Well it had been a fun debate
Now my response:
I meant Mujaheedin, not Taliban. Although the Mujaheedin and the Taliban have similar organizational structure, they share similar commanders, have similar fighting tactics, although the Taliban's are a bit more advanced.
More roads do prevent traffic jams. Someone tell that to out Gubernator!
The initial objectives in Afghanistan were not accomplished. Had the Red Army Plan been followed, instead of Brezhnev's Plan, they would've been accomplished, but they weren't accomplished. In Hungary the rebels were knocked out instantly. In Czeckoslovakia, it was a different case altogether, please don't link the two, Hungary was very, very different from Czeckoslovakia. Hungary was a NATO sponsored, CIA ran rebel movement. Czeckoslovakia was an actual attempt at democratic change, and a Soviet Intervention. The rebels in Czeckoslovakia were a response to the Soviet Intervention, whereas in Hungary they preceded Soviet Intervention.
NATO/US wanted to use the Imperialist Model. Look at Serbia. Look at Iraq. What kind of forces are in Iraq? Where's the justification for Iraq? Conventional forces were also needed to defend the nation. I mean, even in an economic crisis the US wouldn't cut back on its conventional navy, because neither Mexico nor Canada pose a threat to the US, and the US Navy, being the best in the World, prevent any other points of invasion.
I agree that conventional force on a massive scale is overrated, but parts of these massive armies should be maintained for self-defense. Or, for instance, if the US and China fight over Taiwan, that war will not be nuclear. India's war with China over Tibet was conventional. I agree that conventional forces didn't need to be so damn big, for both sides, but smaller conventional forces were necessary. They also conventional forces that fought in Afghanistan.
You're telling me no one funneled aid to Chechnya? Granted, it was done discreetly and professionally, but the Russian Army was finding interesting things on dead Chechen bodies, of equiptment that couldn't have possibly been made in Chechnya. And I've agreed that Afghanistan is a lot larger and a lot more populated. Hence I said: use a force that's a lot bigger.
Ahh, the T-90s. In order to understand that, you have to read the Moscow Defense Brief, and realize that the Second Chechen War had a trigger. That trigger was the Chechen Invasion of Dagestan. The Moscow Defense Brief confirms the use of the T-90 in the Dagestan War, where Russia fought Chechnya for the control of Dagestan.
"The use of T-90S tanks in Dagestan deserves mention. A group of these vehicles consisting of 8 to 12 units according to different sources was supposed to be delivered to India. Folªlowing a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Caucaªsus, however, the tanks were transferred to Dagestan. In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets but remained in action. This indicates that with regular equipªment T-90S is the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it."
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2002/ac/raowdsmcc/