Warfighters Forum
Opinions
MilBlogs
Podcasts
Discussions
US Troops Leave Base Where 9 Died
July 16, 2008
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S. and Afghan troops have abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine American Soldiers this week, officials said July 16.
Compounding the military setback, insurgents quickly seized the village of Wanat in Nuristan province after driving out the handful of police left behind to defend government offices, Afghan officials said.
Some 50 officers were headed to the area to try to regain control, said Ghoolam Farouq, a senior provincial police official.
The July 13 attack by some 200 militants armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars was the deadliest for the U.S. military in Afghanistan in three years. Rebels fought their way into the newly established base, wounding another 15 Americans and suffering heavy casualties of their own, before the defenders and warplanes could drive them back.
The assault underlined how Islamic militants appear to be gaining strength nearly eight years after the ouster of the Taliban, and the difficulties facing foreign and Afghan forces trying to defeat them.
NATO said the post, which lies amid precipitous mountains close to the Pakistan border, had been vacated, but insisted that international and Afghan troops will "retain a strong presence in that area with patrolling and other means."
"We are committed, now more than ever, to establishing a secure environment that will allow even greater opportunities for development and a stronger Afghan governmental influence," NATO spokesman Capt. MikeFinney said.
Omar Sami, spokesman for the Nuristan provincial governor, said American and Afghan soldiers quit the base on July 15. He said they took the district mayor with them.
Sami said U.S. troops armed local police with more than 20 guns before they left, but that the officers had fled the village and crossed into neighboring Kunar province when 100 militants moved into Wanat.
In other violence reported July 16, a suicide bombing and a series of clashes left at least 12 Taliban militants and one civilian dead.
The Kandahar governor said eight militants were killed in the southern province's Khakrez district in the past two days. A regional Taliban commander, Mullah Mahmoud, who controlled about 250 fighters, was among the dead, NATO said.
Police said the suicide bomber attacked one of their patrols in Lashkar Gah, the capital of neighboring Helmand province, killing a civilian and wounding six other people, including a policeman.
In eastern Paktika province, police said four militants planning attacks on supply trucks were killed in an airstrike early July 16.
© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Digg | del.icio.us Add Your Comment:Visit the Discussion Forum
avnrulz Jul 16, 2008 7:37:57 AM Unfortunately, it looks like the tactics of the VC and the NVA are being used. I hope this is just a tactical withdrawal, otherwise this will only serve to embolden the militant. The headlines should reported how many militants died instead, to show how many of them we took out in defense of the base.
6362250 Jul 16, 2008 7:48:54 AM WTF??!?!?!
Was this a NATO Decision not a US Command Decision?
What ever happened to "Find, Fix and F*ckem up!" ?
Unless they plan on dropping a ton of bombs on the area, Why give the Militants the Victory of closing down the base? All that did was pump them up and give them more propaganda? And demoralize our own troops with a loss?
Now they know where they are at, they could start more aggressive patrols and combat missions...better planned and better supported (Heck guys, ya know their there!)
Or was this just a poorly planned outpost with no supporting elements committed to it to do a "Lets see what happens if" deal?
Since when does the US Army give up territory?
Gawd this is enough to make a preacher cuss!
By The Way...Ooh Rah to the Soldiers that fought and kicked azz during that fight! And prayers and support to the families of the fallen...
4143091 Jul 16, 2008 7:50:15 AM As General Patton said...."Never pay for the same real-estate twice"!
Blue87GT Jul 16, 2008 7:51:45 AM Good or not--I don't know. Funny that the village that directly supported the Taliban rebels during this attack have now been taken over by those same rebels.
Tanks35 Jul 16, 2008 7:52:11 AM It seems that the insurgents are beating us at our own game, at least that's how it reads. Fight on and expect a higher death toll or leave! Where's the counter attack? Where is the over whelming air support? Git er done or git out.
Tanks
TPCAT Jul 16, 2008 7:55:37 AM I remember back when, whenever areas in Vietnam had to be evacuated, or our presence there scaled down, the South Vietnamese Army was going to "retain a presence in the area, usually a strong presence. . ." Then we never heard any more about it. Disappeared from the news right along with them. I'm afraid I just don't have a lot of faith in the capabilities of the Afghan Army . ..
TPCAT Jul 16, 2008 7:57:38 AM Tanks, you've sure got that one right. But then, I'm afraid I think that once we've got it done, the militants will just move right back in when we're not there to keep 'em out. It's been an "on going situation there for about 5000 years.
merc60 Jul 16, 2008 8:03:55 AM OMG! im speechless (for once)
4143091: good quote!!
ELGATO455 Jul 16, 2008 8:08:24 AM I SAY KILL THEM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT. THE IDIOTS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER, ANYWAY
dat123 Jul 16, 2008 8:21:05 AM What the ?? what the heck are we running, that pisses me off, We are going to stand back and let the enemy move right in? sounds kinda counter productive!!
msgt.dave
SXYMARINESWIFE Jul 16, 2008 8:22:34 AM Hmm something just rings a little too fake on this. But then I guess this is what passes for journalism these days. I highly doubt the US troops just up and ran away.
ctcwilson Jul 16, 2008 8:22:49 AM Okay.. enough! Why was immediate air cover NOT provided to our troops when these effing sub-human towel heads attacked our men at that remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan??? This can be deployed and on the scene in effing minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is the GD prepardness!!???? GD heads should roll on this one!! One of our men cannot be replaced by 1,000,000 of those worthless pieces of crap who have for 7000 years been wandering around that area on the back of camels murdering each other!! If we are to remain there, as we should, then those in command should shave or the F away from the mirror!! This is enough to **** anybody!!! Give me an effing break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ECDeerfield Jul 16, 2008 8:22:50 AM I don't believe moving out was the answer. You see how fast they moved in to take over. We don't cut and run, we send in reinforcements to kill those people. You cannot allow them to take territory. I wonder whose bright idea that was.
If someone attacks, you meet them head-on and call for back-up. Maybe these Officers in charge need a refreshment course.What an insult to those killed.
ordmate Jul 16, 2008 8:30:16 AM How rae we ever going to win if we abondon a village everytime we get our butt kicked. One little firefight and COMMAND say's let's quit. Why were there no reliefe forces sent. I don't understand any of this. Wish I knew the whole story.
venom034 Jul 16, 2008 8:32:57 AM What if you were to find out that we left the area appearing to be defeated, but in fact booby trapped it with listening and tracking devices as well as incendiary explosives? Would that change how you all felt about the move? Remember that we are dealing with radical extremists who are fighting us and considering us to be very predictable. I think we need to mix it up with a few surprises if we are ever going to defeat them. Semper Fidelis.
DOCMCC Jul 16, 2008 8:33:46 AM Now destroy the base camp with them in it.
Navybrat111 Jul 16, 2008 8:42:44 AM Isn't Mullah Mahmoud the one who ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan? If so, this is really good news. Why is it OBW mentioned deep within AP article?
inquisitive50 Jul 16, 2008 8:48:36 AM had we not gotten arrogant and diverted our attention to Iraq, we would have stayed and focused on the taliban. We should have made sure they were gone, helped reestablish the country to the point of where they could keep the taliban out.
AFWP Jul 16, 2008 8:50:25 AM "...insurgents quickly seized the village of Wanat in Nuristan province after driving out the handful of police left behind to defend government offices...>
This is definitely a grim reminder of the headway still to be made with training and preparing the men who will take over for our troops whenever we eventually pull out of there.
JRJ65 Jul 16, 2008 8:57:30 AM I like DOCMCC's idea. They should have booby-trapped the base to kill the insurgents who moved in after our Soldiers left. Then they should have just bombed the rest until there was nothing left.
ankhepleiku6970 Jul 16, 2008 9:02:17 AM this sounds like vietnam,but it is not it's worst. the only thing is, wheres the f--ing resolve too get these bastards that attack the U.S.A. not only on 9-11 but on numerous other times, one thing is for sure their not in Iraq.
C130AE Jul 16, 2008 9:02:26 AM why are the commamders not reading their history and studying older tactics. This is what is going on. Fall back and just call in a nice gentle steel rain then come back.
tim4day Jul 16, 2008 9:04:03 AM This is the worst president that could be set, as if it was bad enough that nato doesn't leave there FOB's now we get punched in the nose and we run away,Bad bad move.
DShirley Jul 16, 2008 9:07:36 AM We can gain headway in this issue if we hit the villages and camps on the other side of the border in Pakistan....we need to move from the defense to the offense....but of course, this requires more NATO and American forces....something we seem to not be able to provide enough of....Afghanistan continues to be an economy of force action while Iraq continues to draw major resources....DON'T EXPECT VICTORY ANYTIME SOON
FS21749TO51 Jul 16, 2008 9:12:20 AM THATS,, IT;; FOR GODS SAKE, THE WIVES, DADS, MOMS, AND THE CHILDREN, OF ALL, THE TROOPS OVER THERE,, JUST PACK UP THERE GEAR,LEAVE SOME''; AMMO FOR THE SAND JOCKIES, AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE, AND GET THE TROOPS OUT OF ,,IRAC, ALSO;;
LET THEM FIGHT THERE OWN WAR, AND KILL THEMSELVES ALL THEY WANT, THEY ARE GONNA DO IT ANYWAY;; FOR GODS SAKE DON'T LET THIS WAR IN THE FAR EAST BE A '' FOREVER'' WAR;; WE HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO SOLVE THE FUEL, AND HOUSEING, AND ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS OVER HERE, SO WHY THE HELL ARE WE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE;; NOW I AM ;;MAD;;
merc60 Jul 16, 2008 9:13:03 AM venom034: i thought about this but it makes to much sense. then: we cant leave behind "injuring" booby traps cause it might hurt some one.
Somalivet Jul 16, 2008 9:20:41 AM The fact that the press won't report how many of the enemy were killed but will report how many US troops were killed shows where their bias lies. That simple omission resulted in a public outcry over the Mogadishu operation where we lost 7 men but killed over 2500 Somali's. That is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, also known as treason.
kennyc Jul 16, 2008 9:48:51 AM Not even page one in the news. The economy and the election far overshadowed this attack.I think we need to figure out where things broke down on the intell side because we cannot afford many days like that one. As always the bravery of our brothers saved the day. God bless all of them!
18476586 Jul 16, 2008 9:50:21 AM So in other words, the United States was defeated.....WTF kind of defeatist attitude does out President promote now??
jrichcarp1 Jul 16, 2008 9:55:55 AM Don't the 'daisy buster' work on the rock piles of Afgh?
rkgtactical Jul 16, 2008 10:01:16 AM Some of you guys are as bad as the media. You don't have a clue and you don't know sheet. There is know sense even explaining it.
bernieGrado Jul 16, 2008 10:05:56 AM Why dont we do what Truman did to Japan, and drop a bomb (if you know what I mean) and let them know just who in the hell they messing with ?
bernieGrado Jul 16, 2008 10:11:54 AM It didn't make a difference to them to come over here and kill thousands of inocent hard working people,so lets return the flavor and pick up where Truman left off and just drop a bomb on their f-kn a-s, and get this sht over with.
kellydavissr Jul 16, 2008 10:12:08 AM This is not the way to win a war, I don't know why they left this outpost, above my echelon, but when you set up shop and establish a relationship with a village and get info from them on the where abouts of the taliban you became there KEEPER (PROTECTOR). We went into Afganistan and have done a Fantastic job helping alot of villages. but to pull out of a village or area, allows all the work and sweat,tears and Blood to go in vain. I lost three of my friends there. We can not back down we need to push harder then ever before. We can not repeat history we can not let our grandchildren fight this fight it is our job our responsibility. can somene tell that to the next President We have to finish this. Thanks
destruction Jul 16, 2008 10:12:51 AM What the hell is NATO doing?! Call in supporting arms, put the Taliban back on thier heels and take back that village and establish a garrison that can repel any enemy force. Start bombing the training camps in Pakistan! We have to control that valley and if it means sparking a international incedent, so be it! The Paks are not going to NUKE us for killing the radicals they have no control over. And why didn't the news say how many bad guys were KIA instead of saying we ran away with our tails inbetween our legs!
TPCAT Jul 16, 2008 10:19:55 AM Good sense from you as always RG. Trouble is nobody will take any notice. They'd just rather believe what they believe. You hang in there though . . .and keep kicking butt. Hope your day's going fine. Mine's going.
WangenRB Jul 16, 2008 10:20:48 AM I guess I don't get it. We beat off an attack by over 200 terrorists with a loss of less than a rifle squad killed and less than a platoon wounded and then we quit?!
Why didn't we stay there as a thorn in their side and continue to force them into the open where we can kill them more easily?
sadanzig Jul 16, 2008 10:21:54 AM HI:
This tragic battle with 9 marines & 15 wounded
is only the beginning of a heated battle in Afghanistan. Unfortunately far too many do not
know the history of Afghanistan and especially the
Russian-Afghan War of 1979 to 1989. Because our so
called political experts who in reality are historic
illiterates are now gearing up for another losing
debacle as in Vietnam. Thanks to Ronald Reagan's
foreign policy debacles in Lebanon and in the Russo-Afghan war of 1979 , we have current political leaders again repeating the same
mistakes. The British lost 3 wars in the 19th
century with dire consequences. They finally got
smart & used clever diplomacy. Seeing the military
option is a no win they negiotated a political
solution. They ,in agreement , licensed farmers
to grow opium and bought their production. Used
what was needed for the medical purposes & destroyed the rest.This made everyone happy and
stopped the non-sensical fighting. We should do
the same. Wasting $18billion to fund the war with
not enough troops is absurd!!! None in history
has conquerod Afghanistan ,so what do you think
we can. The terrain is ideal for insurgent warfare. They are well financed by Iran & the
Saudis. With that backing you can never win!!!!
As a brief review, Afghanistan got its freedom
in 1919 from the League of Nations Mandate. No
nation was interested in this wasteland called
Afghanistan except one. Soviet Russia supplied
money & weapons. Thus it became a de facto Russian
satellite!!!! In 1979 Premier Brezhenov , wanted
to make some changes and fatally pushed the Army
to invade. after the death of 3 premiers, Gorbachev made a deal with the UN to leave.
From 1984 to 1989 Reagan & his disengenious CIA
Director Bill Casey supplied the insurgents based
inside Pakistan with money, supplies, and above all the famous stinger missles which destroyed
the Russian control of the skies. At this point in 1989, the Warlords, insurgent leaders(al Qaida,
Taliban,etc.) worked as a well run team. While the
Russians were evacuating Afghanistan, the insurgents decided to change from guerilla tactics to a linear battle plan. At this juncture
Reagan & Casey were not interested. Inside the
training camps they blew up all the weapons,munitions, and supplies leaving the Insurgents in the lurch!!!! The Insurgents went ahead and invaded Afghanistan & got creamed but
good. The Russians had left plenty of military
supplies to protect themselves!!!! Oasma bin
Laden, a no fan of America, became incensed by
this & vowed to get even. The first attempt on the World Trade Center in 1993 failed, but the
one in 9-11-2001 they succeeded. They have been
attacking us ever since where feasible. In
summation, our blundering foreign policies have
brought this wrath on ourselves. The best option
after a 8 year debacle of Texas Cowboy military
policy, is to leave both Afghanistan & Iraq.
There is nothing at this point in time to gain
any resolution. Our military has been emasculated
and if remaining much longer will implode with
dire consequences. The hell will your pride &
brovado!!!! We haven't won a conflict since WWII.
All other military actions have been based on
foreign political blunders and will keep doing so if we keep electing mediorce presidents. All this
Commander-in -chief capability is pure garbage.
Get over it and get on with ending this mess.
SaDanzig
DWZSF Jul 16, 2008 10:29:38 AM Why am I not surprised by all of this.....
Webster5 Jul 16, 2008 10:30:45 AM We should have daid how many militants died!! they should never leave a handful of our men any where. AND f**k NATO it is the US command who is in charge. WAe should be the only ones calling the shots with the britts I dont see any French **** out the DIEING
Webster5 Jul 16, 2008 10:35:00 AM We should never have left just a few men there. AND F**k NATO. We are Americans our husbands are the ones dieing and fighting. I dont see any FRENCH SISSIES out there.
Marine Wife
TPCAT Jul 16, 2008 10:35:21 AM France doesn't belong to NATO, Web . ..DeGaulle took them out in the 50's I think. And it is, I think, a "joint" command. Not perhaps the best way forward, but then that's the way NATO do things. Leadership by Committee.
FFE203mm Jul 16, 2008 10:35:29 AM Good 'ol AP story. I wonder what the real story was, that the UN/NATO made the call? Besides, NATO is a defunct EU command that is so politically (in)correct that it makes the REAL warriors ticked! Where was the arty fire? We could have really done damage even with mortars.
Jeff82Abn Jul 16, 2008 10:44:57 AM Wrong answer. Who the "h" is making decisions over there? We need to get serious with Pakistan or we'll repeat the Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos "borders = sanctuary" BS.
Shotgun49 Jul 16, 2008 10:52:27 AM This is a classic COIN warfare situation, which unfortunately, was won by the insurgents in this case. As soon as we put a presence into their AOP, they staged a typical hit & run raid, the objectives of which are usually 1) to demonstrate that they are a significant and popular force in their AOP, 2) to demonstrate that they can win (or at least that they can hurt US/NATO forces significantly), 3) to convince/coerce the local populace (the villagers in Wanat) to support them and at least passively oppose us, and 4) to give them, rather than us, perceived legitimacy as the "real," and rightful, government in the area. The villagers are caught in a classic COIN dilemma. They will be killed by the rebels if they support us, but may be killed by us if they support the rebels. This happened all the time in Viet Nam, also in Iraq. Petraeus is right, and we ought to use his plan here too. First, we have to secure the area for the villagers, so that they know that they cannot be terrorized effectively by the rebels. That resolves their dilemma. If we believe the villagers will show a preference for our own way of govt, with a high degree of personal freedom and responsibility, then we should assume that the villagers will support us rather than the rebels, once the severe threat of retaliation by rebels is minimized or removed. To do this requires that we have adequate forces in the immediate area, that is, close enough to know when rebels are threatening, and to respond with sufficient force to stop them before they succeed in terrorizing the villagers. This typically means we must have an FOB with a QRF ready to go all the time, within a few minutes of the village. Until we are able to develop adequate indigenous HUMINT sources in the village, it probably requires that we have a small tripwire force in the village itself, living with the villagers and becoming known as their friends and neighbors. They need to begin to believe in the USMC slogan about there being "No better friend, no worse enemy," than the NATO forces. This requires that we refrain from putting any kind of base into an area before we are committed to developing and defending the area. If this had simply been an ambush of US/NATO forces patrolling in the area, it would have served for recon puroses of finding the bad guys and determining which villages we need to move into, without the bad PR (for us) of looking like we got "thrown out" of the area by the rebels. The fundamental issue is that we should never move into bases in an area until we have decided that it is a strategic area we need to develop, and once we do that, we cannot leave until the area is adequately policed and secured by the friendly indigenous population. That's what happened in Iraq, and that was the purpose of the "surge." We needed to put enough troops into the area to provide adequate security to the population until they were able to provide it for themselves. They are also a very religious, tribal, society with no real democratic history or traditions. They seem to have caught on to , and liked, our idea about personal freedom and responsibility, and democratic govt pretty fast,once they were no longer worried about getting killed at any moment by "rebels" or "insurgents." There is no reason the same thing shouldn't happen in Afghanistan as well. But it is absolutely critical that we never put bases into an area we have not already determined we are going to hold no matter what. An if, God forbid, we do get over run and thrown out of a base, we MUST immeidately go back in and re-establish it, so the local populace will know we are both able and willig to do whatever is necessary to protect them. Anywhere we are not willing or able to do this, we should not take over any real estate. It would be more reasonable to think of our role in this kind of warfare as similar to that of the "good" gunslingers in the old western movie "The Magnificent Seven," than to think of it in terms of how WWII was waged.
cpohl1976 Jul 16, 2008 10:56:01 AM 88mtakenoprisoners
We need more troops in Afganistan before the end
of the year. We know the cordinates UAV and some
Cluster bomb will push them back. I excpect to
see this on Shock & Awe.HOOAH
eyesight01 Jul 16, 2008 10:57:00 AM "Some of you guys are as bad as the media. You don't have a clue and you don't know sheet. There is know sense even explaining it."
I have to agree with you rkgtactical. We are in a tough situation there. One over flight of that terrain and it becomes most apparent it is very easy to defend and next to impossible to go on the offensive in it. CAP is next to impossible, narrow passes, poor weather conditions, with no place to bring in hooks for resupply. We are resupplying and supporting troops a half a world away. They are in their own backyard. Most of them have never been more that 5 miles from the place where they were born. We have a minimum of over $135,000.00 invested in every person in our military. The opposing force has less than $25 invested each one of their personnel. We tried saturation bombing in Vietnam with very little success. The economics of destroying bamboo villages just didn't work out. What would be the intent here? Blow an entire mountain range flat? Then move on to the next mountain range. Round the clock bombing might get it done in this century. Radiation moves in straight lines and won't go through mountains. It's an area denial weapon. Every nuke we own dumped in there might get a few. Most of the radio active particulate would go up into the jet steam and come down on the rest of the world including us. We are looking at a large complex area to fight a military action in. Many armies have tried it. After several years they lost support from their own country. They picked up and left.
timr2313 Jul 16, 2008 10:58:07 AM 6362550-your question; Since when does the Army give up territory? The answer is, of course, the entire Vietnam war. Remember when body counts were king and territory mattered not at all? Examples too numerous to mention.
This is begining to sund like the Vietnam war all over again. Except for the fact that high command apparently learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam. Remember when success in battle was measured by the number of enemy dead? I am not sure if they did make a rule about this, but I don't remember reading anywhere about numbers of enemy dead. Am I wrong on this? So, while we can't hold terrority-due, I think, to the low numbers of troops(one more reason to get out of Iraq) in A'stan-what we are currently doing reminds me way to much about Vietnam. So I was a REMF, I can read, and my current library on the ins and outs of Vietnam combat numbers over 300 books-yes I have read them all-one thing stands out. In an Army report dated 1986, it was found that that the NVA/VC initiated 80-90% of all contacts, mostly ambushes. There was no way that the US could have won in Vietnam-this once more according to the US Army and lessons learned. The reason we were set up to fail was the strategy that Westmoreland used. Granted the USMC objected, and set up their own strategy in their AO. They were also doomed to failure because they did not have enough time, or troops. One of the other reasons given for the failure in Vietnam was the habit of rotating all ranks, but esp officers too quickly. No unit cohesion existed after the first year or two of the war because of this-This the Army and the USMC fixed by keeping units together, and stopping the quick transfer of officers. Still another reason was the micromanagement of the battlefield by field grade officers hovering over the battle in their command helicopters, sometimes up to 2-3 layers of command trying to tell the OIC on the ground what to do. That same thing seems to be happening once more in Iraq, except that now all the command levels are seated comfortably in a command post with access to either UAV video, or Stryker(sp?) data link. I don't think that this can be a good thing.
Back to the subject, in A'stan the distances are long, the mountains are high, sometimes blocking radio signals-unless they have satellite radio- then of course you have command confusion, as everyone wants to tell those on the ground what to do. Why they waited to bring in attack A/C, could be many operational reasons. Night, low clouds, fog. I-I have a single and multi engine pilots license, with instrument rating, and over 3000 hours since the early 1970's, over 700 hours flying in and around the mountains in Northern California and Nevada-would not want to be flying around all those mountains when I did not have good visability. Helicopters have their own problems, Blackhawks, and attack helio's have got an altitude problem-service ceiling-so do jet fighters, tho not as severe. In the end it seems to me to be to much like the return of the Vietnam war-borders we can't cross, but the enemy can- Hit and run tactics-getting territory, but leaving right away-bombing the wrong targets-can anyone else think of any I am missing? Didn't we learn how not to fight a war 30 years ago? Why are we falling into the same trap as before?
saucker Jul 16, 2008 11:08:26 AM Muslim and Arab culture has historically through tribal in=fighting or "Jihad" eliminated resistance to their will by killing every man-woman- and child associated with their enemies, real or percieved.
That said, if we are to prevail for the next 250 to 500 years in any country or area that hosts a suficient number of Muslims/Arabs, we will have to do that which they understand as force. If we do not have the stumach for this, then we will be playing a game of "Mexican Stand Off" until we run out of people or money or both.
To embrace any other "Rules of Engagement" with persons of this ilk is plain foolhearty, flawed logic.
Political correctness has reached the level of art form in the USA so as to strangle us daily. If we do not rise up and rid ourselves of those who would lead us down the path of ruin, we are lost indeed.
Erichs Jul 16, 2008 11:09:14 AM We'll be back don't worry. Seems we have gotten close to a tender spot which needs a different approach. I wonder if Osama is close by. sounds like a great place to hide. Very remote and difficult terrain. Think of it as surgically removing a giant tumor.
Yes our sacrifices spell out reasons which then dictate the proper tactics.
cpohl1976 Jul 16, 2008 11:13:39 AM 88mtakenoprisoners
That one is a good idea to bomb the training
camps.
DEANEGILMOUR Jul 16, 2008 11:24:21 AM Politics as usual. "Take that hill, set up defenseive perimeters, set up an HQ bunker, now hold it. OhOh we lost men in an attack and the locals did little or nothing to help, WE HAVE TO PULL BACK AND REGROUP!" A few months goes by and lo and behold we get the orders to go in after the enemy has re-enforced our base we left and we have to re-take it. "But, Sir, didn't we do this just 8 months ago and now we have to go back in with another expected 20% casualties?" "Master Sgt. ours is not to make the policy or define operations, ours is to do or Die, and methinks the politicians think we are on a level battle zone, easily accessible with our ADVANCED technology and our orders will be carried out easily fighting these shadows, but we do not make the policy or define the operation, only DO OR DIE, thats what we signed up for." But Colonel, aren't we supposed to make them die and not ourselves?" "Master Sgt, for the last time, that is our motto and modus opererindi, Remember that the military is run by the civilians we elect to office and they know better how to fight a war, or a skirmish better than we. Now give your men the directive and saddle up. You leave at 0600 after the 20 rounds of arty lifts and pray they hit the target well. By the way, there will be no aerial support since the enemy has moved all the civilian population into and around the base and we cannot stand the collateral damage in the press or the Congress. (pvt in the breifing of the troops) "Top, why don't we let the congress come over here and fight just one of these skirmishes?" "Who said that? It borders on mutiny. Besdies we are the ones trained to search out and destroy the enemy, the Congress and the civilians know better how to fight a battle. Get your gear, go see the Padre, and get some rest. It is now 2200 hours and we roust out and saddle up at 0400 for an 0600 departure. Helos will drop us about 2 miles from the battle point and we have to walk in across the ridgeline with the element of surprise." (reporter in the back of the tent to himself..."Wow, this is great news, got to get on the satelitte phone immediately before the word goes out, and some one else beats me to the breaking news. Might be another promotion in this!")
Four days later:
"AP reported today that the massive operation referred to four days ago has killed 50
Taliban insurgents, 2 reported civilians, and taken 35% casualties, among them 8 dead and the operation had to pull back do to overwhelming rocket propelled grenades and flanking fire from the hills. Unnamed source in the attacking U.S. forces was heard to comment that the operation was a reccuring nightmare told of to him by his Dad, from Nam. The AP correspondent is still attempting to find the name and rank of this person for a follow up report"
And thus it goes, over and over again. We train the best forces in history to take objectives and hold for time immemorial, give it back, retake it, give it back, etc., etc.. And still the politicians have no clue as to why we can't hold the objective as they spout off their mouths to the press and blame others for the deaths and destruction and the use of monies to defend our Nation and way off life. the civilians can't get ot the mall without spending $50.00 in fuel to get their so they can but the trinkets that put them in the awe of their neighbors and blame the war for all the ills that befall them as they spout off their political rhetoric to the local press looking for ratings. And, Yet, there still comes that TWO PERCENT that still believes their oathes, and their "duty", to protect the Constitution, the Nation ,the People, the Freedoms. The same oathes given by those politicians that give up critical information, protect the insurgency with the Geneva Accords that they never signed or became party to, lambast the other side of the aisle for the debacles in battles they authorized and demanded participation from that "lowly", "uneducated, "no choice", "depressed" TWO PERCENT (true patriots of the Revolutionary calibre). Genral Giap is still wondering "how in the hell did we win", when they had us beat and gave up, it had to be the decension provided by the American Press and the Politicians looking for re-election at any costs" and I truely thought that the american People, descendants of such great men of thought and honor, had more intelligence than they showed. They deserve to be ruined and re-ensleved for their imbicilic atitudes about their own Freedoms that we could never afford to give to our own enslaved people. As long as they are not totally destroyed, we will at least have a free market economy to "suck off" of in order to maintain our dictatorial powers over the minds and bodies of our own. If these idiot Americans ever realize that, they may just do the thing that their ancestors did and rid themselves of those inside that have debased those actions and words of their forefathers, then we will really be in trouble. But as long as their press and their politicians have no true regard for the freedoms they have to voice their opinions, we are safe in the world arena, thus saith our glorious comrades Lenin, Marx, Mao, Adolf, and so many others in the present day within the very camp of the "enemies" of our glorious dictatorial control over the masses."
We, the American people, the envy of the World, have taken the fight to or enemy's shores only to give up after it became "politically incorrect" to wage war in deed and word against those who would take "freedom of the people" from the face of the earth. And then back up with undue guilt of protecting ourselves and others of like mind (of course those are few and far between in the world arena) and blame others for our defeat that we brought upon ourselves.
Those men of vision, and unsurmountable deeds, from the 18th century are sobbing, and the enemies of all free people are sneering, and the real fault is ourselves. As predicted by so many, even in the late 18th century, "we will find that the real enemy is OURSELVES predicated by our love of sloth, avarice, greed, and irresponsibility"
wtpworrier Jul 16, 2008 11:26:02 AM "US Troops Leave Base Where 9 Died"
Why did we send a hand full of troops to such a remote site anyway? Whose running that mickey mouse operation?
znut Jul 16, 2008 11:28:52 AM WTF???!!! I to compare Viet Nam to our current conflict but it appears that the leadership thier is missing out on one of the large lessons that should have been learned during that war. They should not have left that base, now it looks like a victory for the militants and that we ain't got the huevos to stay in the fight. Did those none bave soldiers die for nothing??
RoundH Jul 16, 2008 11:34:35 AM Vietnam all over again take an area then leave and come back. Have WE LEARNED NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
galloglas Jul 16, 2008 11:45:06 AM Afganhistan will look the same and have the same problems whether we bomb the place or not.
you can only do so much damage to a country that basically has nothing!
That COB/FOP that was abandoned was a crappy afgahn hill before and aside from the value placed by dead soldiers both Afgan and NATO has no real value now.
"A mud hut is still a mud hut whether you blow it up or leave it standing."
If we bombed Afganistan back to the stone age it would be more advanced than it is now.
That being said I would have set the place up as a large American base and run raids and combat patrols out of it then when Hajji comes to play I'd have the men kill them in droves.
dbeausoleil Jul 16, 2008 11:50:55 AM Okay armchair quarterbacks...
Let's just focus, shall we? This element took 50% casualties (24). That makes this not 'a bunch of guys hung out to dry in no man's land (not that we haven't done stupid violations of SOP before)...this was a platoon size element that came under attack by a vastly superior (in number) force. Despite breeching their perimeter, they fought back the attackers out of their AO and called in air power to bring into the fight superior firepower. By now we all know we don't have the troops we need in A-Stan because we've bogged them down in Iraq in a battle w/an enemy that never threatened us. Bad move. Still, our military is coping as best is humanly possible doing what is ordered of it. These guys do what America historically does; Adapts and overcomes to a previously unidentified threat. -And they did a damn good job.
Airpower isn't everywhere. There's a huge shortage of UAV's and piloted craft are up against the wall both on equipment availability, spare parts, and flight hours.
Someone will probably write a book about this battle one day noting how a barely-dug-in platoon fought back (roughly) a batallion of determined enemies and most lived to tell and all came home.
Considering the terrain on that border, you could hide the Sioux nation there. Regrouping our assets into larger, defensible elements is tactically sound judgement by a competent commander who'll keep his people alive until the cavalry comes.
Whether our leaders are smart enough to send the cavalry is another matter.
Personally, I'd rather have been with them and killed fighting the real backers of the attack on our nation in 2001 than a bunch of power hungry oil pukes (who never will be a threat to us) in Iraq.
V/R,
SSG B
17661600 Jul 16, 2008 11:54:08 AM Now we know were they are send the "hand of god"
stupid sons of bitches wont know what hit em.shake and bake the domb basterds!sleep tight ****-o's!!!!
HOOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GrannyAnne Jul 16, 2008 11:55:35 AM If the media can see the insurgents and the satellites can pinpoint the location of them, why can't we just bomb them and take out the problem before they have a chance to injure our military? I don't understand why we can see all of this happening on television "the media" and not be able to take them out with bombs. It doesn't make any sense!
4499124 Jul 16, 2008 11:58:56 AM This latest attack on an isolated base reminds me of a VC or NVA attack on a Green Beret outpost back in 1964 where Capt Roger Donlan earned the first Medal of Honor awarded in the Vietnam War. He called in napalm on his own position as I recall...avnrulz is right--the Taliban are using the same tactics the VC and the NVA used 40-45 years ago. When will we ever learn???
lovatscot Jul 16, 2008 11:59:03 AM Hate the idea of dying for the same piece of terrain twice- it didn't work well in Vietnam either. By all means pull the villagers out, move out of the base- keep recon on it & when the ragheads occupy, a BUFF arc-light to make a new parking lot would have been nice! Then rebuild the vill a km away and sow your new parking lot with pig's blood as a memorial to the Taliban- that might changes some minds real quick!. Seriously, we can't establish a rapport with the locals, then leave them hanging to suffer Taliban repraisal's!
cpohl1976 Jul 16, 2008 11:59:11 AM 88mtakenoprisoners
We have to give our respects to the Marines and
there families on this day. There great bravery
and honor is what this country needs.We lost some
great Marines and this should give us the power to
move foward at a time like this.HOOAH.
ENYVTHS Jul 16, 2008 12:33:56 PM When we first went into the country we used every type of aircraft we had to push them out of the country. Bring them back and lets do some more massive bombing and ger their a$$ back out of the way............
bxpitbull Jul 16, 2008 12:45:19 PM 6362250, the Army has given up terrority before. When an outpost or hill or something that is not deemed as tactical value, it has been abandoned. Now, under fire, aint happening. When the smoke clears and pros and cons are weighed, not unlikely. Doesnt happen often, but when it does, it seems to make headlines...these days anyway. Thanks for emboldening the enemy with this one AP. Who's side are they are on anyway?!?!?!
bxpitbull Jul 16, 2008 12:47:08 PM cpohl1976 I have to ask, what does this--->"88mtakenoprisoners" mean? I have seen 88 quite a bit and to my knowledge, its a Nazi salute. Please advise!
11913572 Jul 16, 2008 12:49:29 PM 1 blkmanopinion
Reading some of these comments I will never forget what happen to blk's in the past, also I believe there will never be a "blk president" no unity between blks and WHITES WILL BLOW THIS PLANET UP BEFORE WE HAVE A "BLK PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
rmurray100 Jul 16, 2008 1:02:42 PM Why do you all think these were Marines? Most of the Marines are further South in Helmand Province. Most of these small, platoon sized COPs are run by the Army. Is there anyone who knows the answer other than what they have read in the news (casualties all called Soldiers, but reporters are notorious for not knowing the difference between a Soldier and a Marine.
bxpitbull Jul 16, 2008 1:08:41 PM 11913572, what the eff are you talking about? How did this become a black and white issue in America? This is about the Army abandoning a post and you make it about race? DUNCE!
1stLt_Svensson Jul 16, 2008 1:32:12 PM 1st when bashing someone get the facts right. France is still a member of NATO and lost about 12 troops. 2nd US gave up their command right October 2006 ISAF implements Stage 4 of its expansion, by taking on command of the international military forces in eastern Afghanistan from the US-led Coalition. 3rd have you ever seen an Afghan be on the right spot when needed most.... I for once, sure as hell never did!
However my deepest thoughts goes to those that bleed and died in vain because of bad leadership
znut Jul 16, 2008 1:37:05 PM Seems to me that the place has some tactical value to the militants or they would not have pitted such a large scale attack againts it. That FOB should have been reenforced not abandoned. Them not wanting us there is the reason we should stay. Something is up out there and it ain't gonna be good when it happens
Pistol762 Jul 16, 2008 1:55:13 PM I hate to see this....unless it is a tactic to draw them in before we salm the door on a trap. Time will tell.
I know we have a bunch of P.Od troopers who had friends die or get hurt...turn the dogs of war loose!
I cannot but remember all the little Ft. Apaches we had all over Vietnam which became mortor shell catchers as we tied down a number of troops to just defend the "fort" and subsequently had fewer troops in the grass.
Whatever the story I think we should hammer the area and invite a few more Islamofacists to make an early entry into Paradise. At somepoint it is a "message effort" but I would rather see us pick the time and place as opposed to having the enemy dictate it.
Add a Comment Search
Most Popular
Top Stories
Top Stories | RSS
13,000 Japanese Protest Nuclear Carrier
Russian Warships to Again Patrol Arctic
New Navy Service Uniform Available
Gunshot Kills Sailor Aboard Roosevelt
Lejeune-area Body May Be Soldier
Torture, Death at Iraq Juvenile Prison
Soldier Gets Silver for Killing Bomber
Pakistan Militants Unite to Fight US
A Confident Iraq Pleases, Worries US
Husband of Dead Soldier Arrested for Murder |
More Headlines
Latest Stories
Latest Stories | RSS
Schools Prepare for More Students Under GI Bill
Iraq Surge Ends; 150,000 Troops Remain
Canada Returns Deserter to US
US Troops Leave Base Where 9 Died
.
