Article

2009-03-26 Afghanistan

Taliban lose 130 in three day battle with Royal Marines

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 Steve White 2009-03-26 11:32|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#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">Chuck Simmins 2009-03-26 11:54|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2009-03-26 11:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 12:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 13:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 13:11|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 15:44|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 15:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Heh, Valentine agrees -- and posted quicker.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2009-03-26 15:50|| 2009-03-26 15:50|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-26 17:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Look at the brighter side. That's 130 fewer in breeding population.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2009-03-26 22:04|| 2009-03-26 22:04|| Front Page Top

23:58 Galactic Coordinator Omavising9607
23:54 ed
23:51 Old Patriot
23:35 abu do you love
23:09 Grunter
23:07 Redneck Jim
23:00 Redneck Jim
22:44 Redneck Jim
22:15 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:06 whatadeal
22:04 anymouse
22:01 Redneck Jim
21:58 crosspatch
21:57 Redneck Jim
21:54 DMFD
21:53 DMFD
21:53 whatadeal
21:45 Redneck Jim
21:42 Redneck Jim
21:41 crosspatch
21:37 Redneck Jim
21:35 trailing wife
21:35 Redneck Jim
21:24 Pinball Loser