Article

2009-02-19 Afghanistan

US commander: Troops 'stalemated' 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 GolfBravoUSMC 2009-02-19 01:58|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 President has made a good call by reason. See what planning comes, or C-17 home before we are a third world nation missing Staff Sergeants and Sergeant Majors at home that may fend off all the zombies we have here over taking..... Sir, Charlie is in the wire... we are overrun....

Sir, he has over run the chow hall...
Oh GOD! ... He has sacked the linen closet.....

feel pretty man.

Posted by newc">newc 2009-02-19 02:56|| 2009-02-19 02:56|| Front Page Top

#2 "It's a country that is absolutely worth our commitment," McKiernan said. "And it's a region that is absolutely worth the commitment of the international community to ensure that it's stable at the end of this."

India and Russia have strategic interests because its in their neighborhood; Europe because that is where most of the drugs end up.

The USA and Australia for that matter have no strategic interests there, never mind that the war is unwinnable in an reasonable timeframe as McKiernan clearly states.

Not only can't it be won, precarious logistics means we could well end up with the 21st century equivalent of Britain's 19th century retreat from Kabul with equally disasterous results.

As I have said many times, the key in Iraq was not to lose. To give Iraq time to build up its own capabilities and institutions and they can finish the job for themselves.

That aint ever going to happen in Afghanistan.

This is truly a war without end, but to the liberals it's the 'good war' with a bright shiny United Nations seal of approval.

Posted by phil_b 2009-02-19 03:30|| 2009-02-19 03:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Of course it can be won. The question is, will it be won? Certainly not by the 0 administration. The additional troops are nothing more than window dressing. There is no policy in place to win. As long as Pakistan continues to provide sanctuary there will be no resolution.

Posted by Gravimp Bluetooth9422 2009-02-19 07:48|| 2009-02-19 07:48|| Front Page Top

#4 The New Mexico Territory was at the end of 19th Century logistical line. Constant warfare with the indigenous tribes. Nothing really important [other than some mineral deposits] to justify the expense on a cost benefit analysis. Went on for decades. Probably would still be a territory if the hand wringers had their way then. People seem to forget that things aren't peachy on the other side either and they have their problems and issues as well.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-02-19 09:33|| 2009-02-19 09:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Certainly not by the 0 administration.

Is that a zero or the letter o? I can't tell.

Posted by gorb 2009-02-19 11:23|| 2009-02-19 11:23|| Front Page Top

#6 We need to bomb the Osama bin Laden Trail to buy time so we can prepare the helicopter pad on the Kabul Embassy roof.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-02-19 12:48|| 2009-02-19 12:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Stalemated? Why stalemated?

Posted by JohnQC 2009-02-19 18:25|| 2009-02-19 18:25|| Front Page Top

#8 because we aren't ready to Arclight the NWFP, Wazoos, and FATA

/drink up

Posted by Frank G 2009-02-19 18:28|| 2009-02-19 18:28|| Front Page Top

#9 Probably would still be a territory

Pro, that might be have been a better idea anyway.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2009-02-19 19:12|| 2009-02-19 19:12|| Front Page Top

#10 WAFF.com > KURDISH LEADER WARNS OF POTENTIAL KURD-ARAB WAR; + PAKISTAN'S MAIN ISLAMIC PARTY [JI Party]SIGNS NEW PEACE DEAL WITH COMMUNIST CHINA [respect of "mutual interests"/non-interference].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-02-19 20:05|| 2009-02-19 20:05|| Front Page Top

#11 If US forces are stalemated, then enemy forces are as well.

Seems I read a year or two ago I the Taliban took one helluva trimming losing the manpower equivalent of two brigades in just a few months; losses in much larger armies would be seen as crippling.

Why do our forces have kill ratios in the factors and yet we are at a stalemate?

Can someone please s'plain that to me?

Posted by badanov 2009-02-19 22:37|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-02-19 22:37|| Front Page Top

#12 A little historical perspective:

In the battle of the Korsun Pocket, Soviet commanders thought they had a coupla weak divisions surrounded, not parts of six divisions as the battle turned out.

Intel assessments can be wrong, and unless the news reports on our side are wrong, the Taliban are a shell from its former self from just two years ago.

Posted by badanov 2009-02-19 22:41|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-02-19 22:41|| Front Page Top

23:05 Frank G
22:50 Alaska Paul
22:48 Mike N.
22:41 badanov
22:37 Icerigger
22:37 badanov
22:19 Barbara Skolaut
21:46 Woozle Elmeter 2700
21:35 Woozle Elmeter 2700
21:26 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:16 Procopius2k
21:12 Procopius2k
20:45 Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794
20:41 Woozle Elmeter 2700
20:40 Rednek Jim
20:36 Rednek Jim
20:33 Rednek Jim
20:32 Frank G
20:31 Rednek Jim
20:17 JosephMendiola
20:12 JosephMendiola
20:08 JosephMendiola
20:07 Rednek Jim
20:05 JosephMendiola