Military Review

How to fight with tribes armed with modern weapons?

61
How to fight with tribes armed with modern weapons?From the editors. Terra America publishes a review written specifically for our portal by the famous military historian, professor at the University of Jerusalem (Israel) Martin van Creveld on the popular book of the British Army officer Emily Simpson [1] “War from scratch”. Simpson served for several years in southern Afghanistan and is well aware of the complexity of waging war against primitive guerrilla groups armed nonetheless not at all primitive. weapons. Judging by the latest data from Afghanistan, the situation in this country remains hopeless for all the positive expectations of the West - so far this van Creveld-proposed clever strategy for intelligent exposure at almost a micro-atomic level, taking into account the internal relations of various tribes, remains a project task rather than a working by technology.


* * *

I have a friend, the recently retired General of the Bundeswehr, who served as a military adviser to Angela Merkel for seven years. Once he told me that, in his experience, politics is much more dangerous than war. In war, he said, they only shoot at you from the front. In politics, fire should also be expected from the rear. Often it comes to the fact that you no longer understand who is the enemy and who is friend.

The author of the book in question is a former officer of the British army who served at least three terms in Afghanistan, I agree with my friend. Explaining why politics is more dangerous than war, he wrote a fascinating work that gives rich food for thought.

Returning to the British stories - the author mainly draws material from it - in 1939, when Britain entered the war, its soldiers knew that the enemy was made up of German soldiers, who were later joined by Italian and Japanese soldiers. It is with these soldiers that they will fight and try to kill.

The same was true in the 1956 year in Egypt, in the 1982 year in the Falkland Islands, and in the 1991 and 2003 years in Iraq. In all these cases there have always been two sides, the British and their enemies. Since both sides were dressed in uniforms, they were usually easy to distinguish from each other.

Even the fact that one of the parties or both formed a coalition with others did not create serious problems with identification; as long as the laws of war were respected, it was also not difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian population.

The experience of other modern armies was for the most part similar. During the Great Patriotic War, Russian soldiers fought with German and Japanese. American soldiers fought with German, Italian and Japanese. Later, they also fought with North Korean and Iraqi soldiers. Indian troops fought with Pakistani, Israeli fought with the troops of various Arab states.

The idea that an enemy in war almost always consists of one adversary (or a coalition of adversaries), which can be identified and fought with, goes back to the nineteenth century. And, although she never speaks directly there, the same idea underlies the works of the greatest western writer on the war, Karl von Clausewitz. In his famous treatise “On War” there are several pages about what he calls the “armed people,” but the rest of the book is written from the point of view of one regular army fighting against another.

Imagine, now, the surprise of a young officer who arrived in Afghanistan for the first time. The government that pays him ordered him to fight the Taliban - the name, by the way, means "religious students" - and to free the country from their heinous presence.

But what is this "Taliban"?

Does such an organization exist in the same sense as, say, the British, Russian and other armies? And assuming that it does exist, then, given that its members usually do not wear military uniform, the question arises, how to deal with it?

When the first shock passes, our young officer quickly discovers that everything is much more complicated than he thought. The Taliban may indeed exist. However, its members do not form a unified organization. They also do not obey the orders of one president, prime minister or commander in chief. Instead, they consist of a large number of tribal groups, each with its own leader.

Some groups are large, others are small. Some of them, associated with the Taliban on a more or less permanent basis, form the core of the Afghan resistance to foreign troops, who, from their point of view, invaded their country. Others join this resistance if and only as long as they see fit.

Many groups are connected to each other in a complex way. Not necessarily sticking to their side, many are willing to take money or other benefits — especially weapons — for switching to another. When they fight, they wear military uniforms only when it suits them. As a result, they are difficult to distinguish from the civilian population that foreigners must protect.

In addition, in a country where there is no centralized police, for many residents, carrying a weapon is something that goes without saying. The fact that residents often shoot not only at foreigners, but also at each other, adds even more difficulty. Under such conditions, the traditional terminology of war — offensive, retreat, front, rear, lines of communication, and the like — simply makes no sense, except perhaps at a purely tactical level.

But most importantly, the war is no longer a continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz wrote. Instead of the people at the top making all the relevant political decisions, as it always has been, the policy expands down the chain of command to its very bottom.

War and politics often become the same. The result is the creation of what other authors sometimes call a "strategic corporal." Or a strategic junior officer, for that matter.

Each time a corporal or junior officer proposes to fight with members of tribe A, he (rarely, in truth, she) must take into account the influence of this decision, positive or negative, on members of tribes B, C and G. The same the same applies to the case, if he decides not to fight. Does it impress them? Will it push them away? Will they remain faithful? Will it push them from friendship to enmity, or vice versa?

In addition, the impact on the civilian population, assuming that such a thing really exists, should also be considered. Far from being homogeneous, this population itself consists of many groups that are often separated from each other by marked cultural and linguistic differences. All of these factors interact. All of them are constantly changing like a mad kaleidoscope. However, the nature of the changes, the direction in which they are moving, and what can be done (if it is possible at all) to push them in the right direction can only be understood by those who know the country, its inhabitants and its culture. like the back of your hand.

As the author himself notes, much of this is not new. In fact, anyone who has ever tried to wage war against, and among, pre-modern tribal society, faced similar problems. The difference, which Captain Simpson passes over in silence, is that in former times such tribes were armed only with ancient weapons that they produced themselves or were able to acquire from others.

As the British author Heeler Bellock put it at the beginning of the twentieth century, “for every question there is a clear answer: / we have“ maxims ”, they don't have it”.

Since then, everything has changed. As the USSR discovered in Afghanistan, in our time tribes are often equipped with the best weapons. They capture part of it. They receive part of it from foreign powers, and partly they buy in exchange for goods such as (in Afghanistan) opium. They may not be able to get or control the most powerful weapons, such as airplanes, Tanks (except for the few captured), artillery, and so on. However, judging by their ability to fight and even win in the end, they do not seem to need him.

By providing first-hand descriptions of these and other problems affecting the war in Afghanistan, the captain (retired) Simpson did us all a great service. Unfortunately, like almost everyone else who has dealt with this issue, he is better at analyzing problems than recommending measures to solve them.

In the end, all he can do is say — I don't want to say, chat — about “ethos,” “vision,” and “confidence.” All the more regrettable because the world is changing.

Even if we drop Syria, where the army of President Assad is currently fighting with a number of different militias, Afghanistan is unlikely to be the last country where modern armed forces oppose an amorphous enemy that is very different from them.

Some authors even believe that the armed struggle, in many ways similar to what is happening in Afghanistan, may soon erupt in many cities around the world. One of these authors, a well-known Australian anti-rebels expert David Kilkallen, provided an advertisement for the book directly on the cover. Thus, the conclusions of Captain Simpson have consequences that go far beyond the borders of Afghanistan.

These are frightening conclusions. But those who, closing their eyes to them, hide their heads in the sand, are likely to end up with their foot on the ass.
Author:
Originator:
http://terra-america.ru/
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 22 October 2013 18: 56
    +4
    In war, he said, they shoot at you only from the front. In politics, fire should be expected from the rear too. It often comes to the point that you no longer understand who the enemy is and who is friend.
    Now such a war is going on .. And the most cruel and cynical in world history .. The world is rolling into the abyss ... (such a feeling ..) I believe Russia will restore order in this mess in the world (there is no one else ..)
    1. Onotollah
      Onotollah 22 October 2013 19: 19
      45
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Russia will restore order

      Why do we need someone else's headache?
      Once saved from fascism, paid an incredible price and what gratitude?
      All and sundry are watered with slop, it’s good that at least they don’t require compensation for release.
      Let them figure it out among themselves. And it will be seen there.
      In Russia, its problems are higher than the roof.
      1. domokl
        domokl 23 October 2013 07: 53
        0
        Quote: Onotolle
        Why do we need someone else's headache?

        That's right. Only history tells us that it will be so. Zavarushka will begin without our participation, but to pour blood for the sake of ...... (swear word) of humanity we will again have to.
    2. rodevaan
      rodevaan 22 October 2013 20: 08
      11
      Quote: MIKHAN
      In war, he said, they shoot at you only from the front. In politics, fire should be expected from the rear too. It often comes to the point that you no longer understand who the enemy is and who is friend.
      Now such a war is going on .. And the most cruel and cynical in world history .. The world is rolling into the abyss ... (such a feeling ..) I believe Russia will restore order in this mess in the world (there is no one else ..)


      - To be honest - God forbid! We don’t need this! Enough to solve all the problems with the help of a Russian soldier, his bayonet and boot. Anyway, as a result, no one will appreciate it - and it will turn against us.
      Enough of this crappy world to save from all trash, let them save themselves ... We better look at it aside.
      1. GHG
        GHG 22 October 2013 21: 14
        14
        Our Army in the 90s withstood blows both to the front and to the flanks and to the rear. Bearded, rotten politicians, corrupt media, all kinds of funds. The army stood up and got stronger in spirit, gets support from its people. Only fucking corruption overshadows the big picture.
        1. domokl
          domokl 23 October 2013 07: 58
          0
          Quote: GES
          Our Army in 90 withstood attacks both in the front and in the flanks and in the rear.

          Withstood. Only now one and a half tens of thousands of soldiers' lives were given for some kind of ghostly idea.
          And on the topic, apart from stating the problem, nothing is written at all. Some politician is not a military man. Or headquarters. The army may well be at war with the tribes. That is perfectly demonstrated by specialists. It is simply necessary to learn the famous phrase from the White Sun of the desert-East is a delicate matter. And believe there you can only yourself, and even then not always. Today is an ally, tomorrow is an enemy and vice versa.
          But better, just divide and conquer everything. Bleed the tribes and let them wet each other. And sit in the OP yourself, and strike with helicopters, then one or the other.
          1. rodevaan
            rodevaan 23 October 2013 10: 47
            +1
            Quote: domokl
            Quote: GES
            Our Army in 90 withstood attacks both in the front and in the flanks and in the rear.

            Withstood. Only now one and a half tens of thousands of soldiers' lives were given for some kind of ghostly idea.
            And on the topic, apart from stating the problem, nothing is written at all. Some politician is not a military man. Or headquarters. The army may well be at war with the tribes. That is perfectly demonstrated by specialists. It is simply necessary to learn the famous phrase from the White Sun of the desert-East is a delicate matter. And believe there you can only yourself, and even then not always. Today is an ally, tomorrow is an enemy and vice versa.
            But better, just divide and conquer everything. Bleed the tribes and let them wet each other. And sit in the OP yourself, and strike with helicopters, then one or the other.


            - Well, about one and a half tens of thousands of flats, you turned down of course, - but actually, despite the terrible collapse of the country and the army, the mutiny, thanks to true Russian fighters and officers, crushed, planted your man, and made a rabid beast bite each other. What is actually happening now. No matter how you say it, but I must admit that I did the GDP right. But what will happen next - we’ll see .... You can fight with the tribes, but it is advisable to use their own methods, and you must do this rigidly and uncompromisingly, in Yermolovsky style. But if we start to cultivate more tolerant seks-shopia, and try to fashion all kinds of democratic democracy in the sandbox with the tribes, then the result will be directly opposite to the goal.

            But how to clean up a corrupt bunch of bandits in the corridors of power - this is a problem that is much more complicated and more dangerous than all bearded tribes combined! Here's how to twist something like a little head .... I do not see solution methods ...
  2. Hudo
    Hudo 22 October 2013 18: 57
    +4
    Imagine, now, the surprise of a young officer arriving in Afghanistan for the first time. The government that pays him ordered him to fight the Taliban - the name, by the way, means “religious students” - and free the country from their heinous presence. ... ...
    When the first shock passes, our young officer quickly discovers that everything is much more complicated than he thought.


    Well, glorious, nothing so demoralizes morale in the troops as the mediocrity of command.
  3. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 22 October 2013 19: 01
    +5
    from the Don.
    We have the same crap smoldering.
  4. biglow
    biglow 22 October 2013 19: 05
    23
    the British know how to fight tribes. Total total destruction.
    1. Guun
      Guun 22 October 2013 19: 08
      +3
      If the tribes are armed with modern weapons, plus the support of a superpower, the conclusion will be washed by the blood of those who are at war with the tribes, and if you bribe them with gold, for example, the war will be won.
      Quote: biglow
      Total total destruction.

      Then you have to beat the local population - and this will spur the whole people into a rebel war
      1. 6 sunrise 9
        6 sunrise 9 22 October 2013 19: 33
        +7
        Quote: biglow
        Total total destruction.


        If you want to conquer Afghanistan, you will have to genocide the entire population. Since Agan children are unable to write and read .. but they already know the Kalashnikov assault rifle. In combination with Wahhabism, these are no longer children, but Majahideen and they will easily shoot you in the back. In general, fighting in this country does not make sense if you do not want to arrange genocide.

        Quote: Guun
        If the tribes are armed with modern weapons, plus the support of a superpower, the conclusion will be washed by the blood of those who are at war with the tribes, and if you bribe them with gold, for example, the war will be won.


        The civil war in Afghanistan has been going on for centuries, the tribes of the Aghans, despite one religion, can’t get along together. And as soon as NATO withdraws troops, they will fight against each other.

        Quote: Guun
        Then you have to beat the local population - and this will spur the whole people into a rebel war


        Do you think this local population is poorly armed? You are a naive person, I will tell you a secret in Afghanistan no civilians, for Avgans to wear Kalash .. it's like for us to wear a passport.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 22 October 2013 20: 53
          +2
          Quote: 6Sunrise9
          Do you think this local population is poorly armed?

          the local population may be well armed (how good can be considered the absence of heavy weapons), but it does not produce ammunition for its "good" weapons.
          1. Hudo
            Hudo 22 October 2013 21: 27
            +4
            Quote: Setrac
            however, it does not produce ammunition for its "good" weapon.


            The problem is surprisingly easy to solve. The very same China, without much effort, will throw it through the second or third hands, so that the Mujahidetdin dragged them to the joy of the amers and their henchmen.
      2. alex-cn
        alex-cn 22 October 2013 19: 34
        +6
        the British poked twice in Afghanistan, and both times barely blew their feet, oh, yes, they know how and what it feels like to fight in Afghanistan.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 22 October 2013 20: 54
          +2
          Quote: alex-cn
          the British poked twice in Afghanistan, and both times barely blew their feet, oh, yes, they know how and what it feels like to fight in Afghanistan.

          Without help from outside the Afghans, zero without a wand.
          1. alex-cn
            alex-cn 23 October 2013 14: 42
            0
            And who helped the Afghans in the 19th century?
        2. old man54
          old man54 23 October 2013 03: 56
          +1
          Quote: alex-cn
          the British poked twice in Afghanistan, and both times barely blew their feet,

          not twice, but three times! And this time, as part of the coalition already fourth their times, and the result is still the same! laughing
      3. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 19: 37
        +9
        Quote: Guun
        Then you have to beat the local population - and this will spur the whole people into a rebel war

        Not a ride. The correlation of forces is not that. They always took advantage of the fact that the war was fought for conquest, not destruction. And if you take into account the experience of the Afghan wars, then nothing was almonded with them.
      4. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 22 October 2013 21: 13
        +5
        And this is an insurrectionary war. The author described something like this in a sweet, tolerant language: we came to a country in which everyone is at war with us. In general, everyone, just everyone does it as much as possible. But we, the tolerant British, can no longer say - let's kill everyone until the frightened and bloodless mountaineers break down. We need to somehow find among the conquered people a certain "peaceful population" that we ... protect!
        We protect him by killing those who shoot at us. But everyone who can shoot at us! And the only way is "strategic corporal". Well yes. The order for the Admiralty, remember - "This is a truly important matter. Therefore, entrust its implementation to the lower ranks!" Yes, there is a hope that by killing people of one tribe, the corporal, thanks to his awareness of the situation around him, very accurate information, because it is he who is being killed and not the office analyst, he will be able to indulge the tribal enmity. And be in the benefactors of another tribe.
        That is, analysts are still capable of raking up a colossal salary, but there is no longer anything to make out in the case. And let us not entrust our politicians (who are killing ourselves more and more, the valiant British killers in uniform), but directly to ourselves the choice of whom to kill in this hostile country. The newest principle is discovered by this beautiful analysis! "Divide and rule!" Sounds fresh ...
  5. vkrav
    vkrav 22 October 2013 19: 11
    22
    How to fight with tribes armed with modern weapons?

    Only two options:
    1. Do not climb to the tribes.
    2. The destruction of the entire combat-ready population - no one has ever called the tactics of scorched land ineffective.
    1. avt
      avt 22 October 2013 19: 28
      +8
      Quote: vkrav
      Only two options:

      Well, to begin with, think about where the "tribes" actually got their weapons, again, it is very interesting HOW these "tribes" are famously controlled by modern weapons. Or maybe not very modern? Something that reminds me of an interview with one amerskoy admiral, who without batting an eye told reporters that the Somali pirates, well, very fast boats cut through and there is no technical ability to catch them.
      Quote: Sewer
      if you don’t be snotty assholes and don’t boil in war, but really set the task of victory. And in the case of some tribes, destruction is better, then everything is done very quickly!

      request And why did you actually get that the purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan, well, Iraq, was the destruction of the same Taliban, terrorists, Al Qaeda and further on the list of universal people ??? The groans of the military about not achieving the seemingly set goals, are just the costs of the veiled course of the Great Game.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 19: 49
        +7
        Quote: avt
        Well, to begin with, think about where the "tribes" actually got their weapons, again, it is very interesting HOW these "tribes" are famously controlled by modern weapons

        Yes, this is basically not important. You just need to find your favorite corn. And there is one. The whole life of Afghans depends on imported products. To deprive them of their main source of income, heroin, and that’s all, well, almost everyone will be forced to eat ... in the fields, cultivating wheat, and not run around the mountains with a gun.
        1. avt
          avt 22 October 2013 20: 02
          +3
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          To deprive them of their main source of income, heroin, and that’s all, well, almost everyone will be forced to eat ... in the fields, cultivating wheat, and not run around the mountains with a gun.

          Amers need it? They are about the "elusive Joe" of the Afghan spill prefer to rub.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 20: 23
            +1
            Quote: avt
            Amers need it? They are about the "elusive Joe" of the Afghan spill prefer to rub.

            That and that. good
    2. 6 sunrise 9
      6 sunrise 9 22 October 2013 19: 36
      +4
      Quote: vkrav
      1. Do not climb to the tribes.


      The population of Aganestan is the tribes.

      Quote: vkrav
      2. The destruction of the entire combat-ready population - no one has ever called the tactics of scorched land ineffective.


      In this case, you have to destroy whole population, even children and women. Since an Afghan child can easily kill you, an Afghan woman will happily blow herself up and take a few infidels with her. Killing an infidel in Agan is a feat.
      1. vkrav
        vkrav 22 October 2013 19: 42
        +3
        Quote: 6Sunrise9
        In this case, you have to destroy the entire population, even children and women.

        That is ... About the total destruction wrote above, I decided to speak more delicately.
      2. Apollo
        Apollo 22 October 2013 19: 48
        +5
        Quote: 6Sunrise9
        АвGhanaеcamp


        Aren't you ashamed of spelling ?!
      3. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 19: 52
        +2
        Quote: 6Sunrise9
        Since an Afghan child can easily kill you, an Afghan woman will happily blow herself up and take a few infidels with her.

        Well, you are under the impression of the 9th company.
        1. 6 sunrise 9
          6 sunrise 9 22 October 2013 20: 22
          +2
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Well, you are under the impression of the 9th company.


          Is that really not so? Afghanistan is very different from all other states.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 20: 30
            +7
            Quote: 6Sunrise9
            Is that really not so? Afghanistan is very different from all other states.

            Mountains yes. And they want to live there no less than in other Islamic states. Where was the cool temper of the Indians, or Chechens, when they were evicted on the reservation? They understand only strength, any attempt to solve the problem by diplomacy is considered a weakness.
            1. max702
              max702 22 October 2013 21: 07
              +4
              I fully agree with you half measures in such regions do not pass, or you don’t poke around at all, or total genocide with the use of all types of weapons, I remember once told a Dagestan to his statement that the Dagi supposedly were great wars, that while your grandfathers asses mastered atomic physics .. and we will be at war with what we can .. so don’t be offended when the ashes are taken seriously they won’t be left ..
          2. Apollo
            Apollo 22 October 2013 20: 59
            +3
            Quote: 6Sunrise9
            Afghanistan


            Well, finally! +
            1. Very old
              Very old 22 October 2013 23: 30
              +1
              Invite to the forum teachers of the Russian language. The one that we were taught in the 50s (some remembered their gymnasiums)
  6. Sewer
    Sewer 22 October 2013 19: 16
    +5
    if you don’t be snotty assholes and don’t get rich in war, but really set the task of victory. And in the case of some tribes, destruction is better, then everything is done very quickly! soldier
  7. Rusich51
    Rusich51 22 October 2013 19: 21
    +5
    Do not get into hell with someone else's garden. But do not let yourself in. If the beast, then let them eat themselves.
    1. 6 sunrise 9
      6 sunrise 9 22 October 2013 19: 37
      +3
      They have been eating themselves for centuries ... and they can’t eat everything. In general, your option is more for me.

      Give the new Chinese wall! (Joke laughing )
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 22 October 2013 20: 58
      +1
      Quote: Rusich51
      Do not get into hell with someone else's garden.

      In this very "strange garden" heroin is grown and this enterprise is supervised by the CIA, so think about climbing or not climbing?
  8. ed65b
    ed65b 22 October 2013 19: 21
    +1
    How to fight? silently. angry
  9. Setrac
    Setrac 22 October 2013 19: 24
    +6
    Quote: Guun
    Then you have to beat the local population - and this will spur the whole people into a rebel war

    This will not help them, especially those who resist will be multiplied by zero, the Afghans will not be the first nation destroyed during the next redistribution of the world.
    1. Guun
      Guun 22 October 2013 19: 27
      +5
      Nations like an Afghan - no. The warlike tribe of Pashtuns is there and it is the most numerous. Uzbeks and Tajiks live in the south.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 22 October 2013 20: 46
        +2
        Quote: Guun
        Nations like an Afghan - no. The warlike tribe of Pashtuns is there and it is the most numerous. Uzbeks and Tajiks live in the south.

        Do not care. An artillery shell is such a thing - it does not divide by nationality.
      2. vahatak
        vahatak 23 October 2013 00: 48
        0
        Tajiks and Uzbeks live in northern Afghanistan, and yes, you are right.
  10. uzer 13
    uzer 13 22 October 2013 19: 32
    11
    A funny attempt by the author to make an analysis of the situation and at the same time try to please everyone at once.
    In order not to be defeated by savages armed with modern weapons, the following must be done:
    1 Learn to tell the truth and call armed savages armed savages, not fighters for the freedom of all mankind.
    2 Against the modern weapons of savages, use even more modern and adequate weapons and do not stop fighting until the last armed savage is destroyed.
    3 To call a spade a spade, war should be called war, not a peacekeeping operation, respectively, and the military should have their own powers, and not be hostages to peacetime legislation.
    4 To prohibit politicians during the hostilities from interfering in the affairs of the army and criminalize attempts to do so.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 19: 56
      +2
      A pipe dream. This is only possible with a military dictatorship.
  11. pahom54
    pahom54 22 October 2013 19: 38
    +7
    If you project this article on Russia, or rather, on the Caucasus, then we get about the same picture ... or we get ... But there is only one way to fight - the complete destruction of the combat-ready population ... Or pay yasak, as we (Russia) are now paying. .. However, the attacks continue, and the question arises: is the government doing the right thing, paying off the militants?
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 20: 00
      +8
      Quote: pahom54
      If you project this article on Russia, or rather on the Caucasus, we get about the same picture ... or we will get ... But there is only one way to fight - the complete destruction of the combat-ready population ..

      As the experience of the USSR shows, there is another way. 23.02.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX Easy and simple.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 22 October 2013 21: 04
      0
      Quote: pahom54
      Or pay yasak, as we (Russia) are now paying ...

      The fact that the Federal Center allocates the Chechen Republic for yasak does not pull, it’s more likely to throw a bone from the master’s table.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 22 October 2013 21: 56
        +7
        Quote: Setrac
        rather, he throws a bone from the master's table.

        The Saratov region is choked with saliva at the thought of such a bone. There is no money, but Stolypin's wagons need to be driven.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 22 October 2013 23: 06
          0
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          The Saratov region is choked with saliva at the thought of such a bone. There is no money, but Stolypin's wagons need to be driven.

          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_регионов_России_по_ВРП_на_душу_населения
      2. Airman
        Airman 22 October 2013 22: 38
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        Quote: pahom54
        Or pay yasak, as we (Russia) are now paying ...

        The fact that the Federal Center allocates the Chechen Republic for yasak does not pull, it’s more likely to throw a bone from the master’s table.

        Something they can’t choke on this bone, but only grow fat.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 22 October 2013 23: 07
          +1
          Quote: Povshnik
          Something they can’t choke on this bone, but only grow fat.

          Who are they? Kremlin henchmen in Chechnya!
  12. avt
    avt 22 October 2013 19: 57
    +5
    Quote: Guun
    Nations like an Afghan - no. The warlike tribe of Pashtuns is there and it is the most numerous. Uzbeks and Tajiks live in the south.

    Probably all the same in the north, in the mountains of Badakhshan, the Afghan Tajiks. Well, the Khazars, in the sense of the descendants of the Mongols, did not count the Hazaras?
    1. Guun
      Guun 22 October 2013 20: 24
      +3
      Confused, I apologize. Pashtuns in the south, Uzbeks and Tajiks in the north.
  13. Migari
    Migari 22 October 2013 20: 25
    +7
    Enough already, we have fought, we have helped, it is time for our people to think, we have a sea of ​​problems, they must be resolved in the first place, and we must firmly uphold our interests at the international level.
  14. Hauptam
    Hauptam 22 October 2013 21: 15
    0
    Quote: Onotolle
    Quote: MIKHAN
    Russia will restore order

    Why do we need someone else's headache?
    Once saved from fascism, paid an incredible price and what gratitude?
    All and sundry are watered with slop, it’s good that at least they don’t require compensation for release.
    Let them figure it out among themselves. And it will be seen there.
    In Russia, its problems are higher than the roof.


    Well, yes, Russia lives on an island or on Mars, there is no one around.
  15. Andrey Peter
    Andrey Peter 22 October 2013 21: 21
    +1
    First you need to deal with your problems, but they are almost the same (I mean the Caucasus). I agree that to finally put things in order, very tough measures are needed. But then the cries of all bullshitters will begin, including ours. And they’ll write in foreign mass media .... Then tight borders and a leader like Stalin are needed. Perhaps they will come to this in the geyrop when they bring them (if it’s not already known).
  16. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 22 October 2013 21: 23
    +2
    Quote: Onotolle
    Quote: MIKHAN
    Russia will restore order

    Why do we need someone else's headache?
    Once saved from fascism, paid an incredible price and what gratitude?
    All and sundry are watered with slop, it’s good that at least they don’t require compensation for release.
    Let them figure it out among themselves. And it will be seen there.
    In Russia, its problems are higher than the roof.


    Alas, they won't let us live and develop calmly ... Remember the history of Russia, someone always climbs to us .. Now, in my opinion, the next stage has come when I have to (to break the ridge of the next "exceptional". I don't want this either (I have small sons ) Russia just won't be able to "sit out" again .. (we are too tidbit on the planet) God forbid that without a lot of blood and devastation ...
    1. Onotollah
      Onotollah 23 October 2013 06: 06
      0
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Alas, alas, they will not give us peace and development anyway.

      I agree with you.
      I'm just for setting priorities correctly.
      For example, first of all, to solve the issue of migrants, corruption, with integration into the customs union of Ukraine, with the development of their own industry and army, and only then if there is time to reconcile the Taliban with the geyropa.
      hi
  17. Siberian
    Siberian 22 October 2013 21: 26
    +1
    How to fight with tribes armed with modern weapons?
    No need to fight them. We are not happy when they climb to us with their charter in a strange monastery. And they do not like simple farmers. Let them boil there in their cauldron. One thing that annoyingly others get in there and set up against us.
  18. dropout
    dropout 22 October 2013 21: 26
    +1
    The funny thing is that Afghanistan is not a fortress that can be taken with the help of a donkey loaded with gold.
  19. dengy12
    dengy12 22 October 2013 21: 36
    +3
    Quote: uzer 13
    1 Learn to tell the truth and call armed savages armed savages, not fighters for the freedom of all mankind.
    2 Against the modern weapons of savages, use even more modern and adequate weapons and do not stop fighting until the last armed savage is destroyed.
    3 To call a spade a spade, war should be called war, not a peacekeeping operation, respectively, and the military should have their own powers, and not be hostages to peacetime legislation.
    4 To prohibit politicians during the hostilities from interfering in the affairs of the army and criminalize attempts to do so.

    wah! well said!!!
  20. catapractic
    catapractic 22 October 2013 21: 48
    +4
    medieval barbarians are afraid and understand only medieval methods — to crush without pity and forget for them about human rights, humanism ...
  21. Semurg
    Semurg 22 October 2013 21: 49
    0
    In the Second World War, the Germans also seemed to be outraged at the expense of the partisans that they were not fighting correctly. some comments about total annihilation surprise (or like our scouts in childhood, and theirs are spies laughing )
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 22 October 2013 23: 14
      +1
      Quote: Semurg
      In the Second World War, the Germans also seemed to be outraged at the expense of the partisans that they were not fighting correctly. some comments about total annihilation surprise (or like our scouts in childhood, and theirs are spies)

      The difference between partisans and terrorists is not semantic. These two groups choose different goals for themselves.
      1. Semurg
        Semurg 23 October 2013 19: 26
        -1
        Quote: Setrac
        Quote: Semurg
        In the Second World War, the Germans also seemed to be outraged at the expense of the partisans that they were not fighting correctly. some comments about total annihilation surprise (or like our scouts in childhood, and theirs are spies)

        The difference between partisans and terrorists is not semantic. These two groups choose different goals for themselves.

        Afghans are terrorists? Germans also called partisans terrorists. the difference between them is only in skin color and your attitude towards them, some spies are other scouts.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 24 October 2013 10: 51
          0
          Quote: Semurg
          Afghans are terrorists? Germans also called partisans terrorists. the difference between them is only in skin color and your attitude towards them, some spies are other scouts.

          Terrorists attack children, partisans attack soldiers.
          Terrorists fight in the interests of their foreign masters, as a rule it is the USA, partisans fight in the interests of their country.
          The goals and methods of these two groups are different.
  22. shinobi
    shinobi 22 October 2013 21: 50
    +5
    The joke is that there is a solution to this problem of an amorphous adversary. And it was invented in Russia during the Caucasian wars under the Tsar by General Ermolov. But there must be political will and expedient cruelty without looking back at the "enlightened West", because it will be called genocide. In fact, this is a simple sweep. How did the general do? He entered the village and stupidly shot everyone who was armed and who had a weapon. Gender and age did not matter. They did not touch pregnant women and children under 10 years old. The funniest thing is that only a few small ones were enough. by the standards of the shares. He was not original by the way, before him this tactic was used by the army of the Roman Empire and the "Golden Horde", which is what the Syrian army of Assad is doing now. But there is no repression and all-round assistance to the civilian population.
  23. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 October 2013 22: 34
    +2
    Quote: dropout
    The funny thing is that Afghanistan is not a fortress that can be taken with the help of a donkey loaded with gold.


    Yes, in general, we took it, and we and the Americans. We left because of the traitor Gorbachev, the Americans are leaving because they think they have resolved all their issues, and so, no one really needs Afghanistan now, well, maybe China. As for the specifics of the fight against the semi-peaceful local population, this is not a particular problem. Even the USSR, the fight against which it planned, prepared, paid for and supplied the whole West and China with the best weapons, were able to solve this problem. And now, when the Afghans are fighting in essence with the crumbs left from that war, it is not a question at all. Although the deplorable fighting efficiency of the Western coalition is a separate story, these can take away absolutely everything. I can imagine the state and successes of the "troops" of the West if we began to supply modern weapons to the Mujahideen, a couple of thousand MANPADS, abundant hail ammunition, more mines and explosives, bonuses for the murder of soldiers and officers, and all this western trash would be swept out of Afghanistan within a month because in essence the main thing is that there is no oil in Afghanistan, they have nothing to fight for.
  24. Kelnot
    Kelnot 22 October 2013 22: 34
    0
    It is clear that when State A invades the territory of State B, starting military expansion, the population of the latter state, in some percentage point, is negative about this phenomenon and supports the forces of local resistance. The only way out for the state is the A-total purges of the local population ...
    Everyone will think of the word "cleansing" for himself, for in war all methods are good.
  25. Indifferent
    Indifferent 22 October 2013 22: 35
    0
    I completely agree with the previous author. And General Ermolov. Or don’t get into a country where they hate you and everyone will beat you. And if you climbed, then the male population will have to destroy everything, without regard to liberalists and tolerasts. Otherwise, the war will have to be waged forever and the coffins sent to their own mothers, too, until their soldiers run out. But for this, their soldiers must be ready to kill everyone, without looking back.
    War is a difficult matter, especially if it is being waged in the country to completely destroy the people who live in it! But this is the only condition for victory in conditions of rebel resistance. No matter how cruel it may sound.
    That is why Russia cannot get into any conflicts. Tolerate to the last, but not fit.
  26. individual
    individual 22 October 2013 23: 43
    +1
    The situation when the army was shot in the back, Russia felt in full measure in the Chechen company, when not only guns were firing, but also corrupt politicians, journalists, and all kinds of "human rights activists."
    Shooting continues now - sheer terrorist attacks against civilians.
    Hidden by various Albats, Gozmans and other voices of the media "free" from Russia.
    There is no difference between them - some kill the people, others kill his soul.
    The special services do not fulfill their duty to protect the people of Russia, the state of Russia from their actions on all fronts.
  27. nod739
    nod739 22 October 2013 23: 51
    0
    But what did Russia forget in Avgan? what to fight then?
    to rebuild the deaf 7-meter-high fence, and watch out for him — whoever climbed the gun, there’s no reason to climb there, and let them not climb to us.

    and generally it's time to tighten the nuts,
    a video clip on the news was shown from YouTube, some type of calls on Muslims in a mosque to fight infidels with Russia, but such time it’s time to immediately hit the back of the head. Muslims lived and live without him, and with such calls, buses explode,
    it's time to tighten the nuts!
  28. old rocket man
    old rocket man 23 October 2013 00: 03
    0
    It, of course, can be cleaned up, you can even go to zero and do not care about the cries of the Westerners and their "democrats." But, interestingly, the problem cannot be solved by this. The very conditions of existence, the geographical features of the mountainous terrain, the great dismemberment and inaccessibility of regions will bring up the new population , and it will appear, the same habits and customs that the present. And everything will go round again. Or will it be necessary to keep constant armed contingents there throughout the country. Do we need it?
    So those who consider that it is better not to go there are right.
  29. vahatak
    vahatak 23 October 2013 00: 51
    0
    How to fight with tribes?
    Divide and rule. Also news to me. No need to fight them on their own and then it will not matter what they are armed with.
  30. Lazy cat
    Lazy cat 23 October 2013 03: 52
    0
    Quote: cataphractium
    medieval barbarians are afraid and understand only medieval methods — to crush without pity and forget for them about human rights, humanism ...

    It is difficult to disagree with this, it is a 100% option for complete peace of mind. In future.
  31. rpek32
    rpek32 23 October 2013 05: 36
    0
    Each time a corporal, or junior officer, suggests fighting with members of tribe A, he (rarely, in truth, she) should take into account the influence of this decision, positive or negative, on members of tribes B, C, and D.

    and nekhy generally climb to these tribes and the problem will disappear by itself. if you want freedom / democracy and order on your piece of land.
  32. air wolf
    air wolf 23 October 2013 07: 51
    0
    What are you all procrastinating about the same thing, Chechnya is already well established in the Kremlin, like a bunch of Western intelligence agents ...