Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants

reply to post by Jakes51


Obama is working feverishly on sending more troops as an option.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02600d96c823.jpg[/atsimg]
Obama seeks study on local leaders for troop decision

President Obama has asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for the update. Hmm, I wonder what he is waiting for. To me, it sounds like someone is dragging their feet on something that should be number one on his agenda. He has troops in harms way, and yet, he needs further analysis to make a decision? He has been in office since last January and still no objectives? All he has to do is stand back and give his commanders the green-light to do what they need to.

Apparently, he can't even do that, because of the rumblings from General Stanley McChrystal. The President is an enigma, and I just can't figure him out for the life of me. Asking provincial leaders for analysis, what the heck is that? I thought that is the analysis he gets from his boots on the ground during his daily intelligence briefings? What the heck is going on at Pennsylvania Ave? Now, that is a conspiracy!

[edit on 31-10-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51

President Obama met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff about troop levels in Afghanistan. As David Martin reports, the military now admits just getting troops there would take a long time.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for the continued illumination of such a murky topic. Much gratitude, my friend. Now, after watching that, I am still left shrugging my shoulders. What the heck is going on? Now, there is even a semblance of admitting to defeat if McChrystal's troops quotas aren't met in 12 months as highlighted in CBS report? There's a war going on and all we get from the administration, Pentagon, and combat commanders is the same back and forth that we hear everyday in national politics? I wish I could see what direction they are heading with Afghanistan? Hopefully, they can get something together soon, before its too late.

Originally posted by andrewh7
Excellent thread. People used to say that war would never be the same after the media began televising the Vietnam war. They said the public could not stand to look at it and that future wars would not be fought with such haste. They were wrong. We were shocked and appalled to see it the first time, but we grew desensitized and apathetic to its horrors. We stopped counting the dead and, with regard to Iraq, we stopped carrying about an adequate justification for war.

Money is to be made and political points are to be collected by any politician seen strong on "defense." We will eventually accept the idea of perpetual war and we will sacrifice whole generations to fight in them. Young men and women will die for a cause they do not understand at the command of men who have never in their lives faced conflict before. These men will order their youth to do something they would never be brave enough to do on their own. As long as the war carries no personal risk to those who run them, the war will never end.

There will always be another enemy and it's only a matter of time before our ingenuity leads to the creation of new weapon wielded by a man who has no authority and is responsible to no one but his own conscious. Whether it be a virus or some anti-matter bomb 100 years down the line, rest assured that we will one day choose an enemy that doesn't care about destroying itself, giving it a significant advantage over those who do. When it happens, we will certainly not be prepared. If we dodge this bullet, even if only temporarily, it won't be as a result of the good graces of some divine being. Rather, it will only be due to blind luck.

Bro. I read this post 3 times straightup-conclusion of the 1st time i thought damn that sounded bang on i gotta reread it.2nd time had me awash with all sorts of emotions.3rd time had me immediately looking to reply post.I simply had to let you know your post is sincerely,to me personally the most compelling,intelligent & brilliantly worded posts i believe i've ever read in any of the 100s/1000s of threads ive followed during the years i've been coming here.Couldn't agree with you more.

.....Thread Update....

Well as I have laid out in the opening piece a few months ago. The Spring offensive is just beginning. We have already seen some Coalition losses. My heart goes out to their families. We will see the results of the upcoming "Surge" later this summer and fall. Right now the objective is to take and hold ground.
Troops secure objectives in mission

Maj Gen Messenger told how British troops had taken control of areas with "minimal interference" from the Taliban. He said military chiefs on the ground were "very pleased with how it has gone - the key objectives have been secured and have been done so with minimal interference".

US-led airstrikes rained down on the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province, where up to 1,000 insurgents are believed to be holed up.

An MoD spokeswoman said 1,200 British troops were engaged in the offensive - and a further 3,000 were available - as the operation, led by US Marine Corps, started. Soldiers from the Grenadier Guards Battle Group, Coldstream Guards and the Royal Welsh were taking part, with the Helmand Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team. Operation Moshtarak - which means together in the Dari language - involves around 15,000 International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) and Afghan National Army troops.

Cont...

Taliban leaders flee as marines hit stronghold

American marines landed by helicopter in a pre-dawn assault on the Taliban stronghold of Marjah, seizing two central shopping bazaars and firing rockets at Taliban fighters who attacked from mud-walled compounds.

As the marines secured their first objective, a jumble of buildings at the centre of the farming town, thousands of soldiers moved in on foot.

Harrier jets called in by the marines fired heavy-calibre machineguns at the Taliban. Fighting continued for hours, according to an embedded correspondent. Cobra gunships unleashed Hellfire missiles into bunkers and tunnels.

By nightfall, marines appeared to be in control of the centre of Marjah, home to about 75,000 people. “The Americans are walking by on the street outside my house,” a bazaar resident said. “They’re carrying large bags and guns but they’re not fighting any more.” Asked what he thought of their presence, he said: “I have hope for the future.”

[edit on 14-2-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


The biggest question I have is if we are willing to hold ground?

Still kind of hazy as to exactly what Obama's plan is.

Gentlemen. The conduct of this 'offensive' offends my sense of humor. I can't, for the life of me, think of a logical and compelling reason to broadcast and advertise, to a guerrilla force, that you are coming to get them.

Guerrilla Warfare 101 dictates that if you get intel that the enemy is coming in force, you mine and boobytrap everything in sight, then melt away, so that you can come back to fight another day. You may leave behind a token resistance, but the main body goes to ground so they can pop up elsewhere, or later. The mines and boobytraps do the fighting and demoralizing for you.

Counter-Guerrilla Warfare 101 is to NEVER, EVER, telegraph your intentions to the enemy in any way, because Guerrillas are human, too, and hate surprises. Especially surprises that kill them. Therefore to close and engage, you have to surprise them. Otherwise they vaporize, and come back for you later.

By broadcasting their intentions to initiate an offensive, they broadcast equally their unwillingness to actually fight offensively. they indicate that they're hoping the other guys just run away. That message is not lost on a guerrilla force. It's a message of demoralization, and the G's take it as encouragement that they are winning.

WE have to 'hold' ground in order to 'win', they DON'T hold ground at all. In order to 'hold' ground, we don't necessarily have to actually occupy it, we just have to deny use of it to the enemy. There's a huge difference there.

This is all elementary stuff. Even an old hillbilly like ME can figure it out.

Don't they teach Generals at West Point any more? I didn't even GO to West Point, and I've got that down pat!

I have to think that either these Generals who do this stupid stuff and get their men killed for NO good reason are either incredibly stupid... or have no intention of winning, and instead intend to prolong.

These Generals either need to get with the program, and fight like they mean it, to WIN, or else piddle on the fire, call in the dogs, and head home, admitting defeat.

reply to post by nenothtu

Gentlemen. The conduct of this 'offensive' offends my sense of humor. I can't, for the life of me, think of a logical and compelling reason to broadcast and advertise, to a guerrilla force, that you are coming to get them.

Exactly!

The obvious outcome is that the bad guys leave/ get out of Dodge (which they have) but not before every path, bridge and poppy field is mined and bobby trapped! And the Taliban/ Al Queda are just down to road in the next village.

Imagine the civilian casualties resulting from the bobby traps!

[edit on 14/2/10 by plumranch]

reply to post by plumranch


news.yahoo.com...

Local Marjah residents crept out from hiding after dawn Sunday, some reaching out to Afghan troops partnered with Marine platoons.

"Could you please take the mines out?" Mohammad Kazeem, a local pharmacist, asked the Marines through an interpreter. The entrance to his shop had been completely booby-trapped, without any way for him to re-enter his home, he said.

Shouldn't have broadcast their intentions, but I understand the reason to get the civilians out of the way and hopefully get the Taliban out of dodge of Marjah so they can control the city and the Taliban be in the mountains instead of having to destroy the city, like Fallujah.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Shouldn't have broadcast their intentions, but I understand the reason to get the civilians out of the way and hopefully get the Taliban out of dodge of Marjah so they can control the city and the Taliban be in the mountains instead of having to destroy the city, like Fallujah.

I think you've hit the nail on the head ...

The US/West doesn't want an escalation of the conflict. It seems to me they want to "Telegraph" their punches in order to

A. Minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage.

and

B. Reduce the risk of Coalition losses.

The fight was never meant to be with the "Taliban" I know that sounds odd but the whole invasion was to root out Al-Qaeda. The Taliban being removed from power just simplified the equation. We gained the support of a large percentage of the Afghan populous who didn't want them there in the first place.

But...

Let's not forget that the "Taliban" are both Afghans and Pakistani. Their home range territory straddles both countries known as the [the Pashtun belt] In other words they aren't going anywhere.

Marines under fire in former Taliban stronghold

Taliban fighters unleashed automatic gunfire at NATO helicopters flying in and out of the town of Marjah, and fired on Marines at a ceremony to raise the Afghan flag over a building to mark progress in the offensive.

Captain Ryan Sparks compared the intensity of the fighting to the U.S.-led offensive against militants in the Iraqi town of Fallujah in 2004.

"In Fallujah, it was just as intense. But there, we started from the north and worked down to the south. In Marjah, we're coming in from different locations and working toward the center, so we're taking fire from all angles," Sparks said.

U.S., Afghan Troops Expand Control in Taliban Stronghold

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents tried to overrun a U.S. Marine outpost with a combination of rocket-propelled grenades and homicide bombers in a brazen attack just after sundown on Sunday.

The Marines and Afghan soldiers fended off the assault, shooting the homicide attackers before they had a chance to detonate their weapons.

The attack took place on the second day of a major offensive to wrest control of this town of 75,000 people from the Taliban insurgents who have dominated it for years.

reply to post by SLAYER69


One thing I dont like about this, is the damn Military broadcasted its plans before hand.... Whatever happened to Opsec or " LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS"

I'd say the Taliban are having a bad spring...


This coming summer should be interesting.

U.S. strike in Pakistan kills Afghan militant's son

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A son of the leader of a major Taliban faction attacking Western forces in Afghanistan was killed in a recent missile strike by a U.S. drone in Pakistan, security officials said on Friday.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I am simply posting whats happening. Reporting whats going on is a far cry from glorifying war. If that's your take on it then so be it. Would you prefer censorship and not allow the public to see whats really happening?
[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

You cannot show what's happening as under United States rule it's illegal to show United States soldier's injured or dead. You are only showing what is allowed to be shown by the Govt. That's already censorship. I still remember after 2003 a website popped up which offered US Soldiers porn online in exchange for gory images of people they killed. US Govt. quickly closed that section of website. The name of that website is "nowthatsf##kedup.com"

I actually saw all the images before they were removed and all the comments from US soldiers there. But since my word is not enough here are the sources:
Porn site offers soldiers free access in exchange for photos of dead Iraqis

Soldiers Get Free Porn In Exchange For Gruesome War Photos

U.S. Soldiers Trade Images Of Iraqi Dead For Porn


There have been more than 4000 dead American soldiers, ever wondered why noone has ever seen their death pictures? graphic pictures? I say that because that is actually the reality of war not shiny robots all suited up!

Pentagon policy 2003

Updated in 2003, the policy states, "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning or departing from Ramstein Air Base or Dover Air Force Base." And the justification has ostensibly been respect for the soldiers and their families.

This policy was only eased a bit in 2009 but other policies are still intact which outlaws images of dead Coalition soldiers.

What you are showing is propaganda and nowhere near the reality. It's a staged drama and that is all.

Edit to add: This is the reality of war


June 26, 2008 Marines who were killed in a suicide bomb attack during a city council meeting in Garma, Iraq, in Anbar Province.

The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war.

Source:4,000 U.S. Deaths, and a Handful of Images

And Sir, no one has guts to show the reality of war.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by December_Rain]

Originally posted by December_Rain
You cannot show what's happening as under United States rule it's illegal to show United States soldier's injured or dead. You are only showing what is allowed to be shown by the Govt.

As always when dealing with your replies...

Do you have any sources to back this claim up? It will lends a lot of credibility to you stance. Oh and by the way while you are claiming my sources are propaganda it doesn't help your position by posting from and linking to obviously REAL propaganda.

Thanks in advance

I wonder what the REAL death toll is for US and allied forces in Afghanistan.

Hmmm.....

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by December_Rain
You cannot show what's happening as under United States rule it's illegal to show United States soldier's injured or dead. You are only showing what is allowed to be shown by the Govt.

As always when dealing with your replies...

Do you have any sources to back this claim up? It will lends a lot of credibility to you stance. Oh and by the way while you are claiming my sources are propaganda it doesn't help your position by posting from and linking to obviously REAL propaganda.

Thanks in advance

Well he has provided a lot of sources in his post already so you are not justified in saying 'any sources'.

If you want clarification for a certain point why don't you try to do it without belittling the rest of his post with your nonsense.

US army are by definition agents of terror perpetrating barbaric terrorism on dirt poor people.

And you Marines are still getting your rear kicked.

How *great* must the brave Afghans be?

Let me hear it.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Jinni]