home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990
/
1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso
/
time
/
caps
/
80
/
80capsov.4
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1990-12-01
|
4KB
|
65 lines
ìYFÅ É««Kabul Is Not Saigon
Helicopter gunships blaze away at elusive guerrillas. The army of a
superpower tries to shore up an allied regime against an insurgency,
but the puppet government and its military forces only grow weaker.
The rebellion spreads. What was intended as a swift surgical
operation begins to resemble a futile, possibly humiliating war
without end.
Ever since six Soviet divisions barreled into Afghanistan--and
especially since the eruption of indigenous protests against the
invasion--Western analysts have been tantalized by possible parallels
to the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. Says Viet Nam War Chronicler
David Halberstam: "The Soviets are learning the big Viet Nam lesson,
that it's easier to go into those countries than it is to get out.
They will find out, just as the U.S. did, how amazingly easy it is
for a little country to swallow a military machine." Says a Pentagon
officer with undisguised delight: "I think it's great. It tickles
me to death."
There are some striking similarities. Like the U.S., the Soviets
moved in first with advisers, then felt compelled to undertake an
active military role when the country was on the verge of collapse,
as Viet Nam was in 1965. Just as the U.S. did with SOuth Viet Nam's
forces, the Soviets inherited a demoralized, poorly trained,
desertion-prone Afghan army that has not stomach or heart for
fighting the Muslim insurgents. Meanwhile, the rebels show no sign
of melting away before the overwhelming firepower of Soviet tanks,
artillery and supersonic fighter-bombers. The Moscow installed
government of President Babrak Karmal already appears to be as
discredited as Nguyen Van Thieu ever was in Saigon. Even the
explanations for the invasion that Soviet officials are giving out in
Moscow have a lamely defensive, Viet Name-era ring: "We had no
choice. We had to live up to our commitments."
Some of the problems the Soviets face in Afghanistan are even more
troublesome than those the U.S. tried to cope with in Viet Nam.
Despite their discontents, the South Vietnamese populace did not
actively rise up against the Saigon government; by contrast it
appears that the vast majority of the fierce and volatile Afghans
seem to reject the Kabul regime. Edmund Stillman, a strategic
analyst who is the director of a Paris-based think tank, the Hudson
Institute, points out that Afghanistan is in roughly the same
category of population as South Viet Nam (approximately 16 million,
vs. 12 million) but is four times larger in surface area. "If South
Viet Nam could not be held by 1 million local forces plus 540,000
U.S. troops," Stillman says, "it is hardly credible that a vastly
larger Afghanistan can be pacified by a dubiously loyal army of
40,000 and a mere 100,000 Soviets." He also believes that Moscow's
forces--like America's in Viet Nam--face a problem of technological
overkill: "What are they going to do, napalm nomad tents?"
For all the similarities, however, there are significant, perhaps
crucial, differences. First, the logistical equation is almost
exactly reversed; the SOviets are operating across and adjoining land
border, not across 7,000 miles of ocean. In the Afghanistan war, it
is the insurgents who are to a degree stranded, cut off from sources
of support. Second, unlike the Viet Cong, the Afghan rebels are
lightly armed and disunited, with neither a Ho Chi Minh to galvanize
them ideologically nor anything like the North Vietnamese army to
back them up militarily. Finally, there is a quantum difference on
the home front: no network TV news brings the bloody facts of the
war home to the average Soviet citizen, there are no antiwar
movements on Soviet campuses, no antidraft demonstrations, no
domestic public opinion to limit the options of the leadership