Stinger Missile Dbq

Introduction:

The argument contends: “To what extent was the Stinger Missile (S.A.M missile)
Beneficial to the Mujahedeen against the USSR in Afghanistan 1986 – 1989. The Stinger missile downed enemy aircraft and did advantage the Mujahedeen against the USSR

The counter-argument holds: “To what extent was the Stinger missile (S.A.M missile) not beneficial to the Mujahedeen against the USSR in Afghanistan 1986 – 1989. The Stinger missile did not down enemy aircraft and did not advantage the Mujahedeen against the USSR.”

The argument is correct because the stinger missiles did advantage the Mujahedeen against the USSR in Afghanistan from 1986 to 1989.It downed both Soviet aircraft and Afghan aircraft with minimal failure.

Analysis:

The image provided in source 11 does not give any information regarding the stinger missiles effectiveness, it only conveys and proves that the USSR did use helicopters to transport soldiers and supplies and is therefore rejected as a source because it does not support the argument or the counter argument.

Source 12 is another image that does not provide any significant information besides the fact that the Mujahedeen used Stinger Missiles which was known and does not prove visually that the Stinger missile was used to down enemy aircraft.

Source 12 is therefore rejected because it is a photograph and was taken from a photographer’s perspective which is biased.

A review of Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf's book (source 16) only provides information of Yousaf's disapproval of the weapon transactions between the CIA and Mujahedeen.” He was especially bitter both about the waste of money on the Oerlikon guns and about them being forced on the Mujahedeen” this statement has no relativity to any of the arguments and is therefore rejected.

The statement made by Mark Urban in source 9” Mujahedin Stinger kill ratios reported by the U.S. Army were grossly inflated” reinforces the counter-argument but source 10 disproves source 9 by saying that Urbans sceptical views were made on the “anecdotes of TV journalists” that reported having “great difficulty in videotaping successful missile hits” therefore making both these sources of no use because they are contradictory and are made of false

assumptions.

A extract from the Bear Trap pages 183 - 184 (source 8) states Yousaf's disappointment of the stinger missile “Yousaf reports that, to his knowledge, the army "fired twenty-eight Stingers at enemy aircraft without a single kill. ” This source supports the counter-argument because it proves that the stinger missile had miserable results in attempting to down Soviet aircraft and wasn’t as effective as claimed by the USA.

Source 13 by Leonard Leshuk confirms the counter-argument by disputing the stinger missiles alleged performance in the Afghanistan war. Leshuk says that the stinger missile was not the most successful weapon “aircraft continued to be downed by less sophisticated weapons”. Lesuk goes on to say that the stinger missile was not the reason for the Soviets abandoning the war and did not advantage the Mujahedeen against the Soviets “The Soviets’ decision to withdraw from Afghanistan which evidence indicates had been made before the deployment of the STINGERs.

Another source by Leonard Leshuk (source 14) accuses the USA and westerners of “immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a cause and effect relationship”. Again, this source reinforces the counter-argument by providing information that the stinger missile was not that effective and had not "turned the tide of the war". Leshuk clearly refutes the ideas of the stinger missile being successful. He believed that the Stinger missiles results were wrongly used and resulted in false glorification.

Source 15 by Leonard Leshuk supports the counter-argument. Lesuk states “Stingers did not play a decisive role” reinforcing the idea that the stinger missile was not the reason for the Mujahedeen’s victory against the Soviet Union. The Stinger Missiles only played a fractional role according to Leshuk.

The sources are from a Soviet author (Leonard Leshuk) and are bias and against the ideas of the USA therefore these sources are not taken as too reliable and has no other real reinforcing back-ups.

Source 7 by Selig Harrison a former U.S. Army analyst rejects the statement made by a Soviet Commander that said “the United States "greatly exaggerated" Soviet and Afghan aircraft losses during the war”. Selig provided plausible statistical information that proves the stinger missile was effective against both Soviet and afghan forces and therefore validates the argument. Selig Harrison who was a former U.S. Army analyst had to provide accurate and true evidence and states that they used "several levels of verification" making his argument more believable.

In source 3 it states “1986 was the year of the missiles' greatest effectiveness” because pilots had still needed to adopt counter measures regarding stinger missiles. This source reinforces the argument proving that the Stinger missile had challenged pilots and thay had to adapt in order to survive.

”The Stinger's effectiveness was due mainly to six technological advantages” as stated in source 5 which supports the argument. This source only provides information that proves the stinger was technologically advanced and could easily down an aircraft. The Mujahedeen had therefore gained access to advanced weaponry that could easily aid their cause.

Source 2 confirms the argument and states that “the missile unquestionably shot down Soviet and especially Afghan aircraft at an unprecedented rate in its first few months of use.” The source is from the U.S.

intelligence cables and supports the idea that the Stinger missile changed the tide of the war.

McMichael states: "During the first two years of the war, the great majority of Soviet aircraft losses (75-80 percent) must be attributed to non-combat causes, plus losses suffered on the ground due to raids, rocket attacks, and sabotage. . . . There can be no doubt at all that the Stinger turned the ratio on its head."(Source 4). This statement and source reinforces the argument proving that the Stinger missile was a key instrument for the Mujahedeen fighters.

Source 6 confirms the argument because a rigorous U.S. Army analysis was conducted in early 1989 by a team that had first-hand experience with the mujahedeen fighters and stated that “approximately 269 kills in about 340 engagements with the Stinger, for a remarkable 79 percent kill ratio.”, because the analysis was made from an eyewitness encounter and had to provide accurate information it is a strong

source.

Yousaf states: “Without question, the Stinger had an immediate military impact” (source 1). He states how useless and unreliable previous means of air defence were and says that Stinger missile downs were overblown but the stinger missile did indeed have a military impact and that it was an “improvement in the rebels' air-defence capability”. Source 1 validates the argument that the Stinger missile did advantage the mujahedeen.

Conclusion:

The stinger missile did in fact advantage the Mujahedeen fighters against the Soviet Union by providing a more reliable form of air defence to down Soviet and Afghan aircraft. Most of the sources do in fact support the argument but few of the Sources do rebut it and support the counter argument. The Stinger missile was technologically advanced for it age of use and could only logically have been useful and have made a difference, there is not a possibility that a weapon of its calibre and advance weaponry and targeting system could not have downed enemy aircraft therefore it must have advantaged the Mujahedeen and their Jihad.