Oh_Bollox said:
Sir Richard has used a word 'tactical'. But would his statement be true without this word?
He didn't say that bit. Battles are tactical. Wars are strategic/operational. 'Tactical battle' is a bit of tautology anyway.
You seem to think the British Army is in the same position the Soviets were. We're not in the same position, we're not using the same strategy or tactics, and
even if it all goes wrong and we do lose Afghanistan it won't just have been a simple replay of the Soviet invasion.
Generally you are right. Stategy and tactics are different. Moreover, USA has own strategy and tactics in Afghanistan that differ from British ones.
Strategic goal
Soviet Union: to create pro-Soviet satellite regime and using it extend Soviet expansion over the region maybe even to Iran, Pakistan and the Gulf countries.
USA: to create pro-American satellite regime and using it extend American expansion over the region maybe even to Central Asian countries, former parts of the Soviet union.
The UK: hasn't strategic goal.
Strategy
Soviet union: military pressure of opposition to the puppet government, economical aid, ideological expansion, propaganda, creation of puppet army.
USA: military pressure of opposition to the puppet government, economical aid, ideological expansion, propaganda, imitation of attempts to create national army.
The UK: to obey orders from Washington.
Tactics
Soviet Union: wide spectrum of measures including bombings, killings, bribing of tribal leaders, using of special Soviet regiments formed from Soviet Uzbeks and Tajiks (to win 'hearts and minds), education of 'future' Afghan elite in the Soviet union and so on and so forth.
USA: bombings, killings, bribing of tribal leaders, using of British and other allied forces to make dirty job. Attempts to win 'hearts and minds'.
The UK: to obey orders from Washington.