<<1. A guerrilla war is not a war of technology versus peasantry. Rather, it is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the greatest moral commitment (ideological, religious or patriotic) will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory can be almost irrelevant, since victory is often determined by morale, obstinacy and survival.

"It can also depend on how far the country with the superior technology is willing to go. I think we all realize that pounding Afghanistan with nuclear weapons would certainly win the war decisively by obliterating the opposition, however brave and committed they may be. History is full of brave committed armies who were annihilated by a superior force with few scruples. Genocide always works."

While I suspect you aren't suggesting genocide, even that isn't feasible most of the time. Invaders want a country, not just land. Pounding them with nuclear weapons isn't an option, either. I don't know, but I doubt you could eliminate them with nuclear weapons, either. They are scattered around a countryside, and the fallout would affect the entire world.

It's big country. They are sending B-52s against very small targets. In a widespread conflict we couldn't afford to use them as we have. Except for the larger cities, there aren't targets for nukes.

I don't know why you'd bring up genocide. Even if attempted, you'd have to find 'em all, and that's been impossible so far.

A DOD estimate was that in 1968 1,000 Americans were killed by American weapons used, cannibalized, or converted by Vietnamese. Technology has limits in a guerilla war.

While I realize you believe the Vietnamese were fighting to extend communism into as much of the "free world" as possible, the reality is they fought the Chinese for centuries, the French for 100 years (or so) and the US for only 10, though since WWII the French were proxies for the US.

The Vietnamese wanted it more than the US. Much more. That's why the "peace talks" didn't do much for years. They didn't care. However long it took, they'd take it.

The only thing the US could have done is invade the entire countryside, north and south, and occupy it. There was not the endurance or will to do so.

10. Domination of the air is irrelevant unless airpower can be precisely targeted. Seizure of terrain can be advantageous, but is usually only of temporary value. Control of the cities can be a plus, but can also prove a detriment. Support of the population is essential for the winning side.

"Some of this is more true than other parts. Airpower certainly worked well for us in the initial phases of the Afghan war. Support of the population is fickle at best. Let's hope eventually we get enough of it."

I suspect air power didn't work as well as we think. Enough of 'em got away to regroup. I don't know what the casualties they suffered were, but it didn't seem like many. Not for the enormous expense.

The support of the population is essential. Period. Unless, again, you want to occupy the entire place and don't need their help in the menial tasks - hooch girls. And that sucks up a lot of people, takes a lot of money, and is temporary.

Those folks know you are leaving sooner or later, that you are temporary, and things will return to normal. Did you notice the part which said the mujahedin had advance warning of many of the Russian operations? Reminds me of Vietnam. You need the people on your side.

These "friendly fire" killings, shooting up wedding celebrations, which don't seem to end, create a resevoir of hostility, despite some folks saying they get used to it. Geez, when we kill or capture an alleged Taliban it hits the front pages. They seem to be killing more "friendlies". Not good if you are trying to tell 'em your saving 'em.

They are closer to each other than to us. And they know the Allies will be gone someday.

Vietnam could have taught Russia, and us, these lessons. Someone said that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Technology is the US strong suit. Unfortunately, it is most effective against an army just like ours.

Guerillas force armies to fight their war on their territory and seem to be exceedingly motivated. Face it, how many Americans want to die on Afghan territory, knowing the US is not directly threatened and will be gone in a matter of months?

How many of those same soldiers would be willing to take chances defending American soil?

How many Afghans are willing to die on their own territory, in their minds protecting it from foreigners?

And Uncle Ho tried and tried and tried to teach us all.

Arf