90 killed, over 200 injured as blast rocks Peshawar

reply to post by WTFover


Yup, McChrystal appears to have the political fortitude, and he's relatively new on the job, so can't really say how it will go on his watch. Last I heard, his strategy was going to be pulling back to bases and urban areas, but I don't know for sure that's how it will all shake out. What I can say is that a defensive strategy PRECISELY like that one is what did the Soviets in. They limited their own mobility, and that gave de facto free reign of the countryside to the mujahideen. Guerillas don't fight for territory, but neither do they turn it down when you just give it to them. I sincerely hope if that's the strategy, he has a confab with some of the Russian generals and changes his mind.

Another mistake, in my estimation, that occurred early on in this round of the Afghan drama was when the conventional generals marched in for their slice of the pie, and tried to marginalize the Special Forces. You can't fight a guerrilla war as a conventional war. That only increases the casualties, because guerrillas don't fight by that playbook until THEY have the strength to turn it conventional. Until that point comes, they just try to bleed the opposition to death and fade into the mist, where they spend their spare time on PsychOps.

In order to win, you have to send small teams into the mist to put smoke on 'em, THEN apply whatever amount of force is necessary to overcome and neutralize that particular situation, via air support and rapid reaction forces.

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think we already have enough people there to do the job. In my opinion, the ongoing problem is Commanders who are really politicians, just all dressed up in shiny uniforms, who don't have the will to do the job.

And Commanders who have directives from the Obama administration not to bomb HOUSES AND MOSQUES which is of course where the enemy hides!

It's sounding more like Nam ever day!

Yup, that's EXACTLY what I mean by trying to fight a "nice" war. Need to loosen up the RoE, and "cry havoc, let slip the dogs of war" as Shakespeare said.

Trying to fight nice just puts one on the defensive, and there ain't no win on that ground.

reply to post by nenothtu

Neno, I agree that we already have more than enough troops in country to do the job.

It has been noted that our top commanders will have as many as a thousand man staff. Nearly enough men for a combat regiment.

What do all these staff people do? They sift through volumes of intelligence, determine what is or could be of interest to the commander, collate that data, type the key data into reports, which are read, condensed, and summarized by other staff members, where they are reviewed again by their bosses to attempt to get the nuggets out, and then inform the Commanding general what they think he should be aware of.

A commanding general worth his salt would be out among his men finding out first hand what the problems are, what their concerns are, where the opportunities are, and making things happen by LEADING.

Our generals point. My daughters little spotted dog can point.

We have the most polished, refined, politically polished general staff in the world. These generals haven't won a war since 1945.

You see, a turd in a fine silk sock at the end of the day, is still a turd.

These generals are managers. We need warrior leaders.

Men with a taste for blood. Men who know how to defeat his enemy quickly and intelligently.

Men who know the importance of speed, rapid random alterations of direction, speed, and those who know how to make vast regions forbidden territory.

"In the World War (I), nothing was more dreadful to witness than a chain of men starting with a battalion commander and ending with an army commander sitting in telephone boxes . . . talking, talking, talking in place of leading, leading, leading." MG JFC Fuller

It is often argued that our Generals have had decades of pristine service, having attended the best schools, and are aware of the many nuances of conducting warfare. Yet, they have never personally taken any scalps. There is no substitute for experience.

Do you want an aircraft Captain who's never actually landed an aircraft, but studied how by a book?

So our generals have decades of honorable experience? So?

"Frederick the Great's horse was on seven different campaigns with him. In the end, he was still a dumb horse." Unknown

You let me select 20,000 volunteers, and I'll kill the Taliban like they never dreamed possible.

You give me three cohorts of 5,000 hand selected men each, and I'll end it within twelve months.

But I get to do it my way, and I get to do it without interference from Washington.

Lots of bombing lately.

I cant find the election speech where obama was telling he would withdraw troops from afghanistant, or was it irak ?
Did i dream it ?

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by nenothtu

 

But I get to do it my way, and I get to do it without interference from Washington.

You probably won't need any men if we get to do it your way.

Your way=

-Carpet and cluster bomb the whole area where taliban etc. are suspected of hiding.

OR if there are too many of them than

-Press the N.button and it will be 'THE END' as was done in WW2.

Your way is abit harsh though, don't you think?

All we ever talk about is WHO did it, quite honestly, who cares that's just a pointless blame game.

The more important question is WHY they did it, and how we stop it from happening again.

And no, I don't have the answer.

Coalition forces are simultaneously fighting two wars that they cannot win. Unless the order is given to completely annihilate terrorist strongholds (which would likely result in many civilian casualties) the wars will never be won. You can have the best soldiers, the best equipment and a massive military budget. These things will not help you in a war where your enemies are mercenary insurgents that fight from and detonate areas primarily filled with civilians.

It's sad to see the number of people indifferent to these terrorist attacks when the perpetrators cannot be linked to any Western intelligence agencies...

Are we now experiencing "reverse terrorism" ?

Originally posted by Fedge
Lots of bombing lately.

I cant find the election speech where obama was telling he would withdraw troops from afghanistant, or was it irak ?
Did i dream it ?

It was draw down in Iraq... He said Afghanistan was the war 'we need to win'

speech 07

Text 08


[edit on 29-10-2009 by LadySkadi]

update on the story. Death toll at 104

A senior intelligence official blamed terrorists based in Darra Adamkhel for the attack. ‘We intercepted a call last week in which militants were talking about a ‘heart-rending’ attack in Peshawar,’ he said.

A representative of the shopkeepers’ association said threats had been received in recent days with militants demanding that women be forbidden from going to the market.

www.dawn.com...

reply to post by merkava

I would never carpet bomb, and it's very presumptuous of you to think you know how I would do it.

Cluster bombs are fine, when you find them in the open.

Do not assume you know anything about what I'd do.

Guerrilla fighters need space, mobility, resupply, and they must remain in small groups.

It is those characteristics that I would prey upon.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Obama is working feverishly on sending more troops as an option.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02600d96c823.jpg[/atsimg]



I literally LOL.

Too funny