| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| US Abandons Remote Outpost |
| 2008-07-16 |
| U.S. and Afghan troops have abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine American soldiers this week, officials said Wednesday. U.S. troops armed local police with more than 20 guns before they left, but that the officers had fled the village and crossed into neighboring Kunar province when 100 militants moved into Wanat. Compounding the military setback, insurgents quickly seized the village of Wanat in Nuristan province after driving out the handful of police left behind to defend government offices, Afghan officials said. Some 50 officers were headed to the area to try to regain control, said Ghoolam Farouq, a senior provincial police official. With 100 bad guyz in the village? I don't like those odds. Sunday's attack by some 200 militants armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars was the deadliest for the U.S. military in Afghanistan in three years. Rebels fought their way into the newly established base, wounding another 15 Americans and suffering heavy casualties of their own, before the defenders and warplanes could drive them back. NATO said the post, which lies amid precipitous mountains close to the Pakistan border, had been vacated, but insisted that international and Afghan troops will "retain a strong presence in that area with patrolling and other means." |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #30 hit 'em hard, without warning, and where they aren't looking I'm very OK with them looking, and soiling themselves as the strong horse smites their pissant lives |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-07-16 21:29 |
| #29 ... the local US command has had it with the cross border raids that are so like Cambodia during Vietnam ... Let's hope we handle the Paks and the Talibunnies better than we handled the NVA. No sanctuaries, no announcing our missions in advance, and no proportionate response. If we're going to hit 'em, hit 'em hard, without warning, and where they aren't looking. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-16 21:16 |
| #28 The first thing I thought of when I read this was what Viet Nam era moron failed to learn his lessons regarding firebases and losing lives to defend a position you're just going to give back to the enemy when it's over anyay? I'm still in that camp. If this position was indefensible, why was it so, why did it cost 9 American lives and 15 more wounded to figure that out, and, after that high cost, why wasn't it defended with everything in the US arsenal including turning this village to rubble and making the rubble bounce? Te firebase concept being used in Afghanistan was proven to be outmoded and essentially indefensible more than 30 years ago. Will we never learn? |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-07-16 20:18 |
| #27 The other most interesting fact is the short presence - actually sounds like we're on the move and an advance party got caught. Don't becloud us with another view. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-07-16 20:11 |
| #26 Darth and Procopius make sense, but still horrible news of 9 dead. The other most interesting fact is the short presence - actually sounds like we're on the move and an advance party got caught. The better news - the article from the Times, and the learning opportunities this presents, particularly if we have enough intel to achieve any sort of encirclement along with the incursion into the non-national, unsovereign FATA. |
| Posted by: Angemp Ghibelline7503 2008-07-16 19:44 |
| #25 It may be that the site for the new base was undefendable and HAD to be abandoned. But in any case, the local Jihadis must be wildly overconfident. That's gotta be worth something. |
| Posted by: Bin thinking again 2008-07-16 18:37 |
| #24 The most amazing thing to me is that the Talibs were able to approch the outpost at all for a surprise attack. Wasn't there a defensive perimeter set up around the camp (of course, I don't know the terrain - this might not have been possible for that location). In any case, even if we cannot intrude into the high holy soverign shithole of Pakland, why isn't everything goatpath-sized and above on the Afganistan side mined to hell and back, with more mines on the mines (again, the terran might make this impossible, but lets do what we can). Any tunnels should be immediately collapsed as well. I will not accept any sob-stories regarding poor civilians having to use them as trade routes, etc.. We know who the enemy is and where they come from; let's just announce that as of some date anyone using that area will automaticaly be considered a hostile. Destroying the roach nest would definitely be best, but destroying their means of ingress and egress will have to do for now as second best. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Ularong5413 2008-07-16 17:24 |
| #23 What about the motion detectors, infrared locaters, and disclosing trip wires that are available to protect a small base? |
| Posted by: Ebbath Darling of the Poles9166 2008-07-16 17:02 |
| #22 Precisely correct Spook. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-07-16 14:26 |
| #21 As an old Cav Scut, OP/LP is soemthing these guys woudl have been doing from the COP. And that is liekly the reason the Taliban doesnt want the COP there. Had they been able to set up, register supprot fires, etc, then reinforce, that COP would have been able to send otu effective LP/OP teams, and set remote sensors, etc- essentally locking down that sector, opening any infiltrators to interdicting fires. I say watch and see how we come back into that are. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-16 14:21 |
| #20 DV, sorry about that, tried again and the linky didn't work..strange. Anyhow try this: http://tinyurl.com/5r34du Hit satellite and move adjustment down one tick. The point I was obliquely trying to make was that it resembled Dien Bien Phu too much. http://tinyurl.com/63dsq6 |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-07-16 13:18 |
| #19 Dittoes three john e morrissey. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-07-16 12:52 |
| #18 In Algeria? That is where that Google map leads... You always have to assume the villagers will be hostile, or at least a source of information for the enemy. The lack of a quick egress rout seems to be the main failure here. We were always trained to operate behind enemy lines and the first thing we looked at in setting up a OP is how we get the hell out quickly with multiple overwatch sites and a nearby LZ if we need to call for evacuation. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-16 12:05 |
| #17 Oldspook I was thinking more along those lines, maybe something else is up |
| Posted by: Legolas 2008-07-16 11:23 |
| #16 45 US troops, 25 Afghani vs about 500 Talib, Al Qaeda and locals. Not good odds. The troops had been there less than 3 days. Coordinated assault from 3 side, covering fire, etc. I say raze the villages, because they men in them stayed behind to fight for the talib. Send in a battalion, and some D-3s. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-16 11:15 |
| #15 DarthVader, This is where they were. To put it nicely, Sun Tzu would not have advised defending that position. They were overlooked by the village of Wanat on three sides, the villagers were hostile, the terrorists had the advantage of local knowlage from the villagers. The Allies have now abandoned the outpost, but they should never gone in. I hope the village has been razed, including the mosque. |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-07-16 11:01 |
| #14 This loss of nine soldiers and this post calls for a review of the local commanders competence. Can't defend everywhere. A small, remote post most likely was an Observation Point that NATO was using to peer into Pakland to keep tabs on what was going on. The soldiers would have had orders to bug out at the first sign of people coming up, or if their position was compromised, to hole up and wait for the bombers. Most likely (and I'm speaking from my old Infantry doctrine here) is that a platoon sized element was there and only was putting out minimal patrols to keep their presence quiet. A local most likely told the talibunnies they were there and the talibunnies sneaked into position during the night and did a massive human wave attack to surprise the defenders. The tactic would have worked against local troops, or policemen. But against US soldiers that will fight hard and can call in heavier guns, at best you have a 50-50 chance in the first 10 minutes to do the most damage. If you don't get the US soldiers after that, bug out. The talibunnies apparently had their blood up and paid the price when the Americans recovered, stood their ground and then the bombers showed up. The question that stands out for me is, "Why this post?" Were they trying to keep us blind to this area? Good Attack of Opportunity for PR? Local warlord insulted by the US presence because he has a small wang? Either way, the outcome is our full attention is brought to that area and the talibunnies died in droves and it proved to the rest of the Afghans and Paklanders in that area, that our troops are not paper tigers. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-16 10:08 |
| #13 Pakistan has and will always be an enemy of the USA/West!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2008-07-16 10:05 |
| #12 Ditto Morrissey. Lots of smoke in the teepee on this one I'm afraid. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-07-16 10:00 |
| #11 hope some of you wise folks will comment on this ... don't really get the concept of abandoning the post You want to kill the enemy. It's not necessarily terrain that is important. Terrain is a tool, not an end. Since we know they can not hold terrain in the face of concentrated American combat power, the best way to get them to stand on Afghan soil, is to present them with 'bait' they can not refuse, particularly when they're engaged in 'war by media'. Force or entice them to mass and they present an easier target and reveal their routes and base[s] of operations. An abandoned isolated base is a great target for arc lighting with a lot less civies around. Baby ducks, bunny rabbits and unicorns, not so much. It does wonders in clearing out the rookies they've assembled in the off season that have been called to the majors for a shot. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-16 10:00 |
| #10 this loss of nine soldiers and this post calls for a review of the local commanders competence.That post should have been covered night and day by cap s either uav or manned and it should not have been possible to mass forces as they apparently did. A real failure of tactical thinking .Does it suggest a shortage of the right kind of air cover available?If so slow down the outposts until it can be done correctly.. |
| Posted by: john e morrissey 2008-07-16 09:56 |
| #9 From the sense of things from a couple of local platoon and company commanders that just deployed back here (granted they aren't on the border, but you can get a sense of things on a base that has flights to the border for support), that the local US command has had it with the cross border raids that are so like Cambodia during Vietnam and the higher ups have given the green light to get ready to strike back. Now granted this might be just local camp rumor, but several articles from news sources from around the world seem to confirm it. Now that Iraq is getting on its feet, the military machine of the US is getting ready to put the Pakistani militants out of business. At least that is what I hope. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-16 09:48 |
| #8 darth and prefesser ... thanks .... hope that article is true ... its about damn time |
| Posted by: Legolas 2008-07-16 09:39 |
| #7 It wouldn't be "abandoning", but more of a advancement to a more defensible area. Most likely, the post is exposed and not easily reinforced by air and/or ground. Redeploying to another area to wait for a local "surge" (aka, reinforcements) is the most likely scenario. Unlike the French at Dien Bien Phu, we won't commit to defending an indefeasible position. Don't worry, we'll be back. And with more kick ass tools and soldiers. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-16 09:34 |
| #6 Is this where they went? |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2008-07-16 09:19 |
| #5 Well, my thinking would be, Talibunnies see it as victory, gather at the outpost to party and that's when the B-1B flies overhead and drops however many thousands of pounds of bombs that thing carries. Our troops come back, count the bodies and give the Talibunnies the finger. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2008-07-16 09:19 |
| #4 It won´t be Stalingrad. |
| Posted by: Fred 2008-07-16 09:00 |
| #3 hope some of you wise folks will comment on this ... don't really get the concept of abandoning the post |
| Posted by: Legolas 2008-07-16 08:58 |
| #2 Quagmire! |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-07-16 07:40 |
| #1 Didn't I read a report about how the US or NATO was sending reinforcements? |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-07-16 07:40 |