Article

2006-09-10 Afghanistan

NATO troops kill 60 Taliban in Afghanistan

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 Fred 2006-09-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Strange how the body count is always in multiples of 20. Makes it hard to tell one day's report from another. We should get out of the body count business

1. Too much like Viet Nam

2. Provides no meaningful information for the home front.

3. Potentially provides meaningful information for the enemy.

4. Seems desperate.

Posted by Uliter Glosh6909 2006-09-10 08:37|| 2006-09-10 08:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe,

However, considering that the media fauns over every American death, regardless of cause [combat, accident, health - yes, they even have heart attacks like everyone else], it might give some perspective since the media has apparently never heard of things like WWII or the American Civil War where one day of combat exceed what's accumulated over many years.

Posted by Hupereck Ebbish7621 2006-09-10 09:35|| 2006-09-10 09:35|| Front Page Top

#3 And how many were born during the same period of time?

Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-10 09:52|| 2006-09-10 09:52|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh, goody. We have another 'Beltway Defense Expert' in the form of Uliter Glosh6909.

It's a no-win situation.

If reports on Taliban dead aren't made, we only get the US/NATO body counts and charges that the forces there aren't accomplishing anything but getting killed.

As a result,we also get uncountered reports from the WaPo et al, that the Taliban are lean, mean, armed up the Wazoo, and winning the war.

If reports are made, then it's "Oh dear, it's Vietnam all over again".

'Quagmire' if you do, 'Quagmire' if you don't.

Which way do you want it, MacNamara?

Posted by Pappy 2006-09-10 10:40|| 2006-09-10 10:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Oh, goody. We have another 'Beltway Defense Expert' in the form of Uliter Glosh6909.

No, we have another taxpayer who thinks the original policy of not being sucked into the body count game was a good idea and who doesn't understand why the Pentagon got suckered into the body count game by the WaPo, at least according to you, oh Outside the Beltway Defense Expert.

Posted by Uliter Glosh6909 2006-09-10 16:19|| 2006-09-10 16:19|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't think the reporting is a sign of desperation nor do I think it is avoidable.

15 months ago I was in a conference session on milblogging. We had LIVE VIDEO FEED from an officer in Anbar province.

Think about that for a moment. Absorb the leadership challenges our new technologies create. And then tell me how the military can prevent information from flowing out about casualties in an age when most cheap cell phones capture video -- as they did during the 7/7 attacks in London.

Yes, with the arrival of Gen. Schoomaker as Chief of Staff of the Army, there has been an increased emphasis on opsec and that session from a year+ ago wouldn't happen quite that way today. But the fact remains the information flow can no longer be controlled the way it was during WWII. All that can be done is to put unbiased, accurate information out so that biased or incomplete claims can be countered.

Nor is this all bad. We at Rantburg have come to some conclusions that the MSM would rather we didn't, and we came to them based on information we got outside of their filtered reports. When I go to work my colleagues in uniform just shake their heads over the reporting about Taliban victories. They can add up the numbers for themselves.

Good or bad, we want to know what's happening.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-10 16:50|| 2006-09-10 16:50|| Front Page Top

#7 Uliter Glosh6909 = if you believe that so strongly, choose a nym, stick with it, and defend your ideas. Until then, I say you're wrong, an anonymous coward, and good day to you

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-10 17:07|| 2006-09-10 17:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Uliter Glosh6909, I started to write a long response to you early this morning, but it got too long, so I didn't bother to post it. However, you stuck around to argue your position, and I do understand being frustrated at what's reported in the newspapers and on television. At any rate, here's what I've learnt about the intermittant reporting of enemy casualties:

First of all, by not reporting daily tallies, events in Afghanistan have been pretty much flying under the international media radar, thus freeing up not only American armed forces, but also our NATO allies to do pretty much as they please without public outcry. Nonetheless, by occasionally mentioning that bad guyz are being killed, the media cannot fuss that things are being hidden from them, denying them a desirable scandal.

Second, we know from comments made by Rantburg correspondents currently or previously posted Over There and Elsewhere, that actually Our Guys and the Afghanis are killing/wounding/capturing lots and lots of bad guyz; considerably more, in fact, and waaay more often than is reported. Multiples and orders of magnitude are what I apply to any report I happen to see.

Thirdly, take the reports as indicative of trends. Originally Our Guys killed the Taliban in large numbers, because they were there in large numbers, and because they were trying to fight like an army. Then the Taliban were killed in small numbers, as they tried to sneak small groups into position, and because those capable of commanding large groups had been killed off. Now we're back to large groups, because the leadership back in Pakistan is trying for a big push, only they haven't enough leadership for the numbers of cannon fodder creamed off the madrassahs, so they are sending out brigades headed by patrol leaders; which naturally enough are being wiped out to the last man or so.

Of course, I'm just a little Midwestern civilian housewife, so my understanding may be incomplete.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-10 21:48|| 2006-09-10 21:48|| Front Page Top

#9 #8 tw: "Of course, I'm just a little Midwestern civilian housewife, so my understanding may be incomplete."

Uh-huh.

Stick to your story, TW. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-10 22:33|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-09-10 22:33|| Front Page Top

#10 No, we have another taxpayer who thinks the original policy of not being sucked into the body count game was a good idea and who doesn't understand why the Pentagon got suckered into the body count game by the WaPo, at least according to you, oh Outside the Beltway Defense Expert.

Oh goody. And a 'taxpayer' to boot.

Yes, the original policy was a good idea. However, again, it's a damned if you do or damned if you don't don't. In this case, NATO and the US decided it's 'do'.

The former is playing to a bigger and much more leery audience than the US is.

The latter is dealing with a media and a political party that can't deal with Afghanistan anymore, and want to get involved with domestic stuff again.

Finally, I wouldn't call myself an Expert. But I have been involved with Defense, the media, and their Democrat allies ever since Carter decided to pull the Persian rug from under the Shah.

That makes it what - 18 years of dealing with this shit?

Posted by Pappy 2006-09-10 22:51|| 2006-09-10 22:51|| Front Page Top

23:55 Clereling Cruns6778
23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:45 Clereling Cruns6778
23:42 anonymous2u
23:40 Zhang Fei
23:37 anonymous2u
23:35 Zhang Fei
23:26 SR-71
23:22 anymouse
23:21 anymouse
23:18 anymouse
23:16 Zenster
23:15 Dave D.
23:10 Pappy
23:04 Zenster
23:03 Pappy
23:02 ed
22:56 DMFD
22:54 3dc
22:51 Pappy
22:38 Barbara Skolaut
22:33 Barbara Skolaut