Article

2009-10-05 Afghanistan

Taliban under attack in area where U.S. soldiers killed

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-05 15:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 kill every last one of em

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-10-05 15:03|| 2009-10-05 15:03|| Front Page Top

#2 And burry them sewn into pig skins.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-10-05 15:21|| 2009-10-05 15:21|| Front Page Top

#3 "The Taliban attack coincided with a plan to abandon the two outposts as part of a new strategy by the commander of NATO and U.S. forces, General Stanley McChrystal, to focus on population centers.

...

U.S. forces have suffered some of their worst casualties in the east, where they have tried to control remote mountain passes used by Taliban fighters as infiltration routes from Pakistan."

You don't win a war by surrendering most of the ground to the enemy, especially in a third world country like Afghanistan where the population are relatively dispersed and rural. The strategy of retreating to population centres can only be intended to limit casualties in the short term. In the long term, this makes the rest of the place bandit country, and sends the message that, to get from A to B, you'd better be friends with the Taliban. Development? Forget it. Hearts and minds? Forget it. Allies outsides of the cities? Forget them.

Attack is the best form of defence. We haven't gone all the way to Afghanistan to take on the Taliban only to retreat to fortresses. Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.

Posted by Bulldog 2009-10-05 15:55|| 2009-10-05 15:55|| Front Page Top

#4 "You don't win a war by surrendering most of the ground to the enemy, especially in a third world country like Afghanistan where the population are relatively dispersed and rural."

Not all rural areas there are equally dense, or equally accessible. I dont think population focus means withdrawl to the cities, but it DOES mean concentrating on the rural areas that strategically most important, in terms of density and geography.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-05 16:53|| 2009-10-05 16:53|| Front Page Top

#5 It doesn't matter how you spin it. Retreat is defeat. The enemy knows it. The civilian population knows it. The soldiers know it. The only people who don't know are those who wish to delude themselves.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2009-10-05 17:31|| 2009-10-05 17:31|| Front Page Top

#6 "The only people who don't know are those who wish to delude themselves."

delude themselves into thinking withdrawal equals peace or an absence of a merciless enemy.

delude themselves into thinking peace equals peace.

delude themselves into thinking passivity equals peace.

peace=illusion or a nice symbol for t-shirts and bumper stickers.

Posted by girlthursday 2009-10-05 18:00|| 2009-10-05 18:00|| Front Page Top

#7 Of course the taliban leadership knew we were planning on leaving. That's why they attacked the NATO outpost--so they could claim victory over the infidels. Also, agree that leaving the countryside to the enemy and retreating to the cities doesn't sound like a recipe for victory. Even most members of our congress--who lack any military background whatsoever, should be able to see that.

Isn't nursistan the "land of light" that was the last part of Afghanistan to be forceably converted to Islam? Used to be Kafaristan? Very nasty bunch there...

Posted by Menhadden Gloger1118 2009-10-05 19:20|| 2009-10-05 19:20|| Front Page Top

#8 ION TOPIX > DEADLY AFGHANISTAN BATTLE: IT WASN'T JUST THE TALIBAN [Tribal forces > "reconstituted BRIGADE 55"]; + NEW PAKISTAN TALIBAN COMMANDER SHOWS "LOVE AND AFFECTION" FOR AL QAEDA.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-05 20:03|| na]">[na] 2009-10-05 20:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Not all rural areas there are equally dense, or equally accessible. I dont think population focus means withdrawl to the cities, but it DOES mean concentrating on the rural areas that strategically most important, in terms of density and geography

Which is why the troop increase was asked for.

A pull-back is a pull-back, is a pull-back. You can't spin that to the Taliban.

This administration had better decide what it want to do, and soon.

Posted by Pappy 2009-10-05 21:08|| 2009-10-05 21:08|| Front Page Top

#10 I think it might have. No decision is a decision.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-10-05 21:56|| 2009-10-05 21:56|| Front Page Top

23:44 Cornsilk Blondie
23:40 Cornsilk Blondie
23:39 Cornsilk Blondie
23:26 Procopius2k
23:13 Old Patriot
23:08 Old Patriot
22:55 JohnQC
22:46 Old Patriot
22:39 Old Patriot
22:09 gorb
21:56 Whiskey Mike
21:51 3dc
21:37 girlthursday
21:31 Pappy
21:26 Pappy
21:13 Frank G
21:12 Frank G
21:08 Woozle Uneter9007
21:08 Pappy
20:53 Frank G
20:21 phil_b
20:16 Rex Mundi
20:06 JosephMendiola
20:03 JosephMendiola