Originally Posted by
tequila
Excuse me, but didn't the Soviets try the terror through mass murder method in Afghanistan already? They killed something like 1.5 million Afghans and created 3 million refugees out of a prewar population of 15 million. Does anyone here believe that Afghan villagers did not live in fear of Soviet bombers and artillery? Certainly enough Pashtuns in the south were terrified enough to flood Pakistan with 2 million refugees.
This did not help their security problem in the countryside nor did it kill resistance to DRA rule. By 1986 they had already decided to withdraw from the country, despite the fact that the first Stinger missiles had not yet arrived.
Moreover, can someone please tell me how a foreign occupation that bases its control on terror can create a semi-stable native regime once it leaves? One not based on hopes and dreams?
To kill isn't the same as to threaten. It's more like a failure, just as WW3 would have been a failure of MAD deterrence.
Rational humans don't get influenced by risks for their life if said risks are random. The Russian methods were not really extortion-oriented, but rather the application of firepower in support of ground ops.
- - - - -
Today it's like
ISAF/OEF = policeman
Taliban = racketeers
Civilians = shop owner
The shop owner gets extorted by the racketeers, the policeman doesn't catch the racketeers red-handed, but learns about it and speaks to the shop owner.
The shop owner stays silent because he knows that the policeman won't be able to bust the whole racketeer gang and he doesn't want his shop burned down.
On top of that, the policemen rarely leave their fortified police stations, drive around in armoured patrol cars - and still get killed quite often by racketeers.
The promise of security is worthless, the threat is real.
Bookmarks