Marines force of 20,000 seen for Afghanistan

Marines force of 20,000 seen for Afghanistan

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Up to 20,000 U.S. Marines could be deployed in Afghanistan as part of a planned major troop build-up to battle worsening insurgent violence, the top U.S. Marine officer said on Friday.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said any buildup of Marines in Afghanistan would have to be accompanied by an equivalent cut in the 22,000-strong Marine force in Iraq to maintain the corps' schedule of seven-month deployments

(visit the link for the full news article)

It would appear from this comment that the US has yet to learn that it cannot win such conflicts. Given the fact that it was not long ago that the mighty Soviet Union left Afganistan with its tail between its legs how long before the US does the same.

Just what ios it that the American military planners think they can achive that the Russians could not. And after getting nowhere in 5 years of conflict in Iraq this proves the point does it not.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by magicmushroom


It would appear from this comment that the US has yet to learn that it cannot win such conflicts. Given the fact that it was not long ago that the mighty Soviet Union left Afganistan with its tail between its legs how long before the US does the same.

Just what ios it that the American military planners think they can achive that the Russians could not. And after getting nowhere in 5 years of conflict in Iraq this proves the point does it not.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Times have changed, the U.S. has way better soldiers, way better equipment, way better tactics, way better air power, way better intelligence, way better recon, its everything.

The U.S. has predator drones and satellites taking precise pics and tracking phones and triangulating locations, not to mention spy planes. They have the Apache Longbow helicopters that can borrow the radar from a fellow Apache or other-equipped helicopter close enough to the enemy to pick up a position, while they sit back and fire from so far away they have no clue what it is that they might be hitting with their rocket or missile. There's the C-130 with the mini guns on it, those things are so beast in action. Their actual on the ground intel assets like traitors, spies, and agents are greater than the Soviets ever had as well.

This isn't even saying a word about the higher level of training our soldiers receive, OR saying anything about their being no big financial and logistical backer of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that even comes close to the U.S. when the Soviets were fighting them. The U.S. equipped and trained so many Afghani muslim jihad fighters in that war that the U.S. is partially credited with changing the tide of the war by introducing accurate surface to air missiles for the fighters. There's no one on the ground helping them as much as WE helped them and their daddies back in the 70's / 80's lol. So no one is frustrating our objective as well as we frustrated the Soviet's objective.

The Pakistani Intelligence Agency isnt even close to equal in comparison, although it is frustrating that there are Pakistani sympathizers. If there werent, this war would be over, all the big beards of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are in Pakistan under protection there, heh. Come to think of it, Pakistan is playing a very shady role here, hindering our efforts while openly-yet-hesitatingly declaring to the world that they are helping us and allying with our forces to root out insurgents.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by runetang]

Afghanistan will never be won outright, only controlled to a certain degree. Afghanistan is just too rugged. The terrain makes it the perfect place for the Taliban to fight the Allies on their own terms, guerilla warfare.

Remember, those Taliban have been fighting for a very long time. They've got all the time in the world. Also, they've got a lot of motivation as they have a sound cause. I'm not sure if the same can be said of the soldiers on the ground.

In my opinion, sending more troops will just result in more IED's and more cat and mouse skirmishes between the Taliban and the troops, resulting in the troops calling in a air strike which rarely has any impact. The troops on the ground rarely see the Taliban. It's an impossible situation for them.

The British have been having a hard time of it, as of late. Quite a few young soldiers dying and many being injured to these guerilla tactics. They're basically sitting ducks.

[edit on 25uSunday09/27/08 by paul76]

Paul what absolute rot, your superioirty has not delivered the goods in Iraq has it. And you will never subjugate people with technology no matter how much you try. The US will get its ass kicked in Afganistan and it is only fighting there for fuel supplies and the Israelis. The Israelis being the main reason.

And the joke of the century whilst the US claims to be spreading democracy it is denying its own people the same at home.

Unfortunately I feel that this will just increases the risk of more "friendly fire" on my country's (Canada) military.
20,000 headstrong 1/2 retarded marines is just going to mess up the little bit of progress that Canada has made in that stupid ass backwards country.
Or... much like WW2, Here come the damn yanks to take all the credit.

Our governments should just back out and level that ugly grease spot on the globe. To hell with Afghanistan. Nuke the f***ers and focus on the cleanup after.

Whatever they do in Afghanistan they need to do it quickly so we can get that country stabilized and get out. Right now it's 20,000, but if we start bogging down I'm sure many more soldiers and marines will be thrown in the picture. Bring the troops home ASAP. The enemy is in that no man land and if Obama don't have the guts to send our forces in where the enemy is then he might as well bring them home.

Jam ther is no enemy there only the ones the CIA created, US forces are in the ME for the benefit of Israel and not US citizens. The US and its people have made themselves a target for all manner of attacks and this is all down to your corrupt Goverment and the Israelis.

Originally posted by magicmushroom


It would appear from this comment that the US has yet to learn that it cannot win such conflicts. Given the fact that it was not long ago that the mighty Soviet Union left Afganistan with its tail between its legs how long before the US does the same.

Obama said for months they were going to do this so now why is everybody on the band wagon of this is an example of the US loosing in Afgahistan?

Nobody is going to win but they can control the area and hold it long enough to put it on the back burner of world attention.

And Unlike the Foremer " Mighty Soviets"

The US does have support from a much larger % of the Afgahns. and this time the " Freedom Fighter " Do not have a super power supplying them to fight us like we supplied them to fight the soviets

Apples and Oranges my friend whether you like it or not!

Apples and oranges. We are talking about peoples lives here and international law. The US has no business being in Afgansitan and neither dose anyone else. The US is only there because its Israeli masters have ordered it so, that and the fuel supplies is all that matters. If it was anywhere else such as the African continent the US would not give a toss or Israel come to that. And for all the propaganda about what the Afgani people want they may not want the Taliban but they certainly don't want the Americans either.

Afgansitan cannot afford to have 2 million of its people killed by those democracy peace spreading Americans.

reply to post by magicmushroom


Including the Taliban
Since they are mostly made up of a bunch of foreign islamic nuts
And the Afgahns themselves seem to want us there more than they want them.

And now, Biden chimes in on the subject:

Biden warns of higher US death toll in Afghanistan

Vice President Joe Biden says the nation should expect more U.S. military casualties as the Obama administration plans to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

Not surprising, given their plans to scale up operations in the region.

reply to post by vor78


de ja vu, all over again.

LOL @ "change"...

The PTB "check-mating" of the asleep and gullible populace is like the energizer bunny: It just keeps going and going and going...

reply to post by vor78




Exactly since the disastrous Victory in Iraq that has freed up resources for an expanded campaign in Afghanistan.

Oh wait most of them are now held up in Pakistani mountain hide outs. They cross the border to wage their campaigns against the Afghanistan and Coalition forces.

At the end of the day this will be yet another ass wuping of the American forces, how do you do it, how does the worlds greatest military suffer so many defeats and not only that offer up its own people to fight wars for others. If the Israelis don't want the people of the ME around them then why don't they fight the war themselves instead of involving America and others.

While you daft Americans are prancing around stating how good you are the Israelis are laughing their arses off becuase its you who is doing the dying and not them. I know the Americans say they are living in a bubble but is it opaque, can you not see out of it and see whats going on.

I would just like to know have all this war death and destruction and cost of course benefits the average American, I cannot see it but maybe I'm missing something. Will one of you tell me what it is. From my viewepoint I see Americans suffering at home financially and suffering pain and death in the ME, how does that make you safer, free or better off.

Originally posted by magicmushroom


Given the fact that it was not long ago that the mighty Soviet Union left Afganistan with its tail between its legs how long before the US does the same.

The Russians hardly had any support from most of Afghanistan at least we have a good percentage of the population who want help us fight the mostly Foreign Taliban.

Yes most of the Taliban are foreigners to Afghanistan.
Mostly made up of Muslim fanatics from around the Gulf.
Besides Maybe we Americans are not the only ones they should be afraid of AYE?

Canadian Army Vs. Taliban Insurgents

Originally posted by magicmushroom
At the end of the day this will be yet another ass wuping of the American forces, how do you do it, how does the worlds greatest military suffer so many defeats and not only that offer up its own people to fight wars for others. If the Israelis don't want the people of the ME around them then why don't they fight the war themselves instead of involving America and others.

While you daft Americans are prancing around stating how good you are the Israelis are laughing their arses off becuase its you who is doing the dying and not them. I know the Americans say they are living in a bubble but is it opaque, can you not see out of it and see whats going on.

When that comes to pass let me know about it.
Having a fanciful opinion is one thing insulting the US is ok to I'm big enough to accept criticism. It's all good.

I would suggest relaxing and take a deep breath and realize the world does not revolve around you and your opinions.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Oh wait most of them are now held up in Pakistani mountain hide outs. They cross the border to wage their campaigns against the Afghanistan and Coalition forces.

That they do.

I'm still not quite sure I support sending more troops into that country, however, or whether the current tactic of just bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban encampments and maintaining a smaller ground force makes more sense. My fear is that if we start dumping more and more troops into the region, we run the risk of being seen more as an occupying force. If that happens, Afghanistan could become another Iraq. Plus, more troops means more potential accidents with Afghan civilians, which can create hard feelings and conflict, which, in turn, drives up recruitment for the opposition.

To make matters worse, this bunch has a history of defeating a superior military force, even if it was 25 years ago. That makes a difference for their morale and willingness to fight, and while I have little doubt that the US can and will achieve its objectives, the question is, at what cost?


[edit on 25-1-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78

To make matters worse, this bunch has a history of defeating a superior military force, even if it was 25 years ago. That makes a difference for their morale and willingness to fight, and while I have little doubt that the US can and will achieve its objectives, the question is, at what cost?

Here is the cost so far it's a far cry of what the former " Mighty Soviets" lost

Afghanistan

There have been 1,052 coalition deaths -- 636 Americans, eight Australians, 142 Britons, 107 Canadians, three Czech, 21 Danes, 18 Dutch, three Estonians, one Finn, 23 French, 25 Germans, two Hungarians, 12 Italians, one Latvian, one Lithuanian, three Norwegians, eight Poles, two Portuguese, eight Romanians, one South Korean, 25 Spaniards, two Swedes -- in the war on terror as of January 23, 2009, according to a CNN count. Below are the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The troops died in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or were part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. At least 2,664 U.S. personnel have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View the list of casualties in the war in Iraq and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

Soviet personnel strengths and casualties

Monument to Soviet Soldiers in Afghanistan. Kiev, Ukraine.Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 92 percent, or 10,751 men, were left disabled.[59]

After the war ended, the Soviet Union published figures of dead Soviet soldiers: the total was 13,836 men, on average, and 1,537 men a year. According to updated figures, the Soviet army lost 14,427, the KGB lost 576, with 28 people dead and missing [60].


Remains of Soviet trucks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 2002.Material losses were as follows:

118 aircraft
333 helicopters
147 tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery guns and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

The US and coalition forces are fighting them in the mountains and countryside not in the cities except for the occasional terrorist attack against the Afghanistan populous by the insurgents

Yes Apples and Oranges






[edit on 25-1-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I agree, the two situations are not entirely comparable, and unlike the other poster, I think the US can complete its objectives and is justified in being over there. However, I'm not as convinced that dumping more troops into the conflict in an attempt to copy the Iraq surge is a sound strategy in this case.

We're about to find out, I suppose.