Excellent article on Afghanistan

[Anthony_Scott]

I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:

1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.

2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.

3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.

4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.

And Lastly:

Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.

I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.