Article

2007-09-27 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 Grunter 2007-09-27 13:55|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Dutch F16 fighter jets and Apache helicopters provided air support.

How lucky for the OZians that the unionized Dutch Armed Forces weren't on a coffee break.....

Posted by Eohippus Click7400 2007-09-27 15:32|| 2007-09-27 15:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Evey time they shoot at the coalition, they get beat bad. Would'nt you just start hiding from the coalition forces? I would'nt double dog dare them like they are doing to the coalition.

Posted by plainslow 2007-09-27 15:51|| 2007-09-27 15:51|| Front Page Top

#3 How lucky for those poor unionized Dutch pilots that they got to sneak out between required naps to play.

Ozzie, ozzie, ozzie -- oy, oy, oy!

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-27 16:43|| 2007-09-27 16:43|| Front Page Top

#4 I've been noticing the same theme repeated: the Taliban start a fight, then after they start losing, they get more and more replacements.

Reinforcing defeat. That is a violation of a cardinal military rule. But why?

It is mistakes, compounded. First of all, when attacking a superior enemy, you *start* by hitting them with everything you got and all at once, hoping to even the odds enough so that you even have a chance.

And then, unless you are obviously winning, you do a measured withdrawl, hoping to break up the enemy formation if they press, with terrain favorable to you. It also gives you a chance to disengage if enemy air cover is imminent.

Then, if your subordinate leaders can team up and take down a part of the enemy forces before retreating, you will still have managed an effective fight, even if it isn't a clean win.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-27 19:19|| 2007-09-27 19:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Reinforcing defeat. That is a violation of a cardinal military rule. But why?

Because their ISI trainers are idealogues, and not military geniuses?

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-27 20:53|| 2007-09-27 20:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Think of the mindset - marry a people who have never been completely defeated (or at peace) from Alexander to present day with a religion that says ya gotta kill the infidel and if by chance he gets you, you get all these Valhalla-type goodies. That gives you a perfect Darwinian gene pool. I gotta believe they reproduce before they go jihad or they'd be about out of water in the pool by now - probably a fresh tanker load from Pak Land every day to replenish the supply.

Posted by Jeaque Smith1208 2007-09-27 21:31|| 2007-09-27 21:31|| Front Page Top

#7 For the most part these are a small fraction of the many excess males from a polygamous society. Brain wash them in the mosques, promise them heaven and oodles of money and send them on their way. It's not like they will return to collect, money or the promises of heaven.

Posted by ed 2007-09-27 22:54|| 2007-09-27 22:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 OldSpook
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:15 3dc
23:12 3dc
22:54 ed
22:51 Zenster
22:47 Snakes Flaviper7821
22:44 ed
22:03 Zhang Fei
21:54 Barbara Skolaut
21:36 Rambler
21:31 Jeaque Smith1208
21:31 Alaska Paul
21:28 Zenster
21:26 Zenster
21:24 Barbara Skolaut
21:23 JosephMendiola
21:20 Pappy
21:20 Zenster
21:19 JosephMendiola
21:18 trailing wife
21:16 JosephMendiola
21:13 Throger Thains8048
21:06 Pappy