Yon: Two Firefights, One Video

WorldOctober 2009 • Views: 2,914

Michael Yon has a new report from Afghanistan, including a video clip: Two Firefights: One Video.

This weekend we lost eight more soldiers in a firefight.� I learned about it while they were still fighting, but did not report it until just before the media broke the story the next day.� Still unreported, to my knowledge, sources tell me that FOB Keating was destroyed and that troops were under siege for up to 24 hours before Air Force Para-rescue got them out.� (Subject to confirmation.)� The fighting will only intensify.� We can beat these guys, but not under current conditions.

The last two missions I did with British 2 Rifles ended in firefights.� Due to bandwidth difficulties, only a small part of the video was uploaded.� Those two firefights were melded into one short video.� These are just typical hum-drum day-in day-out missions, nothing like what happened this weekend in Nuristan.

Jump to bottom

76 comments

Ojoe Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:52:07am

This effort in Afghanistan is essential.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:52:50am

Give ‘em Hell, guys! It’s great to have real friends who’ll fight by our side.

walkman Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:54:40am

re: #1 Ojoe

I’m not so sure that this tack is going to change things there in the long run.

marsl Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:55:40am

Perhaps without a radical change in the ROE, America and Europe will only find defeat in Afghanistan.

kevrobin45 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:57:04am

Thank you Michael for your hard work, tell the boys we are praying for them here in the states.

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:58:35am

The fighting will only intensify. We can beat these guys, but not under current conditions.

He’s got that right. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Brits and their logistics chains, and what becomes of General McChrystals’ ask.

Ojoe Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:58:59am

re: #3 walkman

It keeps the crazy jihadis from getting a head of steam, and it keeps the world from perhaps seeing the mistakes of the 1930s again, IMHO.

Ojoe Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:59:56am

re: #4 marsl

Just the fact that we are doing something and not nothing counts for a lot if you ask me.

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:00:28pm

We can beat these guys, but not under current conditions.

I hope we can successfully alter the current conditions.

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:00:28pm

A lot of people are playing up the ROE bit right now, but the real shackles are the lack of troops and logistics support. It’s all about getting metal on target fast, and we don’t have the force structure there to do that as well as we should if we want to win.

Eowyn2 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:00:42pm

Come back safe SSgt Zach (and all you other Marines and US soldiers and the UN forces as well)

marsl Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:01:05pm

re: #8 Ojoe

Yes, when we let politicians to run how war must be made, only two things happens: casualties and defeat.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:01:29pm

And to the those soldiers with Yon who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend their nation and ours I offer the following. Realwest used to post this vid for such occasions:

Brother in Arms

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:03:24pm

The loss of this outpost is ominous. The Taliban are clearly able to concentrate a large enough force in close proximity to overcome our advantage in firepower and training. The much-denounced RoE may have a role as well but, in this case at least, the besieged troops did have air and artillery support.
I am all for targeting the terrorist leadership, as VP Biden advocates, but we also have to have troops on the ground to keep these areas from again becoming AQ sanctuaries, possibly threatening the very bases from which the targeted strikes are launched.

Eowyn2 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:05:28pm

UN food/medical supply attacked today in Pakistan. Taliban Horsemen of the Apocolypse.

marsl Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:07:31pm

re: #15 Eowyn2

They are not the Horsemen. They are the Apocalipse.

Walter L. Newton Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:10:34pm

re: #3 walkman

I’m not so sure that this tack is going to change things there in the long run.

And what would be your alternative?

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:10:39pm

re: #14 Shiplord Kirel

The loss of this outpost is ominous. The Taliban are clearly able to concentrate a large enough force in close proximity to overcome our advantage in firepower and training. The much-denounced RoE may have a role as well but, in this case at least, the besieged troops did have air and artillery support.
I am all for targeting the terrorist leadership, as VP Biden advocates, but we also have to have troops on the ground to keep these areas from again becoming AQ sanctuaries, possibly threatening the very bases from which the targeted strikes are launched.

If true, then the coalition has sustained an actual battlefield loss to the Tailban. If that’s happened, their ability to recruit will soar. Bad Times.

MandyManners Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:11:30pm

I thought the title was “Two Firefighters,..” and perked right up.

Dagnabit.

suchislife Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:15:43pm

re: #19 MandyManners

me too.

Dainn Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:17:22pm

Based on the Sunday talk shows, it seems to me that the Obama administration is floating the idea of pulling back from a counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism.

Didn’t Obama say this was an essential fight? What has changed? It is still essential. Our troops are dying over there. Give them what they need to win, now. Deliberate later.

This is not a hard decision. It’s vital. We are losing. We can win. Let’s do what it takes to win. It sickens me that there is deliberation about this.

Or, we could listen to Biden and cut and run. That is the best tactic if you plan to fight a war by looking at opinion polls.

walkman Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:18:49pm

re: #17 Walter L. Newton

And what would be your alternative?

Good question and I don’t really have one. Seems that anywhere we/coalition aren’t the Taliban is or returns. There may come a day when collateral damage is accepted.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:20:33pm

re: #21 Dainn

Based on the Sunday talk shows, it seems to me that the Obama administration is floating the idea of pulling back from a counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism.

Didn’t Obama say this was an essential fight? What has changed? It is still essential. Our troops are dying over there. Give them what they need to win, now. Deliberate later.

This is not a hard decision. It’s vital. We are losing. We can win. Let’s do what it takes to win. It sickens me that there is deliberation about this.

Or, we could listen to Biden and cut and run. That is the best tactic if you plan to fight a war by looking at opinion polls.

Obama did say that, but his party doesn’t really think that. The Democratic base would prefer to cut and run. They don’t like the use of American military power, and they tend to think their own country a bully.

albusteve Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:21:15pm

re: #22 walkman

Good question and I don’t really have one. Seems that anywhere we/coalition aren’t the Taliban is or returns. There may come a day when collateral damage is accepted.

massive numbers of troops, an enlarged coalition commitment, security and infrastructure…it’s doable

Walter L. Newton Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:21:32pm

re: #22 walkman

Good question and I don’t really have one. Seems that anywhere we/coalition aren’t the Taliban is or returns. There may come a day when collateral damage is accepted.

Probably when we want to finally win and end this thing.

albusteve Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:22:16pm

re: #23 Dark_Falcon

Obama did say that, but his party doesn’t really think that. The Democratic base would prefer to cut and run. They don’t like the use of American military power, and they tend to think their own country a bully.

he will have to act contrary to his base…a bad rabbit, and I don’t think he will

Eowyn2 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:23:30pm

re: #16 marsl

They are not the Horsemen. They are the Apocalipse.

War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

They bring them all.

Walter L. Newton Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:24:14pm

re: #27 Eowyn2

War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

They bring them all.

So can we.

avanti Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:24:41pm

re: #21 Dainn

Based on the Sunday talk shows, it seems to me that the Obama administration is floating the idea of pulling back from a counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism.

Didn’t Obama say this was an essential fight? What has changed? It is still essential. Our troops are dying over there. Give them what they need to win, now. Deliberate later.

This is not a hard decision. It’s vital. We are losing. We can win. Let’s do what it takes to win. It sickens me that there is deliberation about this.

Or, we could listen to Biden and cut and run. That is the best tactic if you plan to fight a war by looking at opinion polls.

No one is talking about cut and run but some on the right. Biden did talk about protecting population centers and increased drone attacks, but no suggestion of reducing troop levels.

Withdrawal not a option.

pre-Boomer Marine brat Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:24:45pm

The Taliban and al Qaida can afford to lose Afghanistan, but we cannot.

subsailor68 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:25:38pm

And this just up on Breitbart:

White House: Leaving Afghanistan not an option

The debate over whether to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a major element of a strategy overhaul that senior administration policy advisers will consider this week as they gather for top-level meetings on the evolving direction of the war.

As a vet who served part of his tour under Jimmy Carter, I do confess to being a bit uneasy right now. General McChrystal has submitted his report (back in August IIRC), and has stated what he needs. While I concur that civilian leadership of the military is not only a Constitutional issue, but a good thing in and of itself, I’m worried that political considerations are putting our soldiers, marines, and airmen in jeopardy while politicians dither.

I’ve seen a good number of senior officers in action over the years, and I believe I’d follow General McChrystal willingly. I know it would be part of his job to put me in harm’s way, but I also believe he’d do it without needlessly endangering my life.

I sincerely hope that the political figures with a critical set of decisions facing them, won’t unintentionally put our servicemen in harm’s way as they discuss, debate, and - ultimately delay - coming to a decision.

Dainn Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:25:45pm

Progressive plan for victory in Afghanistan:

1) Pull troops out of Afghanistan, send in more Predator drones in their place
2) Taliban regains control of some/most/all of the country
3) Pakistan now has a terrorist-supporting neighbor finds it much harder to combat Islamic extremism; bombings accelerate; governent becomes unstable
4) Terrorists eventually get access to a Pakistani nuke
5) Iran ceases to be our biggest problem

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:26:16pm

Our guy were out in the open, looked like the bad guys had the cover, judging from the missile strike. Man, I’d really hate being without cover and under fire like that. Yikes. Where the heck are the armed drones, the close air?

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:26:35pm

re: #26 albusteve

he will have to act contrary to his base…a bad rabbit, and I don’t think he will

You’re right, he won’t. He won’t risk his power for the truth. Barack Obama does not know the meaning of sacrifice, nor does he possess the strength to make the hard call. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Cato the Elder Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:27:24pm

re: #21 Dainn

This is not a hard decision. It’s vital. We are losing. We can win. Let’s do what it takes to win. It sickens me that there is deliberation about this.

Let’s see:

No central government to speak of outside Kabul, and even Kabul is iffy.

A collection of drug- and warlord territories, not a country.

Porous, uncontrollable border with Pakistan.

No definition of what “winning” would look like.

In a place where Alexander the Great (prophet of Islam), the Brits, and the Soviets all failed.

And we’re not allowed to deliberate?

pre-Boomer Marine brat Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:27:36pm

re: #26 albusteve

he will have to act contrary to his base…a bad rabbit, and I don’t think he will

I agree, but in fairness, it’s possible that he will. He will move toward statesman status if he has the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Walter L. Newton Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:28:31pm

re: #34 Dark_Falcon

You’re right, he won’t. He won’t risk his power for the truth. Barack Obama does not know the meaning of sacrifice, nor does he possess the strength to make the hard call. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Agreed. Simple fact, so hard for some to understand.

albusteve Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:29:25pm

re: #31 subsailor68

And this just up on Breitbart:

White House: Leaving Afghanistan not an option

The debate over whether to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a major element of a strategy overhaul that senior administration policy advisers will consider this week as they gather for top-level meetings on the evolving direction of the war.

As a vet who served part of his tour under Jimmy Carter, I do confess to being a bit uneasy right now. General McChrystal has submitted his report (back in August IIRC), and has stated what he needs. While I concur that civilian leadership of the military is not only a Constitutional issue, but a good thing in and of itself, I’m worried that political considerations are putting our soldiers, marines, and airmen in jeopardy while politicians dither.

I’ve seen a good number of senior officers in action over the years, and I believe I’d follow General McChrystal willingly. I know it would be part of his job to put me in harm’s way, but I also believe he’d do it without needlessly endangering my life.

I sincerely hope that the political figures with a critical set of decisions facing them, won’t unintentionally put our servicemen in harm’s way as they discuss, debate, and - ultimately delay - coming to a decision.

this is BO’s necessary war…he chose to back this fight…it’s been nine months and he’s just now ramping up with face to face meetings with his commanders…the Talis are confident and getting some hits…the troop levels are obviously too small…looks bad to me

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:29:44pm

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Everything you cite is true, and ancient. So the questions just begs… NOW we deliberate? BHO started getting briefings as he won the primary, right? What about all those campaign comments as per the “right” war?

pre-Boomer Marine brat Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:30:13pm

I miss Chesty Puller.

tradewind Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:31:18pm

re: #40 pre-Boomer Marine brat
And now we have finger puller.
If ’ leaving AF is not an option’, then they had better get their shiite together and send the troops now. It has nothing to do with taking a moment.

‘

subsailor68 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:31:44pm

re: #31 subsailor68

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Let’s see:

No central government to speak of outside Kabul, and even Kabul is iffy.

A collection of drug- and warlord territories, not a country.

Porous, uncontrollable border with Pakistan.

No definition of what “winning” would look like.

In a place where Alexander the Great (prophet of Islam), the Brits, and the Soviets all failed.

And we’re not allowed to deliberate?

Hi Cato. Good points all. At this point, though, the administration has announced that leaving is not an option (link in my 31). So, all I’m asking of them is - if the deliberation on whether to stay or go has ended - please take General McChrystal’s request seriously, and make a decision quickly.

lawhawk Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:31:46pm

re: #29 avanti

It isn’t?

Walz’s comments signal the problems facing Obama as he deals with a nervous Congress on Afghanistan. Opinion is divided among House Democrats on whether to continue to throw more personnel and money into a war that will soon be entering its ninth year. Pelosi has privately and publicly warned the White House that there isn’t “a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in Congress.”
Republicans feel like they have the president in a box politically on Afghanistan, according to GOP insiders, and they are pressing their advantage. If Obama goes along with the McChrystal recommendations, he risks alienating the progressive base of the Democratic party, which wants to see the White House develop an exit strategy for getting out of Afghanistan.

But pulling out means a potential return of Taliban control, and which that, the specter of al Qaeda once again using Afghanistan as a base to attack the United States and its Western allies.

Democrats fear the fallout in 2010. Recent polling shows the American public is “war weary,” and the Democratic is pushing for withdrawal, with groups like MoveOn.org leading that charge. Going against the party’s base on this issue could alienate the Democrats’ most loyal supporters heading into what it shaping up to a tough political environment.

Most House Democrats, according to party sources, are opposed to a U.S. escalation in Afghanistan, with maybe 40 to 60 “in play,” meaning they would be open to White House appeals for more time, more money and more troops.

“There’s a high degree of concern,” said a senior House Democratic aide. “They’re very skeptical. They don’t want to invest another eight to 10 years [in Afghanistan] and they don’t know what form of government there will be or who we’re supporting.”

Then, all the talk about staying is just a cover for a gradual withdrawal and calling the ballgame over on account of what exactly?

The Democrats want out of Afghanistan, and describing the withdrawal of US forces as cut and run or any other euphemism, the fact is that the Democrats want to reduce and eliminate our commitment there. The only reason the President is saying that he’s keeping the course is that he’s got enough GOP support to keep it going.

Cato the Elder Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:32:04pm

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

Everything you cite is true, and ancient. So the questions just begs… NOW we deliberate? BHO started getting briefings as he won the primary, right? What about all those campaign comments as per the “right” war?

Um, you believed those campaign promises, but not the others? No, I guess you’re just being rhetorical.

Calling it the “right” war didn’t magically make it winnable.

Better late deliberations than none.

MandyManners Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:32:27pm

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Let’s see:

No central government to speak of outside Kabul, and even Kabul is iffy.

A collection of drug- and warlord territories, not a country.

Porous, uncontrollable border with Pakistan.

No definition of what “winning” would look like.

In a place where Alexander the Great (prophet of Islam), the Brits, and the Soviets all failed.

And we’re not allowed to deliberate?

I’m a wee bit ignorant of history in Afghanistan but, aren’t our motives different from those of Alexander, the Brits and the Soviets? We don’t want to dominate, colonize or subjugate. Or, do we?

tradewind Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:32:48pm

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator
I’m beginning to have a bad feeling that the talk re AF from Obama was just balm to soothe the worry about his national security/defense naivete.

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:33:40pm

re: #14 Shiplord Kirel

The loss of this outpost is ominous. The Taliban are clearly able to concentrate a large enough force in close proximity to overcome our advantage in firepower and training. The much-denounced RoE may have a role as well but, in this case at least, the besieged troops did have air and artillery support.
I am all for targeting the terrorist leadership, as VP Biden advocates, but we also have to have troops on the ground to keep these areas from again becoming AQ sanctuaries, possibly threatening the very bases from which the targeted strikes are launched.

The McChrystal plan also calls for a refocus on these Eastern neglected provinces. With Pakistan’s crackdown it’s become harder for the Taliban to play the “run across the border until the heat’s off ” game in the South. However in the eastern provinces they can run to four different areas (China, Kashmir, Pakistan, Tajikistan)

The Sanity Inspector Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:34:11pm

re: #6 Thanos

He’s got that right. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Brits and their logistics chains, and what becomes of General McChrystals’ ask.

We’ve tried special forces derring-do, we’ve tried partnering with & building up the Afghan forces, we’ve tried Afghan-Pak border interdiction, and combinations of all these. Now, if Gen. McChrystal’s counsel prevails, we’re going to try an all-in heavy metal approach. I still think that the best we can hope for is a measure of stability, and creeping Salafi burnout.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:34:50pm

re: #43 lawhawk

It isn’t?

Then, all the talk about staying is just a cover for a gradual withdrawal and calling the ballgame over on account of what exactly?

The Democrats want out of Afghanistan, and describing the withdrawal of US forces as cut and run or any other euphemism, the fact is that the Democrats want to reduce and eliminate our commitment there. The only reason the President is saying that he’s keeping the course is that he’s got enough GOP support to keep it going.

Good post. It’s worth remembering why so many Dmes favor cut-and-run: Due to gerrymandering, most Congressional Dems only real fear is a primary challenge. To prevent that, they’ll tack left and hang the consequences.

The Sanity Inspector Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:35:06pm

re: #33 Rightwingconspirator

Our guy were out in the open, looked like the bad guys had the cover, judging from the missile strike. Man, I’d really hate being without cover and under fire like that. Yikes. Where the heck are the armed drones, the close air?

They can’t be everywhere.

Dainn Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:35:56pm

re: #29 avanti

No one is talking about cut and run but some on the right. Biden did talk about protecting population centers and increased drone attacks, but no suggestion of reducing troop levels.

So you are saying the progressive wing of the Democratic party isn’t saying we should get out of Afghanistan, only right wingers?

Cato the Elder Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:36:05pm

re: #45 MandyManners

I’m a wee bit ignorant of history in Afghanistan but, aren’t our motives different from those of Alexander, the Brits and the Soviets? We don’t want to dominate, colonize or subjugate. Or, do we?

Right.

And There Is No Such Thing As the American Empire.

What the heck do motives have to do with it? With the motives of Sir Galahad we could not win a ground war in Russia. The winter would do to us what it did to Napoleon and Hitler.

Same thing here.

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:36:06pm

re: #44 Cato the Elder

Hi Yes rhetorical. Those other promises will result in other posts. Yes better late than never but sheesh! It seems to me the war is never going to end as long as the bad guys can flee to a safe haven. Or as long as the debate in Afghanistan has a big 11th century wing. i.e. Taliban and Sharia law as they apply it.

tradewind Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:36:35pm

re: #48 The Sanity Inspector
Maybe Charlie Wilson has some ideas.

Walter L. Newton Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:37:51pm

re: #46 tradewind

I’m beginning to have a bad feeling that the talk re AF from Obama was just balm to soothe the worry about his national security/defense naivete.

I would substitute “lies” for “naivete.” President Obama is not stupid, and he knows what he promised to his base and he knows where his power comes from. He’s teetering on loosing a lot of ground he promised on health care, cap and trade and employment, and beefing up in AF would be the final straw. Polosi will pull no punches with President Obama.

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:38:14pm

If you want to track the war for real I recommend you stay away from the pundit sphere and focus on these spots:

Michael Yon
Blackfive
Ghosts of Alexander
Small Wars Journal
Abu Muquwama
The Long War Journal
and of course the local Afghan online papers.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:38:21pm

It is a mistake to assume that a strong central government is impossible in Afghanistan. The country had a strong central government for a hundred years, from the 1870s, or at least one capable of keeping “tribal disturbances” within “reasonable bounds” as the 1962 Brittanica puts it.
This was based on two things: The prestige of the king and the regime’s willingness to do whatever it took to keep the tribesmen under some kind of control. The decision to accept massive Soviet economic and military aid in the mid 50s was really the beginning of the end, leading eventually to the overthrow of the monarchy in 1974 and a downhill slide to 30 years of war and chaos.

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:40:12pm

re: #50 The Sanity Inspector

I truly hope we are not to the point of a bunch of scattered relatively unsupported platoons out there. I saw an unconfirmed report a Marine held FOB was overrun. Hope not!

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:41:19pm

re: #58 Rightwingconspirator

I truly hope we are not to the point of a bunch of scattered relatively unsupported platoons out there. I saw an unconfirmed report a Marine held FOB was overrun. Hope not!

That’s where we are at in the Eastern provinces

Dainn Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:41:25pm

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Let’s see:

No central government to speak of outside Kabul, and even Kabul is iffy.

A collection of drug- and warlord territories, not a country.

Porous, uncontrollable border with Pakistan.

No definition of what “winning” would look like.

In a place where Alexander the Great (prophet of Islam), the Brits, and the Soviets all failed.

And we’re not allowed to deliberate?

Sounds a lot like Iraq circa 2006, right before the surge. There is a clear plan to win put forward by Petreaus and McKiernan. Not a great solution, but all the others are worse. A destabilized Afghanistan may lead to a destabilized Pakistan, and bin Laden is just itching to get a nuke out of that scenario.

Eowyn2 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:42:28pm

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

So can we.

need to unloose the shackles

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:44:10pm

re: #59 Thanos

I get this cartoon picture in my mind of a Marine out on a branch, and a Congress man and a mysterious Taliban man fighting over the saw to cut the branch behind out Marine…

Randall Gross Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:45:06pm

Matter of fact if memory serves right the full on military assaults carried out by enemy for the past 12 months have mostly if not all have been in the east. In the rest of the country it’s been only small ambush/IED/suicide bombing on soft target type stuff.

The Sanity Inspector Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:45:16pm

re: #58 Rightwingconspirator

I truly hope we are not to the point of a bunch of scattered relatively unsupported platoons out there. I saw an unconfirmed report a Marine held FOB was overrun. Hope not!

The thought of squads of our soldiers just sitting out in the middle of nowhere, like live bait in a leg trap, makes my stomach turn over. We need to regain the initiative in those mountains.

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:46:18pm

I’m a hawk about Afghan. I gotta go back to work and drop out here. I like this forum! (new guy)

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:47:07pm

re: #34 Dark_Falcon

You’re right, he won’t. He won’t risk his power for the truth. Barack Obama does not know the meaning of sacrifice, nor does he possess the strength to make the hard call. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

-1 Troll/Flamebait

Really, if you’re going to throw out broad brush blanket statements like that and not give any evidence to back it up, you deserve to get called out.

Did Obama discontinue wiretapping and cave to the left? Not that I can tell. Did Obama cave and pull out of Afghanistan? Not that I can tell. Is Obama looking for other options than a massive land commitment? Yes, but that’s neither weak nor cowardly.

Obama has a lot of issues, but I think calling him a coward and weak is beyond the pale of respect and civility.

walkman Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:48:08pm

Can’t we just:

1) Engage Intel.
2) Identify the enemy.
3) Kill the enemy.
4) Repeat.

wiffersnapper Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:51:57pm

As Ron Paul sticks his head further into the sand…

The Sanity Inspector Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:54:52pm

Not entirely OT: In case I’m not the only one who missed it, Foreign Policy magazine last month did a profile on the most prominent Afghan blogger, Nasim Fekrat, The Afghan Lord. May his tribe increase.

bofhell Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:56:55pm

“Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war is: ‘Do not march on Moscow.’
Rule 2 is: ‘Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.’”

Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery (Viscount Alamein) in a speech in the House of Lords on 30 May 1962 (courtesy IMDB)

Not to mention Wallace Shawn’s more famous variation as Vizzini.

What does it mean to win here? Russia tried to subjugate Afghanistan and failed, and our own efforts have been mixed. Don’t get me wrong — I am not saying this is a fight we should not be in, but rather I think the language being used is naive. I don’t think we can “win” in Afghanistan through an exclusively military option or in a classic military sense.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:00:17pm

re: #66 bloodstar

-1 Troll/Flamebait

Really, if you’re going to throw out broad brush blanket statements like that and not give any evidence to back it up, you deserve to get called out.

Did Obama discontinue wiretapping and cave to the left? Not that I can tell. Did Obama cave and pull out of Afghanistan? Not that I can tell. Is Obama looking for other options than a massive land commitment? Yes, but that’s neither weak nor cowardly.

Obama has a lot of issues, but I think calling him a coward and weak is beyond the pale of respect and civility.

It wasn’t civil, but I don’t care. I intensely distrust Obama and the Democrats, and absent information to the contrary, I’m going to take a “bad case” option when trying to figure out their motives.

albusteve Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:02:52pm

re: #66 bloodstar

-1 Troll/Flamebait

Really, if you’re going to throw out broad brush blanket statements like that and not give any evidence to back it up, you deserve to get called out.

Did Obama discontinue wiretapping and cave to the left? Not that I can tell. Did Obama cave and pull out of Afghanistan? Not that I can tell. Is Obama looking for other options than a massive land commitment? Yes, but that’s neither weak nor cowardly.

Obama has a lot of issues, but I think calling him a coward and weak is beyond the pale of respect and civility.

no one needs to back up an informal opinion with links…as for the last sentence there is no evidence otherwise of cowardice and he certainly is weak

Curt Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:22:25pm

re: #29 avanti

No one is talking about cut and run but some on the right. Biden did talk about protecting population centers and increased drone attacks, but no suggestion of reducing troop levels.

Withdrawal not a option.

So we can go the way of the French in a place referred to as French Indochina. The problem when you hunker down into a few foritied bases, you get a taste of medival warfare. Surround the castle and starve them out. More recently the tactic in a a battle at Dien Bien Phu.

You cede the countryside to them to roam as they desire, concentrating their power as needed to replicate the tactics of centuries ago and decades ago, that did not go well for superpowers who sat in their trenches.

Now, the countryside in the ‘Stan is formidable.

My suggestion: bring the full force of the US and Allied nations to bear to creat an economic and cultural climate that shows you thrive when you don’t allow maniacs to control what you say, what you wear, how long your beard is, and what you can do based on gender.

You know, we did that in Europe and Japan after we got them to listen. Right now, the military is shouldering the burden and trying to do all things like this under a DoD budget, and without real support from those who turn their nose up at the use of military power to solve such problems, and…when offered jobs over there, refuse to go, because they actually know they will be in danger…you know, the kind fitting only for those who chose to wear a uniform, then be dismissed as brutes and too stupid to get a real job.

This country, from the left and from the right, has far more to offer, and it’s not about building an empire, it’s about helping others have peace.

I’d love to see the left get on board with actually doing what they say over there. Might actually work.

_RememberTonyC Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:43:29pm

this item is two weeks old, but I missed it in late Sept and did not see it here.

[Link: www.israelnationalnews.com…]

Presidential advisor z. brezezinski (a retread from the carter administration) says the US military should shoot down Israeli planes if they attack iran.

has the President distanced himself from his key advisor on this one?

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:56:37pm

Just a line overheard in my office today…

If you want to resolve the tribal issues just gives them a casino near a major interstate highway…

California humor.

peterb Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:52:06pm

There is nothing wrong with deliberating carefully about how to proceed in Afghanistan.

Although we are not Alexander the Great, or the British, or Russia, we are on the verge of fighting a land war in Afghanistan (I’d not classify what we’ve done so far as a traditional land war). There is a word for a man who doesn’t learn from the lessons of the past. That word is “moron”.

The problem, of course, is that we already tried ignoring the Taliban once, when they just seemed like a bunch of crazy zealots blowing up Buddha statues, and the end result was 9/11. So, yes, we have to decide how to fight a potentially long and costly war. And we have to do it carefully. And I hope the military and civilian leaderships can figure out how to approach this porcupine.

But saying “Failure is not an option” does not, magically, make failure impossible.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Yon: Two Firefights, One Video

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud