The Taliban--the hunted or the hunters.

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for Nato forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

Apples and oranges. And there's one salient difference: the U.S. could quit Vietnam in "defeat" and not worry about the consequences. The U.S. and it's allies don't have that luxury in Afghanistan (unless they want another 9/11 or worse at their doorstep). That is the prime reason that Afghanistan will be subdued, one way or another.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I very much disagree with tvarad, Nato can afford to get out of Afghanistan with few consequences, but Iraq, now Iraq is a totally different white elephant.

As for Al-Quida, they have paces all over the world they can set up, Give Ossama a nice snug cave and a ready supply of couriers, and anywhere would do as well. For all we know, he could be in Washington DC now.

As for the Taliban, its reactionary ideas have no place in the modern world. When the modern world comes to Afghanistan, its the Taliban itself who will adapt without firing a shot.

 

[GTaudiophile]

ROFL! CNN reports that US soldiers killed or injured between 100-200 of them. We lost 9.

That there is 10:1 ass-kicking kill ratio.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for NATO forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

I'm curious as to how why you equate this with Tet?

Tet was considered to be a victory by the media for the NVA/VC.

Yet they lost 4-5 times the amount of people as did the US and did not accomplish control of any strategic ground.

It is no longer the fact that the enemy loses people and their attack is repelled; it is the fact that it is hyped up when US/allied personnel are killed.

Strategy & tactics are difficult to explain, analyze and understand. Therefore they are ignored.

The death count is a number that people can comprehend. And they can only provide the numbers that one wants to be viewed and do not detract from the intent of the story.

In remember when the Tet offensive happened and as I recall it was considered a resounding defeat of the NVA/Viet Cong. What the surprise was is that they were able to mount such a large coordinated offensive that totally caught us off guard.

 

[Red Dawn]

The ISAF has remote outposts all around that area of Afghanistan, I'm surprised that more attacks of this size haven't happen

 

[Lemon law]

If reports that two million Vietnamese lost their lives are true and we only lost 58,000, that is a kill ratio of 35 to 1. Still the US lost the Vietnam war.

But I do not know where these comparisons to Tet come from, but its now trending towards that type of scenario if trend lines continue. 2008 has been the bloodiest year ever
and from reports I am seeing on other links, all kinds of Insurgent leaders are now meeting and planning to co operate in future. At the same time funding and fighters are coming in from all directions.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for NATO forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

I'm curious as to how why you equate this with Tet?

Tet was considered to be a victory by the media for the NVA/VC.

Yet they lost 4-5 times the amount of people as did the US and did not accomplish control of any strategic ground.

It is no longer the fact that the enemy loses people and their attack is repelled; it is the fact that it is hyped up when US/allied personnel are killed.

Strategy & tactics are difficult to explain, analyze and understand. Therefore they are ignored.

The death count is a number that people can comprehend. And they can only provide the numbers that one wants to be viewed and do not detract from the intent of the story.

Well the website ate my last reply, so I'll just say this is pretty much right on.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

 

[Lemon law]

Well lupi lost me with his overall post, but regardless of who said it, I come away with----Strategy & tactics are difficult to explain, analyze and understand. Therefore they are ignored.

And I have to only say, strategy and tactics are everything, they may be hard for fools to understand, but results matter. Only results matter.

And if you are not getting the results you want, its chess 101, your initial tactics and strategy sucked.

Chess 102, as long as you are not checkmated with your bad initial strategy, figure out what you are doing wrong, and come back with better strategy and tactics. At least stop the bleeding.

Chess 103, even if you can't recover from bad initial strategy, learn from mistake. There is always the next game.

 

[Lemon law]

Ole JOS sounds the exactly wrong note with----The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

The second better air supports results in collateral damage which is inevitable and already occurring, you create more insurgents than you kill. And it makes Nato a bigger problem than the taliban for the Afghan people. Even Dumsfeld was smart enough to ask that question and realize that.

The sole decider of that question is the Afghan people, get a clue, your opinion does not matter.

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ole JOS sounds the exactly wrong note with----The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

The second better air supports results in collateral damage which is inevitable and already occurring, you create more insurgents than you kill. And it makes Nato a bigger problem than the taliban for the Afghan people. Even Dumsfeld was smart enough to ask that question and realize that.

The sole decider of that question is the Afghan people, get a clue, your opinion does not matter.

I have asked you so many times not to do that, if you are going to quote me, quote my entire post, it's not cute, it's not special, it's just fucking retarded.

You should spend some time with the Afghanis, no matter where i go i am offered free meals and invited into peoples home, in Kabul i get invited into restaurants, NONE of them like their daughters and wives to be raped and tortured by the Talibans, funny, isn't it, laugh jester fucking laugh, this is all a big opinion to you, right, well an uninformed opinion is nothing but a big fucking LIE and you can get informed, there are dozens of writers from Afghanistan who have written about the horrors of the Talibans, but you still fucking like them better than you like us or the US soldiers.

I really find yours and others defence of the Talibans, based on nothing what so ever except denying everything you ever read about them, pathetic.

Name one good thing you know about the Talibans... one thing, just one, name five things you know they have done throug the reports or even the posts i have made, you could easily name five things that were horrible, couldn't you, you couldn't name one god damn good thing, could you... and yet you are fucking cheering for them...

How sick does that make you?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

I'm not IN Africa, i'm in Afghanistan, if i get sent to Africa i'll tell the tales about the horrors there.

But in essence, the very problem IS in the ideology, whether it's Christians in Darfur or Talibans in Afghanistan who think their ideology trumphs pain and death doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter to me.

I was actually meant to go home in June, via US and then to Darfur but my stay in this hellhole got prolonged, i don't mind though, i just wish we could increase the offensive and that is just what is happening now.

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

I'm not IN Africa, i'm in Afghanistan, if i get sent to Africa i'll tell the tales about the horrors there.

But in essence, the very problem IS in the ideology, whether it's Christians in Darfur or Talibans in Afghanistan who think their ideology trumphs pain and death doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter to me.

I was actually meant to go home in June, via US and then to Darfur but my stay in this hellhole got prolonged, i don't mind though, i just wish we could increase the offensive and that is just what is happening now.

You can thank the war in Iraq for your prolonged stay.

It's really hard to handle two wars with a volunteer military.

In any case, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't eradicate the horrors of the Taliban until the conditions that led to their rise have been eliminated. That can only be done by overall improvement in stability (which is happening, albeit slowly.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for NATO forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

I'm curious as to how why you equate this with Tet?

Tet was considered to be a victory by the media for the NVA/VC.

Yet they lost 4-5 times the amount of people as did the US and did not accomplish control of any strategic ground.

It is no longer the fact that the enemy loses people and their attack is repelled; it is the fact that it is hyped up when US/allied personnel are killed.

Strategy & tactics are difficult to explain, analyze and understand. Therefore they are ignored.

The death count is a number that people can comprehend. And they can only provide the numbers that one wants to be viewed and do not detract from the intent of the story.

I understand Tet well, however I was asking lupi why he made this connection because I was curious as to his logic.

NO COACHING

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

I'm not IN Africa, i'm in Afghanistan, if i get sent to Africa i'll tell the tales about the horrors there.

But in essence, the very problem IS in the ideology, whether it's Christians in Darfur or Talibans in Afghanistan who think their ideology trumphs pain and death doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter to me.

I was actually meant to go home in June, via US and then to Darfur but my stay in this hellhole got prolonged, i don't mind though, i just wish we could increase the offensive and that is just what is happening now.

You can thank the war in Iraq for your prolonged stay.

It's really hard to handle two wars with a volunteer military.

In any case, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't eradicate the horrors of the Taliban until the conditions that led to their rise have been eliminated. That can only be done by overall improvement in stability (which is happening, albeit slowly.)

How about fucking NO, we can thank the idiocy of the current US military for their reduced air support even though it doesn't cost much more to have them on the ground than in the air for the prolonged supprt, that and the lickarse Pakistan bullsheit, do you know which troops first entered Pakistan and called for the air support that's been reported so much about?

While i agree that the US presence in Iraq was worthless and illegal as a war along with being a disaster from start to the finish that will be 100 years from now whether you stay now or send in troops 150 times more i can definently say that BOTH wars were fought with WAY too few groundtroops and it's not like the US is lacking groundtroops, there are a whole SHITLOAD of them who never went to Iraq or Afghanistan, there are less than 150k in Iraq and less han 20k in Afghanistan and you have around 700k so there is no shortage.

And while you are making fun of the French they are sending more troops and while you are making fun of the Canadians they are staying, not because the US thought the troop presence was important but because the French thought it was and sent more, hell even Sweden are sending more.

NOW the US are sending reinforcements.

Good on ya, now let's do this!

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

I'm not IN Africa, i'm in Afghanistan, if i get sent to Africa i'll tell the tales about the horrors there.

But in essence, the very problem IS in the ideology, whether it's Christians in Darfur or Talibans in Afghanistan who think their ideology trumphs pain and death doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter to me.

I was actually meant to go home in June, via US and then to Darfur but my stay in this hellhole got prolonged, i don't mind though, i just wish we could increase the offensive and that is just what is happening now.

My cousin is deploying to Afghanistan in late Summer / early Fall, I don't know if it's a rotation of troops, or a potential increase.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

You have to be taking the piss? There are more troops coming from most of the allied countries in this war and those of us who were here got prolonged duty while the US is bringing in more air support and more troops over time.

The Taliban needs to be eradicated, every last one of them, any sane human being understands that and it's going to happen, all we really need is better air support.

You probably say this because of the brutalities you've witnessed.

However, these aren't the sole domain of the Taliban.

Indeed, such acts of brutality (especially against women/children) are commonplace in Africa, and are done by non-religious parties.

What you need to eradicate are the conditions that make people behave this way.

The 'Taliban' aren't the problem, only the symptom.

I'm not IN Africa, i'm in Afghanistan, if i get sent to Africa i'll tell the tales about the horrors there.

But in essence, the very problem IS in the ideology, whether it's Christians in Darfur or Talibans in Afghanistan who think their ideology trumphs pain and death doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter to me.

I was actually meant to go home in June, via US and then to Darfur but my stay in this hellhole got prolonged, i don't mind though, i just wish we could increase the offensive and that is just what is happening now.

My cousin is deploying to Afghanistan in late Summer / early Fall, I don't know if it's a rotation of troops, or a potential increase.

It's an increase in troops and an increase in air support.

The sudden increase in violence woke some sleepy heads all over.

I don't wish ground duty out in field on anyone around here but we need them.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

...it's not like the US is lacking groundtroops, there are a whole SHITLOAD of them who never went to Iraq or Afghanistan, there are less than 150k in Iraq and less han 20k in Afghanistan and you have around 700k so there is no shortage...

Your numbers are off a little...

But adding up raw numbers to make grand pronouncements is simplistic. The op-tempo of most of our units is staggering and there's plenty of broken Soldiers (and families) to support this fact. The mob time of much of our Reserve and NG is ridiculous... what we ask of our citizen Soldiers is above and beyond what's realistic. We are strained, not to the breaking point, but enough to be worried.

Our troops deal with it and drive on, but for someone like you to minimize their plight is disrespectful and to say the US has all sorts of extra troops laying around is ignorant. You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, JOS, if I want advice on how to lose an occupation, who better to call on than a BRIT. In 1908, you Brits had it made, the Sun never set on the British empire, in one century you Brits set the world record on how to alienate everyone you formerly occupied and get the resulting heave ho ejection. And you are indeed a chip off the recent block.

At least your smarter ancestors, the Brits who built the British Empire, used a divide and conquer strategy rather than the kill kill kill a dumb MF like you sees as the only way.

OK OK, GWB&co ain't a whit smarter, so call them both dumb and be done with it.

And here is hoping that the US and English leadership will start using their damn brains for a damn change.

 

[lupi]

From what I've read so far, this was a relatively new outpost near the Pak border (which would seem a good place to establish given the lack of action on the other side of said border).
 
The outpost was not fully established yet with more work to go in fortifying its defensive structures. At the time it was manned with 45 US and 30 something afghans. When attacked the estimate is about a 100 directly assaulting with about an equal number providing small arms direct fire support from a nearby hamlet.
 
So in a position with only rudimentary prepared positions and outnumbered 3-1, they manage to hold the position even after getting unfriendlies within the wire and cause 40 something dead and unknown wounded while sustaining 9 US dead and 15 wounded along with some afghan casualties.
 
Perhaps with increased attacks of this nature they will look at additional manning in these new outpost until the fortified defensive positions are completed, but strictly speaking of tactics this result would be considered a successful defense with a reinforced platoon repelling with heavy casualties a couple companies of irregular troops.
 
 
 
Going further back, we have D-Day where the 3 airborne divisions took 40%+ casualties getting on the ground and the initial assault wave at omaha was probably 80%. With the same media focus now those talking heads would probably be talking about how we should start considered peace terms, neglecting that most of the brit beaches were walked ashore with limited opposition and the luck of the drift allowed the initial waves at Utah to land in a sector without any prepared defenses.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, JOS, if I want advice on how to lose an occupation, who better to call on than a BRIT. In 1908, you Brits had it made, the Sun never set on the British empire, in one century you Brits set the world record on how to alienate everyone you formerly occupied and get the resulting heave ho ejection. And you are indeed a chip off the recent block.

At least your smarter ancestors, the Brits who built the British Empire, used a divide and conquer strategy rather than the kill kill kill a dumb MF like you sees as the only way.

OK OK, GWB&co ain't a whit smarter, so call them both dumb and be done with it.

And here is hoping that the US and English leadership will start using their damn brains for a damn change.

Most former countries of the British empire have excellent relations with Britain and are willingly part of the British Commonwealth; it's only those countries run by misfits and malcontents like Zimbabwe and Pakistan who've squandered everything that bear grudges. Ironically, there would be no Pakistan were it not for the British. So STFU.