world

Dozens of Taliban killed after U.S. deaths

11 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

While feeling sorry for my infantry brothers who were killed in this contact, it is good to see some aggression on the part of allied land forces in taking the battle to the Taliban. As I have written before, high altitude interdiction by aircraft (bombing) and a quick nip back to the Officers Club for a warm meal is not going to win this war. Putting grunts on the ground and bringing the battle to the Taliban and then kicking the S out of him is what it is all about. The allies should get right in their face and keep hitting this rabble until they cease to exist.

Just another quick point, it seems that the "British Commandos" of a couple of days ago are now "British Troops." It turns out that the Paras were used to get this journalist out rather than the hillbillies from Hereford.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan is to remain in a permanent state of medium-grade conflict by assorted bands of civilians. Ergo, there can be no "winning" of such a war, either in the tactical or strategic sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan must be "won" in order to assure the stability of the country and neighboring Pakistan. Failure could allow the Taliban to gain greater control in Pakistan. Given Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, this would be a disaster. One that India and the rest of the world could not stand by and watch.

In short, failure in Afghanistan invites a much broader and more dangerous conflict in Pakistan. One with much higher stakes.

I believe the current methodology of fighting this war will fail. The following is required to win.

Greater military presence and participation by more allied nations to take control of key areas, eliminate the heroin trade and provide security for rebuilding and development.

The fight must be taken to the Taliban and not in simple little patrols. It must be widespread, overwhealming and followed by a significant security presence post fight.

Aid and development work must be funded to assure that locals feel and see the changes. People with opportunities for jobs, safety for their kids, protection from violence will stand by our side. It is key to remember this is not Iraq. The Afghanis do not like the Taliban any more than we do and would rather get on with life than fight. But they need to know two things. 1. we will provide protection. 2. we will go home once things are stable.

We need a strong political agenda there that must include moderate Taliban, tribal leaders and a compromise between a rule of balanced law and respect for conservative Islam.

Nothing short of these steps has any chance of success.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder wrote:

"Putting grunts on the ground and bringing the battle to the Taliban and then kicking the S out of him is what it is all about. The allies should get right in their face and keep hitting this rabble until they cease to exist."

The enemy can always recruit new members into its ranks, as they well have over the past 8 years.

The U.S. could never come up with the number of troops that you must envision to obliterate all enemy fighters in Afghansitan and Pakistan.

What would it take-200,000? More? And for how long?

History proves this is an unwinnable conflict, i.e. we should have learned from the British, Soviets and other attempts of yesteryear to dominate Afghanistan.

No amount of aid money, propping up of Kabul Mayor Kharzai as a national leader, and searching for "moderate Taliban leaders" etc. will make any lasting difference.

After the health care debates/votes are finished in the U.S. Congress, the public's attention will be increasingly turned to the Afghanistan War and the surging casualties there.

President Obama's honeymoon is over.

It was easy to drive the Taliban out of major cities from eight years ago and send them high-tailing it for the mountains and safe havens in Pakistan. And then what?

Just listen to the Americans and do it our way-one size fits all!

There is no road map to any definable sort of "victory" in Afghanistan.

There never was.

More troops, more money, more lives lost...for what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boasting about the body count is starting to sound exactly like the 5 o'clock follies of the that other conflict in SE Asia, which was never even a declared war, just a conflict...

And timorborder - the Special Forces Support Group who took part are made of the 1 Para, Royal Marine Commandos from FPGRM, and the RAF Regiment, but are designated tier 2 Special Forces, along with, 18 Signals and Aviation Support. The Hereford hooligans, SBS and the SRR are tier 1 - direct action. 21 SAS, 23 SAS, SBS(R) and 63 (SAS) Signals are collectively termed UKSF(R) Reserves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For what? For not having to go back there in 5-10 years when they start building suicide camps again. Or, for when they move into Pakistan and start taking over.

And for those who say leave please provide an alternative? head in sand approach? not sure if you remember but this is where the suicide camps were located.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Special Forces Group made up of Paras and the RAF Regiment, that one has me quaking in my boots. Back in the day in the UK things were a lot simpler. All you had to do was grab the duty squadron and empty out the pubs down in Hereford, call up the Det and off they would go causing murder and mayhem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I stated elsewhere, a couple of allied troops equal a couple of dozen Taliban. This is Taliban arithmetic. The Taliban will recruit more children to fight its war and the outcome will still be the same. However, according to the terrorists all Taliban combatants have gone to heaven... to clean up the latrines. They'll then be sent off, after their duties, to the southern parts of Al-Janna to do more "janna"torial work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Afghans themselves need to fight for their own towns against the Taliban, just as Sunni Iraqis finally realized when they threw Al-Qaeda out of their towns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like Vietnam era body bag counts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"For what? For not having to go back there in 5-10 years when they start building suicide camps again. Or, for when they move into Pakistan and start taking over.

And for those who say leave please provide an alternative? head in sand approach? not sure if you remember but this is where the suicide camps were located."

Dano202: The Bush administration never made but a fraction of the commitment they needed to in Afghanistan, with predictable results 8 years later. Afghanistan was somewhat of a forgotten war after the initial "thrill of victory," and the later invasion of Iraq.

There was a time many years ago when I thought we could've done some good in Afghanistan, if we had focused our military and economic efforts on the country, instead of the misguided invasion of Iraq and waste of great amounts of treasure and human lives.

But then again, we have a long history from the second half of the 20th century of sticking our noses into things we don't understand, and coming out of them bloodied.

We never learn.

How can you think that we have the resources/public support to commit to what would be required to subdue the enemy in Afghanistan/Pakistan and rebuild Afghanistan?

Give me a ballpark figure of troops and time that would be required to achieve that elusive "victory?" And how does it end, Dano?

We're already on the way to being an occupying force, with all the negatives that entails.

Obama campaigned under the promise that the drawdown in Iraq over the next couple of years would save us billions of dollars each month. How would that be possible with a concurrent drastic increase in troop strength in Afghanistan? He won't be able to go back on such a promise, especially considering the ongoing dire economic situation in the U.S., and the reality that he would like to be re-elected in Nov. 2012.

We can no more win in Afghanistan than the British or the Soviets did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites