NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.

Before i deployed i was as gungho as the next one but not so much anymore. We are outnumbered 20:1 in most places. Politicians who want to keep combat deaths down restrict just about everything that we do down to the most critical military functions like patrolling. We fight hard to take a location and then abandon it the next day. We can't touch their supplies and funding b/c its all in pakistan. The locals fear and hate the taleban but don't want us to fight them b/c it hurts them. In my companies AO we had an entire village get up and leave one day b/c the taleban told them to. What we need is more troops to be able to root out their bases. Otherwise they will continue to terrorize afghans. IED's aren't as prevalent there but we engage the enemy every day. Casualties are mounting but b/c they aren't deaths nobody hears about them. The weekend before i left we had four guys take rounds in a firefight. The ANA and ANP are a joke. They smoke marijuana on the job. They call us in for support when they don't feel like working. Anyway, there's my rant for the day.

It should have been ALL Afganistan and no Iraq. Good luck to you and I hope you get more support soon!

I do think, and hope, that Afghanistan can be salvaged. If it can, we could accomplish there what we wanted to accomplish in Iraq, and the people there actually want us.

and the people there actually want us.

You might be surprised. If you think that xenophobia is a problem in the U.S. then afghanistan might not be the place for you. Actually anywhere in the M.E. that i've to for that matter. The taliban are foreigners and are hated for it. NATO forces are foreigners and also hated for it. Though to a much lesser degree. They want the same things that we want is just that they don't like what has to happen before that can come. Meaning war and foreigners being on their soil.

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.

I remember you. :)

I do remember you saying that the coalition is blasting the taliban and the strategy is working great...and me saying they will keep coming regardless of how many you kill and eventually the attrition will wear the coalition down. I see that you concur with that view now. :D


Before i deployed i was as gungho as the next one but not so much anymore. We are outnumbered 20:1 in most places. Politicians who want to keep combat deaths down restrict just about everything that we do down to the most critical military functions like patrolling. We fight hard to take a location and then abandon it the next day. We can't touch their supplies and funding b/c its all in pakistan. The locals fear and hate the taleban but don't want us to fight them b/c it hurts them. In my companies AO we had an entire village get up and leave one day b/c the taleban told them to. What we need is more troops to be able to root out their bases. Otherwise they will continue to terrorize afghans. IED's aren't as prevalent there but we engage the enemy every day. Casualties are mounting but b/c they aren't deaths nobody hears about them. The weekend before i left we had four guys take rounds in a firefight. The ANA and ANP are a joke. They smoke marijuana on the job. They call us in for support when they don't feel like working. Anyway, there's my rant for the day.

You can totally count off ANA and ANP. Even the Iraqi army and police are relatively far better. There is simply no concept of nationalism in Afghanistan. Everybody is tribalistic and ethno-centric.

Can you tell us how you are planning to counter the anticipated 'spring offensive' of taliban?

Dick Cheney is now in Pakistan (in a surprise visit) and talking about how US might have to cut off aid if Pakistan is not forthcoming with real support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26cnd-pakistan.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act on Terror
By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney’s trip was shrouded in secrecy, and he was on the ground for only a few hours, sharing a private lunch with the Pakistani leader at his palace. Notably, Mr. Cheney traveled with the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Steve Kappes, an indication that the conversation with the Pakistani president likely included discussion of American intelligence agency contentions that Al Qaeda camps have been reconstituted along the border of Afghanistan.

The decision to send Mr. Cheney secretly to Pakistan came after the White House concluded that General Musharraf is failing to live up to commitments he made to Mr. Bush during a visit here in September. General Musharraf insisted then, both in private and public, that a peace deal he struck with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would not diminish the hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Now, American intelligence officials have concluded that the terrorist infrastructure is being rebuilt, and that while Pakistan has attacked some camps, its overall effort has flagged.

“He’s made a number of assurances over the past few months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not working,” one senior administration official who deals often with South Asian issues said late last week. “The message we’re sending to him now is that the only thing that matters is results.”

Reuters reported from Islamabad that a Pakistani official, whom it did not name, told reporters that in his few hours on the ground Mr. Cheney had pressed for more action. “He asked President Musharraf that Pakistan should do more,” the official told Reuters, giving no specifics.

The vice president’s office asked news organizations that knew of Mr. Cheney’s upcoming trip, and the small number of reporters traveling with him, to withhold any mention of his travels until after he had left the country. That request went far beyond the usual precautions as American officials travel into and out of Pakistan. President Bush’s visit there last year was announced in advance, and a recent trip by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was announced after he had landed in the country.

It was unclear if the request reflected Mr. Cheeny’s well-known penchant for secrecy — he said nothing in public during his visit — or an increasing unease by the Secret Service about how freely al Qaeda and Taliban operatives are moving in Pakistan. There have long been doubts about the loyalties of some members of Mr. Musharaff’s intelligence service, and assassination attempts against him have been linked to al Qaeda.

Democrats, who took control of Congress last month, have urged the White House to put greater pressure on Pakistan because of statements from American commanders that units based in Pakistan that are linked to the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ousted rulers, are increasing their attacks into Afghanistan.

For the time being, officials say, the White House has ruled out unilateral strikes against the training camps that American spy satellites are monitoring in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the border. The fear is that such strikes would result in what one administration official referred to as a “shock to the stability” of General Musharraf’s government.

General Musharraf, a savvy survivor in the brutal world of Pakistani politics, knows that the administration is hesitant to push him too far. If his government collapses, it is not clear who would succeed him or who would gain control over Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

But the spread of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas threatens to undermine a central element of Mr. Bush’s argument that he is succeeding in the administration’s effort to curb terrorism. The bomb plot disrupted in Britain last summer, involving plans to hijack airplanes, has been linked by British and American intelligence agencies to camps in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas.

General Musharraf has told American officials that Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas in recent years so alienated local residents that they no longer provide the central government with quality intelligence about the movements of senior Islamic militants.

Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”

Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.

The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.

“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said the senior official, who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

The administration has sent a series of emissaries to see the Pakistani leader in recent weeks, including the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates. Mr. Gates was charged with prompting more action in a region in which American forces operate with great constraints, if they are allowed in at all.

“This is not the type of relationship where we can order action,” said an administration official involved in discussions over Pakistan policy. “We can strongly encourage.”

Relations between General Musharraf and Mr. Bush have always been tense, as the Pakistani leader veers between his need for American support and protection and his awareness that many Pakistani people — and the intelligence service — have strong sympathies for Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban. Officials involved with the issue describe the current moment between the leaders as especially fraught.

Mr. Bush was deeply skeptical of the deal General Musharraf struck with the tribal leaders last year, fearing that it would limit the government’s powers to intercede in what Mr. Bush has called the “wild west” of Waziristan, administration officials said at the time.

During his visit to Washington last fall, General Musharraf said the agreement he signed with tribal leaders, giving them greater sovereignty in the region, had “three bottom lines.” He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.” The second was “no Taliban activity” in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization,” which he described as “obscurantist thoughts or way of life.”

American intelligence officials have made an assessment that senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have re-established significant control over their global network and are training operatives in some of the camps for strikes on Western targets.

One American official familiar with intelligence reports about Pakistan said intelligence agencies had established “clear linkages” between the Qaeda camps and the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights that was thwarted last August. American analysts said the recent trials of terrorism suspects in Britain showed that some defendants had been trained in Pakistan.

American officials say one reason General Musharraf agreed to pull government troops back to their barracks in North Waziristan and allow tribal leaders greater control over security was to give him time to rebuild his intelligence network in the border region gradually.

You may be pleased to hear that the UK is bringing 1,600 (I think) back from Iraq and sending 1,400 to Afghanistan.

You haven't been telling Blair what to do or something?

I remember you. :)

I do remember you saying that the coalition is blasting the taliban and the strategy is working great...and me saying they will keep coming regardless of how many you kill and eventually the attrition will wear the coalition down. I see that you concur with that view now. :D
.
Heh, alright u win.


You can totally count off ANA and ANP. Even the Iraqi army and police are relatively far better. There is simply no concept of nationalism in Afghanistan. Everybody is tribalistic and ethno-centric. .

Yeah for the most part. If we weren't there there would still be war. If you ever take a taleban prisoner the first thing that you have to do is post a gaurd where he is being kept b/c ANA or ANP will be in there torturing him in a second. It really makes me wonder why we are replacing one group of savages with another.

Can you tell us how you are planning to counter the anticipated 'spring offensive' of taliban?.

Uh, it might go something like this:
Us- We're gonna need more forces if we're expected to do what you're asking from us
Centcom- Sorry but we just can't spare any. But while you're on the line there's a few things i'd like you to do for me...


Us- We've recieved some solid intel about a shipment of explosives and request permission to conduct an ambush.
Centcom- Ummm, are there civilians within 700 miles of your target? Is there any chance of taking casualties?
Us- Uh no and yes
Centcon- Then you know my answer.



But seriously the flyboys will not be seeing their beds very much b/c they're gonna be the only thing between hanging on and getting overrun. I mean its just not possible to hold a location w/ 40 guys against 1000. The only reasons we don't take many combat deaths is b/c of our body armour which has saved my life before and just good solid training.

Dick Cheney is now in Pakistan (in a surprise visit) and talking about how US might have to cut off aid if Pakistan is not forthcoming with real support.

Uhh, im not sure that we would have much success if we went into Pakistan right now. How much luck could the Pakistanis have?

You may be pleased to hear that the UK is bringing 1,600 (I think) back from Iraq and sending 1,400 to Afghanistan.

You haven't been telling Blair what to do or something?

Hehe i might have. That's good news but we're going to have to start looking at much greater increases in troops if we want to be able to have anymore influence then 300yds away from our base perimeter. I mean that many more troops is a good number for a nice sized reserve to conduct some offensives in trouble spots but thats about it.

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.
I remember you as well.

What's it like over there? Do you just sit around in some base all day? What is it you actually do?

EDIT: Oh, and another thing. There was a huge debate in Germany about sending a few Tornados into the south to do recon work. They made it sound like the biggest deal since the invention of sliced bread.

Has anyone on the ground actually heard about it? :p

I remember you as well.

What's it like over there? Do you just sit around in some base all day? What is it you actually do?

This is my 3rd deployment to the middle east 2 to afghan and 1 to iraq. For my first two deployments I was an 0302, infantry officer. Prior to this deployment i cross-trained in 0203, ground intel so that's what i'm doing now. I'm commanding a sniper plt right now. I don't go on patrol this time around b/c it's just not my job description but the first two times I did my fair share. A typical day in a-stan for an 03 consists of going out on patrol if cleared by batallion for 4-8 hours depending on how many you conduct and how many men you have in your company. Followed by another 8-12 in a gaurd tower and the rest of the day either sleeping, eating or on QRF duty. In a-stan, i'd say 60-75% of all patrols get engaged in some way. Usually we can follow basic doctrine and kill the SOB's but sometimes it's too hot and we have to RTB.

Both countries are very different places and the operational environment and threats makes for a very different experience. In iraq the enemy can't mass in the open b/c we have a much tighter control over it. In afghanistan however they can and do quite frequently. Right now its pretty cold in afghanistan but in iraq it almost never gets what i would call cold. In iraq, your biggest fear is an IED, in afghanistan your biggest fear is an ambush when you're on patrol. Most guys say that they'd rather go to iraq than afghanistan just b/c you actually see your enemy when you get in a firefight. In afghanistan its either a sniper or they're hidden in brush. The hardest part of an engagement as an officer is to locate the enemy. After that you just direct your fire in the general area and call in airstrikes. Simple.

EDIT: Oh, and another thing. There was a huge debate in Germany about sending a few Tornados into the south to do recon work. They made it sound like the biggest deal since the invention of sliced bread.

Has anyone on the ground actually heard about it? :p

Uhh, it's news to me. I hope that they're just going to be working w/ german forces b/c i wouldn't want to be the one who has to break the language barrier under fire. And the recon work thing is just wishful thinking. Until there is a surplus of CAS aircraft I really don't think it would be a good idea to dedicate planes on finding an enemy that we can already find just fine.

Heh, alright u win.

I would much rather be wrong in that case...but unfortunately things seem headed that way.:(


Yeah for the most part. If we weren't there there would still be war. If you ever take a taleban prisoner the first thing that you have to do is post a gaurd where he is being kept b/c ANA or ANP will be in there torturing him in a second. It really makes me wonder why we are replacing one group of savages with another.

That is how things are in a tribalistic setup. Blood feuds go a long way. Dostum's men practically roasted captured taliban by keeping them in containers with no ventilation in the hot sun. As much as I hate taliban, I was sad at the way the foot soldiers died. As dangerous they are, they are still a bunch of brainwashed cannon fodder who are fooled into risking their lives for some fat mullah/warlord sitting in Pakistan.

The Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara, Pushtuns etc don't see eye to eye or have a converging national interest. I guess we go with the lesser evil since apart from the taliban the others pose no danger outside of Afg (relatively speaking, of course).


Uh, it might go something like this:
Us- We're gonna need more forces if we're expected to do what you're asking from us
Centcom- Sorry but we just can't spare any. But while you're on the line there's a few things i'd like you to do for me...


Us- We've recieved some solid intel about a shipment of explosives and request permission to conduct an ambush.
Centcom- Ummm, are there civilians within 700 miles of your target? Is there any chance of taking casualties?
Us- Uh no and yes
Centcon- Then you know my answer.

That is sad.


But seriously the flyboys will not be seeing their beds very much b/c they're gonna be the only thing between hanging on and getting overrun. I mean its just not possible to hold a location w/ 40 guys against 1000. The only reasons we don't take many combat deaths is b/c of our body armour which has saved my life before and just good solid training.

How long can airpower sustain the coalition there? If more and more civilian population are intimidated/willingly go to the taliban camp, do you think you can still sustain presence there?

Uhh, im not sure that we would have much success if we went into Pakistan right now. How much luck could the Pakistanis have?

Hard to guess, because Pakistanis never mounted a serious operation there. Their half-hearted attempts ended disastrously with about 500+ dead from the army's side with nothing much to show. The suicide attack on the army camp which killed 40+ soldiers really rattled them and they seem to have retreated totally from all operations in NWFP.

If they really want to, they have the capability of cleaning that area up. Their army is quite capable especially with the latest toys that US has gifted them of late. But the army and ISI is rife with islamist sympathisers and they really cannot touch the pro-taliban islamist groups (JuI and other Jamaats) without offending the anti-Indian Kashmiri groups (LeT and JeM) too and that is some sort of sacred cow which Musharraf is unwilling to do.

Cheney visits Afg and a suicide bomb attack happens outside the US camp.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6399527.stm
Afghan base hit as Cheney visits

A suicide bomber has killed three people and injured several more outside Afghanistan's main US base during a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Mr Cheney, on an unannounced visit to the region, was staying at the Bagram base, 60km (40 miles) from Kabul, but was safely inside at the time.

The US military said the bomber was also killed in the blast, but earlier reports said at least 18 died.

A Taleban spokesman phoned the BBC to say his group carried out the attack.

A US spokesman described it as a "direct attack" on the base, which was put on red alert for a while.

One US soldier and one other coalition soldier were among the dead.

Meanwhile Pakistani officials are on major face-saving exercise..

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5311556
Pakistan lashes out after Cheney visit
VP reported safe after blast hits U.S. base
By David E. Sanger
The New York Times
Denver Post
Article Last Updated:02/27/2007 01:23:31 AM MST

Washington - Just hours after Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a stiff private message to President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, the Pakistani government lashed out Monday with a series of statements insisting that Pakistan "does not accept dictation from any side or any source.";)

The unusual outburst, later toned down, revealed the depth of tensions between Musharraf and Washington over what administration officials say have been inadequate efforts by Pakistan in combating al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

By the time of the Pakistani response, Cheney had left Pakistan to make a second secret trip, this time across the border to Afghanistan, where a meeting with President Hamid Karzai was suddenly delayed. American officials said a snowstorm prevented helicopter flights between Kabul and Bagram Air Base, where Cheney had landed, and neither leader seemed inclined to take a risky drive to meet the other.:p :D

However, an explosion outside the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan went off today as Cheney was visiting, causing an unknown number of casualties but apparently not putting the vice president in danger, officials said.

The blast happened at the first gate outside the base at Bagram, and there were an unknown number of casualties, said Kabir Ahmad, the district chief of the Bagram region.

Maj. William Mitchell said it did not appear that the explosion was intended as a threat to the vice president, who was "safely inside the base" during the blast.

Cheney's trip to Pakistan was shrouded in unusual secrecy. News organizations that knew of Cheney's travels were asked to withhold any mention of the trip until he had left the country. That appeared to be a reflection of growing concern about the strength of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the area and continuing questions about the loyalties of Musharraf's own intelligence services.

The White House would say little Monday about the message Cheney was sent to deliver, though it did not deny reports that it included a tough warning that American aid to Pakistan could be in jeopardy. Democrats have threatened to link aid to Pakistan to its effectiveness in combating al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Pakistan's response, delivered by a Foreign Ministry spokesman, expressed concern about "proposed discriminatory legislation" in Congress to curb the aid.

Cheney's trip to Pakistan and then to Afghanistan appeared to be part of an effort to resolve a continuing dispute between the two countries over who is more responsible for the failure to stop cross-border attacks.

A particular concern is Musharraf's peace accord giving tribal leaders greater sovereignty - a deal that he has assured President Bush would not diminish Pakistan's commitment to fighting extremists.

Wow, this is all news to me, I've never even heard Afgahnistan mentioned in the news since 2003. Thats so horrible. I'm leaving for the Army in may and going for AirAssualt. After reading this I want to go to Afgahnistan. Thats a war that we actually need to fight. Afgahnistan isn't another Vietnam. We outta totally shift as much forces from Iraq to Afgahn. Thats absolutley discusting how the US government and NATO would give such a half assed attempt to a region so needing us. Iraq is bullshit.

How long can airpower sustain the coalition there? If more and more civilian population are intimidated/willingly go to the taliban camp, do you think you can still sustain presence there?

The short asnwer yes. We can maintain our presence there. However our influence will be little. I didn't mean for it to come off as our air assets are the only ones capable of fighting. The infantry is and will always be the primary means of fighting a ground conflict. However doctrine is changing to integrate air assets much more into infantry operations. During WWII, standard doctrine for all infantry units of any size was to fix (suppress) and flank. You used 2/3 of your unit to pour fire onto the enemy and the remaining to go around their side and finish them from it. Most of the casualities were taken from the flanking unit. B/c of huge advances in aircraft and commo we can substitute that vulnerable assaulting element with planes. That way we can use our entire unit to suppress the enemy and have aircraft finish them off.



If they really want to, they have the capability of cleaning that area up. Their army is quite capable especially with the latest toys that US has gifted them of late.

I hope so.

The short asnwer yes. We can maintain our presence there. However our influence will be little. I didn't mean for it to come off as our air assets are the only ones capable of fighting. The infantry is and will always be the primary means of fighting a ground conflict. However doctrine is changing to integrate air assets much more into infantry operations. During WWII, standard doctrine for all infantry units of any size was to fix (suppress) and flank. You used 2/3 of your unit to pour fire onto the enemy and the remaining to go around their side and finish them from it. Most of the casualities were taken from the flanking unit. B/c of huge advances in aircraft and commo we can substitute that vulnerable assaulting element with planes. That way we can use our entire unit to suppress the enemy and have aircraft finish them off.


I do hope that works out for you. But you do realise that it is just gonna help you hold certain pockets and do nothing about the cross border infiltrations.

What is the inside talk about the 'peace deals' that Pak army has made in its NWFP areas, ceding control to 'village elders' (read taliban)?

There is a theory that this paves the way for 'hot pursuits' across the border by the coalition because they don't have to worry about confronting Pak troops. Sounds far fetched but stranger things happen there. The Soviets had red lines of not crossing the Durrand line, but I find it hard to believe that local commanders give any shit about Pakistani 'sensibilities' when they are taking casualties due to infiltration from there.

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.

Before i deployed i was as gungho as the next one but not so much anymore. We are outnumbered 20:1 in most places. Politicians who want to keep combat deaths down restrict just about everything that we do down to the most critical military functions like patrolling. We fight hard to take a location and then abandon it the next day. ... Anyway, there's my rant for the day.
Sorry to see that this is turning into a battle fought by the REMFs. Here's a photo that might cheer you up a little -- for it's irony, anyway.

Semper Fi, pal.

http://boortz.com/images/america_is_not_at_war.jpg

I do hope that works out for you. But you do realise that it is just gonna help you hold certain pockets and do nothing about the cross border infiltrations.
I'm not saying that airpower is going to hold anything. I think what i said before came off a little wrong. The only reason that our ground forces have any weight is b/c of the force multiplier of airpower. Let's just leave it at that.

What is the inside talk about the 'peace deals' that Pak army has made in its NWFP areas, ceding control to 'village elders' (read taliban)?
It's pakistan's way of saying we have no control over you but it's not b/c of incompetence b/c we meant to do it. It makes something that has been happening for years and makes it official.

Sorry to see that this is turning into a battle fought by the REMFs. Here's a photo that might cheer you up a little -- for it's irony, anyway.

Semper Fi, pal.

http://boortz.com/images/america_is_not_at_war.jpg

:D

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.

Before i deployed i was as gungho as the next one but not so much anymore. We are outnumbered 20:1 in most places. Politicians who want to keep combat deaths down restrict just about everything that we do down to the most critical military functions like patrolling. We fight hard to take a location and then abandon it the next day. We can't touch their supplies and funding b/c its all in pakistan. The locals fear and hate the taleban but don't want us to fight them b/c it hurts them. In my companies AO we had an entire village get up and leave one day b/c the taleban told them to. What we need is more troops to be able to root out their bases. Otherwise they will continue to terrorize afghans. IED's aren't as prevalent there but we engage the enemy every day. Casualties are mounting but b/c they aren't deaths nobody hears about them. The weekend before i left we had four guys take rounds in a firefight. The ANA and ANP are a joke. They smoke marijuana on the job. They call us in for support when they don't feel like working. Anyway, there's my rant for the day.

Yeah well, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. You signed the contract, you just have to do it. I think the US should do less Afghanistan, less Iraq.

Yeah well, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. You signed the contract, you just have to do it. I think the US should do less Afghanistan, less Iraq.

Or you go to war with 2% of the army you have. Nobodies saying that i'm not going to do my duty. If you think make your opinions w/o going to seeing or getting a decent idea of what is going on then that is your choice.


Also, would you rather have the taliban there? Would you rather have al-qaeda there? Because if we leave now that's who'd be in power giving your religion a bad name.

It should have been ALL Afganistan and no Iraq.

Agreed!

This is an excellent thread...the more people that are made aware of the situation in Afghanistan, the better.

Good luck, and enjoy your R&R! :)

I'm not saying that airpower is going to hold anything. I think what i said before came off a little wrong. The only reason that our ground forces have any weight is b/c of the force multiplier of airpower. Let's just leave it at that.

No problem. :)


It's pakistan's way of saying we have no control over you but it's not b/c of incompetence b/c we meant to do it. It makes something that has been happening for years and makes it official.

What I am interested in knowing is what are your limits? Let's say you are ambushed, and you fight back and they retreat and attempt to flee across the border. Are you allowed to pursue them or even direct fire at them before they disappear in the mountains?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to or you are not allowed to.

Btw, ignore Soviestan. His reasons for "less Afg and less Iraq" are grounded in "I am a muslim, infidel armies should not be in muslim lands".

It looks like the Deputy Director of CIA also tagged along with Cheney to the Pak-Afg trip.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/cia_evidence_us.html
In a highly unusual move, the deputy director of the CIA, Stephen R. Kappes, was flown to Pakistan to personally present President Pervez Musharraf today with "compelling" CIA evidence of al Qaeda's resurgence on Pakistani soil, U.S. officials say.

Kappes joined Vice President Dick Cheney for the surprise showdown meeting in Musharraf's office in Pakistan.

The CIA evidence reportedly included satellite photos and electronic intercepts of al Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan.
...
U.S. officials say Musharraf has been in denial about the comeback of al Qaeda on his soil, ignoring evidence presented to him by NATO commanders in Afghanistan.

Musharraf pulled his Army troops out of Waziristan last September as part of a "peace deal" with tribal leaders. In an appearance with President Bush at the White House on Sept. 22, Musharraf vowed he would not tolerate "al Qaeda activity in our tribal agency or across the border in Afghanistan."

Since, then, al Qaeda and Taliban attacks on U.S. and NATO troops across the border have more than tripled.

What I am interested in knowing is what are your limits? Let's say you are ambushed, and you fight back and they retreat and attempt to flee across the border. Are you allowed to pursue them or even direct fire at them before they disappear in the mountains?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to or you are not allowed to.


Btw, ignore Soviestan. His reasons for "less Afg and less Iraq" are grounded in "I am a muslim, infidel armies should not be in muslim lands".





Done.:p

Well, I'm going to be very blunt. Afghanistan is where it counts and is the optimistic situation between itself and Iraq. I really respect the guys over there, Canadians especially:p . Maybe those troops the Brits are sending will be helpful, especially considering they're being sent to the south. I just wish the other NATO countries there would pull there weight and help out more, especially with the combat.

Wow, this is all news to me, I've never even heard Afgahnistan mentioned in the news since 2003. Thats so horrible.

Couldn't agree more. However there is a reason for it. The fighting is often way too intense to have journalists embedded so most embed requests are declined.

I'm leaving for the Army in may and going for AirAssualt.

Good luck to ya. If you ever need to talk my e-mail is semperfi7601@hotmail.com I have a DoD e-mail also but i don't like to give that out.

Done.:p

heehee. I did see ur actual reply before u edited it. :p

Anyways, I think I have my answer here....but still wondering why you chose to edit it when your general is laying it out now in the open..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan
U.S. forces pursue Taliban into Pakistan

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterThu Mar 1, 6:44 PM ET

American forces on Afghanistan's eastern border routinely fire upon and pursue Taliban enemies into Pakistan, defense officials told Congress on Thursday, offering the most detailed description to date of U.S. action in that region.

They said the Taliban threat is greater now than it was a year ago, and they agreed that the Pakistan government can and must do more to get at the large, ungoverned sectors along the remote Pakistan border that are safe havens for Taliban insurgents.

"We have all the authorities we need to pursue, either with (artillery) fire or on the ground, across the border," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lute, who is chief operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said soldiers can respond if there is an imminent threat. But he said they would have to seek the Pakistan government's permission to go after a munitions factory further inside the Pakistani border.

The discussion came just days after Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in an effort to urge a more aggressive Pakistani effort to hunt al-Qaida and Taliban fighters who are expected to increase attacks into Afghanistan this spring.

The Pakistani military has been more aggressive in going after al-Qaida than the Taliban, who are more protected by tribal leaders in some of the border regions.

Musharraf has insisted that his forces have done all they can against the extremists, but senators said it's simply not enough. And they quizzed Lute and undersecretary of defense for policy, Eric S. Edelman, about what more the U.S. can do if Pakistan won't or cannot do more.

"I think we really have no alternative but to continue to work with him as best we can to encourage him to do more," Edelman said under repeated questioning from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "It means he has to face some difficult political choices at home and we have to encourage him to face up to those."

There have been suggestions that Congress could cut off some aid to Pakistan, but there was no discussion of that Thursday.

Lute, meanwhile, provided a detailed description of when U.S. forces can fire on and pursue insurgents across the border into Pakistan. He said they can respond when faced with a hostile act, or anyone "demonstrating hostile intent." The final decision is made by the commander at the scene.

He would not say, however, if there are restrictions on how far into the country soldiers can go. He said the decision is based not on distance, but on the immediacy of the threat involved.

"If just across the border, inside Pakistan, we have surveillance systems that detect a Taliban party setting up a rocket system which is obviously pointed west, into Afghanistan, we do not have to wait for the rockets to be fired. They have demonstrated hostile intent and we can engage them," Lute said.

He added that if U.S. forces learned of a munitions factory inside Pakistan, they would have to share that intelligence with the government, and would have to get permission to strike the building. Asked if Pakistan had ever turned down such a request, Lute said he would have to answer that in a closed, classified setting.

Asked about Iran's involvement in roadside bombs in Afghanistan, Edelman said it is not the same situation as in Iraq. Military officials have displayed weapons and other equipment they said is evidence that Iran is deeply involved in deadly explosives being used in Iraq.

"We do not have the body of evidence in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq," Edelman said. "So the sophistication of the (explosive devices) is, sort of, in a different order of magnitude."

Hey everyone. You might remember me but i havn't been around for a little more than 3 months. Im currently on R&R from a-stan.

Before i deployed i was as gungho as the next one but not so much anymore. We are outnumbered 20:1 in most places. Politicians who want to keep combat deaths down restrict just about everything that we do down to the most critical military functions like patrolling. We fight hard to take a location and then abandon it the next day. We can't touch their supplies and funding b/c its all in pakistan. The locals fear and hate the taleban but don't want us to fight them b/c it hurts them. In my companies AO we had an entire village get up and leave one day b/c the taleban told them to. What we need is more troops to be able to root out their bases. Otherwise they will continue to terrorize afghans. IED's aren't as prevalent there but we engage the enemy every day. Casualties are mounting but b/c they aren't deaths nobody hears about them. The weekend before i left we had four guys take rounds in a firefight. The ANA and ANP are a joke. They smoke marijuana on the job. They call us in for support when they don't feel like working. Anyway, there's my rant for the day.

I wish you all the best of luck while your over there my friend, and I hope you are enjoying your R&R while you are home.

I may end up seeing you over there though at this rate, when I returned from Iraq I was offered a crew chief position with the aviation BN here, and the time to make my decision is coming soon. The only problem is They will soon be deploying to A-stan, which is not the huge deal, I am more then willing to do my duty for my country. I am a single parent and also just started a relationship ith a dear friend I put off for far too long. I am not sure I am willing to leave either of them for so long again after getting back so recently. It makes one think a lot about what your duty is and that which matters most given a year to solidify things here it would not matter so much but that is time I do not have.

But again good luck and I wish you and all your men remain safe.

Semper Fi