You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Taliban lose 130 in three day battle with Royal Marines
2009-03-26
With results like this we should provide maps and trail markers to the Talibs so that they can arrive at the right place ...
Royal Marines have killed 130 Taliban fighters during a major three-day battle in Afghanistan in which a key enemy stronghold was destroyed, the Ministry of Defence has said. A force of 700 troops from 42 Commando along with Danish and Afghan troops swooped on the Taliban base of Marjah in a helicopter air assault that took three waves to offload the men.

With Marjah a main base for processing opium and training forces, the enemy put up a fierce fight as the commandos swept through a network of mud brick compounds. Fighting was at very close quarters with troops using pistols, machine guns and in one instance a £49,000 Javelin rocket to take out the enemy. They were also supported by Dutch F16 jets, British Apache attack helicopters and American Cobra helicopter gunships.

Only two commandos were injured during Operation Blue Sword compared to an estimated 200 to 300 Taliban wounded. It is believed that the enemy dead included a Mullah regarded as a “high value target” by the military.

The Taliban were said to have been so determined to hold onto the stronghold that reinforcements were called for from the Pakistan border 160 miles away.

“This was a very successful, deliberate joint operation that demonstrated clearly to the enemy that the Task Force continues to operate where and when it chooses,” said Lt Col Al Lister, chief of operations for Helmand Task Force. “Marjah has previously been a safe haven for the enemy; we have shattered that illusion and more will follow. We will continue to erode the capability."

“Marjah has long been a region that the insurgents claimed as their heartland, a place they felt secure and where they could gather, equip and train their forces,” the MoD said in a statement. “It was also where they moved and stored weapons and explosives, and where the links between the insurgents and narcotics trade have been at their strongest.”
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Look at the brighter side. That's 130 fewer in breeding population.
Posted by: anymouse   2009-03-26 22:04  

#8  Well, I wouldn't go for "fixed fortifications" either but you do need some kind of infrastructure there to maintain order even if it is just a police garrison. If the Taliban attempt to take the place over again, you spot it quickly, call the a$$-kickers back in, nip it in the bud.

This notion of letting them come back and get organized and stay there for a year before going back in after them doesn't work. It also won't win the people over either because out of any given 5 year period they will have to live with the Taliban controlling them for 4.5 years and our forces for a month or so out of every year.

They aren't going to exactly be our best friends if they know we are gone on the first chopper out of town.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-03-26 17:46  

#7  Heh, Valentine agrees -- and posted quicker.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2009-03-26 15:50  

#6  Staying there would require digging in. And as Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." Or as Tim Leary put it, "mobility is nobility." I tend to agree with both sentiments.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2009-03-26 15:48  

#5  Part of the problems the Soviets had faced in ashcanistan is the fact they specifically HELD ground. It made them targets of opportunity for mortar attacks or raids. What we learned is its easier to keep fewer large bases here and keep your forces mobile for strikes.
Posted by: Valentine   2009-03-26 15:44  

#4  "However, no effort way made to hold the area."

Yeah, that is pretty much the crux of the problem. Until you get enough troops in there, you don't have enough "boo-boo kissers" to follow up behind the "a$$ kickers" and the "a$$ kickers" are needed elsewhere.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-03-26 13:11  

#3  130 dead is a nice number, 200-300 wounded. brits should feel proud, the the taliban embarrassed, drugs off the market, training facility out of action, joint forces working together....nice tactical success in my book but it would be nice if they held the area
Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Omavising9607   2009-03-26 13:02  

#2  hey as long as they killing them it's good, also if they don't hold the area they know they will come back so more can be killed later. I know it would be much better too hold onto the battlefield but then again you would have too have an outpost abouut every hundred yards in afgahanistan, which i don't see as doable
Posted by: rabid whitetail   2009-03-26 12:31  

#1  However, no effort way made to hold the area. Until we hold the ground, these numbers are just spring training scores. Nice, but meaningless.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2009-03-26 11:54  

00:00