The Taliban--the hunted or the hunters.

[Lemon law]

In the deadliest single incident since 2005, this story details a multi pronged Taliban attack against a Nato force near the Pakistani border.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...Ej7OGf23fksxFPAPCs0NUE

I somewhat wonder, if the Taliban is becoming strong enough to actually seek out and destroy Nato foot Patrols. When formally Nato was a gunnin and it was the Taliban a running.
And the other question becomes, does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border? Certainly this incident did, but will this start to become typical for many parts of Afghanistan far from the Pakistani border before winter ramps violence down in 2008?

 

[fskimospy]

Definitely still the hunted by a country mile.

 

[Triumph]

Activity here has escalated noticeably in the last 2-3 months. There have been a number of downed helicopters, as well as multiple ambushes. Had a fallen comrade ceremony for 2 soldiers through the post just the other day (the caskets are carried from the mortuary to the flight line down the main strip on post), there is another one scheduled for tomorrow. But I haven't heard a good explanation yet for the increased activity.

 

[dahunan]

when will these cultures start legally punishing anyone who preaches or espouses violent Islam? Then and only then will they and the rest of the world be a safer place

 

[Lemon law]

How can Triumph ask-----------------But I haven't heard a good explanation yet for the increased activity.

The answer has got to be that the Nato occupation is losing ground year by year. More and more Taliban are coming back into Afghanistan for something on the order of five years now. And while I agree with eskimo spy that they are still the hunted, this is the first time I have seen them starting to be the hunters to this extent.

 

[Lemon law]

dahunan asks------when will these cultures start legally punishing anyone who preaches or espouses violent Islam?

Instead what you see is their culture is punishing anyone who practices violent Western Imperialism. And maybe quite rightfully so. After all, its their turf and their culture.

 

[Dari]

Repost Merged

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator


Seven years and what do we have to show for Afghanistan? An increase in heroin production. It's time we took the timid Europeans out of Afghanistan and turn it into a real war. Our soldiers are dying for nothing.

EDIT: And add Pakistan into the mix as well. They are one of the primary reasons why the Taliban is still around.

US suffers heavy Afghan losses

Nine US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, in one of the biggest losses of life in a single incident since operations there began in 2001.

The troops died when insurgents attacked a military outpost in the north-eastern province of Kunar, close to the border with Pakistan.

The fighting came as international and Afghan forces battled militants on several fronts.

One soldier from the US-led coalition was killed by a bomb in Helmand.

On Sunday, US forces said 40 insurgents had been killed in Helmand province in 24 hours.

Insurgents 'hiding'

A statement from Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said the nine were killed in several hours of fighting in a mountainous area in Kunar province.

It said 15 more Isaf soldiers were wounded along with four Afghan troops.

Isaf currently has 53,000 troops from 40 countries.

Insurgents used rockets, mortars and machine guns to attack the remote Afghan army and Nato outpost.

Isaf and Afghan National Army forces responded with small arms, machine guns, mortars and artillery, the statement said.

Fighter jets and Apache helicopters were also deployed. Reports quoting Afghan officials say there may also have been civilian casualties.

Nato says the rebels suffered heavy casualties. It did not name the attackers but there has been a sharp increase in Taleban attacks in the country, and in that region in particular.

The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says Afghanistan's north-eastern border with Pakistan is a well-known trouble spot.

The fighting is close to where US forces were accused of killing 47 civilians in an air strike in Nangarhar province a week ago.

The US military said they were militants.

In a separate incident on Sunday, a suicide bomber killed at least 21 people, many of them children, in a market in the Deh Rawud district of Uruzgan province.

No group has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing.

 

[JD50]

I'm sorry but as sad as it is that we lost 9 soldiers, if that is one of the worst incidents that have happened since 2001 I'd say that's pretty damn good. Seriously Non Lemon Law, we lose 9 guys and you're ready to pack it in and start running? We kill 40 of them, they kill 9 of us, and that means that we are the ones being hunted? That's kind of silly.

Non Lemon Law, you constantly post about Afghanistan as if you are an expert, and it's made me kind of curious. What do you do that makes you think that you know so much about Afghanistan? Have you been there, do you work for the DoD, do you work in the IC, etc...?

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: JD50
I'm sorry but as sad as it is that we lost 9 soldiers, if that is one of the worst incidents that have happened since 2001 I'd say that's pretty damn good. Seriously Non Lemon Law, we lose 9 guys and you're ready to pack it in and start running? We kill 40 of them, they kill 9 of us, and that means that we are the ones being hunted? That's kind of silly.

Non Lemon Law, you constantly post about Afghanistan as if you are an expert, and it's made me kind of curious. What do you do that makes you think that you know so much about Afghanistan? Have you been there, do you work for the DoD, do you work in the IC, etc...?

His experience, knowledge and reasoning regarding that subject is a moot point. A strawman. It's really more important to explore and clariffy how he feels. Then, and only then, may he critique what others do.

 

[Lemon law]

I do not claim to be a per say expert on Afghanistan, but I can't help but notice the failures, and then to go beyond that and ask why is Nato failing? I think I do have some perspectives from the same history books you are all free to read. And any idiot realizes a bad strategy that ignores historical forces and what the local people want and need will always fail. What part of our six years of results do any find likable? But then again, maybe you will want to find some people who work for the DOD to tells us all how we won the Vietnam war.

But in terms of this attack, its almost unprecedented, this was a multi pronged and sustained attack that lasted a very long time. And shows a degree of insurgent command and control not at all typical of the norm. The 2005 attack that killed 16 was based on one somewhat unfortunate RPG hit on a helicopter.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JD50
We kill 40 of them, they kill 9 of us, and that means that we are the ones being hunted? That's kind of silly.

Life is cheap for Afghanis. The Army's dollar investment to train/equip each soldier is into the millions; 9 of our soldiers is a much bigger loss than 40 of theirs.

 

[Lemon law]

I do not know where JD50 pulled 40 insurgents killed from, it was not in the link. But the expensive part may be the 15 US troops wounded, some of whom may require long terms care. And with four Afghan troops also wounded, the insurgents were attacking at least a Nato force of 28 and probably more.

But in this link and other links, 2008 Afghan insurgent losses are pegged at 2300 and some unknown number of those are collateral damage. And Pakistan pegs its soldiers killed at 1087 trying to rein in the Taliban on their side of the border. Conclusion, Nato troops are not going to have any easy time trying to put US boots on the ground on the Pakistani side of the border.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I do not know where JD50 pulled 40 insurgents killed from, it was not in the link. But the expensive part may be the 15 US troops wounded, some of whom may require long terms care. And with four Afghan troops also wounded, the insurgents were attacking at least a Nato force of 28 and probably more.

But in this link and other links, 2008 Afghan insurgent losses are pegged at 2300 and some unknown number of those are collateral damage. And Pakistan pegs its soldiers killed at 1087 trying to rein in the Taliban on their side of the border. Conclusion, Nato troops are not going to have any easy time trying to put US boots on the ground on the Pakistani side of the border.

Why?

Chuck

 

[jamesall]

This is stupid. We are already calling the Taliban hunter. Evertime when the Taliban attacks, their losses are great. It's like the news media labeling the Iraq war a quagmire just days into the war.

When the Coalition troops are running away and stop seaching to engage them, then I'll call the Taliban hunters.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
does it have all that much to do with the proximity to the Pakistani border?

you're g'damn right it does.

Not that you'll ever leave your couch to find out...

/thread.

 

[SlickSnake]

Unfortunately we need more bad news like this from Afghanistan to remind all the giddy war mongers why we are in the Middle East in the first place. We also have a whole new generation of teenagers ready to fight and die who really have no clue why we are even in the Middle East. More bad news like this from Afghanistan will certainly make them more aware of it. And with even more ongoing force reductions there, this fighting is just going to get worse. It will make defeating the Taliban kind of pointless if we just let them back in to take Afghanistan back over due to political and military apathy.

This is also a good example of why we should not leave multiple wars unfinished while going off half cocked and starting yet another war in Iran. If we were still fully manned in Afghanistan, this most likely wouldn't be happening there. Remember too that the Afghans actually welcomed us there to kick the Talibans ass.

However, the Iraqis have seen their situation worsen since we arrived there, not get better like in Afghanistan. Which is why our troops are now targeted there mercilessly. Which is also the number one reason why we need to leave Iraq. Let the U.N. try to police that political and ethnic quagmire. Even Saddam barely held on to power and avoided civil war because of all the ethnic, religious and political infighting. We did our job and got the nasty dictator out who wouldn't play ball with us, and now it's way past time to leave. Our continued occupation there will never make the ethnic races of the Iraqis love each other any more. It just makes our troops an easy target to focus their ingrained ethnic hatred on.

We need to send some troops back to Afghanistan for reinforcements against the Taliban insurgency, and send the majority of troops in Iraq back home where they belong. And let wacky Iran saber rattle all they want to. Iran is also ripe for a civil war, and we certainly don't need another Iraq military fiasco there. They just need to be cut off economically like North Korea until they self destruct from internal dissent. You cannot force an already divided country into a civil war militarily and expect to be seen as a conquering hero. Iraq should have proved that point already without a doubt.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
We kill 40 of them, they kill 9 of us, and that means that we are the ones being hunted? That's kind of silly.

Life is cheap for Afghanis. The Army's dollar investment to train/equip each soldier is into the millions; 9 of our soldiers is a much bigger loss than 40 of theirs.

Might want to think about rephrasing that point.

 

[Triumph]

9 draped caskets were rolled down the main strip here this morning. Word is that they were on their 14th month of their deployment, going home soon.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Triumph
9 draped caskets were rolled down the main strip here this morning. Word is that they were on their 14th month of their deployment, going home soon.

 

[lupi]

Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for Nato forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
How can Triumph ask-----------------But I haven't heard a good explanation yet for the increased activity.

The answer has got to be that the Nato occupation is losing ground year by year. More and more Taliban are coming back into Afghanistan for something on the order of five years now. And while I agree with eskimo spy that they are still the hunted, this is the first time I have seen them starting to be the hunters to this extent.

I'm not sure why you are confused by this question. When operations change there is more than a broad based reason for it. He's obviously on the ground in the area and something specific has changed. Is this the action of a combination of local groups working independently (taking advantage of presented opportunities) or is this a change of strategy for the Taliban as an organization? A military man would want to know these kinds of things because it matters.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for Nato forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

I'm curious as to how why you equate this with Tet?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for NATO forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

I'm curious as to how why you equate this with Tet?

Tet was considered to be a victory by the media for the NVA/VC.

Yet they lost 4-5 times the amount of people as did the US and did not accomplish control of any strategic ground.

It is no longer the fact that the enemy loses people and their attack is repelled; it is the fact that it is hyped up when US/allied personnel are killed.

Strategy & tactics are difficult to explain, analyze and understand. Therefore they are ignored.

The death count is a number that people can comprehend. And they can only provide the numbers that one wants to be viewed and do not detract from the intent of the story.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
We kill 40 of them, they kill 9 of us, and that means that we are the ones being hunted? That's kind of silly.

Life is cheap for Afghanis. The Army's dollar investment to train/equip each soldier is into the millions; 9 of our soldiers is a much bigger loss than 40 of theirs.

Might want to think about rephrasing that point.

I dont think he needs to rephrase it. I know exactly what it meant. It's the same reason we lost Vietnam, even though our kill ratio was like 10 to 1.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, a true tragedy for the western coalition. A defeat for Nato forces on the same magnitude as Tet was to the US.

Apples and oranges. And there's one salient difference: the U.S. could quit Vietnam in "defeat" and not worry about the consequences. The U.S. and it's allies don't have that luxury in Afghanistan (unless they want another 9/11 or worse at their doorstep). That is the prime reason that Afghanistan will be subdued, one way or another.