Afghanistan

[daviddwilson]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

for several years, Mike Yon detailed at some length what we had to do to win in Afghanistan. It appears he has changed his mind.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/afg...-come-true.htm

An apparent mishap during efforts to develop a biological or chemical weapon forced a branch of al-Qaeda to shutter a base in Algeria, a high-level U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Times on
reports that the accident had killed 40 terrorist operatives were accurate, but rejected the claim in the London Sun tabloid that the cause of death was bubonic plague.



___________________

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by daviddwilson

An apparent mishap during efforts to develop a biological or chemical weapon forced a branch of al-Qaeda to shutter a base in Algeria, a high-level U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Times on
reports that the accident had killed 40 terrorist operatives were accurate, but rejected the claim in the London Sun tabloid that the cause of death was bubonic plague.

That sounds like a good thing, 40 idiots get to meet 40 virgin sheep.

[gvidas]

10th-grade Afghan boy builds airplane:

http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2010/10/19...ght-permission

BAMYAN CITY (PAN): A teenage student, who has made what is being called the country’s first home-made plane, is waiting for government permission to fly his aircraft, an official said on Tuesday.
Sabir Shah, a 10th-grader from Jaghori district in southern Ghazni province, was summoned to the capital Kabul by President Hamid Karzai who wanted the plane to undergo a technical check up before allowing it to take flight, district chief, Zafar Sharif, said.

[classicman]

pretty cool.

[classicman]

Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement

To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: Tthe restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.

"If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust.

Wash Examiner:
I thought this changed when Patreus took over?

[gvidas]

Some interesting photos documenting a popular sport in Afghanistan, bodybuilding:

Weightlifting was introduced to Afghanistan in the 1960s thanks to the international popularity of muscle-celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, it has become one of Afghanistan's most popular sports. The pinnacle of the country's bodybuilding competitions is the annual Mr. Afghanistan pageant, but smaller contests are held year-round.

[classicman]

More on the Tanks to Afghanistan

This article also talks more about Petraeus's mindset on war fighting. There is a wide misconception that Petraeus is all about a soft approach, but I've been clearly reporting since at least 2007 that Petraeus is a straight-up killer. The man doesn't play. He's using more force now than anyone since... the war began. I saw him do this in Iraq. After he kills a bunch of bad guys, he comes back and says, "Hey, care to talk now? Doesn't have to be like this." If they don't want to talk, he goes back to killing.

Mark my words and watch.

Michael Yon

Link

[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.

[fo0hzy]

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

[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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

Uh no. Tell it to Petraeus.