NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Recently, the Taliban took some Korean civilians hostage, and issued demands.

Yesterday, Karzai, during his visit, chastized the Taliban for being weak and for attacking civilians and women, rather than attacking NATO or Afghan forces.

Looks like they took him up on the challenge - which I commend, as it's perfectly rational to attack a military target (although in their case, it was both suicidal and brave).

A group of 75 Taliban militants tried to overrun a U.S.-led coalition base in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, a rare frontal attack that left more than 20 militants dead, the coalition said in a statement.

The insurgents attacked Firebase Anaconda from three sides, using gunfire, grenades and 107 mm rockets, the coalition said. A joint Afghan-U.S. force repelled the attack with mortars, machine guns and air support.

"Almost two dozen insurgents were confirmed killed in the attack," the statement said. Two girls and two Afghan soldiers were wounded during the fight in Uruzgan province, it said.

A firebase like Anaconda is usually a remote outpost staffed by as few as several dozen soldiers.

"The inability of the insurgent forces to inflict any severe damage on Firebase Anaconda, while being simultaneously decimated in the process, should be a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of their fighters," said Army Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman.

Yesterday, Karzai, during his visit, chastized the Taliban for being weak and for attacking civilians and women, rather than attacking NATO or Afghan forces.


That is actually a good tactic to humiliate and shame them in the eyes of locals.

Sadly, they'll now probably kill any remaining hostages and start intensifying attacks of NATO forces.


I'm torn.

I think once you get over the age of 30 you need to stop using phrases like "pwned." It's just creepy.

I think once you get over the age of 30 you need to stop using phrases like "pwned." It's just creepy.

Ok, will "Decimated" do?

Forgive me, I play too many online games...

It's also a clear indication of the incompetence of the Bush Administration that five years after we pwned them the first time we now need to pwn them again. This was easily winnable. We had an afghan population that, unlike in Iraq, was truley grateful for having been freed from Talibani rule and we had support for this war from pretty much the entire international community including Iran and Syria.

Then Bush and Rumsfeld just fucked it all up...

Ok, will "Decimated" do?

Sure, but now you're just plagiarizing the adjectives of good Captain Bowman.

Forgive me, I play too many online games...

That's creepy too.

Then again this is NS we're all on. Oh well.

That is actually a good tactic to humiliate and shame them in the eyes of locals.

Sadly, they'll now probably kill any remaining hostages and start intensifying attacks of NATO forces.


I'm torn.

Well, they did a suicidal attack on foot against a military target. So points for bravery and manliness and all that stuff that scores them points.

Since they made the sacrifice for those points, and don't want to lose points (it costs bodies to get them), I'm not sure they'll kill the hostages. You lose points that way.

Sure, but now you're just plagiarizing the adjectives of good Captain Bowman.

Ok - annihilate.

Silly terrorists. They fell for some real life trolling.

Ok, will "Decimated" do?

Not one-tenth of their forces! :eek:

I think once you get over the age of 30 you need to stop using phrases like "pwned." It's just creepy.
That and the topic spam.

Let's just have one topic a day called "DK's news blog" instead of posting 10 different topics in the space of 10 minutes. Or better yet, get your own news blog.

I think once you get over the age of 30 you need to stop using phrases like "pwned." It's just creepy.

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/comedy/misusing_slang.png

Silly terrorists. They fell for some real life trolling.

And there are those who say that trolling never does any good...

A properly and skillfully placed flamebait? :D

A properly and skillfully placed flamebait? :D

So, does that mean that Karzai won the thread? :eek:

Good for Karzi to tell the Taliban that they are indeed cowards. Anyone who attacks innocent men, women, and children intentionally are cowards.

I think the Taliban may have been the worst Theocracy ever.

It's also a clear indication of the incompetence of the Bush Administration that five years after we pwned them the first time we now need to pwn them again. This was easily winnable. We had an afghan population that, unlike in Iraq, was truley grateful for having been freed from Talibani rule and we had support for this war from pretty much the entire international community including Iran and Syria.

Then Bush and Rumsfeld just fucked it all up...

Word.

"Look, we're pwning the Taliban!!"

"Um... we had them pwned years ago and were on the verge of wiping them out completely when Your Beloved Dear Leader suddenly had the hardon for avenging Daddy's Honor in Eyeraq. So he pulled away half the forces from Afghanistan to pursue that little adventure and now we have two fuckups for the price of one. Iraq has turned into The World of Jihadcraft and the Taliban made a comeback in Afghanistan."

But don't point that out to the Kimchiteers. They can't hear over the plugged ears and LaLaLas anyways.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Recently, the Taliban took some Korean civilians hostage, and issued demands.

Yesterday, Karzai, during his visit, chastized the Taliban for being weak and for attacking civilians and women, rather than attacking NATO or Afghan forces.

Looks like they took him up on the challenge - which I commend, as it's perfectly rational to attack a military target (although in their case, it was both suicidal and brave).

To bad they all were not wiped out. That would have been better.

To bad they all were not wiped out. That would have been better.

Like they could have been years ago if Your Beloved Dear Leader didn't decide to go off on the Eyeraq Adventure and divert our forces from Afghanistan?

Urrg, the Taliban need to get out of the mindset of fighting pitched battles, they seem to be new at the whole asymmetrical warfare thing, and are learning from the Iraq insurgency.

Like they could have been years ago if Your Beloved Dear Leader didn't decide to go off on the Eyeraq Adventure and divert our forces from Afghanistan?

Or if Pakistani border regions were not harboring these thugs.

Urrg, the Taliban need to get out of the mindset of fighting pitched battles, they seem to be new at the whole asymmetrical warfare thing, and are learning from the Iraq insurgency.

It is better for everyone if they fought straight up. Makes the job quicker and easier.

It is better for everyone if they fought straight up. Makes the job quicker and easier.
Tell that to the NFLSV.

It is better for everyone if they fought straight up. Makes the job quicker and easier.

Well it's not better for them is it?

Or if Pakistani border regions were not harboring these thugs.

You mean the same Pakistani border regions under the control of our great friend and ally in the "War on Terror" Pervy Musharraf? Inconceivable!!

Tell that to the NFLSV.

Tell what? two different time frames. Technology is vastly different than it was in 1968. Oh and let us not forget that when the NFLSV decided to launch the Tet offensive, they were thoroughly defeated and that was a stand up fight.

Well it's not better for them is it?

Nope which is exactly the point. They will never gain control. Better to surrender or die in banzai charges.

Urrg, the Taliban need to get out of the mindset of fighting pitched battles, they seem to be new at the whole asymmetrical warfare thing, and are learning from the Iraq insurgency.

Fighting assymmetrical battles is about not giving a shit what the other side thinks about you and doing anything it takes to not lose. That's how the Viet Cong succeeded, and that's how the Iraqi Insurgency is succeeding.

You mean the same Pakistani border regions under the control of our great friend and ally in the "War on Terror" Pervy Musharraf? Inconceivable!!

You mean the same semi-autonomous region that Pakistani troops rarely enter? :eek:

Nope which is exactly the point. They will never gain control. Better to surrender or die in banzai charges.

Yeah, I'm sure plenty of Russians with a very fuzzy understanding of history were saying something similar around 1985ish.

Fighting assymmetrical battles is about not giving a shit what the other side thinks about you and doing anything it takes to not lose. That's how the Viet Cong succeeded, and that's how the Iraqi Insurgency is succeeding.

Really? From what I am hearing from people is that things are starting to go the Iraqi government's way and that the insurgency is slowly crumbling.

Tell what? two different time frames. Technology is vastly different than it was in 1968. Oh and let us not forget that when the NFLSV decided to launch the Tet offensive, they were thoroughly defeated and that was a stand up fight.

It was a military defeat but a psychological defeat for the US populace, it eventually won them the war.

Really? From what I am hearing from people is that things are starting to go the Iraqi government's way and that the insurgency is slowly crumbling.

Again with "the insurgency is on its last knees" Corny? And apparently things going the Iraqi government's way involves the parliament taking a nice vacation without having done jack shit in the ways of progress. Oh and of course the Shia Death Cops are still picking off and pissing off the Sunnis.

It was a military defeat but a psychological defeat for the US populace, it eventually won them the war.

For once, I have no choice but to agree with most of your post.

Again with "the insurgency is on its last knees" Corny? And apparently things going the Iraqi government's way involves the parliament taking a nice vacation without having done jack shit in the ways of progress. Oh and of course the Shia Death Cops are still picking off and pissing off the Sunnis.

Oh I never said it was on their last knees. I said it was slowly crumbling. There is a difference.

Really? From what I am hearing from people is that things are starting to go the Iraqi government's way and that the insurgency is slowly crumbling.

The Shias? The Sunni Iraqi one? Or the Al Qaeda one?

By the way....

As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401.html?hpid=topnews

Oh I never said it was on their last knees. I said it was slowly crumbling. There is a difference.
Mission Accomplished on an Aircraft Carrier much?

I think as long as the US remains it will remain a force.

So, does that mean that Karzai won the thread? :eek:

Indeed. And to the Taliban, let me just say: Roflpwnt!

Well, all bickering aside I hate Bush and the administration not just because it has been the most incompetent, irresponsible administration in the history of the US, but because their mistakes were not only made in ignorance, but in arrogance. That aside, I truly hope - and I mean this with the utmost sincerity - that this surge does work and that it brings about enough security to rebuild infrastructure and allow the 10s of millions of displaced Iraqis the freedom to return home and rebuild their country. The last thing I want to be able to do is stand here in the rubble of what may be a destroyed western world and point the finger at anyone who has continued to support this president after his incompetence has become so abundantly clear and say, "I told you so." What a hollow moral victory that would be. Much better to stand in a world moving toward a better, albeit probably post Peak Oil, world and be mocked for doubting him. My pride can take the latter for the sake of our future.

Notice how the US had 'air support' Lawl. Who would win, an AK-47 weilding soldier or a Comanche...XD

Well, all bickering aside I hate Bush and the administration not just because it has been the most incompetent, irresponsible administration in the history of the US, but because their mistakes were not only made in ignorance, but in arrogance. That aside, I truly hope - and I mean this with the utmost sincerity - that this surge does work and that it brings about enough security to rebuild infrastructure and allow the 10s of millions of displaced Iraqis the freedom to return home and rebuild their country. The last thing I want to be able to do is stand here in the rubble of what may be a destroyed western world and point the finger at anyone who has continued to support this president after his incompetence has become so abundantly clear and say, "I told you so." What a hollow moral victory that would be. Much better to stand in a world moving toward a better, albeit probably post Peak Oil, world and be mocked for doubting him. My pride can take the latter for the sake of our future.

Problem is, if the surge does succeed all it will do is fill the minds of Busheviks with the notion that Beloved Dear Leader was correct all along and that every doubting Liberal Muslim Democrat Traitor needs to turn themselves in to Gitmo in apology. They will never grasp the fact that the country could have made better choices in the first place that would have made the surge unnecessary in the first place.

And if we're standing in the rubble of America saying "I told you so," well... some people only get a fucking clue when they see everything around them has been completely levelled and it's their side.

Problem is, if the surge does succeed all it will do is fill the minds of Busheviks with the notion that Beloved Dear Leader was correct all along and that every doubting Liberal Muslim Democrat Traitor needs to turn themselves in to Gitmo in apology. They will never grasp the fact that the country could have made better choices in the first place that would have made the surge unnecessary in the first place.

And if we're standing in the rubble of America saying "I told you so," well... some people only get a fucking clue when they see everything around them has been completely levelled and it's their side.

Sure, but I think the center where most people sit are pretty clued into the fact that this war was run by a cadre of incompetent, arrogant fools and that the mistakes that were made were careless, incomepetent, arrogant mistakes not honest mistakes that could only be seen in hindsight. Let the hard core Bushies sleep at night. It's worth it if we can salvage something worthwhile out of this. It's not like this president will ever be able to live down the borders, Katrina, the perscription drug benefit, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Osama alive and well in Pakistan, etc..., etc..., etc...

Cowardly Americans, I am quite sure they would never have the courage to mount an attack like that.

Cowardly Americans, I am quite sure they would never have the courage to mount an attack like that.

Cowardly? *dies of laughter*

Wow aren't you full of it tonight!

Notice how the US had 'air support' Lawl. Who would win, an AK-47 weilding soldier or a Comanche...XD

The Commanche project was cancelled in February 2004. :(

Wait, so, let me get this straight.

Several dozen Taliban members attacked a base defended by several dozen Coalition forces members, and lost 20 men.

And we should be celebrating because LOLZ omfg!! their 50 l4m3z!!!!!?

After our guys called in air support.

Woo. Yay.

Incidentally, how many'd we lose?

Wait, so, let me get this straight.

Several dozen Taliban members attacked a base defended by several dozen Coalition forces members, and lost 20 men.

And we should be celebrating because LOLZ omfg!! their 50 l4m3z!!!!!?

After our guys called in air support.

Woo. Yay.

Incidentally, how many'd we lose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chora
3 apparently.

Wait, so, let me get this straight.

Several dozen Taliban members attacked a base defended by several dozen Coalition forces members, and lost 20 men.

And we should be celebrating because LOLZ omfg!! their 50 l4m3z!!!!!?

After our guys called in air support.

Woo. Yay.

Incidentally, how many'd we lose?

The Busheviks need something to stroke off to and brag as justification of Beloved Dear Leader's quarter-assed handling of the Middle East. If you remind them that all this could have been rendered needless years ago when we invaded Afghanistan and had the Taliban on the verse of finishing off, they'll just get sore and call you a Liberal Muslim Democrat Traitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chora
3 apparently.

Groovy. And all it took was an air strike. Go us.

The Busheviks need something to stroke off to and brag as justification of Beloved Dear Leader's quarter-assed handling of the Middle East. If you remind them that all this could have been rendered needless years ago when we invaded Afghanistan and had the Taliban on the verse of finishing off, they'll just get sore and call you a Liberal Muslim Democrat Traitor.

Please, it's Liberal atheist Democrat Traitor, thank you very much. :p
Well, Liberal atheist, anyway.

cant anyone paly the Great Game properly anymore

Groovy. And all it took was an air strike. Go us.



Please, it's Liberal atheist Democrat Traitor, thank you very much. :p
Well, Liberal atheist, anyway.

Obviously I'm not a fan of this administration or the way it has conducted these wars, but you gotta be kidding me. If I were in charge of this station and they attacked it I ain't gonna handle it like I'm some Dirty Harry.

"All right everyone, drop your guns! We're gonna take these guys on with our bare hands!"

Fuck that. Apache helicopters, surface to surface missles, bombers... I'm unleashing Hell. I find it odd that anyone would root for the Taliban in any scenario. I hope they keep trying to attack this way and I hope that everytime they do we throw everything in our arsenal including the kitchen sink at them. Turn everyone of them into vapor! Use daisy cutters!

Wait, so, let me get this straight.

Several dozen Taliban members attacked a base defended by several dozen Coalition forces members, and lost 20 men.

And we should be celebrating because LOLZ omfg!! their 50 l4m3z!!!!!?

After our guys called in air support.

Woo. Yay.

Incidentally, how many'd we lose?

We should celebrate that the Taliban listened to a publicly humiliating remark by Karzai, and felt that their manhood was challenged to the point where they resorted to traditional military tactics and attacked a base on foot.

Suicidal, yes. In their eyes, probably very brave and manly.

It's a good change from car bombs and taking civilians hostage and shooting them.

Oh, do you want them to shoot women in the head, and blow up hapless civilians who happen to be near when a car bomb goes off?

Nice to know what you're cheering for.

Apparently, a few Afghan soldiers were wounded in the attack. No US casualties.

If it helps, in outright combat (you know, the kind with rifles and grenades, in buildings, streets, and generally outdoors - without car bombs and suicide bombers), the US has a kill ratio 28 times greater than the kill ratio in Vietnam.

Not counting the use of air strikes, etc. That's just rifle to rifle. Apparently, the reason that these people like suicide bombers and car bombs is that if they show up to a fight in person, they get whacked.

Oh, and there are new rules of engagement.

Hunt them down and kill them when they try to run from the battle. Use Apaches.

20 less taliban to worry about, a lot more taliban demoralised(if thats possible, they all seem crazy to me). "Good work squad".

Good for Karzi to tell the Taliban that they are indeed cowards. Anyone who attacks innocent men, women, and children intentionally are cowards.
That also applies to the innocent "men, women, and children" who were killed "intentionally" at Fallujah?

Bolding mine.

20 less taliban to worry about, a lot more taliban demoralised(if thats possible, they all seem crazy to me). "Good work squad".

Exactly.


Well..... that or incensed. One or the other.

That also applies to the innocent "men, women, and children" who were killed "intentionally" at Fallujah?


Why, yes. Yes it does.

We should celebrate that the Taliban listened to a publicly humiliating remark by Karzai, and felt that their manhood was challenged to the point where they resorted to traditional military tactics and attacked a base on foot.


And how do you know that this was a direct response to Karzais remark? Did they note it as such on their Jihadblog just before the charge?

Seeing as they're so soft, why are they fighting the brits in helmland province with rifles and such, when according to you it should be IED and suicide bombs?

What killed that US special forces patrol a while back? Rifle fire, IED or suicide bomb?

And how do you know that this was a direct response to Karzais remark? Did they note it as such on their Jihadblog just before the charge?

Seeing as they're so soft, why are they fighting the brits in helmland province with rifles and such, when according to you it should be IED and suicide bombs?

What killed that US special forces patrol a while back? Rifle fire, IED or suicide bomb?

Apparently, they are losing too many men fighting with rifle fire.

They even discussed why they are taking hostages - because they feel they have no hope of winning at the moment.

Mansour Dadullah (a person freed by just such a measure) made comment on the Taliban change in plans, when the Germans were first captured, and then the Koreans.

Most of the Taliban attacks are still IEDs and suicide bombs. They're not completely stupid.

Every time they run into NATO forces, it's bad news.

Oh, and the Brits are taking heavier casualties because they are refusing the airstrikes and the "pursue until they're dead" policy.

Did anyone post how "pwnt" the taliban will be for the next38 years?

Apparently, the british think they will be there for 38 years or longer.

Apparently, they are losing too many men fighting with rifle fire.

They even discussed why they are taking hostages - because they feel they have no hope of winning at the moment.

Mansour Dadullah (a person freed by just such a measure) made comment on the Taliban change in plans, when the Germans were first captured, and then the Koreans.

Most of the Taliban attacks are still IEDs and suicide bombs. They're not completely stupid.

Every time they run into NATO forces, it's bad news.

Which perfectly explains why they are stronger now than in 2002, 2003, 2004 etc and so on and why the Brits are shifting men from Iraq to Afghanistan.



Oh, and the Brits are taking heavier casualties because they are refusing the airstrikes and the "pursue until they're dead" policy.

You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. news source of some description for that claim please, mainstream as possible.

Did anyone post how "pwnt" the taliban will be for the next38 years?

Apparently, the british think they will be there for 38 years or longer.

Are the British magically correct? Really?

Are the British magically correct? Really?

Bush is, why not them?

Are the British magically correct? Really?

At this point I believe anyone over my own government.

Bush is, why not them?

I don't think Bush knows how long, and neither do the British.

Approximately how many soldiers does the Taliban have? Hundreds, thousands, tens of? I'm just trying to evaluate whether 20 dead mujhadeen is really that big a deal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/06/wafghan106.xml

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2141901,00.html

Approximately how many soldiers does the Taliban have? Hundreds, thousands, tens of? I'm just trying to evaluate whether 20 dead mujhadeen is really that big a deal.

It's not the number that counts here. It's the fact that they're resorting to traditional infantry tactics (which in this case is suicidal) with no real hope of overrunning the base.

I don't think Bush knows how long, and neither do the British.

No, Bush is magically right. Every time.

It's not the number that counts here. It's the fact that they're resorting to traditional infantry tactics (which in this case is suicidal) with no real hope of overrunning the base.

That and the fact that they are overwhelmingly hated by thei native population. 10 years of public hangings for listening to music, banning women from education and public beatings for letting your ankle pop out from under yoru burka will tend to do that.

It's not (yeah yeah yeah )the base.

Source of some description for your remarks re the Brits and airstrikes/pursuit please?

It's not the number that counts here. It's the fact that they're resorting to traditional infantry tactics (which in this case is suicidal) with no real hope of overrunning the base.
I understand, but how many Talibanis are there?

I understand, but how many Talibanis are there?

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060920172756adynned0.4440729

Around 3,000, plus some who are paid to help. And that was last year.

At that point, we had killed around 1/4 of them. Assume that they got some back through recruiting and paying people to join.

Certainly not the number that you were thinking of.

The change since last year in tactics is to leave the bases and pursue them directly into their hideouts. Attack them at home.

Attack them when they're detected walking somewhere. Pursue with Apaches and kill every last one.

Now they have a couple of options. Throw themselves at NATO bases, or capture civilians and hold them for ransom.

Originally Posted by Remote Observer

Oh, and the Brits are taking heavier casualties because they are refusing the airstrikes and the "pursue until they're dead" policy.

Source....?

Source....?

http://icasualties.org/oef/

The UK is taking casualties out of proportion to their numbers present.

So is Canada.

American policy in Afghanistan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

And the British policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml

which got the British more casualties as a proportion of their numbers, and significantly screwed the Canadians with them.

And there I was about to reach for the old 'Blood from a stone' analogy...

Looks to me far more like a flawed policy than the simplistic "refused airstrikes and follow-up" you suggested earlier.

"It was difficult for the Brits to have the support they needed," she said. "The ground elements in Helmand were so isolated that they would get shot at and mortared.

"That has changed now. It was a case of having friendly guys there, and we needed to go out and take care of them. You can only lose so many guys before you say, 'This is ridiculous, we are going to do something about it'."

Does that quote above rather undermine your earlier statement about IEDs and suicide bombs?

And there I was about to reach for the old 'Blood from a stone' analogy...

Looks to me far more like a flawed policy than the simplistic "refused airstrikes and follow-up" you suggested earlier.

Does that quote above rather undermine your earlier statement about IEDs and suicide bombs?

No, it doesn't. The British were pursuing a strategy of staying in their base and trying not to ruffle feathers.

It didn't work. It provoked attacks (no IEDs, because the British stayed in their bases). Huge body count though. However, since the British didn't pursue them, and didn't call for airstrikes (which were available, although the Brits didn't even have mortars for adequate response), the Taliban merely came back over and over again.

And refusing airstrikes, and hiding in your base is a flawed policy. Which is my point.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

The UK is taking casualties out of proportion to their numbers present.

So is Canada.

American policy in Afghanistan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

And the British policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml

which got the British more casualties as a proportion of their numbers, and significantly screwed the Canadians with them.

Do you have a source for the number of US troops in Afghanistan at the minute? I keep getting them from 2004.

Do you have a source for the number of US troops in Afghanistan at the minute? I keep getting them from 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252147,00.html

Thursday, February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday announced a surge in U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan and asked Congress for an additional $11.8 billion to pump up the Afghan army and help rebuild the country.

Currently, 27,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan — the highest number since the October 2001 invasion.

"International forces are often the targets of suicide bombers, and they repeatedly warn Afghan civilian motorists to slow down or steer clear of convoys so they are not mistaken for attackers. Several civilians have been killed in such incidents"

strange... I remember seeing VIDEO EVIDENCE of US soldiers shooting at someone for no reason who I think had been kidnapped and was trying to leave with her friend (also her driver) (the friend and driver was killed). And from what I've heard from a person who has family in the army, U.S. soldiers shoot at anything that moves.

strange... I remember seeing VIDEO EVIDENCE of US soldiers shooting at someone for no reason who I think had been kidnapped and was trying to leave with her friend (also her driver) (the friend and driver was killed). And from what I've heard from a person who has family in the army, U.S. soldiers shoot at anything that moves.

I think you're thinking of the incident in Iraq, not Afghanistan, where the Italian reporter was being brought back by her driver and the car was shot up.

Rules of engagement - you should read them before making statements like this.

If a car or other vehicle is approaching a checkpoint, it needs to either go back or slow down to come through - if it doesn't slow down, the assumption is made that it's an attack, and the troops will fire on it.

If they were really shooting anything that moves, every vehicle that came to a checkpoint would be destroyed, including every US military vehicle.

Please think about what you type before you type it.

Never mind, I found one.

Number of US troops in Afghanistan 27,000

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/afghanistan.troops/index.html

Number of UK troops in Afghanistan 7,700

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml

Number of US troops dead 422.
Number of UK troops dead 68.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

That give us figures of 1 in 64 US troops dead and 1 in 113 UK troops dead.

Maybe you should re-think this statement:

Oh, and the Brits are taking heavier casualties because they are refusing the airstrikes and the "pursue until they're dead" policy.

The figures just don't back you up

I think you're thinking of the incident in Iraq, not Afghanistan, where the Italian reporter was being brought back by her driver and the car was shot up.

Rules of engagement - you should read them before making statements like this.

If a car or other vehicle is approaching a checkpoint, it needs to either go back or slow down to come through - if it doesn't slow down, the assumption is made that it's an attack, and the troops will fire on it.

If they were really shooting anything that moves, every vehicle that came to a checkpoint would be destroyed, including every US military vehicle.

Please think about what you type before you type it.

What I'm talking about is what I saw. If the car was racing towards a checkpoint, I would not have written this comment.

What I'm talking about is what I saw. If the car was racing towards a checkpoint, I would not have written this comment.

Your description of the incident matches that of the Italian journalist fiasco.

Sorry - if what you say was regular US policy, to shoot anything that moves, everyone in Afghanistan would be dead, and every US vehicle that moved would be shot up, and every US soldier would be shooting every other US soldier.

Sorry, you fail.

No, it doesn't. The British were pursuing a strategy of staying in their base and trying not to ruffle feathers.

It didn't work. It provoked attacks (no IEDs, because the British stayed in their bases). Huge body count though. However, since the British didn't pursue them, and didn't call for airstrikes (which were available, although the Brits didn't even have mortars for adequate response), the Taliban merely came back over and over again.

And refusing airstrikes, and hiding in your base is a flawed policy. Which is my point.


This was your earlier comment
Apparently, the reason that these people like suicide bombers and car bombs is that if they show up to a fight in person, they get whacked.

Yet here we have an American saying

Lt Andrea Anthony, the intelligence officer for the 82nd Airborne Division's Task Force Corsair - which includes the Apache helicopter gunship force - said last week that American commanders had adopted a more aggressive approach, out of concern for what was happening on the ground.

"It was difficult for the Brits to have the support they needed," she said. "The ground elements in Helmand were so isolated that they would get shot at and mortared.

"That has changed now. It was a case of having friendly guys there, and we needed to go out and take care of them. You can only lose so many guys before you say, 'This is ridiculous, we are going to do something about it'."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml

http://icasualties.org/oef/

The UK is taking casualties out of proportion to their numbers present.

So is Canada.

American policy in Afghanistan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

And the British policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml

which got the British more casualties as a proportion of their numbers, and significantly screwed the Canadians with them.
I call bullshit on the Canadian forces that were killed in Afghanistan. Firstly, 6 of the 66 dead Canadian soldiers or 1 in 11, was due to US "friendly fire".

Most of the other 60 have died as a result of NATO offensives in the past year plus. They didn't die because they were riveted to their base as you are wont to claim:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e12d7e64-f615-457a-bb9b-b9d1596eccf1

I can't comment about the UK fatalities at this time.

Edit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/03/AR2006090300203.html):

On Saturday, a reconnaissance plane supporting Operation Medusa crashed, killing all 14 British servicemen on board. NATO said the crash was not caused by hostile fire, saying the plane reported a technical problem before it went down. Investigators examined the wreckage Sunday.

That means that only 54 UK servicemen were killed in battle or other mishaps.

I call bullshit on the Canadian forces that were killed in Afghanistan. Firstly, 6 of the 66 dead Canadian soldiers or 1 in 11, was due to US "friendly fire".

"When the Germans bombed, the British ducked. When the British bombed, the Germans ducked. When the Americans bombed, everybody ducked." :D

strange... I remember seeing VIDEO EVIDENCE of US soldiers shooting at someone for no reason who I think had been kidnapped and was trying to leave with her friend (also her driver) (the friend and driver was killed). And from what I've heard from a person who has family in the army, U.S. soldiers shoot at anything that moves.

Some do, and it is a big problem. However, they are a minority. Yes, even one soldier doing it is far too many, but most US troops follow the ROE to the letter.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060920172756adynned0.4440729

Around 3,000, plus some who are paid to help. And that was last year.

At that point, we had killed around 1/4 of them. Assume that they got some back through recruiting and paying people to join.

Certainly not the number that you were thinking of.

The change since last year in tactics is to leave the bases and pursue them directly into their hideouts. Attack them at home.

Attack them when they're detected walking somewhere. Pursue with Apaches and kill every last one.

Now they have a couple of options. Throw themselves at NATO bases, or capture civilians and hold them for ransom.
Thats a good number then. 20 out of 3000 is almost 1%, very significant (no sarcasm intended- 1% is actually quite high for random incidents). Obviously they are always recruiting, but it seems their host country is unfriendly, meaning they would have to import an significant numbers of fresh ones.

Lock down the borders and keep baiting them, 1% at a time. Every now and then, send a counter insurgent to clean out a den of higher ups. I don't actually envisage this to be as long-term or messy as Iraq. If I were USA (and I am not) I would spend about 50% of my military effort on social benefit and security, and the other of actual military engagement with the Taliban. In a war of attrition, they lose-quickly. Particularly if the people like you.

It seems to me that the kidnapping of civilians and foriegners is a sign of desperation and wekness for the taliban, who are not actully a stateless terrorist organisation inclined towards such tactics. It says they have succumbed to having to resort to the tactics of isenfranchised terrorists, rather than ruling bndit lords.

It seems that the keyboard fraternity are not the only critics of the US method


SANGIN, Afghanistan — A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people.

Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans’ extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence as British forces were trying to solidify recent gains against the Taliban.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/world/asia/09casualties.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

I call bullshit on the Canadian forces that were killed in Afghanistan. Firstly, 6 of the 66 dead Canadian soldiers or 1 in 11, was due to US "friendly fire".


I suspect revenge killings for inflicting Celine Dion on the US.

It seems that the keyboard fraternity are not the only critics of the US method


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/world/asia/09casualties.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
US method = old west mentality?

Yippee Ki Aye mofo!!

Obviously I'm not a fan of this administration or the way it has conducted these wars, but you gotta be kidding me. If I were in charge of this station and they attacked it I ain't gonna handle it like I'm some Dirty Harry.

Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not criticising the methods used by the Coalition forces. By all means, call in the air support.

The thing is this: The US forces had the base, giving them the position of strength from the outset; they called in air support, which the Taliban forces would have had little means of opposing.

And then we have the sheer arrogance to declare that, from a position of strength, and with air support, we managed to kill 20 of them, and this demonstrates how ineffective they are.

Frankly, it seems to me to be the other way around.

We should celebrate that the Taliban listened to a publicly humiliating remark by Karzai, and felt that their manhood was challenged to the point where they resorted to traditional military tactics and attacked a base on foot.

Agreed, this is a good thing. Never said it wasn't.

Oh, do you want them to shoot women in the head, and blow up hapless civilians who happen to be near when a car bomb goes off?

Nice to know what you're cheering for.

Don't be a fucking idiot.

Apparently, a few soldiers were wounded in the attack.

Edited as it shouldn't matter where the casualties were from.

If it helps, in outright combat (you know, the kind with rifles and grenades, in buildings, streets, and generally outdoors - without car bombs and suicide bombers), the US has a kill ratio 28 times greater than the kill ratio in Vietnam.

Not counting the use of air strikes, etc. That's just rifle to rifle. Apparently, the reason that these people like suicide bombers and car bombs is that if they show up to a fight in person, they get whacked.

Oh, and there are new rules of engagement.

Hunt them down and kill them when they try to run from the battle. Use Apaches.

Like I've said, my problem isn't with the methods used. Simply how we're bragging about it.