Sequel to Fallujah?
As I'm reading about the Marine-led NATO offensive in Afghanistan, I'm wondering if this represents the "new" counterinsurgency warfare, or is this just the basic combined arms "search and destroy" conventional approach that we saw in Iraq? From the NY Times:
The first large skirmish began at 9:30 a.m., as Second Platoon, the company headquarters and most of the Afghan platoon stopped at the edge of a small village and prepared to clear it. The Taliban opened up with automatic rifle fire from a few hundred yards away, shooting from concealed positions protected by open ground.
Marines and Afghan soldiers rushed to mud walls and returned fire. The Taliban’s fighters could be seen at times running between fighting positions and irrigation ditches. A few were struck by the Marines’ fire, and fell. Others kept up their fire. Bullets buzzed past the Marines.
------
Often, small groups of Taliban opened up from a different direction after the Marines had faced several minutes of fire. It was clear that the Taliban had ringed the company, and was probing and picking at the Marines as much of Company K moved toward a road and bridge that Captain Biggers intended to seize.
As the company spread out, the fighting moved with it. At times, two or three gun battles raged at once, including at the outposts where the Marines had left their equipment. The Taliban harassed and attacked these positions several times during the day.
-------
More than a half-hour later, after the fighting had subsided again, the Himars rocket barrage struck a nearby house, but not the one from which highly accurate fire had been holding the Marines against the wall.
Several Marines cursed. The wrong building had been hit. The company commander saw the children stream outside, ordered a cease-fire, and sent a patrol to go help.
Certainly there's the time and place to use conventional warfighting tactics to take on a large concentration of insurgents. Pretty sure that's in the COIN manual. But I feel like we're still fighting at the tactical/operational level, looking for short-term gains with no feasible long-term strategy to win and get out. It is encouraging that there are more Afghans involved in this joint operation than ever before, and word is that "development aid" is set up to follow into the province. But the "proof is in the tasting of the pudding," so they say. We'll watch and see what happens next.
. . . to counter the less than 100 members of Al Qaeda the Obama Administration contends are in Afghanistan?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
make that mendacity, of those sitting behind a desk covered with military history books guessing about a war going on 7,000 miles away in a terrain that they have not seen or been to! The taliban in Afghanistan are AFGHAN...Most are local and have been recruited because of economics not ideology! Al Qaeda are foreigners just like us!
There are more Afghans leading this than coalition forces! Notable is the fact that the intelligence on where to fire must come from the information on the ground! That means local --we have gutted our Dari-Pushtu speakers--in the clinton admin and Bush saw no need for them -as Afghanistan was a stepping stone to Iraq only!
Their govrnment is traditionally provincial and tribal --The imposed Kabul group[ Karzai et al] should remain small because they are corrupt and not trusted.
If this were from someone on the ground or someone who had at least been 'in country' like Filkins or Barnes --it would be different but this is so much BS!
. . . if there is no legitimate, democratically elected government for the "insurgents" to oppose?
Or are we just picking sides in a civil war?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
that's always been a sore point for me, you can't claim it's COIN if the hosting government isn't taking the lead as a legitimate and honest body. It's as if we're just ignoring the obvious or wishfully thinking it will change.
What a terrible, tragic decision by the Obama administration. What the hell are we doing there?
Afghanistan is not a country, in the modern sense.
We have no business being there, except the business of making the war profiteers richer than they already are.
End the 'wars', dismantle the perpetual war machine.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
We DO have business being there - and business is great!
Note: the war machine does not like being dismantled or tinkered with in any fashion.
Sequel to Vietnam.
This time we will be bankrupt.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
You can be assured that the American citizenry will not be accurately informed when the "liberal" point of view is represented by NBC (owned by war-profiteer GE).
So, are we going to wait two years then buy them off like before?
Man, empire gets so expensive. Good thing I'm not paying for this... Wait, what?
But it's hard to say exactly how much it's costing them. One thing is for sure - they'll get tired of playing Monopoly eventually and the reckoning won't be pretty.
Hello all, Id like to point out that this is not like fallujah. Fallujah was intense fighting for 2 weeks and it was a combination of dozens of different foreign fighters and the civilian death toll was incredibly high. We also went into fallujah not to establish a legitimate government but to effectively remove insurgents in that region. This is a bit more organized than fallujah. The fact that theirs a govt waiting to fill in the vacuum created from taliban control in the area and that civilians will immediately be helped from what we hope is a legitimate govt shows progress in the planning. Please trust that we take civilian deaths extremely serious and dont just say sorry and keep going. Civilian deaths hinder any progress that we can make and also progress that afghans can make as well. Death is a horrible thing especially when its due to human error. We arent perfect but for sure try our hardest to make sure its limited and correct our deficiencies. so please just be patient and if we do mess up call us on it but realize we are doing a lot of good things that go unreported ok
LT
While as many as 15,000 troops are taking part in the US-led assault, US military estimates of the opposing force ranged from 1,000 to as few as 150. According to a “senior defense official” who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, more than 75 percent of the guerrilla fighters in Marjah are local residents, making it easy for them to blend in and return to the fight under more favorable circumstances. The figure also demonstrates that the label “Taliban” is being applied indiscriminately to any Afghan who takes up arms against the foreign occupation force.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/afg...
Karzai? If so, then the definition of "legitimate" has expanded beyond any real meaning.
Why are we there?
When can we leave?
Without strong answers to both these questions it's just more war for war's sake.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
of course we know that Karzai isnt the best but hes all we have and all they have. until they elect someone new what else do you suggest? if the country can have govt reach into pockets of populace that it never has before it allows for the govt to at least start off on the right foot and whats to say that maybe some of those tribal leaders dont get involved and eventually become more legitimate govt leaders?
We are there to keep a nation from coming a failed nation and protecting millions of innocent people from a pretty brutal gang and ideology.
We can leave when we reach some political stability in that nation.
LT
I think you may have mixed up your wars-for-profit. That was the explanation for Iraq after WMD and the 9/11 connections were exposed for the lies they were.
Or has this become a standard fall-back excuse for any otherwise unjustifiable war?
Also, have you asked any of the "millions of innocent people" how they feel about being bombed and occupied for their own good?
"We bomb because we care." is right up there with "Change we can believe in."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
trust me i feel what youre saying, war is hell period point blank end of discussion i dont debate that. Do i think war is necessary, Honestly if the two groups see it as the last result to further their agendas then thats on them. I dont wish to make any excuses for Iraq or Afghanistan or our reasons for being there and I wish we had used better judgement of it all. And i have had the opportunity to work along side many afghan and iraqi's. And they are divided just like we are on the issue. and naturally they dont want bombs dropped on them or seeing their brothers sisters friends killed. My hope is that we leave once their is little more we can effectively change for the better
LT
They did elect someone else, but the vote was rigged. This is a war between heroin smugglers and religious fanatics. We are on the side of the heroin smugglers.
I'd almost forgotten: Which Karzai are we supporting?
Hamid Karzai, the fraudulently elected president, or his brother, Ahmed Wali Kharzai, the CIA paid narcotics dealer?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You are right i dont contest that. as far as the rigged election. I dont believe we are on the side of the smugglers though
LT
From Global Research:
As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled --through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies--, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath:
"Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan', said a US intelligence officer. ("The Dirtiest Bank of All," Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22.)
Researcher Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA's covert operation in Afghanistan in 1979,
"the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation."
"CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.
U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there. In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. 'Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,' I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'"(McCoy, op cit)
because there will be, and can be, no "political stability" in Afghanistan under foreign occupation.
Can you give an historical example of a nation that started out with a completely corrupt government that morphed into a legitimate one???
And maybe you've been asleep the past 8 years but most people are aware that the invasion of Afghanistan CREATED a failed state.
I fear that you have no historical perspective on Afghanistan - when was the last time that the country was not a failed state? It's been a minimum of 35 years, and that's being GENEROUS. I'd be more apt to say close to 100 years.
You may disagree with the current war there, but your history can't just be made up.
I agree foreign occupation does not breed political stability. it makes it more difficult for groups to unite, however if we can eliminate pockets of rebel groups that will use any attempt of unity against the populace why not do so.
Ive not been asleep. I understand youre passion and anger im not dismissing it and I dont want to be in war either. But if we can at least educate some of the afghan populace to higher than an 8th grade level we have made great progress
LT
maybe we could spend our money more effectively for Americans by educating the American populace.
The only question is how to effectively involve the Pentagon in the American education system.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Simple. You do it by taking a portion of the pentagons funding and moving it into the education system so that there is enough money for every kid with a 2.5 GPA to go to college if they want to. We don't seem to want to invest in our children as much as we want to invest in "defence" corporations though. Sad really.
well we got the pentagon looking into climate change i dont see why they cant look into educating the american populace
LT
Well, because everytime we try to invest in the American people it is called an entitlement program. The wealthy want to maintain their childrens advantages at the expence of everybody even themselves in the long run.
thats a good point i dont disagree.
LT
Seems like they tried to elect someone new the last time but the elections were rigged. So we are now the army of an illigitimate corrupt government consolidating its power by force in a tribaly fractured area. So the idea is we put our boot on their necks and eventually they will die or tire of fighting and except Karzai. Sounds like a long expensive slog that will cost a lot and acomplish little for the people of the USA. And damn that picture at the top of the page looks very similar to photos from Viet Nam 40 years ago
if you have any suggestions of how to deal with karzai and his ineptness hen please bring them forward. we are there and we can at least leave them with something better than they started with.
LT
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I dont disagree with youre statement.
LT
As with all clusterfucks like this once we have entered there are not really any right answers. You are right that it would be nice to leave something better than what they started with but I could say that about every third world country. why don't we make things all honkey dory in Sudan or Burma. My suggestion was not to go in in the first place. I recall the Taliban government offered us Bin Laden if he would get a fair trial at a neutral site. Was our case that week that we couldn't get a conviction. Or we could have done special forces op and get him when we had good intel instead of raining cruise missles down on the compound. Now the cats out of the bag and like I said above a total clusterfuck.
I hope someday we can do something in sudan darfur burma all of those nations that truly cry out for help. Talking about an actual genocide in some of those nations is beyond comprehension. Im not entirely up on my bin laden knowledge so i cant confirm or deny your comment but i will at least read into it now that you mentioned it
LT
Here's a link. I had to look it up. I just remembered it from way back at the time. Looks like they just wanted some evidence and then they were prepared to hand him over to a third nation. Did Bush just want to get his UNICAL guy Karzai put in place? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/a...
After the last "surge" in Vietnam, Nixon said we won and got the hell out of there. His administration was a criminal enterprise the likes of which we didn't see for another several decades, but that war was over!
Proud DFH, emeritus!
Jason, the sooner you right wingers understand that there is no "win" to be had in Afghanistan the sooner we can get the hell out of there.
I feel it is my patriotic duty to volunteer to escort any pallets of $100 bills that will be used to pacify the populace. To further show my patriotism, I will not charge for my services, and will provide a cleanup service.
wait so a lot of the people we consider "insurgents" or "terrorists" by now are people taking up arms to defend their homes right?
this is what happens when you are fighting in areas that have civilian populations
it wasnt an error of the machinery...it was human error
What are Naval Infantry units doing fighting in a landlocked country?
THE ANSWER IS:
Seeking what the Marines always seek- good PR.
We cannot afford two armies and someone needs to take the Marines planes and tanks away and tell them to get back on the ship.
Comments are closed on this entry