- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The CIA trained them well, that much is true, but we ARE the CIA...we can beat them. It just takes time and blood.
The problem is that the military is divided on what they need, and what the right strategy is. Until the strategy going forward is known, troop level decisions are premature.
Insurgencies are defeated all the time. The strategy will work. It just won't usher in the results some of our politicians are looking for. Our leaders better be aware that this government we are supporting in Afghanistan is all there is ever going to be and that it will depend on us for a very long time.
This is incorrect, the head of the effort in Afghanistan is clear on what he wants.
I think the thing that alot of folks are missing, is that we're going up against the third generation, not the original guys that we trained. When you look at the speed at which we routed the Tallies, initially, they don't have the same skills that the Mujas had back in the 80s.
It is my understanding that this is a big part of what is being debated. Is the result going to be worth the effort? That is an important topic.
Nearly 300 Tallies attack an outpost, our troops are outnumbered and the enemy only manages to kill 8 soldiers. Not what I would call a highly successful attack on the part of the Tallies.
Don't you mean their grandfathers? Most of the fighters in Afghanistan weren't even alive during the Soviet War.
They don't care about success in terms of body count. They care about audacity, which they have plenty of. Have you fought them?
Uh...wrong. It was twenty years ago. I think that many of the Taliban were kids then and remember their dads and maybe grandpa's fighting an occupying army.
They can have whatever perspective they wish, but reality is reality. If they lose more troops than we do, in every fight, then they can't win. No unconventional war has ever been successful without transitioning to a conventional strategy at some point. Even the North Vietnamese did it.
Well, I'm 40 and I was in grade school when the Soviets invaded. I'm betting that there aren't many 40 somethings in the Taliban. I turned 18 in 1987, so there are a few Tallies that were very small children during the war, but I believe they are the minority within the Taliban's ranks.
Again, wrong. We killed millions of NVA and VC and still lost. Reality is reality, sir. So why did we respond to the "weak" Taliban attack by closing the Combat Outpost that was attacked? Looks like they made an impression.
So I'm right. And by the way, most of the Taliban leadership are Soviet war vets. You should know that from all those books you read.
The VC ceased to be combat effective in 1968. The main force units were absorbed into the NVA and the local force units were disbanded. The Communists were ready to surrender after the Tet Offensive, so your analysis is erroenous.
Only the highest levels of leadership and few of them.
You're right. We don't have the political will to accomplish this, and that's a big reason why we don't have the national will to accomplish it either.
Defeatist cry-babies have done more to prolong these wars than the enemy ever could have.
No it's not at all, you failed to answer my question, which was:
If the Taliban attack last week was so ineffective, then why did the Army close the outpost that was attacked?
They had planned to abandon the post, anyway; even before the attack.
So I'm right. Thanks. This is the first time that you've been gracious in defeat.
You're part right.
It is my understanding that this is a big part of what is being debated. Is the result going to be worth the effort? That is an important topic.
The Tali-ban have been slaughtered and slaughtered since 2001. There is nothing savvy about them. Like the majority of all military organizations in the Middle East, they rely heavily upon Soviet handbook tactics. A handbook our military trained to defeat for decades. But they are fighters and thismeans they will fight. This also means that they will get their shots in. But sacrificing dozens to hundreds of fighters so that CNN can report that an American G.I. was killed in "intense" fighting hardly puts themon verge of defeating us.
There is nothing savvy about running and hiding so that you can be slaughtered another day.
I,d say its somewhat savvy when there considerably out numbered, have no air support, and next to no artillery support. As you know full well if they were to fight conventionally that 'slaughtered another day' would come a whole lot quicker.
Paul
I don't think they're all that combat savvy. Recently, 200 Tallies went up against 100 Americans, outnumbering them 2-to-1 and took 50% casualties.
That's a pretty good ratio for a highly trained fighting force. British forces often accept disparity in terms of numbers, with a ratio of 4 to 1 being fully expected. The Falklands was an example where we were outnumbered.
You have to take into account our superior fire power over the Taliban, it always helps to even the odds.
Paul
That's what I mean, though. It's as if the Tallies assaulting the outpost didn't take into account the fire superiority.
I,m not sure they dont take it into account. Theres simply little they can do about it, as you know 'we fight the enemy thats in front of us'.
Paul
We also, 'turn out weaknesses into strengths and the enemy's strengths become his weakness', too. Why attack a position that you know will be unsuccessful, lose half your unit and only kill 8 of your enemy?
It easy if you don't care if you live or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?