22-12-2002 00:01									#1
	Rambo 3+1/2... Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Failure of the 82nd airborne As the US prepares for war on Iraq, its troops in Afghanistan are coming under increasing attack from the forces they were sent to dig out Dan Plesch Thursday December 19, 2002 The Guardian American forces in Afghanistan have suffered a series of setbacks during 2002, and a year after the fall of the Taliban the US army is under almost daily attack in its bases in eastern Afghanistan. In the latest incident, in Kabul yesterday, two American soldiers were seriously injured in a grenade attack. The main US force in the country is the 82nd airborne division, which is based at Bagram near Kabul. There are secondary bases at and around Khost in eastern Afghanistan, some 20 miles from the Pakistan border. Since mid-September US forces based in this area have been increased to more than 2,000, from just a few hundred earlier in the year, with a full battalion of parachute infantry at the new base of Camp Salerno outside Khost. Several US-led attacks, using hundreds and even thousands of troops, have been ineffective, suffered outright defeat, or resulted in disaster. These failures have led the US to keep its forces mostly inside their bases: at Khost and Kandahar they are under attack almost daily from missiles and machine guns. When it was launched in March, the US gave Operation Anaconda maximum publicity. It was supposed to crush remaining al-Qaida forces. Locally recruited Afghans were trained to act as "beaters", driving al-Qaida from its high mountain caves on to the guns of US soldiers lying in ambush. The reality was that it was the US army that was ambushed. According to the Washington Post and other US reports, the plan was betrayed to the enemy through the Afghan militias. At a dozen mountain passes, al-Qaida attacked US and allied forces as they jumped from their helicopters to take up what they thought would be their own ambush positions. So intense was the enemy fire that for two days the US could not fly in helicopters to support its own troops, who remained pinned down in vicious fighting. The US had eight men killed and 100 wounded before al-Qaida pulled back. After proclaiming the operation a complete success, the US announced that no more operations of this kind would be undertaken. During the summer, the units involved - the 101st air assault and 10th mountain - were replaced by the 82nd airborne. This is the most highly trained infantry unit in the US army, and one Pentagon planners would prefer to have available for Iraq. It began operations intended to dig out enemy forces from the villages of eastern Afghanistan. Newsweek described as "a disaster" its first high- profile mission, quoting other US troops and civilian witnesses. They said that 600 soldiers had gone on the rampage in Operation Mountain Sweep, undoing in minutes six months of community building. They went through villages "as if Bin Laden was in every house", said one of the US army's own special forces soldiers. So serious were the complaints from other units about the conduct of the 82nd airborne that the army took sworn statements from all the officers and senior NCOs involved. The civilian casualties have not been accounted for. The 82nd is continuing to conduct cordon and search operations and has reduced media access. One senior US editor told me he had been prevented by his own organisation from filing reports on the futility and brutality of US operations. He said the only comparison in US military history was with a punitive expedition into Mexico conducted by General Pershing in 1915. This produced virtually no results after months searching the desolate Mexican countryside in search of Pancho Villa, chasing up false leads provided by the local population. Former British officers well informed on the Afghan operations are concerned at the US approach. British troops are trained to operate according to rules of engagement governing when it is considered acceptable to shoot to kill. This approach is designed to ensure that force is used to help achieve wider political goals. In the US army this kind of fine-tuning is not regarded as relevant. Despite its power, the US has not been able to prevent its bases in Afghanistan from coming under frequent attack. Mostly, these achieve little more than keeping the troops in their dugouts. From time to time, as yesterday, a few soldiers are wounded and trucks blown up. Containing the violence at this relatively low level could be considered a victory in itself but it will be hard to keep the lid on indefinitely. At the same time, the vaunted claim not to have once more left Afghanistan in the lurch is looking increasingly hollow. Some aid has been delivered, but its impact has been negated by the actions of US forces in alienating the population. US strategy appears to be limited to continuing to pay local warlords to keep the peace, but these efforts have not even been enough to get control of the opium crop, which has this year produced some 2,000 tons of heroin destined for our streets. A fresh brigade of the 82nd airborne arrives in Afghanistan this month, and early next year the Germans and Dutch, with Nato help, will take over in Kabul. Under pressure from President Karzai, the Pentagon is now considering setting up a dozen new bases around Afghanistan to liaise with local warlords and assist in delivering aid. A B52 strike was called in to support US soldiers as they prepared one of the first of these new operations in the Herat region. The risk is that, given the US's negative reputation, these new outposts will also come under attack, destabilising rather than stabilising the country. · Dan Plesch is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies dplesch@rusi.org

Perhaps those evil Russians have sent their own commando to help the Afghans. What would his name be though? Jovan Rambovich?

Interesting read however, although biased in favour of the Brits, who could fail as well, not to mention the Germans...

	22-12-2002 04:51									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hm, this doesn't bode well.

	22-12-2002 04:57									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

You know, **** happens...

	22-12-2002 11:26									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It also tends to make mountains of molehills and look for maximum spin interpretation. A couple of days ago, there was one US KIA in an ambush that was the first KIA since some time in May?

Before the invasion ever went in, I posted my own for the hell of it estimate of about 180,000 US troops (about the emptying the cupboard of relevant combat forces for the terrain) to substantially take and secure the country in a war against the Taleban. Simple thing, the US can't support a long term deployment in that scale, so they opted for local warlords and the NA, with limited US environment.

The real issue isn't whether limited US forces can hunt down every ******* that pops up from under a rock and flips an RPG at a US firebase, it's how quickly can a competent Afghan national force be created to deal with it's own security issue.

The Soviets had 20-30 times the combat forces in Afghanistan, and had thousands killed - almost ten per day over the average of the Soviet occupation. We've had the first KIA in six months, and the Guardian is playing the defeatists post-mortem game?

	24-12-2002 04:11									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: It began operations intended to dig out enemy forces from the villages of eastern Afghanistan. Newsweek described as "a disaster" its first high- profile mission, quoting other US troops and civilian witnesses. They said that 600 soldiers had gone on the rampage in Operation Mountain Sweep, undoing in minutes six months of community building. They went through villages "as if Bin Laden was in every house", said one of the US army's own special forces soldiers. So serious were the complaints from other units about the conduct of the 82nd airborne that the army took sworn statements from all the officers and senior NCOs involved. The civilian casualties have not been accounted for. The 82nd is continuing to conduct cordon and search operations and has reduced media access.

The problem is not their own casualties, but the mess they are creating.

	24-12-2002 06:24									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by axi The problem is not their own casualties, but the mess they are creating.

How much of a mess can they create sitting in bunkers in a sparsely populated part of a sparsely populated country?

	24-12-2002 09:40									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's not a good sign. It says that al-Qaeda, Taliban and assorted warlords are on the loose. They probably can't damage the US troops much, but then the US troops have been hiding mostly. Building a national army takes time, besides, they don't have the money. Without an economy to support the military, there won't be much of a military. It's quite a vicious little Catch-22.


Sik:

quote: They said that 600 soldiers had gone on the rampage in Operation Mountain Sweep, undoing in minutes six months of community building. They went through villages "as if Bin Laden was in every house", said one of the US army's own special forces soldiers.

	24-12-2002 11:19									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

All we have to do in Afghanistan is to keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban from making any significant inroads. In the short-term this can be done by supporting the warlords. In the long-term, the Kabul government must take control. Until then, all we have to do is keep a low-profile and keep pressure on the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Of course, the more we have assistance from our allies in keeping the piece in Afghanistan the better. The Al Qaeda appears to have a very good propaganda machine which feeds anti American hate. The mere presence of our allies in Afghanistan helps to deflect Al Qaeda propaganda.

	24-12-2002 14:26									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The Soviets had 20-30 times the combat forces in Afghanistan, and had thousands killed - almost ten per day over the average of the Soviet occupation. We've had the first KIA in six months, and the Guardian is playing the defeatists post-mortem game?

During ten years of Afghan war Soviets lost less then 14500 soldiers (14487iirc) Simple calculation 14500/(10*365) would give you less then four per day. Where did you get ten per day?
Could you make the same simple calculation for American losses per day during Vietnam war?

And btw, Soviets fought there, (not hide their as$es in bunckers and used locals as cannon fodder or run with tail between their legs everytime when bullets start flying, like your commandos like to demonstrate now in Afghanistan). And btw, fought vs army trained by your instructors, supplied with your newest weaponry and millions of your $$$ (those guys, like ObL f.e. were your allies at those times) not vs. small bunch of religious fanatics with rusty weapons.


I hope you feel better now

	24-12-2002 17:44									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

People who fight outside of their own country and without a cause (like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam) tend to get beaten by people who are fighting for their own independence, because of the difference in morale. The Russians did not learn their lesson and have repeated their blunder in Chechnya, while the Americans have been taught to chicken out of the battle and let superior technology do the job for them.

	24-12-2002 19:17									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You forget that Chechnya is part of Russia for at least a couple of centuries.

European idealists ...everywhere you see imperialism, even in pure selfdefese and absolutely obvious fight vs. terrorism like Chechnya and American campaign vs. Taliban.

Invasion in Iraq is different of course

	24-12-2002 20:44									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned All we have to do in Afghanistan is to keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban from making any significant inroads. In the short-term this can be done by supporting the warlords.

I don't see this as a good policy. The warlords can just take the money and do nothing. Unless the US troops go attack them, in which case the US might as well directly attack Taliban.