Afghanistan

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's because he learned in Iraq, he can only form alliances with, and garner support from, people that believe he's the baddest motherfucker in town. Those people want nothing to do with perceived pussies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's because he learned in Iraq, he can only form alliances with, and garner support from, people that believe he's the baddest motherfucker in town.

A tank is no different than a chopper or an armored humvee to an insurgent. Insurgency never stick around for a frontal attack. And never do frontal attacks. The tank is a minor asset in the soldier’s arsenal. And too many who do not get the bigger picture will hype the tank as if it will solve everything.

Tanks on this battlefield are nothing more than a mobile artillery piece. Instead, one should be first defining the strategic objectives in this war. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? And what is the method (defined by fundamental military doctrine even 2000 years ago) being used to accomplish that objective?

Tanks do not do that. Tanks simply make it easier (in some cases) for other assets to accomplish more important goals. To many are making a big deal about a deployment that is not significant in this type of battlefield.

[fo0hzy]

Originally Posted by tw

The tank is a minor asset in the soldier’s arsenal.

Say what, Willis?

You cannot be serious.

[xoxoxoBruce]

...they will provide the Marines with an important new tool in missions to flush out pockets of insurgent fighters. A tank round is far more accurate than firing artillery, and it can be launched much faster than having to wait for a fighter jet or a helicopter to shoot a missile or drop a satellite-guided bomb.

"Tanks give you immediate, protected firepower and mobility to address a threat that's beyond the range" of machine guns that are mounted on the mine-resistant trucks that most U.S. troops use in Afghanistan,...

The grunts that are looking at the "Big Picture", instead of their fire zone, end up dead.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by fo0hzy

Say what, Willis?

You cannot be serious.

Depends on the kind of war.

For fighting the Nazis in Normandy, or Saddam's republican guards, tanks are great.

For fighting guerrillas inside a town full of people who you hope to win over, you need accurate information and brave grunts to go and shoot the enemy.

Afghanistan is a mix of both types, I'd say, but more of the latter.

[tw]

Originally Posted by fo0hzy

You cannot be serious.

Very serious. And some think otherwise only because a big tank inspires a big penis. Emotions do not create reality or facts.

Others who better understand these concept understand why tanks were so necessary in Normandy or in Desert Storm. But have minor value in Afghanistan.

Far more important - by hundreds or thousands of percent more valuable - are choppers. And a weapon that the Brits wanted more than anything provided by the UK - A10s.

As you should know, in WWII, tanks were not as important as many would hype. The Army with the shittiest tanks won the war. Because that nation had other more important assets.

[fo0hzy]

BTW see this movie, if you haven't already:

[classicman]

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from across the border in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

Link

[sexobon]

Does it matter? Does anyone really believe that Taliban leaders' negotiations would be anything other than delaying tactics for circumventing hostilities to conserve firepower with which take over again after US withdrawal? President Karzai's pathetic government wouldn't be competent enough to prevent a takeover a decade from now let alone by the 2014 commencement of US downsizing there. The US - Karzai alliance has to capture the hearts and minds of Taliban followers. If the alliance deals with the Taliban leadership, it gives that leadership legitimacy to bind their followers to anyone they choose ... including Al Qaeda. Trying to wean Taliban followers from its leadership after that is a fool's errand and commits us to perpetually buying their passiveness. McCrystal understood that the current US administration's policy (it's cheaper and politically expedient to dance with the devil) made him an impotent flunky for short term gain. He rejected it. Petraeus understands this too; however, Betrayus has ambitions that make him willing to accept the role. He knows he'll be retired before the ramifications come back to haunt us, a lesson he learned from GWB.

[Griff]

US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Patrick Quinn, Associated Press – Thu Nov 25, 4:37 pm ET

KABUL, Afghanistan – The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.

Anyone remember how long did the SU lasted after their over-reach?

[ZenGum]

That fake Mansour incident has me torn.

I find it very amusing that some scammer has just conned a global military force, and gotten away with the loot. Cheeky and talented.

I find it very worrying that it is our side in the war that just got scammed. It appears we don't even know what our enemies leadership looks like, and are hopelessly lost among the politics of Afghanistan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We know who they are, just not where they are, or what they look like.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I find it very worrying that it is our side in the war that just got scammed. It appears we don't even know what our enemies leadership looks like, and are hopelessly lost among the politics of Afghanistan.

Welcome to VietNam. Exact same scenario. Back in America, we had no idea who was winning or losing in 1968 even though reality had been known in 1965.

Did we lose that war in 2003 when George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban? How many years had the Taliban retaken Afghanistan before you knew it?

The purpose of war is always - there is no exception - to take the conflict back the negotiation table. Apparently in trying to do just that, a scam artist prospered. But it does not change the only way to win a war - we must always talk to our enemies. No way around that reality. The only problem in Afghanistan is trying to get them to talk. And to know we are talking to our enemy.

But again, we will only learn how well we are doing in ... well in Vietnam, we were losing in early 1960s. For many who are experts on this stuff, that reality did not become obvious until 1968 - the Tet offensive. For many Americans, the defeat was not apparent until 1972 or 1975 when the Pentagon Papers or the fall of Saigon made it impossible to deny reality.

We do not yet know if we lost the Afghan war back in mid 2000s. Hard facts are hard to separate from the chaff. So much chaff because many are preaching a political agenda rather than grasping the number one purpose of war. To take that conflict back the negotiation table.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw neglects to mention the Democratic-controlled Congress of the first half of the 1970s, and its direct role in collapsing the Saigon government. And of course the "reeducation camps" that followed, along with a couple million extra deaths, all because of socialism, and a quarter million surviving boat people, same cause -- with all of which he seems altogether content, as long as it impairs both this Republic and humanity's God-given birthright of freedom together. The motivations beneath what he writes about Vietnam remain disgusting. If only the man were perceptibly anti-totalitarian. He isn't.

[Lamplighter]

The US Administration has "completed" it's review of the war in Afghanistan, but the
public debut and the prospects of it becoming public information seemed very, very slim.
Where's Wikileaks when you need them ?

On TV, Sec of State Clinton said very little of substance,
except the current montra of "Pakistan needs to do more"

NY Times
Report Shows How Pakistan Still Bedevils Obama
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 16, 2010

Even the toned-down, public version of the one-year progress report
released by the White House on Thursday makes clear President Obama is still in search
of the leverage he needs to persuade, or compel, Pakistan to close down
the safe haven for terrorists and insurgents that has let a battered al Qaeda leadership
and a vigorous Taliban survive.

The classified version runs more than 50 pages, and the White House is holding it
so tightly that it is unlikely to be widely distributed on Capitol Hill;
senior members of Congress can request classified briefings, officials said.

They spent a year developing this report, but I should done it for them
My report has been stuck on the back of my truck for about a year: