LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteKilled by an Afghan Policeman whilst in Camp, the Policeman opened fire from a Sangar.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Five soldiers killed in Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8342488.stm
Which individual hasn't lost anything, Obama or Karzai?Originally Posted by Kodiakmarmoset
Killed by an Afghan Policeman whilst in Camp, the Policeman opened fire from a Sangar.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Five soldiers killed in Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8342488.stm
Last edited by Kernow; 04 Nov 09, at 19:34. Reason: Added another link.
Present arms!
R.I.P. to these fine men. I feel deep, deep pain for their grieving families and friends.
We should leave Afghanistan and cut all aid to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should embargo all trade purchases from Pakistan. We need to understand that this mission is thoroughly botched and must return home, lick our wounds, reassess our failures, bare our necks to the next A.Q. attack and prepare to return.
The taliban and A.Q. will conquer Afghanistan and they will turn their attention to the west and Pakistan. Pakistan can either fight for their lives or surrender. If they fight and lose or surrender, we make war to prevent their nuclear weapons from seizure.
WHEN that occurs, we must, first, MAKE WAR on both countries. We can do so without injecting our ground forces. If they become necessary, let the ROEs be altered appropriately.
We do the innocent people of Afghanistan and Pakistan NO SERVICE with our half-azzed bumbling attempts to be "kinder and gentler".
I've had enough.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
This loss of life, like all others, is tragic, and if this was Taliban, then it is a dirty, cowardly but effective tactic. It will set the OMLT teams back hugely in their relationships with the ANA and ANP. Rest in Peace.
incoming fire has the right of way
Soldiers killed in Afghanistan named
A Military Operations news article
4 Nov 09
It is with great sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the names of the five Servicemen killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday 3 November 2009.
The soldiers were all killed as a result of gunshot wounds sustained in an attack in the Nad-e'Ali District of Helmand Province.
The five personnel are:
Warrant Officer Class 1 Darren Chant, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards.
Sergeant Matthew Telford, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards.
Guardsman James Major, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards.
Acting Corporal Steven Boote, Royal Military Police.
Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith, Royal Military Police.
DITTO STEVE , its exactly what i and others have been saying for ages , will politico,s listen
"When England was a kingdom, we had a king.
When we were an empire, we had an emperor.
Now we're a country
I don't think that the public will except these kind of casualties without producing results for very much longer, so hopefully the decision (indecision) will be made for them.DITTO STEVE , its exactly what i and others have been saying for ages , will politico,s listen
incoming fire has the right of way
Saudi Jets Target Terrorist Positions
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saudi jets 'attack Yemen rebels'
Steve,
An interesting proposition to be sure. Just curious though what makes you think the Taliban/A.Q. will conquer Afghanistan? Even when the Soviets left, the "mujahideens" fought continually amongst themselves. While the US may not be facing the same number of factions the Soviets did, Map of the War in Afghanistan I don't think the Taliban are completely monolithic. Case in point: Afghan Insurgency Diversifies As Taliban Forges Alliances With Other Factions - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009 plus all the warlords.
A US withdrawal may bring more in-fighting to the point of civil war as ethnic/religious groups break along sectarian lines. Which is fine as the US can back a proxy to forestall the Taliban from regaining power. Of course it could also mean more bloodshed, less stability, no US foothold in Central Asia, decreased leverage on Pakistan (especially if the Taliban don't turn on Pakistan or are not successful)- if we have any at all, etc.
I don't know what the answer is, maybe there is no right answer; we're damned if we stay and damned if we leave. I think what is becoming apparent is we don't have a reliable, viable, partner in Karzai and this is hamstringing US policy makers.
My 2 cents.
J,
Stuck between two failures.
I expect nothing but cosmetic changes to the Karzai clique and modest arrests of a couple not named Dostum, Fahim, nor Karzai the dope dealer. And we'll buy off and muddle along.
I see no momentum for my knee-jerk thoughts. Problem is, I don't think they're knee-jerk at this point. Our best and brightest who've retired to their six-figure think-tanks or created their own have failed us. So too their peers in STATE, DoD, the executive branch, USAiD, DeptAg, and the legislature.
This is a growth industry in D.C. and the vested interests are feeding the fire by conferences, reports, reviews, op-eds, etc. CAREERS are at stake, mind you.
So you've got to know on which side your bread is buttered, button down the lip, and stay within the parameters of "reasoned thinking". Heaven forbid that anybody suggest that we're not wired to conduct nation-building.
We aren't and the proof's in. Maybe someday but not without massive overhaul of whatever it is that represents our gross mismanagement of billions. I'm guessing we've spent about $2000 per living soul in Afghanistan at this point.
Why don't we just write each of them a cheque and call it a day?
This is a very dark day and I'm quite ready to suggest that we can't protect the right of little girls to go to school very well and until matters become much, much worse, we're not likely to really do what's necessary to make them much, much better.
J, don't ask me how because my thoughts there are HIGHLY incongruent with acceptable adult behavior but I refuse to believe that it's our responsibility to tolerate that b00b in Kabul in any form and that the dreaded word-OCCUPATION sounds just fine...
...after we LEAVE, get bombed, watch Afghanistan be re-conquered by the taliban and the final victorious march on Islamabad's nukes begins. If we don't smell the coffee then, we don't deserve to exist as a nation.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Pretty bleak assessment, but also accurate, I think. US involvement in A-stan is now the second longest military involvement in US history, and well our track record isn't good with long wars.
I agree that The DC intelligentsia likes to stick with certain foreign policy "conventional wisdoms". Chief among them: the US is a global hegemony, it is a unipolar world, we can project power and influence anywhere, etc. I don't think that is the case anymore. Power sure, we can still project power, but we are extremely limited in how much influence we can spread. Push-back, Blow-back, whatever you call it, there are just some factions that just don't want to buy what the US is selling (democracy, etc.).
Certainly there was some severe short-sightedness (or extreme naivety) or even cynicism on the part of US policy planners in backing Karzai. We sound the trumpet on democracy then allow this corrupt regime to make a mockery of it. Corruption, in that part of the world? Well I'll be!
The argument against withdrawal is that it makes the US look "weak", but we don't look particularly strong when we can't tamp down an insurgency. Pack it in, and let the Russians, Pakistanis, and Iranians deal with Afghanistan? I'm tempted to say yes.
You know, it's funny. I was thinking of opening a thread, saying exactly what you say right now. And that's the view of an outsider.I will say to you what I think, and please, feel free to correct me, since it's your country and you certainly know it better than me.
First of all, let me say that if there has to be a superpower on the planet, I much, MUCH prefer it to be the U.S. I have no doubt in my mind that in military terms, the U.S. can deal with any nation on the face of the Earth. However, what comes next is not one of the U.S.'s strong points. Reading throuout the internet, I see the media calling both Iraq and Afganistan (especially the latter) a failure. The U.S. has spent billions on those two expeditions and, the way I see it, has gained nothing in return. On the contrary, it has allowed nations like Iran to gain more influence in the region and other nations like Russia or China to quietly prosper while the U.S. is engaged in combat. It has shown an inability to nation building, painting the U.S. as a nation who has the ability to wage war but lacks the ability of using this military victory to it's advantage. Furthermore, it allows others to pose as softer, more benign powers (the E.U. and Turkey comes to mind) who have no stomach for warfare but can and will give opinions based not on the fact that they earned it, but on the fact that another one has failed to do so. So, while the U.S. is bleeding, slowly but constantly, others prosper, gain the moral high ground (since it's not them waging a war and are seen as moderate). Furthermore, I see the U.S. allies getting disillusioned whith what the US can and can't do: Israel gives the impression that it can not expect solid support from the US and thinks the possibility to act alone while it still can with the matter of Iran, Turkey decides to stop playing the unconditional ally to the US and looks out for it's own in the region, Europe sees US endeavors under a bleak light and starts to think whether this whole mess is her business.
I remember during Bosnia the support the US had, since it was the only nation which had the ability and the balls to intervene in Europe's back yard when Europe itself couln not handle the mess. Today, this is not the case. I don't know what went wrong and how the opportunity was missed. If you see it this way, maybe you can enlighten me.
On the other hand, leaving Afganistan I think it will deliver a final blow to US credibility. It will show that NATO cannot even deal with a country of 30.000.000 people, so how will it be able to deal with Iran or, even worse, Pakistan? I know that nation-building is not among NATO's objectives but the world has become a much smaller place and no one can "bomb the hell out of a country and get the hell out". NATO'S ally's will be much more reluctant in operations in the future, other major players will get the impression of a weak NATO and will move more aggresively in completing their objectives. The US will be seen not as a democratic country with a big stick but as a war machine which creates more problems that it actually solves, and that view will be the one of the allies.
I do not have a solution to offer for this messy situation. I just want to understand better how a superpower ended up being cornered. What lead the US losing the high moral ground, not be able to utilize it's vast economical and military advantage to the max, alienating it's allies, making more enemies. I know that I paint a bleak picture, and this may not be the absolute truth (many will claim that the allies are not allienated, but I will just say that they may not be but they seem to me much more reluctant in following US's lead in the future). If you disagree, please, correct me.
I would like to hear other opinions on this matter. Maybe not solutions (there might not be any) but at least, fill in the blanks and help us understand, as outsiders, how things ended up the way they have.
A fine assessment.
Just one question. Why wait for the AQ to strike you? Why not do what needs to be done right away?
Anyway, rhetorical questions. I know how things work and why this will not pass muster.
Pardon my ignorance but there is only one leverage that USA has against AQ. They don't care if Islam is demonized the world over, don't care if every last Muslim nations are destroyed, don't care if millions of Muslims lives and useless kaffir lives are lost.
Watch this for their logic of why every last Muslim child of Pakistan is a fair game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-Nny3EP98
I have read the grapevine that what Tancredo suggested in the last presidential elections is also what has been communicated to the AQ. Any mass weapons attack on USA will result in the only leverage against them being finally used.
If it is true, it has been obviously kept well under wraps.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..
"On the other hand, leaving Afganistan I think it will deliver a final blow to US credibility."
Maybe. Read and heard much the same about S. Vietnam too.
You EARN your credibility and status by your actions-not perceptions. We are, by our actions, defining the limits of our power and influence.
We've NOT possessed the requisite influence to bring our allied partners in congruence with our objectives from day 1 of ISAF's deployment. This, despite, decades of mutual NATO-related partnerships. Now some might suggest that's because of the uniqueness of the mission.
Perhaps, I'd suggest, though, that the defense of Europe wasn't at stake and thus there was no compelling purpose to sharpening one's views. Nobody in W. Germany ever called for our departure with any seriousness and Bundeswehr forces were among the toughest and most-committed troops under NATO.
No longer.
So why withdraw? You'll note the comment about "baring our necks". Sorry but as bad as 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid might have been, we REALLY don't perceive an existential threat.
Not REALLY, now do we?
Look around America? Who's really at war? Can you tell me? Tomorrow half of the nation's college campuses will be suffering from hangovers as they fill football stadiums-all lovely targets to be avoided if we were really THREATENED. We're not.
So what will it take to sharpen clarity and shape resolve such that MoD doesn't niggardly starve Brit troops and America doesn't tolerate a Karzai, and German troops don't luxuriate in two pints of beer daily on Muslim soil while ringing their hands about ROEs imposed by a government that REALLY sees no purpose to this war as it can't REALLY be sold to a German public that sees no purpose.
Lead? Lead what, I ask? I turn around and see nations standing behind us and, all along, they've shuffled their feet, mumbled their mea culpas, pleaded their constraints, and asked to be a visible part...but not TOO visible.
Naw. We need to take one (or more) on the chin, one or more times. If that doesn't wake us up it'll surely knock us out and may darwinism once more assert itself to those more deserving and may we deservingly learn to live under the mantle of coercively led instead of leading.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: