The soldiers surrounded by the Indians (sorry, native americans,) pressed on all sides and planning to abandon the fort and pull back to protect the town. A familiar scenario

Afghan insurgents pushed into U.S. base, official says - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghanistan.us.deadly.fight/index.html)

This will be the outcome when the US attempts to pull out. It seems the Taliban, realising that the US soldiers were planning to pull out of their remote outpost, launched an offensive to drive them out. This is what happened at the first sign of weakness. Now where was the air cavalry?
The enemy will no doubt be emboldened if the strategy is to cede ground to protect civilians. Fortunately this time the enemy was not successful but they demonstrated that they are determined and should not be underestimated.

With no apologies to anyone

Out where the river broke
The wormwood and beggarticks
Humvee wrecks and boiling diesels
Steam in forty five degrees

The time has come
To say fairs fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share
The time has come
A facts a fact
It belongs to them
Lets give it back

How can we dance when our earth is turning
How do we sleep when our beds are burning

Four wheels scare the coots
From kerawa east to ingiska
The western desert lives and breathes
In forty five degrees

(live - on scream in blue
The time has come
A facts a fact
It belongs to afghans all
Lets give it back)

You are correct in that the Taliban is seeing weakness from us.

But these remote outposts designed to protect civilian populations from the conflict at the expense of ceding the populated areas to the enemy is a fatally flawed strategy that needs to be immediately changed.

But instead the President is engaged in a Hamlet like navel gaze.

You are correct in that the Taliban is seeing weakness from us.

But these remote outposts designed to protect civilian populations from the conflict at the expense of ceding the populated areas to the enemy is a fatally flawed strategy that needs to be immediately changed.

But instead the President is engaged in a Hamlet like navel gaze.

Alas poor Barack I knew him well?

Tom, the whole thing is a fatally flawed strategy. One assessment suggests there are about 100 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan, how then can Obama's offensive be against Al Qaeda, 68,000 troops chasing 100 terrorists. No the offensive has shifted to the Taliban and instead of denying the Taliban movement the strategy will be to sit and wait for them in the large towns whilst trying to pick them off with drones. Too much reliance on technology sooner or later the Taliban will find a way of targeting the drones. This is what comes of dealing with tribal people

What tribes respect is the biggest baddest tribe. We have not established ourselves as that yet. What they do not respect is a Mogadishu like leaving with our tails between our legs .

The strategy that McCrystal envisions is as much political as it is military . I have no doubt that he is correct in his recommendation . What I am unsure of is if the President has the vision to see that we are backing the wrong horse by propping up the Karzai brothers... especially after the recent vote fraud .

If that isn't corrected it will be the biggest blunder in the theater.

What tribes respect is the biggest baddest tribe. We have not established ourselves as that yet. What they do not respect is a Mogadishu like leaving with our tails between our legs .

The strategy that McCrystal envisions is as much political as it is military . I have no doubt that he is correct in his recommendation . What I am unsure of is if the President has the vision to see that we are backing the wrong horse by propping up the Karzai brothers ...especially after the recent vote fraud .

If that isn't corrected it will be the biggest blunder in the theater.

Bingo. Greenies for you!!
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttps://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttps://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttps://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/tomder55.html#latest_rep)https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttps://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/reputation/reputation_pos.gif

What tribes respect is the biggest baddest tribe. We have not established ourselves as that yet.

What I am unsure of is if the President has the vision to see that we are backing the wrong horse by propping up the Karzai brothers ...especially after the recent vote fraud .

If that isn't corrected it will be the biggest blunder in the theater.Hello tom:

Couple things.

I don't disagree with your proposition above... I absolutely disagree with the proposed strategy to attain it.. If you think an additional 40,000 troops will establish US as the biggest baddest tribe in Afghanistan, you are truly mistaken by monumental proportions.

Next, if you think we need to depose Karzai and put another puppet in and THAT'LL do the trick, you are mistaken even further.. You are proposing another Vietnam type quagmire that will gain us NOTHING, but it'll for sure slaughter 1,000's of our young men and women. It could be our death knell.

excon

I did not say depose. The election results are in fact a certified fraud. By sticking with Karzai we are propping up an illegitimate regime.

The truth is that Dr. Abdullah won the elections and should be the person we support. UN data proves it.
washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100202855.html)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-07-voa11.cfm

This has nothing to do with Vietnam ;no comparison exists unless we continue to support Karzai.

I did not say depose.This has nothing to do with Vietnam ;no comparison exists unless we continue to support Karzai.Hello again, tom:

No, and you didn't say puppet either, but so what? You also MISS the thrust of my post. I don't suggest that Afghanistan compares to Vietnam because of our support or NOT for their leader...

I suggest it's like Vietnam because of the 100,000's of our young soldiers that it's going to take to achieve what YOU SAY is necessary to achieve... I also said it's like Vietnam because of how many dead Americans it's going to produce. I also said it's like Vietnam because the American people don't have the stomach for it... I also said it's like Vietnam because it won't win ANYTHING IF we win... I also said it's like Vietnam BECAUSE IT'S UNWINNABLE!

How about addressing THOSE issues?

excon

How about addressing THOSE issues?

Why?

You're wrong about every one of them.

It doesn't take "100,000's of our young soldiers" to win. It'll take about 100,000 of them, the 60,000 that are there now and the 40,000 additional troops being asked for... or so says McCrystle, Patreus, and anyone else in the know. But they have to be the RIGHT troops with the RIGHT support and the RIGHT equipment. So you are wrong on that count.

The number of coalition casualties in 8 years of fighting in Afghanistan totals 1,381, as of 3 days ago. 800 of them are US casualties. There is nothing to indicate that the casualties in Afghanistan are or ever will be anything near to what we experienced in Vietnam with 58,200 KIA between 1965 and 1971. So you are wrong on that count as well.

As to your claim that the people don't have the stomach for it... first of all, so what? They aren't doing the fighting, there is no draft, and they don't have to be involved if they don't want to. But second of all, what makes you think that your statement is true. Last I saw, there was wide public support for McChrystle's plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Which leads me to believe that you are projecting your own feelings about Afghanistan onto the public, and are not reading public opinion correctly. And finally, most people were against the troops surge in Iraq until we did it and it was proven an effective strategy. At that point, the country got behind the move and suddenly the people had the stomach for it again. The American people ALWAYS have the stomach for a fight that we are clearly winning... it's when our politicians get in the way and don't let the soldiers fight or force them into situations where they are forced to lose that the American public loses it's stomach for the fight. McChrystle's strategy is a winning one, and the public will get behind it. So for THREE REASONS you are wrong about this issue as well.

As for "not winning anything", you are wrong there too. Winning in this instance, as I have said before, means creating an environment in which security in Afghanistan can be maintained, and support for terrorism from Afghanistan is eliminated, especially vis-à-vis terrorist attacks against America. Such a "win" would be a major coup for national security. This war isn't about conquering a land and taking assets. It's about securing an area and eliminating it as a threat to national security. So again, you are wrong.

Finally, the war is VERY winnable. It has clear goals, a strong strategy, and we have the proper assets available to do it. The only thing missing is White House approval to implement that strategy and move those assets where they are needed. Another point on which you are wrong.

So if you are wrong on the issues, why address them?

Why did I waste my time doing so?

I don't know... I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. And I like pointing out when you're wrong. And you give me so much opportunity to indulge...

Elliot

Let's see . How is this conflict not like Vietnam ?
Afghanistan is a centuries old established nation (since 1747) . When asked most Afghani's identify themselves as Afghani and not their tribe. South Vietnam and Vietnam itself was a creation carved of the remnants of the French colonial days(created 1954) .

The Taliban does not represent a nationalist movement .They are a semi-tribal/terrorist insurgency that has no wide spread support in the country. When they ruled after they conquered they ruled by jackbooted fear. Even Karzai as corrupt as he is has better nationwide support. But still he is an anchor to our goals because as brutal as the Taliban were ;they could not be accused of corruption.

In Vietnam we fought a ragtag insurgency that was easily defeatable. But we also fought against a NVA ;an established large army fully funded and supported by the Soviet Union and the Chinese.

The casualty rate in Afghanistan is about 100 a year . Vietnam had many weeks that exceded that rate.

Here is the simularity if you must look for one. Before tactics changed the US employed “search and destroy” in Vietnam designed to jack up enemy body counts and not to protect the population. Once the tactics changed to counter-insurgency and Vietnamization was adopted we were much more successful and would've won were it not for the Democrat Congress defunding the effort. Simularily the tactics in this conflict have to become counter-insurgency instead of holding vulnerable outposts in the valleys of the Hindu-kush .

What tribes respect is the biggest baddest tribe. We have not established ourselves as that yet. What they do not respect is a Mogadishu like leaving with our tails between our legs .

.

I don't think there is any doubt you have established yourselves as the biggest baddest tribe in Afghanistan, in fact, your actions are as tribal as the Afghans, we only have to look at the base parties to confirm that. Unfortunately you are not locals, so you have the respect afforded invaders and infidels. What you fail to recognise is your presence is an offense to the Afghans and particularly the Taliban. You represent the corruption they hate and you support a corrupt leadership. Any question of Al Qaeda is a sideshow now. The Taliban are not Al Qaeda, irrespective of any family ties with individual Afghans, They will not attack the US if you leave, but they might attack Pakistan, so what this is really about is Pakistani paranoia, not withstanding Zardari has excellent relations with the Taliban. Bhutto was pro Taliban and so is he.

The strategy that McCrystal envisions is as much political as it is military ..

Tom, you should do a little research, You will see this political not military strategy failed before. The British found when they responded to a political strategy of dispersing their troops into the towns to protect the population they became targets. This what will happen when the forces are dispersed to protect the population rather than being on the offensive. This strategy makes the Afghan government look good at the cost of ISAF lives. No wonder he wants more troops. Probably 200,000 wouldn't be enough to do the job properly. Let the Afghans protect the towns and the highly trained troops go after the Taliban. Then if civilians get killed we know who is responsible.

A military force succeeds by taking, securing and holding ground, so it looks like they need to start again, and take the ground or give it back and leave altogether.Having a scermish with the enemy and returning to base just allows the enemy to infiltrate again, an endless cycle