The Warfare Of The Soviet Union

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

With the tales of these three individuals told, it is hard not to feel a sense of pity and uncertainty about Afghanistan and especially the United States’ role in Afghanistan. With the consensus of entering Afghanistan originally being to stop terrorism, throughout Gopal’s book it seems that the goal, or better yet, the idea of wiping terrorism away had certainly been lost. No longer does it seem that the United States is helping, rather that the U.S. is one of the main problems in the country. The details and facts listed in the book open a

To them the miracle victory over the Soviets was all the work of Allah — not the billions of dollars that America and Saudi Arabia poured into the battle, not then ten-year commitment of the CIA that turned an army of primitive tribesmen into techno-holy warriors. In other words, as they attributed their improbable, U.S.-backed victory against the Soviets to greater religious forces, the present-day insurgents carry a sense of invincibility fighting the current American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their resilience the past nine years backs up this point. (casnocha

World War 2 was both tragic but also a growing period for Canadians. Germany and The Soviet Union were in a non-aggression pact and were trying to take over Europe. Along with their greed for power, Hitler the leader of Germany did not like the Jewish, and sent almost all of them to concentration camps where they were put to work. Those who were too weak to work were put in gas chambers and put to death. Hitler soon broke his pact with Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union. Hitler was then faced with a two front war against the Soviet Union and the Canadian, British and later the United States. At home in Canada many things were happening within society. Women became more involved and became more independent and respected. The government

During World War II women in the Soviet Union played a major role in helping the

One of the main things Reagan was known for his is stance on communist and his commitment to end the Cold War. Reagan was not afraid of the Soviet Union like his Carter or Ford who served as President before him. He told the Secretary of Defense to order whatever is needed and not to worry about the budget. He wanted to be in a position of strength, that way he believed he would be able to negotiate with them; he had a saying of “To build up to build down” http://millercenter.org/president/biography/reagan-domestic-affairs. Reagan did not want there to be an arms race, however if there were to be one he was determined not to loose. The CIA confirmed that the Soviet Union’s economy could not support an arms race against the US. In Reagan’s mind, winning the Cold War meant having the Soviet Union cease to exist.

Mr. Chandrasekaran's thesis is that the Afghans could have prospered in their own terms and The United States could have achieved its objectives if the United States had taken a long view from the beginning of its involvement in Afghanistan. The U.S. approach was almost entirely short-term in its strategy and tactics. Lack of coordination between the U.S. military and civil departments / agencies rendered the strategy almost ineffective.

In addition to an economic crisis, President Obama inherited the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An ardent opponent of Bush 's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, Obama pledged to withdraw American troops as soon as possible. Reagan argued that U.S. leadership was crucial to stop the Soviet Union from expanding. Contrastingly, Obama was eager to end the campaign in Afghanistan by slowly withdrawing troops, declaring that it was time for the U.S. to focus on nation-building at home. Reagan’s strategy was based in large part on his fundamental belief that a free and capitalist economy could outperform a Communist one and force both into an arms race that they could not afford. Obama’s doctrine instead emphasized how the state needed to tax

For decades, the United States and Russia, formerly The Soviet Union, have held tensions with each other over different political stances and military actions and intelligence. Starting from the late years of World War II - when the Soviet Union had aggressively spread communism throughout Eastern Europe - up to a couple years ago when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine out of nowhere; their relationship has been a rollercoaster of a ride for these two countries. Even though the United States and Russia are no longer in a Cold War, there has been and continues to be tension between the two countries as exemplified by many events of conflict including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Russian military’s current presence in Syria.

This paper explores the battle of Qala-i-Jangi, with alternate outcomes and relevant capabilities of both sides rendering a future effect on the campaign. Taliban and foreign fighters surrendered near Kunduz and were being held as enemy combatants at Qala-i-Jangi fortress prison for interrogations by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The prisoners revolted and the ensuing fighting escalated into one of the bloodiest battles of the conflict. Northern Alliance fighters, assisted by British and American Special Forces and air support, to quelled the revolt. As a result all but 86 prisoners were killed. United States (US) suffered the first American fatality during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Among the surviving prisoners was an American citizen. The subsequent lessons learned will be employed throughout campaigns on the Global War on Terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom. (Wikipedia, 2015)

I really enjoyed reading this book. The author did a great job of reviewing a lot of sources, including interviews with key players on both the US and Soviet side, and wove many threads together into a thorough, and thoroughly enjoyable story. As noted in some of the editorial reviews, at times it feels like you 're reading a spy novel. And at times some of the details - particularly about the Soviet 's germ warfare program - sound almost too lurid to be true. Except that everything in this book is impeccably documented - the bibliography takes up about 15% of the book.

The use of military force can be justified on any act of military use towards defense, threats, and to keep world peace. Which has happened in the past years and will happen later in the future. For example the Cold War, Vietnam, and Iraq these are, where our government used military force and justified it. These example show that military force can be justified during an act against our country, endangering world peace and terrorist attacks against our country. As well as any act of attack against us. Therefor military force can be justified in times of threats, defense, and most to keep world peace.

In 1945 the Second World War came to an end, many people thought there would be peace and happiness once it ended. They were correct for a while, until the turmoil left over by the World War II began a new war in itself. Germany did not like its punishment as it nearly ruined their economy and it was divided up into four areas, each controlled by United State, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France respectively. But at the time they did not agree with many things which began to affect the territory control. The Soviet Union began to take over Eastern Europe and create communist governments. Along with the Communist governments being created in Europe, the Soviet Union began to create communist governments in Korea, Asia, and other parts

This paper will be explaining the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan. There are many topics that bring these two wars together. However, I am only going to be talking about public support, policy objectives, military strategy, weapons, fighting spirit, links to home, and death totals. These topics have a lot of information about them, but there is too much to write about every little detail, so I will cover the broad overview of them. Each paragraph will be about one of the topics. There will also be a discussion about insurgencies and counter insurgency operations. These are two big topics in Vietnam and Afghanistan since almost all of the enemy in both wars were, and are, comprised of insurgents and different types of militia groups.

Conventional warfare that is prolonged and resource intensive is not sustainable and eventually leads to descent into attrition type warfare. Irregular warfare operations, be it COIN or counter-terrorism, from the Western perspective consume time and resources. This consumption is predominantly fuelled by the asymmetry of Western and insurgent forces which results in significantly different tactics being used by the two forces. Western powers, in almost all cases, tend to have superior technology and a larger number of forces and rely heavily on these factors during conflicts, however this perceived imbalance of power is not necessarily advantageous for the Western power. Andrew Mack discusses this idea that military superiority does not always result in victory when facing an unconventional enemy, Mack states " In such asymmetric conflicts, insurgents may gain political victory from a situation of military stalemate or even defeat." Here Mack surfaces the idea of 'political capital' and argues that insurgents' ability to win wars stems from "...the progressive attrition of their opponents' political capability to wage war." This concept is solidified if we observe the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, after having a Western military presence in the nation for over ten years, public support has declined and it is no longer politically viable to continue operations in that theatre. Insurgents continue to function in this state and the threat of