Taliban prepare offensive against US, NATO troops

[forestal]

What the?? You mean the Taliban is still around to cause us problems??
and we're taking troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq???

Oh George has screwed us up big time.

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the US military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against US troops and undermanned NATO forces. This has prompted US commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new US Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positionsA US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.

Army Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata and other US commanders say that will happen as the Taliban is expected to unleash a campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar.

Despite the presence of about 30,000 NATO troops -- roughly 10 percent short of what its member nations had pledged to provide -- Taliban attacks on US, allied, and Afghan forces more than tripled in the past year, from 1,632 in 2005 to 5,388 in 2006, US officials say.​

 

[Pete]

That is excellent news. If they attack us we don't have to go hunting for them, they are right there They are so much easier to kill when they come to you.

 

[forestal]

Forgot to post this,

Bush's new top commander in Iraq has some very different ideas about how to fight an insurgency than you experts in SOMD.

Doesn't look like we'll be able to dig up another 250k troops to send, even if the recruiters start cruising the high schools in force.

The first US army counterinsurgency manual in 20 years, it recommends a starkly different approach to tackling the insurgency than most US commanders have followed since the April 2003 Iraq invasion.

It says that the principal goal of the US military should be to win the respect and support of the domestic population and that killing insurgents can often be counter-productive by creating even more to take their place.

.....

However, Gen Petraeus will also face three obstacles, they say. First, the surge - or "escalation", as the Democratic party has called it - would need to be many times the expected 20,000 in order to pacify Iraqi population centres.

The report says the ideal ratio of troops to population in a counter-insurgency operation is 20 per 1,000. This would imply the US would need to add at least 250,000 to its existing force of 140,000 - a logistical and political impossibility. Iraq's population is 26m.​

That is excellent news. If they attack us we don't have to go hunting for them, they are right there They are so much easier to kill when they come to you.

 

[vraiblonde]

It says that the principal goal of the US military should be to win the respect and support of the domestic population and that killing insurgents can often be counter-productive by creating even more to take their place.

Gee, is that the stupid "winning hearts and minds" mentality that made such a mess of this in the first place???

HOW is this different than what George Bush has been doing for 4 friggin' years???? That hasn't been working, I might add???

 

[SamSpade]

Trying to figure out why this issue would come under your radar.

See, ousting the Taliban was not just regarded as a "good thing" by everyone (well, everyone except the Taliban). It was a NATO operation. While you might think that Afghanistan is a war fought exclusively by Americans, that's just baloney.

Last time I checked, the United States is not the same thing as NATO. If we're losing there, check with NATO. We're supposed to be part of a larger organization that is fighting there. If we need greater troop strength there, maybe the other nations need to step up to the plate. IF it's a NATO operation, and more men are needed, why would someone think that the lack of troops lie solely the blame of lack of *US troops*?

When the dust settles, you can bet that any time Americans claim to have done the job there, SOME schmuck is gonna say "oh we had allies, we didn't go alone". But if more troops are needed, well dammit, where's the United States?

I feel the same damned way about Darfur. People are being slaughtered, and the whole Save Darfur campaign is pleading with Bush to intervene. Where's the United Nations? Last time there was genocide in Rwanda, they glibly commented that they didn't know; last time there was genocide in the Balkans, they sat on their butts and did nothing until the U.S. embarassed them into action. Am I to understand that there's a whole world of nations and military, but the ONLY ONES expected to show up and save the Sudanese is the Americans?

To hell with them. I'm tired of "no good deed goes unpunished".

 

[PsyOps]

forestal, are there good things happening in this war? If so, what are they?

 

[itsbob]

That is excellent news. If they attack us we don't have to go hunting for them, they are right there They are so much easier to kill when they come to you.

If I was a ground commander in Afghanistan this would be what I'd have been waiting for. To attcack us, they have to come out of hiding, then it will be like shooting fish in a barrel.. or should that be "like shooting Muslims in a Valley!!"

 

[Chain729]

That is excellent news. If they attack us we don't have to go hunting for them, they are right there They are so much easier to kill when they come to you.

Exactly. I'd rather they attacked our armed and prepared troops than our un-armed and un-prepared civilians. I'd rather they tried something with those that could and were prepared to stop them, than those that weren't.

Hey treehugger, do you honestly believe that if we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq today, that those Islamic extemists would leave us alone?

 

[PsyOps]

Exactly. I'd rather they attacked our armed and prepared troops than our un-armed and un-prepared civilians. I'd rather they tried something with those that could and were prepared to stop them, than those that weren't.

Hey treehugger, do you honestly believe that if we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq today, that those Islamic extemists would leave us alone?

Oh no, you folks have it wrong. People will die. That means we lost. We have to leave. NOW!

 

[forestal]

I don't know why anyone thinks we can do anything about Darfur if it involves large amounts of troops. We've got are hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq. We can let all those countries who decided to stay out of Iraq save Darfur. Apparently the U.N. is just a bunch of hot air. Where are the French when you need them?

Trying to figure out why this issue would come under your radar.

See, ousting the Taliban was not just regarded as a "good thing" by everyone (well, everyone except the Taliban). It was a NATO operation. While you might think that Afghanistan is a war fought exclusively by Americans, that's just baloney.

Last time I checked, the United States is not the same thing as NATO. If we're losing there, check with NATO. We're supposed to be part of a larger organization that is fighting there. If we need greater troop strength there, maybe the other nations need to step up to the plate. IF it's a NATO operation, and more men are needed, why would someone think that the lack of troops lie solely the blame of lack of *US troops*?

When the dust settles, you can bet that any time Americans claim to have done the job there, SOME schmuck is gonna say "oh we had allies, we didn't go alone". But if more troops are needed, well dammit, where's the United States?

I feel the same damned way about Darfur. People are being slaughtered, and the whole Save Darfur campaign is pleading with Bush to intervene. Where's the United Nations? Last time there was genocide in Rwanda, they glibly commented that they didn't know; last time there was genocide in the Balkans, they sat on their butts and did nothing until the U.S. embarassed them into action. Am I to understand that there's a whole world of nations and military, but the ONLY ONES expected to show up and save the Sudanese is the Americans?

To hell with them. I'm tired of "no good deed goes unpunished".

 

[forestal]

Well, we gave the Iraqis a chance to make their own self determination. That's the best thing.

Too bad they let their hate for us, and each other, override any chance of having a decent future.

forestal, are there good things happening in this war? If so, what are they?

 

[StrwberryKisses]

"like shooting Muslims in a Valley!!"

 

[forestal]

They aren't that stupid. They have the patience of the true believers and will be around long after we've written the country off.

If I was a ground commander in Afghanistan this would be what I'd have been waiting for. To attcack us, they have to come out of hiding, then it will be like shooting fish in a barrel.. or should that be "like shooting Muslims in a Valley!!"

 

[forestal]

Insults aren't a form of argument.

Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda won't leave us alone, Joe Insurgent who's just looking to kick us out of his country will leave us alone.

What's wrong with hugging a tree? Without trees you'd be living in a cave.

Exactly. I'd rather they attacked our armed and prepared troops than our un-armed and un-prepared civilians. I'd rather they tried something with those that could and were prepared to stop them, than those that weren't.

Hey treehugger, do you honestly believe that if we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq today, that those Islamic extemists would leave us alone?

 

[Pete]

Insults aren't a form of argument.

Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda won't leave us alone, Joe Insurgent who's just looking to kick us out of his country will leave us alone.

What's wrong with hugging a tree? Without trees you'd be living in a cave.

You do realize today's Joe Insurgent is tomorrows Al Qaeda operative don't you?

 

[PsyOps]

Well, we gave the Iraqis a chance to make their own self determination. That's the best thing.

Too bad they let their hate for us, and each other, override any chance of having a decent future.

No answer; or do I take that as a no, there are no good things happening in Iraq?

And I also take away from your response that time has run out for Iraq.

 

[itsbob]

They aren't that stupid. They have the patience of the true believers and will be around long after we've written the country off.

Actually they are that stupid, that's what they feed on, the uneducated, and the stupid.. and that's what they depend on in our country to win their war here, people just like you.. the uneducated, the ones willing to accept the press and the propaganda to get us to pull out so they can claim victory.

 

[Chain729]

Insults aren't a form of argument.

Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda won't leave us alone, Joe Insurgent who's just looking to kick us out of his country will leave us alone.

What's wrong with hugging a tree? Without trees you'd be living in a cave.

Tree lover, who do you think is giving us the most problems? The average Joe that wants to make a buck to feed his family, or the local radicals that are pissed that the majority are warming up to being able to run their own lives? Have you missed the news reports, video's and statements regarding arms, money and radicals that are flowing in from neighboring countries? Would you rather kill these schmucks on foreign soil, or let them kill themselves over here taking innocent civilians with them?

Personally, I don't enjoy splinters or hard sharp tree bark. I'd rather hug something soft, fleshy, and... Nevermind. I'm sure every point and rhetorical question in this post bounced off that hunk of lead on your shoulders.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Doesn't look like we'll be able to dig up another 250k troops to send, even if the recruiters start cruising the high schools in force.

Well that's good, because he's only augmenting by 25k. Your reaserch is pitiful.