- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not being afraid of dieing and being stupid aren't the same thing. There still has to be a method to the madness. Just like Japanese Banzai and Kamikaze attacks; it was bad tactics, but there was an objective.
Yeah, to inflict casualties.
Inflict more casualties than they lost. A 1:5 kill ratio, in favor of the enemy, is good for morale. It's been my experience that most folks, regardless of religion, or culture, are more afraid of dieing that you would think.
There is some reason that these Taliban fighters to fearlessly attack a numerically superior army with better weapons and training...
What is it?
GYSGT well said GYSGT,go and show them what it is all about,just to win.
all the best to u.
mikeey
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.
Stupidity? Poor leadership? In experience? Bad judgement? Over confident, because they knew they outnumbered the troops holding the outpost? Didn't count on American combat multipliers? Those are a few things I can think of, but I have a hard time believing that it was a well conceived assaut.
I disagree. I believe their objective was to accomplish a spectacular attack that would be on the front page of the U.S. papers the next morning. They succeeded. IO, man...it's all about IO.
I also believe the enemy has better G2 than we do. So, yes, I do think they knew how many there were, what weapons they had and what the defense looked like. And probably what the defense battle drill was, since they've probably watched them do it before or gotten intel from an indigenous worker inside the wire. You aren't giving these guys enough credit.
And finally, I think that the enemy definetely knew they would take heavy losses...but the mission wasn't took take over the outpost. It was to make the papers.
I understand all that and if they hadn't lost half their assault force, I might agree.
But, then again, perhaps they were shooting for the Cronkite Effect.
Well thanks Sarge, that's probably as close as I'm going to get with you for an agreement.
That's what IO is...you are catching on,Sarge.
Yeah, good thing that piece-a-**** is dead and can't spread anymore of his defeatest bull****.
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?
The only thing savvy about them is that they know that eventually we will leave. It won't matter that it will be on our terms. It's up to the average idiot in America if that means that they win. I'm betting that we will leave Afghanistan in "defeat" because the average idiot is looking to honor this enemy (out of political correctness), because he is unable to define victory in accordane to the world he lives in.
I,m not sure it was a total failure for the enemy. American forces have been planning to leave that outpost for sometime-this incident may make that happen alot quicker.
Paul
If he decided to pull em out and use drones, I'd be happier than him dragging his feet.
IF he sent them in immediatly, I would support it 100%
I'd be happy if he decided.
Though, I am not a "GOP" :shrug:
Rev, c'mon.
If he opted to use preditor drones instead of using ground troops in those hard to reach mountain areas, you'd be all over him like a wet blanket speaking out against all the money being wasted on drones not hitting their targets, etc., etc., etc. And if not you, then every other individual who opposes this President.
He can't win for losing. And all of you who oppose him wait for every opportunity to pounce on him instead of giving the man room to do his job as effectively as possible. So, let's be honest about this one thing if we can't be honest about anything else: You'd rather he failed than succeed. And you'll latch onto anything that remotely paints this President in a negative light.
Be honest about it for once.
Don't hold your breath, OV. This is Rev we're talking about here. :roll:
Rev, c'mon.
If he opted to use preditor drones instead of using ground troops in those hard to reach mountain areas, you'd be all over him like a wet blanket speaking out against all the money being wasted on drones not hitting their targets, etc., etc., etc. And if not you, then every other individual who opposes this President.
He can't win for losing. And all of you who oppose him wait for every opportunity to pounce on him instead of giving the man room to do his job as effectively as possible. So, let's be honest about this one thing if we can't be honest about anything else: You'd rather he failed than successed. And you'll latch onto anything that remotely paints this President in a negative light.
Be honest about it for once.
Do occupying forces not always leave, eventually?
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?