Comments (35)

• David Spellman

  As a group of enlightened libertarians who see plainly the faults of others, we need to keep in mind that we are still the outsiders with little power for change. Men like Washington, LIncoln, and FDR certainly have their faults, but they exercised power and changed the world.

  I revel in my aloof position as observer of events, but it would be naive to believe that anyone will know or care who I was. I have to admit that if the people will not accept an altruist or a patriot to rule the nation, then we need a "next best thing." Idealism is a weakness that leads to accomplishing nothing at all. Pragmatists get things done.

  Published: February 18, 2008 10:11 AM

• Fephisto

  Compared to the presidents now-a-days, I don't think he was that bad. Especially giving in light of his farewell address.

  Published: February 18, 2008 10:15 AM

• Jason

  It cracks me up reading articles like that... As a republican on the fence of libertarianism I'm always disappointed when I run across the idealistic vitriol from articles like this. Washington avoided power, set the standard for presidents and united a nation. And yet Rothbard bashes him and accuses him of "crushing the spirit of liberty" because he enforced discipline in the military. (But if Microsoft screws every small company and their neighbor, or people abuse their children (I mean property in Libertianism) that's cool and demonstrates the wonders of ""liberty"")

  Mr. Rothbard and his ilk have obviously not spent any time in the real world facing physical threats, leading men, or venturing anywhere else far from the library! In a perfect world we wouldn't need a good guys with guns, but in the real world military and police play a critical (although often overused/misused/abused) role dealing with some of the inhabitants of this world who don't want to play by "market rules"... why don't we identify how to apply market principles to the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in?

  Published: February 18, 2008 11:22 AM

• Patrick

  I would say that Rothbart is a bit harsh on Washington in this article. I would say that discipline and a clear definition of rank is absolutely necessary in any respectable army. I wouldn't, however, refer to government as "good guys with guns." To say that is somewhat ignorant and totally subjective, I doubt any of the worst statist murderers in history have viewed themselves as bad guys. The end definitely does not justify the means. I also would not call the role of the police and military to be a "crucial" one. Police states, as we know them now, are only necessary for their own glorification and only within a system so primitive as our own. There are many more creative, effective and less destructive ways of shielding societies from "bad guys."

  Published: February 18, 2008 11:55 AM

• jeffrey

  This article hurls a dead cat into the temple of the civic religion -- and does so in way that only Rothbard can. There are more juicy things on Washington in the book set.

  Published: February 18, 2008 11:58 AM

• fundamentalist

  Rothbard seems to believe that guerrilla war would have won independence from Gr Britain, but that is highly unlikely. Better historians may correct me, but I am completely unaware of a guerrilla army having succeeded at anything except murdering civilians. Washington's army had to become professional to defeat the professional British army. Mao's army became professional during its long march. The Viet Cong transferred the struggle to the professional North Vietnamese army. Alexander the Great's army was professional and created havoc among Persia's citizen soldiers.

  Published: February 18, 2008 12:18 PM

• mike

  I love seeing this on the same page as Gary Galles's article extolling the virtues of GW's farewell address. No one can accuse the LvMI of being myopic!
  This little extract from Rothbard's Conceived In Liberty is a great sample. If you like this kind of character attacking damnation for failure to meet an impossible ideal, you'll love the books. One seeking a balanced examinatin of the history likely will be put off.

  Published: February 18, 2008 1:26 PM

• Quenton

  While Rothbard may make many good points most of the time, this is definitely one of the times he throws all logic and common sense out the window in favor of ideology. Drilling soldiers isn't primarily about "erasing individuality", even though that is one of the side effects. It is about making sure a soldier doesn't piss himself when the enemy returns fire as do untrained guerrillas.

  If Rothbard had wanted to debate the virtues of guerrilla soldiers over a drilled army for the purpose of winning wars he would have done a good job with this piece if it had run in an American newspaper circa 1776. Unfortunately he wrote it some 200 years after the fact with tons of history countering his claims. All this does is make him look like an intellectually dishonest fool.

  Let me just reiterate some previously mentioned points that need repeating. Guerrilla warfare is great for harassing the enemy, slowing him down, and just generally demoralizing him. However, without a drilled army to capitalize on the harassment it is all just effort pissed away. Guerrillas can not hold territory and they can not inflict casualties on the enemy in the amount required to make them surrender or otherwise leave the theater of battle permanently.

  For proof of this just look at all of the wars the US has fought since then. Most of the time they were fought against guerrillas or other untrained soldiery. Every single time the guerrillas lost to the well-drilled US Army. I'm not saying those wars war a good thing, just that the more "independent" soldiers did not win them.

  Published: February 18, 2008 1:48 PM

• jeffrey

  Quenton, would you say that Vietnam is an example?

  Published: February 18, 2008 1:58 PM

• Mark B.

  I think maybe people are over analyzing this. The fact is, Washington was trying to train the colonials to fight in the classic European style and wanted to meet the British in open combat in an open field. He was wrong in this extent.

  Instead, the Army should have been trained to fight as it fought at Lexington and Concord, rapidly shifting and fighting from behind trees and rocks, picking off the exposed British soldiers.

  The often forgotten southern revolutionary campaigns were fought in exactly this style, to the great detriment of the British. This style can be personified in the person of General Francis "Swampfox" Marion.

  I think Rothbard might have been referring to a professional army fighting in a guerrilla style, rather than being a true guerriilla force. Washington's attempt to fight the British in the classic European style of open field warfare was doomed to failure.

  Published: February 18, 2008 2:39 PM

• Gerald

  Your statement reveals more than you would probably care it to. Treachery by Congress against an ally, treachery by the press against their own populace, and treachery by the North in violation of their own claimed honor defeated the South. So, it seems that victory of a professional army against a guerilla force that slaughtered civilians can be overcome by treachery. A point to be considered in this discussion.

  Published: February 18, 2008 3:05 PM

• David

  Wow, I never knew this information about Washington. It's really sad that the full truth is never taught in the classrooms, only the "Hollywood" truth.

  Published: February 18, 2008 3:25 PM

• Jeff F

  >His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen.

  How incredibly stupid comment. Washington turned a chaos of humanity into an (semi-)organized unit that could be capable of facing the British on the field.

  Mr. Rothbard wasn't right on everything. Generalissimo? How incredibly insulting. Cancel my subscription.

  Published: February 18, 2008 3:25 PM

• Paul Edwards

  The problems we face today make more and more sense, the more we understand the Washingtons and Hamiltons of the past.

  Doesn't it seem to be a proverb that men are much wiser in the discussing of political power than ever they were in the wielding of it?

  Washington was just such a case in point.

  Published: February 18, 2008 4:35 PM

• DickF

  Murry Rothbard wrote:

  In June of 1775, writes Murray Rothbard, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try.

  Sadly, this is what you get when an inexperienced idealist attempts to give advice totally outside his area of expertise. Rothbard demonstrates that he does not understand basic military training, nor does he understand the level and effects of fear on a battlefield.

  Fundamentalist wrote:

  Rothbard seems to believe that guerrilla war would have won independence from Gr Britain, but that is highly unlikely. Better historians may correct me, but I am completely unaware of a guerrilla army having succeeded at anything except murdering civilians.

  Fundamentalist,

  A guerrilla war is exactly what Washington was engaged in. The Battle of New York proved that the American forces were no match for the British in a head to head conflict. Alexander Hamilton gave Washington a battle plan of strike and run, retreat and deception. Hamilton's plan was to frustrate the British into making blunders by one of the world's first organized guerrilla wars.

  Washington engaged when he could win and he retreated when he could not. This is what won the Revolutionary War.

  Published: February 18, 2008 5:35 PM

• Henry Miller

  Washington's plan to go face to face on the battle field sort of worked in his days when guns were bad. The civil war used that strategy and revealed why it is bad: 80% casualties. NO army fights that way anymore. They dig fox holes so when they are face to face, they can't see each other. Remember, if you can be seen you can be shot. That rule wasn't true then.

  I don't know what the best strategy for Washington would be, but European fighting was not it.

  Published: February 18, 2008 5:57 PM

• Mark B.

  When I refer to the European style of fighting in my above posts I mean the following:

  The two armies oppose each other in an open field free of obstructions. The men are lined up in long rows with about three ranks. The armies march towards each other until they are about 80 yards apart. They then have at each other with musket fire until basically one side breaks down and retreats, at which time the other side charges with bayonets.

  If the colonials had tried fighting the British in that manner, which by the way Washington first contemplated actually doing but was thankfully desuaded from doing, they would have been slaughtered and the colonies would probably have been part of Britain for another 80 years.

  Published: February 18, 2008 6:16 PM

• jeffrey

  Shows what I know. I figured this story would rocket to digg, but only 8 diggs so far. on the other hand, tons of external links, including one from wonkette. Go figure.

  Published: February 18, 2008 8:19 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  "Washington's army had to become professional to defeat the professional British army" - no, all that got them was not being defeated. To defeat the British also required European professional forces. The same goes for "Washington engaged when he could win and he retreated when he could not. This is what won the Revolutionary War." - similarly no, that kept things in play and avoided defeat but it took outside help to win (I'm not giving all credit to the outsiders - they wouldn't have been much use on their own either). Even when guerillas like Castro or Mao Tse Tung appear to win it is only by transforming part of the effort into the other sort, perhaps in a later phase. Vietnam had the separate northern regular forces filling that role.

  This goes to the question of mixed strategies. By themselves guerillas don't win, but in combination with regular forces they place a regular enemy in a bind, not being able to work against both sorts of opposition at the same time. Washington's regulars, even when "losing" tactically, allowed the guerillas to hold terrain or deny it to the British thus preventing Loyalist elements from emerging (they used terrorism for that); without a regular rebel force, the British could have maintained strong points for Loyalists to rally in and then applied scorched earth methods to unsecured areas, the reliable laying waste approach with raids wreaking havoc and using chevauchees.

  Washington's preparation is comparable to that of the competent Union generals to whom the civilian Lincoln said, "if you're not doing anything with my army, can I have it?" - and promptly got what an untrained army deserves (starting from scratch, without a cultural basis to give a head start, it takes around two years to train normal recruits to full readiness - though a useful subset may be reached much sooner, e.g. if they don't get called on to use the skills needed to conduct an orderly retreat).

  The American rebel experience was not the first organised guerilla campaign. Such things had been common along the Christian/Muslim frontiers, and had also occurred in Ireland.

  "Persia's citizen soldiers" is nonsense, by the way. Persian forces were a host levied from disparate subject peoples, subjects not citizens, and varied widely in professionalism; the most professional forces of all in those campaigns were probably the Persian "Immortals". Alexander also used levies of subjects as well as mercenaries and Macedonians loyal to him, it was just that the first group were highly effective citizen soldiers produced by the Greek system.

  Published: February 18, 2008 9:39 PM

• Useless Spectator

  Note to Mises.org: before put articles like this one on your site, ask yourself: is this likely to convert mainstream Republicans and Democrats, or is it more likely to offend them? In my view, this is one of the latter.

  Published: February 18, 2008 10:09 PM

• Mark B.

  At least they should have used a less offending title. Get rid of the generalissimo perjorative.

  "General Washington: Ineffective Military Leader" would have gotten the point across, without unnecessarily creating offense. The article in question is controversial on its own. It does not need to be further inflamed with a baiting title. In my opinion the article itself was fine, the title used on the website was unnecessarily provocative.

  Published: February 18, 2008 10:23 PM

• nick gray

  I think the term 'Generalissimo' is quite appropriate, since it links his example to the revolutions in South America that soon followed. Perhaps Washington should be known as 'The First Generalissimo'?

  Published: February 19, 2008 12:37 AM

• Darwyyn

  This article is ridiculous. George Washington was not a member of the Austrian school but he made two VERY significant choices: after being pressured into taking the presidential office, he walked away from power. He would have died in his third term and we should at least respect that he recognized his limits. Secondly, he freed his slaves in his will, an uncommon choice at the time. Yes, he may have made choices which were detrimental to the libertarian spirit but Washington was not a libertarian. He was, on the other hand, an opponent of rule by force. So he was an Southern aristocrat--a little order in an army never hurt anyone. It was the Spanish anarchists inability to organize themselves against the Communists in the Spanish Civil War that led to their imprisonment, execution, and dispersement. Don't forget either that Bohm-Bawerk opposed outright anarchy and that Bastiat believed in a small, but existent, government controlled at a local level.

  Pride in one's views is natural but Rothbard got inflated with himself when he attacks people who fit in similar camps.

  Published: February 19, 2008 12:57 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Mainstream Republicans and Democrats who are open to conversion to libertarian ideas are concerned about the truth, not about in what manner their perceptions about their favorite historical hero may be dashed by the truth. If they don't like Rothbard's interpretation of history, they can differ. They don't like the title of an article - they can think of an alternate. In the end, they'll have to form a thymological analysis of the facts of Washington's choices and actions in how he dealt with his men. I think Rothbard's is a worth-while starting place for this, and i lean towards it as a conclusion as well.

  Anyways, where's the controversy? Didn't we hear the news? Power corrupts - and did we not suspect that American history may have cut the imperfect founders some slack for their transgressions along the way?

  It's definitely time to go back and set the record straight - if an honest look at the past reveals the record is not straight already.

  Published: February 19, 2008 1:09 AM

• rhys

  "Men like Washington, LIncoln, and FDR certainly have their faults, but they exercised power and changed the world." -David Spellman

  Well, that's is what it is all about. Regardless of whether it is good or bad, at least power was exercised.

  "Mr. Rothbard and his ilk have obviously not spent any time in the real world facing physical threats, leading men, or venturing anywhere else far from the library!"[W]hy don't we identify how to apply market principles to the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in? Jason

  I guess identifying how to apply 'market principles' to the world we live in cannot be done except by those who have spent time in the real world facing physical threats, leading men, or venturing anywhere else far from the library.

  When is Patraeus coming out with his next earnings report?

  "I would say that discipline and a clear definition of rank is absolutely necessary in any respectable army. Police states, as we know them now, are only necessary for their own glorification and only within a system so primitive as our own. There are many more creative, effective and less destructive ways of shielding societies from "bad guys."-Patrick

  If police states, as we know them now, are only necessary for their own glorification and only within a system so primitive as our own, and there are many more creative, effective and less destructive ways of shielding societies from "bad guys." Why would you say that, "...discipline and a clear definition of rank is absolutely necessary in any respectable army." A respectible army is one that wins, and you have admited that there must be other ways to shield societies from bad guys that do not require discipline, clear definitions of rank, or a respectible army.

  "Better historians may correct me, but I am completely unaware of a guerrilla army having succeeded at anything except murdering civilians. Washington's army had to become professional to defeat the professional British army." -fundamentalist

  Correlation does not equal causation. Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, the difference between a professional army and gurerrilla army is not how many civilians it kills. But besides that, even if guerrilla armies cannot win, all that proves is that every cause worth fighting for will eventually yield a professional fighting force. This does not indicate that guerrilla armies are bad and professional armies are good, but only that if you can't convince people to fund full-time fighters for your side, then your case isn't strong enough to win.

  "If you like this kind of character attacking damnation for failure to meet an impossible ideal, you'll love the books. One seeking a balanced examinatin of the history likely will be put off." -mike

  Yes! If you ever seek a balanced examination of history, beware articles that put you off. Odds are that if it's contraversial, it's not balanced.

  "However, without a drilled army to capitalize on the harassment it is all just effort pissed away. Guerrillas can not hold territory and they can not inflict casualties on the enemy in the amount required to make them surrender or otherwise leave the theater of battle permanently." -Quenton

  "Quenton, would you say that Vietnam is an example?" -jeffrey

  "Note to Mises.org: before put articles like this one on your site, ask yourself: is this likely to convert mainstream Republicans and Democrats, or is it more likely to offend them? In my view, this is one of the latter. -Useless Spectator

  Perfectly appropriate moniker.

  Published: February 19, 2008 1:15 AM

• Kakugo

  Most of the readers seem to have understood the situation better than Rothbard himself (absit iniuria verbis).
  You simply cannot face a large, professional army with patriotic amateurs.
  See for example how the various Celtic people of Europe succumbed in front of Rome and her well-drilled mercenaries. Splendid individual courage and self-sacrifice were poor matches for the superior Roman war machine, honed through centuries of aggressive warfare.
  The first to understand the situation, Civilis, had served the Romans as a mercenary (as much as Washignton had served the British as a militia officer) and it was not the incredibly brave but half-naked and undrilled Celts who finally broke the Roman armies but the steel-clad Gothic knights and the well-disciplined squadrons of the Sassanid dynasty.
  I could go on for hours but I think this example will suffice.
  After Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown Washington could have easily made himself life dictator or even king since nobody would have opposed him.
  But he didn't and later he even willingly stepped down from power. That's where his greatness lies.
  

  Published: February 19, 2008 6:49 AM

• Keith

  This article suggests that Mr. Rothbard has little idea of what makes a successful army. A successful army must be a model of socialism. A bee hive, an ant colony, in human form. All individuality is subserviant to the needs of the whole and it's mission. Without this socialist mind set and commitment, you cannot hope to get people to fight or risk there lives for anything beyond their percieved gain in plunder and power. Getting this commitment can be either voluntary or coerced, but without it, you have at best a herd, at worst a mob.

  The success of the Continental Army in the Revolution was mainly due to its existense. Yes, it fought and sometime it won and sometimes it lost, but fighting was not its primary function. As long as it continued to exist, it was a continuous threat to British authority in the colonies. Until the Continental Army was eliminated, Britain would have to respond in kind. Much like the US in Viet Nam, when Britain decided it couldn't or wouldn't counter the Continental Army, they ceded authority in the colonies.

  The greatness of Washington was that once this happened, he didn't become Cromwell or Napoleon, he disbanded the army. Calling Washington a tyrant for creating the army that the colonies needed to win their independence demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the topic.

  Published: February 19, 2008 8:39 AM

• jeffrey

  Well, yes, it's true that Rothbard was against socialism, the ant-colony society, and the bee-hive society. Moreover, he showed that guerilla tactics are actually more effective -- long before Martin van Creveld argued the same thing in his classic book on war.

  One thing readers need to remember. This is just a tiny excerpt from a 4-volume work.

  Published: February 19, 2008 8:43 AM

• Robert B. Thorne, M.D.

  I sense this article is very true from its details. It appears that every country writes an idealistic constitution and then its politicians go their own way, often socialist, aristocratic, not in the best interests of true freedom for the people, or free market. In the Bible, people are warned to judge the motives of a person (or system) not by what it says it will do, but what it actually does. Most people are taken by the words and propaganda, and not the facts. The Bible warns, in the first three of the Ten Commandments, about having "no false gods", "no graven images to worship", and "no false oaths using the name of God" because these would be used as a means of control of the people contrary to their best interests and freedom. Governments throughout history, seeking to control their people, quickly seized upon "pledges of allegiance" as the best means to do so. Our Pledge of Allegiance is forced upon our children well before they have the capacity for critical judgment (to know whether something is true or not), and they are coerced/forced to repeat it daily under pain of severe punishment if they fail to do so. The "graven image" is the flag, and people have certainly almost come to worship it. The falsity in the Pledge (which uses the name of God) is the part about "liberty and justice for all". Does anybody in their right mind actually believe that this is true? Countries thereby have their people worshipping the flag and the country instead of God. The children are brainwashed coercively by a statist pledge. The first three of the Ten Commandments are violated. I wonder if these were God's top three in priority because they were the most dangerous if they were violated, and they appear to be by most countries. External military threats are the number one organizing principles of society; this is why the Israelites said, "Give us a king in the Book of Samuel". God told Samuel to let the people know what was in store for them if they did so, and it was precisely what we've got now. Samuel did this and the people still still said, "give us a king". God said, essentially, to Samuel, "Give them what they want, but when they've got it and come crying to Me for relief, I will not hear them on that day because I warned them." I think the Ten Commandments are the best Constitution ever given, not only because they were given by God, but because they make the best sense (provably so) in terms of economic and personal freedoms and for civilizations with such freedoms to maximize opportunities for happiness, creativity, and productivity. Just look at what Thomas Edison was able to do, unencumbered by a regimented, expensive education system. At least with pro sports they don't have to pay tuition and are free to learn it on their own with goals they set on their own. That's why they're so good at what they do, and that's why the education system should be similar. We pay enough in taxes already; there should be a free system of comprehensive examinations for the people to take in any subject area they choose to give proof of competency in a particular area. For an undergraduate degree in chemistry, for example, possibly a week long comprehensive exam from 9-5 every day. I'm a medical doctor in a highly overregulated system to the point of absurdity. In this kind of system, they've actually been able to convince people that derivatives of mustard gas, and other chemical weapons of the World Wars, are effective "chemotherapy" for cancer. Derivative companies of I.G. Farben are our "pharmaceutical companies", and they didn't want to spend a lot of money retooling everything and doing honest research. If most of the people are still dying, how is it effective? Much more effective alternatives have existed for thousands of years with Ayurvedic Medicine of India, etc.; people from India know this and so does the rest of the world. How do our people not see the truth, or even care, about these types of things and 9/11?? Look at the fluoride in the drinking water (and the pink fluoride pills as children) and it's position above iodine on the periodic table of the elements; it interferes with thyroid metabolism, brain development, and brain function. The Nazis used fluoride to make the population dumbded down, docile, and submissive. Same with bromide in over the counter meds; just beneath iodine on the periodic table (it's a halide). Or look at mercury in the amalgam fillings; one of the most toxic heavy metals known, with central nervous system, kidneys, and heart being the main targets. It's forbidden/illegal in almost every other country in the world. Take a look at the web sites:

  www.iaomt.org
  
  and the "Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas" video or:
  www.toxicteeth.org

  As Ray McGovern (former CIA analyst for 27 years, writer of PDF (President's Daily Brief) who briefed Nixon, Ford, and Carter, founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) says at 9/11 Truth meetings:

  "People, you've been had!"

  Respectfully,
  Robert B. Thorne, M.D.

  Published: February 19, 2008 9:53 AM

• George Gaskell

  You simply cannot face a large, professional army with patriotic amateurs.

  I think the USSR would disagree with you.

  
  it was not the incredibly brave but half-naked and undrilled Celts who finally broke the Roman armies but the steel-clad Gothic knights and the well-disciplined squadrons of the Sassanid dynasty.

  What broke the Roman armies was the inability of the Roman government to continue to pay for them, which in turn was the result of a couple of centuries of monetary dilution (i.e., inflation) and ultimately price caps that destroyed the money economy.

  Published: February 19, 2008 10:21 AM

• Keith

  Quote from jeffrey: "Moreover, he showed that guerilla tactics are actually more effective ..."

  Its only more effective as long as the other side isn't willing to pay the price to defeat it.

  Quote from George Gaskell: "What broke the Roman armies was the inability of the Roman government to continue to pay for them, which in turn was the result of a couple of centuries of monetary dilution (i.e., inflation) and ultimately price caps that destroyed the money economy."

  And it only took 1,000 years.
  

  Published: February 19, 2008 10:45 AM

• fundamentalist

  Jeffrey: ""Moreover, he showed that guerilla tactics are actually more effective ..."

  Show me where you think a guerilla army was successful and I'll show you how a guerilla army was transformed into a professional one before the victory. One of Washington's generals had been an officer in the Prussian military (he's famous but I can't think of his name) and he transformed the militia into a professional army the winter of Valley Forge. Only after that winter was the American army actually able to face the British.

  Published: February 19, 2008 12:03 PM

• Ben

  fundamentalist said:

  "One of Washington's generals had been an officer in the Prussian military (he's famous but I can't think of his name) and he transformed the militia into a professional army the winter of Valley Forge."

  This comment shows fundamentalist didn't actually read the article.

  Nothing better than critiquing something one has not read.

  Published: February 19, 2008 2:28 PM

• newson

  to george gaskell:

  the soviets only really lost afghanistan after the mujahideen were supplied with us stinger ground-to-air missiles and ended air supremacy. the chechen separatists haven't had much joy against russia.
  

  Published: February 20, 2008 12:23 AM

• fundamentalist

  Ben: “This comment shows fundamentalist didn't actually read the article.”

  I read the article. I just happen to disagree with Rothbard’s interpretation of what happened at Valley Forge. Friedrich Wilhelm Baron von Steuben was the German officer who transformed Washington’s militia into a professional army capable of taking on the British professional army.

  Newson: “the soviets only really lost afghanistan after the mujahideen were supplied with us stinger ground-to-air missiles and ended air supremacy.”

  You’re right. The Afghans had totally lost until the US sent in stinger missiles to neutralize the Russian helicopter gun ships. But even that would not have persuaded the Russians to leave Afghanistan. What changed was the leadership of the USSR. Gorbachev took over and had no interest in maintaining control over Afghanistan. The Russian army pulled out for political reasons; they were not defeated in Afghanistan.
  

  Published: February 20, 2008 8:17 AM