of Staff, and Grau is the translator and editor. His "analysis" in that book amounts to a page of editorial notes per chapter, so it is misleading to place such emphasis on that input to your thesis.

jdowdall (talk)16:36 01/03/2009 —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Your entire argument is simplistic in that it presumes that the Soviet Union’s goals, militarily and politically, were to completely defeat the insurgents. In spite of what many journalists and certain pundits claim, there is no hard evidence that the Soviets ever harbored such an objective. No Soviet leaders or military commanders ever stated that this was their goal. So far, none of the documents released from the Kremlin’s classified archives indicate that they had this intention. The truth about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan – and indeed, of Afghanistan’s internal condition – is more complex than your words suggest.

The claim that the Soviets were “defeated” because they failed in their supposed “goal” of pacifying Afghanistan is invalid. It is not likely that pacifying Afghanistan was ever the Soviet Union’s military or political goal. Thus, it is erroneous to claim that the the mujahideen “defeated” the Soviets by perpetuating their resistance indefinitely.

With all due respect, I find your remarks about how to summarize the war to be shortsighted.

The outcome of this war is not something that can be summarized neatly in a single sentence. We are not talking about a sporting event in which the complexities of competition can be reduced to a judge’s decision regarding who won or lost. Some wars, especially this one, are far too complex to summarize in such simple minded fashion. I have found other Wikipedia war articles in which the “results” box forgoes a one-line statement concerning who “won” or “lost” in favor of enumerating the concrete facts that were the denouement of the conflict. Sometimes, the latter approach is necessary if the war itself is a stalemate, and if its political and international consequences are complex and contradictory.

Concerning your “two cents”, I am indeed listening to you. Again, you are quite presumptious in concluding that the Soviets were seeking a complete victory in Afghanistan. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Soviet 40th Army’s objective, at any point in the war, was to eradicate the mujahideen. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that the Soviets were trying to thwart the mujahideen long enough for the DRA to ensure its survival by increasing its own political and military power. If the latter is true, -- as is postulated by Mark Urban and many other sober minded analysts of the conflict -- then the war should not be deemed a military defeat for the Soviets.

Your remark about judging the military stalemate in terms of “political consequences” is ironic. Are you aware that, following the Soviet army’s 1989 withdrawal, the DRA forced a military and political stalemate on the mujahideen? The DRA was able to achieve this political reality because of the support it received from the Soviet army during the prior ten years. As explained in my footnotes, many elements of the opposition willingly made truces with Najibullah because of the DRA’s power during 1989-91.

I do not believe that your comparison of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan to the American experience in Vietnam is appropriate. Although the two wars were analogous in many ways, there were far too many differences militarily, diplomatically, politically, etc. for the comparison to be apt. Thus, what the “results” box of the Vietnam War article says should not be part of this discussion.

As for Lester Grau’s The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost, please read Grau’s nine page preface, which outlines his thesis. Grau’s thesis is repeated in his numerous other works as well.

Regarding the Russian Chiefs of Staff and most Russian military commanders, they do not regard Afghanistan as a defeat. They regard the Afghan experience as a very complex foreign policy mess which could not be resolved militarily. They are correct, and that is why any summary of the war’s results should call the war a military stalemate and a Soviet foreign policy reversal (because Afghanistan descended into greater violence and instability, in spite of the fact that Najibullah retained power after 1989). To fail to indicate such would be to confuse readers about historical truth.

Kenmore (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Information box description of war's outcome

There is zero accuracy in asserting (as only one editor appears to) that this war was a "stalemate." The mujahideen achieved every one of their objectives: 1.) Calling Afghanistan a "bleeding wound," Gorbachev was forced to order the departure of Soviet troops; and 2.) The mujahideen then went on to topple the communist-backed government that Moscow had supported, assuming leadership of the country. I cannot even really imagine what more one would ask of the mujahideen in substantiating that they won the war. Had the Soviets stayed, had the mujahideen not toppled the government, or had the post-Najibullah government not been taken over by the mujahideen, I suppose this assertion might possibly be accurate. But none of those things happened.

Also, Kenmore: I do not wish to be confrontational, but you cannot persist in labeling others' assertion that the mujahideen won this war as "simplistic," or instruct other editors not to edit the page so it can be left to "experts" (which presumably is you alone). You are trying to sustain a hugely unconventional historical interpretation that is not conventional wisdom and not broadly held. Even many Soviet leaders in the war now concede that they lost the war. I listed about seven major citations in support of this position that have been removed. I easily could have added a hundred more.

I believe the word "stalemate" needs to be removed. A more accurate representation is: "Soviet withdrawal, mujahideen military victory." Even this description is generous in not using the word "loss" to describe the Soviet outcome in the war. Afrique (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In this latest post, you repeat the same claims that you made in your earlier posts. Given that I already addressed and rebutted these claims (in detail) in my earlier posts, I see no need to repeat myself here.

The following is my response to those statements in your post that are new.

Much of the international press misunderstood what Gorbachev meant when, during his speech at the Twenty Seventh Party Congress in 1986, he called Afghanistan a “bleeding wound”. Gorbachev meant that the Afghanis themselves had suffered a “bleeding wound” because of the horrific destruction and massive civilian casualties the war had inflicted on them. Gorbachev was calling attention to the humanitarian aspect of the war, and in so doing, he was indicating that the Soviet Union shared the blame for turning Afghanistan into a “bleeding wound” for the Afghanis. He was inferring that the Soviet Union undermined its own moral authority by keeping an army in Afghanistan. Not in any way whatsoever did Gorbachev mean that the Soviet Union itself had suffered a “bleeding wound”, or that the Soviet army was being bled by excessive casualties in Afghanistan.

Regarding other editors who have contributed to this article, please note that many of them completely concur with my views. Unfortunately, those editors have stopped posting on this page because of their frustration at not being able to reason with other editors who do not understand what really happened in the war.

As for Soviet leaders, I know for a fact that not a single one of them regards the Afghanistan conflict as a military defeat for the Soviet Union. If you are certain that you know otherwise, please respond to this post with a link to substantiate your claim.

Kenmore (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet withdrawal section

There is a strange sentence that no one has caught in this section: [[Babrontrol of Afghanistan were Soviet puppets.[58]. What is it, and should it just be deleted?Ykerzner (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet conduct of the war

This article is in dire need of a comprehensive section about the soviet conduct of the war. The strategy and tactics of the Insurgents, as well as the terrible loss of life endured by the civilian population are well described, but the strategy and tactics employed as well as countless atrocities committed by the soviet forces are barely mentioned. Someone needs to fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.132.124 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet terror bombing and scorched earth tactics are well-described in the section "Damage to Afghanistan". If you have any reliable sources about other atrocities they committed, feel free to add them. --dicttrshp (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An expansion of "Damage to Afghanistan" section should probably include a discussion of the tactical quandary the Soviets found themselves in, and how this problem was the chief reason for the high civilian casaulties. In responding to mujahideen mortar attacks, the Soviets unleashed artillery barrages and air strikes which inevitably killed many non-combatants. This is what Gorbachev meant in 1986 when he described Afghanistan as a "bleeding wound", and it is one of the chief reasons why the Soviets decided not to escalate their military presence in pursuit of complete victory, which they could have achieved. In other words, the humanitarian costs, the atrocities and the associated political turmoil made the war unwinnable.

Also, on the subject of the massive scale of civilian casualties, maybe another section should be added to this article describing what social and psychological impact the war had on the Afghan people. The trauma of the war, no doubt, created fertile breeding ground for brigands, terrorists, and jihadists of other sorts. This development ties in with what's happening in Afghanistan now, and its carry over effect for The West and Pakistan.

Kenmore (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Military operations

Theres very little in the way of information regarding Soviet military operations. Information is widely avaible both online and in books. Theres a article on the panjsher valley offensives that needs improvement plus a few small battles and the Withdrawal. Surely there was much more action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.14.255 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Osama a "commander"?

To my knowledge, Osama bin Laden was never in command of any sizable force, or faction in the war. He was a foot soldier who also supplied many arms to the mujahedin to my understanding- why is he listed at a "Commander"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Afghan civilian casualties?

how many Afghanistan civilian casualties and deaths occured? Why is it not on this page? I've heard over a million civilians died in the Afghan-Soviet War.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

a mess

the article says william casey had attacks go on inside the soviet union. however, in 'ghost wars' by steve coll this is presented not as a known fact but as a hugely controversial topic and at the time some feared the inside-SU attacks by mujahideen would lead to world war iii. . . and some people deny the US ever directed attacks inside the SU, although coll quotes someone (from pakistan or the muj, i cant remember) as saying that casey actually did direct it.

at any rate the article is misleading on this crucial point.

it then goes on to imply the war cause children to become conditioned to war and somehow this led to the taliban. however in coll's book, he talks about the tens of thousands of informal madrassases set up along the pakistan afghan border. at any rate, im trying to say that the article's depiction of the situation is missing a lot of details.

But in the end they should fuck themselves (muslims) and take it up my bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no i aint races stupid but say I r races out loud and then we will see who it is now!!!!!!

Poison Gas

I don't see anything in here about the Soviet use of poison gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Substandard English in lead

The article is semi-protected, so I can't fix it. The first sentence reads: "The Soviet War in Afghanistan, also known as the Soviet–Afghan War or the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan; was a nine-year conflict involving the Soviet Union supported by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan; established by the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) at their own request, against the majorly Pakistan-backed Islamist Mujahideen Resistance." Do administrators even look at what they're protecting?24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC) This is a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia on such a high-profile article.24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Exactly what is the problem? The word "majorly"? tedder (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the problems - I suspect "primarily" was meant. Another is the misuse of semicolons, the first of which should be a comma. Finally, the clause "supported by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan; established by the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) at their own request" also misuses a semicolon, and mistakenly substitutes "their" for "its", but, more broadly, makes no sense. Whatever it is trying to say should be said in a separate sentence, unmarred by the passive voice.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a semi-ignorant admin, can you rewrite it and post it here? I'll then copy/paste it into the article. Sorry you have been affected by the protection adversely. tedder (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

I have removed the cliam of "Mujahedin victory" from the info box, because it is unsourced and because it is POV. There was neither a military nor a legal "victory" by the Islamists/Mujahedin. Quite the contrary: the Soviets were still in charge of the most important cities, had a large ground force in Afghanistan, and coordinated dangerous bombing operations.The final retreat and withdrawal had more complex (political reasons). The attached source in the article does not support the "Mujahedin victory" claim either. It speaks of the Soviet withdrawal which may be interpreted as the "first domino" in the disintegration of the USSR. Tajik (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. There are numerous other editors who, in the past two years, have properly eliminated the specious claim of "mujahedin victory." Unfortunately, certain other poorly informed editors always reverse the corrected information and restore the POV claim.

The Soviets withdrew leaving their clients in full control of the territory they had held throughout the 1990s. That client government fell only three years later, when Boris Yeltsin terminated its financial and material aid. Even then, the mujahedin didn't defeat the communists in the field. It was more a case of the communist government fragmenting, with the most powerful elements (chiefly Dostum and his Uzbek militia) aligning with certain segments of the mujahedin.

Too many contributors to this article are misinformed about the war. They should read this article about a forthcoming book on the subject; it looks like this study will be an excellent one:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d64c4612-ee6a-11de-944c-00144feab49a.html

Kenmore (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mujahideen Casualties

I want to know where 70,000 came from, whilst it is a good figure, according to a lot of documentaries the casualties for the Mujahideen are much higher, closer to 200,000. I'm not saying the second figure's right but is there a source for the first figure. AnonD 23:16 (GMT) 5 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.200.177 (talk)

How could anyone really know true mujahedin casualties? I don't know that a single credible study of the subject has even been attempted. One big problem is that it is very difficult to know how many mujahedin were actually fighting. The best source I know of, published in 1988, estimated a total of 500,000 mujahedin, but with only 80,000 to 120,000 functioning as full-time field soldiers. Thus, nearly 400,000 participants in the resistance movement were just informants, saboteurs, supply runners, or shelterers of mujahedin fighters. In the end, to say that the mujahedin suffered 70,000 casualties is to beg the question of how many of them actually were full-time soldiers who fell in battle.Kenmore (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1800 tanks?

"In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs." So, there were something like 6 armored divisions? (300x6=1800) Creo11 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan supporting "Marxist government"

The DRA had certain elements of communism, but was not truly Marxism.it was lunism by america bhenchod maan ke lorray Just look at the way that the uprising started. It was not a revolution of the proletariat working class, but a backlash by the millitant People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. This doesn't fit a main constraint of Marxist ideals, namely a revolution of the people not a splinter group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.10 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Layout

The first thing noticable about this page is the lack of text. The lead paragraph is situated halfway down this page because of the infoboxes. Would it be okay to move the lead section up the page and the second infobox down in order to make the page look something like. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Military victory

Let's have a look.

• Soviets lost at least 10 times less then Mujahideen. It's tactical victory for Soviets.
• Soviets achieved all their goals (Colonel General Boris Gromov in "Limited contingent": 40th army did anything it needed, Mujahideen did only that they could do). Soviet army had been aimed to aid Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - and it executed the order. Soviet army had been aimed to prevent USA agression against Afghanistan - and it prevented invasion. It's operational victory for Soviets.--El gato verde (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of Mujahideen using a communications receiver

"A mujahideen fighter in Kunar uses a communications receiver to receive transmissions." Surely, ".......uses a communications receiver." PERIOD, explains clearly enough what the receiver does? Trivial, maybe, but none-the-less important in a WP article. (89.243.44.100 (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Confusing Numbers

"There were less than 150,000 troops deployed. 53,753, or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick." Not sure what happened here but if there are only 150,000 troops there can't be 415,932 with injuries. 130.215.236.177 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Start of War

In the Infobox it says the war started on december 27, where in the introduction it says it started december 24. The December 24 has a reference and I don't think the december 27 does, so I will change that unless there is a reason for the december 27 date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.230.117 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Garbled Sentence

"That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and that it had requested Soviet military assistance."

Fix it.