Article

2009-07-20 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 2009-07-20 11:21|| || Front Page|| [11141 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 WaPo headline this AM a tad misleading. They cited logistics problems - I thought some big deal creating major problems for the advance - the body of the article shows its a road not yet cleared of IEDs (a solvable problem) and a shortage of choppers.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-07-20 11:33|| 2009-07-20 11:33|| Front Page Top

#2 "Where is the . . . fire coming from?!" shouted Lance Cpl. James Faddis

I think there was a word or two left out there....lol

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-07-20 13:07|| 2009-07-20 13:07|| Front Page Top

#3 What the Hawk says and the new tactical directive.

Specifically, the directive calls on commanders to scrutinize and limit the use of force like close air support against residential compounds and other locations likely to produce civilian casualties. Bombing residential compounds will be allowed only under very limited conditions, the directive says. For example, if a coalition force comes in contact with Taliban fighters and the enemy takes cover in a residential compound, the NATO force can break contact and wait out the enemy rather than calling for close-air support.

The gun battle was complicated by the presence of women, children and shepherds in adjacent fields

Posted by Willy 2009-07-20 13:09|| 2009-07-20 13:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Sounds to me like a typical Taliban retreat. So much hand wringing from Wapo you think we were near defeat.

Posted by Unique Battle 2009-07-20 13:13|| 2009-07-20 13:13|| Front Page Top

#5 It was the "good war" while they were bitching and moaning about Iraq. Iraq's won now, so we need an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan.

Christ, they're predictable. And slimy.

Posted by Fred 2009-07-20 13:17|| 2009-07-20 13:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Insurgents at times showed unexpected boldness..

Knowing what the Marines tend to do when folks shoot at them, they showed 'unexpected ignorance', too.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2009-07-20 14:12|| 2009-07-20 14:12|| Front Page Top

#7 Specifically, the directive calls on commanders "to scrutinize and limit the use of force like close air support against residential compounds and other locations likely to produce civilian casualties."

That is the ROE set by the new commanderf in chief. Many fine men will die due to it while Libs sit in thetr fat a..s smoking pot.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-07-20 14:29|| 2009-07-20 14:29|| Front Page Top

#8 "It was the "good war" while they were bitching and moaning about Iraq. Iraq's won now, so we need an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan.

Christ, they're predictable. And slimy."

Keep that arrow in the quiver. Biden is moaning (and even he isn't saying withdraw now, just saying dont add troops, instead "redefine victory conditions"). I don't know of anyone else in the admin doing that. Certainly we are still adding troops, IIUC. Still backing the Petraues strategy. Obama hasn't YET gone back on the "good war" approach. If and WHEN he does, he will have some major league 'splainin to do, I agree. Meanwhiles, the USMC is making headway in Helmand, and Holbrooke and McCrystals mission is to WIN in AFPAK.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-07-20 14:49|| 2009-07-20 14:49|| Front Page Top

#9 BTW, I think y'all are misreading the tactical situation described in the article. The USMC hit hard in the field outside Lakari Bazaar, INCLUDING with choppers, DESPITE the presence of civilians nearby (civilians in the fields aint the same as civilians in compounds, and IIUC even the latter are not 100% off limits)

AFTER that, the Talibs, having lost 2 fighters, ran away (in good Pashtun fashion). The question THEN was to pursue or not, and the higher ups vetoed. Its good the Marines on the ground are so aggressive, I guess. But, from my limited understanding, holding for the logistics tail to catch up (like clearing the road behind of IEDs) make sense. This isnt Napoleon or Guderian striking the knockout blow. Killing a few more talibs in pursuit doesnt buy you that much, and endangering hold of a key community where you still need to hold and build is not worth the risk, I guess.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-07-20 14:55|| 2009-07-20 14:55|| Front Page Top

#10 AFPAK

Me like.

Posted by gorb 2009-07-20 15:28|| 2009-07-20 15:28|| Front Page Top

#11 the clashes also indicated that the drive by about 4,500 Marines to dislodge the Taliban from its heartland in Helmand is running up against logistical hurdles.

Logistical hurdles? Can someone explain this to me? This would suggest that troops, supplies, or air support are not being provided as needed.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-07-20 15:57|| 2009-07-20 15:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Second reading indicates all of the above.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-07-20 15:59|| 2009-07-20 15:59|| Front Page Top

#13 I hadn't realized we were still using Hueys. But the Marines never get anything new.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-07-20 17:17|| 2009-07-20 17:17|| Front Page Top

#14 Interesting: if WE don't think we have enough helicopters, imagine just how bad it is for the Brits.

Posted by Steve White 2009-07-20 18:11|| 2009-07-20 18:11|| Front Page Top

#15 Glenmore, they might be one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1Y_Venom. Or might be one of the previous 'N' models.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-07-20 18:58|| 2009-07-20 18:58|| Front Page Top

#16 That's one long-lived basic design! Though nowhere close to the B-52. At UH-1Y they are running out of suffix letters.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-07-20 21:06|| 2009-07-20 21:06|| Front Page Top

#17 Typical WaPo surrender-monkey perspective. Better title might be something like "Taliban Flee In Disarray In the Face of Relentless Pursuit by US Marines," or maybe "Taliban Whimper Like Women as US Marines Stomp Their Asses."

Posted by Lone Ranger 2009-07-20 21:30|| 2009-07-20 21:30|| Front Page Top

23:55 Broadhead6
23:46 Broadhead6
23:33 Broadhead6
22:59 KBK
22:53 trailing wife
22:49 AzCat
22:47 remoteman
22:30 JosephMendiola
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:16 OldSpook
22:15 OldSpook
22:09 trailing wife
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:57 Dale
21:57 Glenmore
21:52 Glenmore
21:36 Redneck Jim
21:35 tipover
21:33 tu3031
21:30 Lone Ranger
21:28 KBK
21:21 Besoeker