Political predictions they got wrong (No7) Edward Luttwak predicts Soviet success in Afghanistan

As I’ve noted before in these columns, academic predictions about the activities of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s were more often wrong than right. Partly this reflected the fact that as a highly secretive nation, the Soviets didn’t release their economic and political statistics for the Americans to study at their leisure. Lacking this data made it incredibly difficult to form any accurate predictions about the future of the USSR (not that it stopped people from trying). It’s a bit like asking a structural engineer to tell you whether a house is likely to fall down or not just by looking at the outside. If the engineer isn’t allowed inside the house, or to see the blueprints, any opinion they give you is obviously going to be subject to errors.

Edward Luttwak is a highly successful academic, author and military consultant, still active today. Over the years he’s made a huge number of predictions and some of them have been wrong. For instance, in 1970 he speculated in an issue of Esquire magazine that the USA could suffer a military coup d’etat later in the decade.

Today I’m focussing on his work relating to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In his 1983 book “The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union”, he argued that the invasion had been a huge success, and that the communists would have no trouble in future expanding their borders by conquering small countries in a similar fashion. He continued this theme in his 1984 book “The Pentagon and the Art of War”, where he again made the prediction that the Soviet Union was succeeding in Afghanistan. To quote:

“The powerful urge to see a Vietnam in Afghanistan remains frustrated…fewer than 5 per cent of all Soviet troops, no more than five divisions, are in Afghanistan…What we see in Afghanistan is…a leisurley imperial pacification…there will be no hurried evacuation, no abandonment” (see pages 111-112)

Luttwak later advised both the CIA and Congressman Charlie Wilson (of Charlie Wilson’s War fame), not to supply the Afghan resistance fighters with weapons because they were fighting a lost cause. It’s interesting to speculate how history could have been different if they’d followed what he said. An almost classic example of the right advice being given for the wrong reasons.

As the British discovered in the 19th century and the Americans found in the 21st, Afghanistan is a trap. You can hold the towns and the roads at great military cost but then your stuck there, pinned down and an easy target for insurgents. By 1985 Afghanistan had begun to become a huge drain on Soviet resources and men and by 1987 they were desperately looking for an exit strategy. By 1988 even Colonel Trautman was comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam in Rambo 3. Many scholars now see the military failure of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as one of the direct factors leading to its collapse. Luttwak as late as the late 1980s was still predicting that the Soviet invasion was a success.

In his classic novel “The Moon is Down” John Steinbeck writes about a small town conquered by invaders, obviously meant to be Nazis. The invaders discover that while they can conquer the town militarily, they can not hold it and that “the flies have conquered the flypaper”.  Afghanistan was the Russian’s flypaper and now it’s ours.

For a full list of political predictions people got wrong click here

About these ads

About matthewashton

I'm a Politics Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University. I specialise in the fields of American, British and media politics.
This entry was posted in American politics, Review and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Political predictions they got wrong (No7) Edward Luttwak predicts Soviet success in Afghanistan

  1. Clem the Gem says:

    Careful here Matthew, the military history of Britain in Afghanistan runs as follows – Lost one, won two wars. What we learned was not to occupy the place.
    My view was similar to yours, until sat next to a serving Colonel last year, who put me right…

    • Oh I don’t dispute our ability to win short term wars, just are ability occupy the country for any significant length of time.

      I was at a dinner party ages ago where I questioned the wisdom of invading Afghanistan based on our history there e.g. the idea that the Afghan people might not remember us too fondly. I was told my the host who was in the military that my point was irrelevant, as that had been over a hundred years ago and they’d have forgotten by now. I should have pointed out that the Irish haven’t fogotten Cromwell or the Potato Famine but that didn’t occur to me until later.

      Why is it that whenever I’m in an argument I only think of a great comeback 24 hours later? It’s so frustrating.

  2. Pingback: Ten mistaken political predictions | Dr Matthew Ashton's Politics Blog

  3. I am glad you mention “The Moon is Down” by John Steinbeck which I think is a very good book about resistance to occupation/oppression.

    • I could be completly wrong about this but Steinbeck seems to have fallen out of fashion in recent years, or at least people only seem to read Of Mice and Men or Grapes of Wrath. I very rarely seem to meet people who’ve read “The Moon is Down” so I’m glad I’m not the only one who enjoys it. for my money one of the best books about occupation ever written because it look at it from both perspectives.

  4. Pingback: Political predictions they got wrong (No14) Lord Beaverbrook predicts peace | Dr Matthew Ashton's Politics Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s