The war has moved...

Message 1497 of 5998

Operation Strike of the Sword gets under way

The US army says it has launched a major offensive against the Taliban in south Afghanistan's Helmand province.
The US military says about 4,000 marines as well as 650 Afghan troops are involved, supported by Nato planes.
Brig Gen Larry Nicholson said the operation was different from previous ones because of the "massive size of the force" and its speed.
A Taliban spokesman said they would resist in various ways and that there would be no permanent US victory.
Qari Yosuf Ahmadi added that "a large number" of Taliban were in the area.
"I cannot accept the fact that 4,000 US troops have taken part in this operation," he said, quoted by the Afghan AIP news agency.
"I consider it a part of a psychological war, but if 4,000 US troops really are taking part in the operation, they will not have any permanent victory."

Will we be able to "win" a war against the Taliban?

What do you think about this war?

view link for article.

posted by Veggiebubble

Replies 1 - 10 of 28

1 2 3 Next »

It might be helpful to know just who the taliban are~~~

view link

posted by suea46
over 2 years ago

I do not think it can be won but then I am no expert

posted by Pamela4
over 2 years ago

I think the present op is going about things the right way.

1) Afghanistan and the Taliban are the right war in the right place

2) We have lots of boots on the ground. We're learning that air strikes are of limited value, kill lots of the wrong folks, and generally piss everyone off.

3) I was gratified to see that the American troops are going to go into the villages AND STAY!!!

This is what we did wrong in Vietnam ( besides being there in the first place ). It does no good at all to sweep an area of the enemy and then leave so they can merely return.

It looks like the plan is to clear the area of Taliban, then stay in the villages and actually help the people with their day-to-day lives and problems. What a concept. . .

posted by nimbus52
over 2 years ago

There is a really god book on this subject, "HORSE SOLDIERS" by Doug Stanton.

Although we have dicussed some of issues surrounding the war in Afghanistan.

Reliance on technolgy isn't going to cut it. We learned that in Vietnam and the Russians learned that in Afghanistan. The terrain is unlike anywhere in the world, we have to find them and neutralize the threat. B-52's laiden with 500lb or 1000lb poppers won't do anything to the cave dwellers.

We do need small, well equipped, well trained, personnel on the ground capable of moving with stealth and accuracy. Humvees don't go everywhere!
A buildup of 500,000 US troops in stationery position is making lots of targets,and is absolutely unnecessary.

Best
Ricky

posted by Rickaz28
over 2 years ago

The French were humiliated and thrown out of Viet Nam. We went in after them and were humiliated and thrown out. The Soviet Union was humiliated and thrown out of Afghanistan. We went in after them and...good luck.

posted by gollum
over 2 years ago

Guerilla wars are never won by armies. The hills of the Afghani/Paki border are ungovernable and as impossible to 'hold' as were the jungles of Viet Nam. 40,000 troops wouldn't be enough.

posted by perm3800
over 2 years ago

Oh, and please remember that learning about the USSR war in Afghanistan is what finally brought the USSR to its end at home. Parents of deceased soldiers had been told their sons died in training accidents but Christina Amapour's reporting from Afghanistan was smuggled into the USSR in bars of decorative soap from Hungary on the back end of videotape reels containing episodes of Dallas. When the Army found out why its men were not being paid, why there were no resources for other units and mothers found out just how their sons had died, they marched, tanks and all, to the Kremlin. Bye Bye USSR.

posted by perm3800
over 2 years ago

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan also created bin Laden.

posted by gollum
over 2 years ago

Much earlier (in 1842) The Afghanistans wiped out 16,000 British. The story is written about in the book, "Arrogant Armies". Of course the blame for that massacre goes to what one web site says is, "total incompetence of the commanding officer, Major-General William George Keith Elphinstone"

posted by colgringo
over 2 years ago

The difference between what we are doing and what Russia did is that Russia was trying to occupy and make Afghanistan part of the Soviet Union. What we are doing is limiting the Talibans ability to control certain regions where they can launch attacks into Pakistan.
This was why Gen. David McKiernan was replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. With Russia it was Russia fighting Afghanistan. This time around it is NATO and the Afghan Government fighting the Taliban.