Just like Vietnam: 8 US Soldiers Killed in Afghan Gunbattle

[PatekPhilippe]

KABUL (Oct. 4) - Militant fighters streaming from an Afghan village and a mosque attacked a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistani border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and as many as seven Afghan forces in one of the fiercest battles of the eight-year war.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the deadliest attack for coalition forces since a similar raid in July 2008 killed nine American soldiers in the same mountainous region known as an al-Qaida haven. The U.S. has already said it plans to pull its soldiers from the isolated area to focus on Afghan population centers.

The U.S. statement said the attack would not change previously announced plans to leave the area
Top Headlines, U.S., World, Politics, Entertainment and Sports News - AOL News


Reminds me of the isolated fire bases that we had in Vietnam. They were continually attacked and over ran with high casualties. Eventually, our strategy changed to abandoing the isolated bases and withdrawing to protect the population centers.

Is history repeating it's self???

Yes. The Democrats failed strategy used in Viet Nam is still a failure today when it's adopted by Obama and his war advisors in March of 2009. Some people just don't get it.

 

[Modbert]

Yes. The Democrats failed strategy used in Viet Nam is still a failure today when it's adopted by Obama and his war advisors in March of 2009. Some people just don't get it.

Oh, you mean it was a complete success from Sept 2001 to Feb 2009? Could of fooled me hack.

Edit: War Games conducted in the late 90's on a simulation of Afghanistan estimated that the U.S. would need over 500,000 to secure Afghanistan successfully. I don't think we even sent 1/4 of that rummy. Do you know how many troops the new Afghanistan general that you Republicans harp over want? 500,000 over the next five years. Unsurprising? I think not for those of us who actually know what the fuck is going on.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes. The Democrats failed strategy used in Viet Nam is still a failure today when it's adopted by Obama and his war advisors in March of 2009. Some people just don't get it.

Oh, you mean it was a complete success from Sept 2001 to Feb 2009? Could of fooled me hack.

Edit: War Games conducted in the late 90's on a simulation of Afghanistan estimated that the U.S. would need over 500,000 to secure Afghanistan successfully. I don't think we even sent 1/4 of that rummy. Do you know how many troops the new Afghanistan general that you Republicans harp over want? 500,000 over the next five years. Unsurprising? I think not for those of us who actually know what the fuck is going on.

Why are you such a pinhead? Now I know why O'Reilly made those door mats....

OK...fool.....Obama shitcanned Bush's strategy in March of 2009...HE STAED HE WAS BEGINNING A NEW STRATEGY REMEMBER? it has been a dismal failure ever since.

Bush's strategy worked quite well in Afghanistan....we kicked the living shit out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We did all of the hard work. When NOATO DID NOT step up and fulfill their promise of troops...Afghanistan went back to what it was.

 

[eagleseven]

Vietnam War American Casualties (1960-1975): 553,000
Afghanistan War American Casualties (2001-2009): 4,000

No, nothing like Vietnam.

 

[Sunni Man]

Vietnam War American Casualties (1960-1975): 553,000
Afghanistan War American Casualties (2001-2009): 4,000

No, nothing like Vietnam.

Using body count as a measurement of success/ failure.

Was proven not to work in Vietnam.

And will also fail in Afghanistain.

Seems like we never learn.

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe someday in the distant future (if we're lucky) we'll have elected officials who see the folly of trying to convert savages and put and end to mis-guided, half-assed military adventures.

 

[Bfgrn]

The forces opposed to us in afghanistain isn't composed of a "rag-tag bunch of amateurs".

The have been repelling invaders for several dozen generations and resistence to invaders is embedded in their culture.

They use the same tactics, and set up ambushes, in the same valleys and mountain passes that their ancestors successfully utitized.

From a professional soldier's point of view, they are amateurs. This doesn't mean that we should underestimate their deadliness. That's my fault for using professional terms in a mixed audience.

By the way, no, they have NOT been using the same tactics as their ancestors. Otherwise, it would be so easy to predict their movements and kill them.

My point is that it shouldn't take a superpower 8 years to figure out how to defeat an enemy that hasn't been professionally trained and that isn't being sponsored by a professional military (which is how the Soviets were defeated).

From a professional soldier's point of view, the American revolutionaries were amateurs.

 

[Toome]

The forces opposed to us in afghanistain isn't composed of a "rag-tag bunch of amateurs".

The have been repelling invaders for several dozen generations and resistence to invaders is embedded in their culture.

They use the same tactics, and set up ambushes, in the same valleys and mountain passes that their ancestors successfully utitized.

From a professional soldier's point of view, they are amateurs. This doesn't mean that we should underestimate their deadliness. That's my fault for using professional terms in a mixed audience.

By the way, no, they have NOT been using the same tactics as their ancestors. Otherwise, it would be so easy to predict their movements and kill them.

My point is that it shouldn't take a superpower 8 years to figure out how to defeat an enemy that hasn't been professionally trained and that isn't being sponsored by a professional military (which is how the Soviets were defeated).

From a professional soldier's point of view, the American revolutionaries were amateurs.

If you're going to quote history, then do it correctly. The American revolutionaries were trained for success by a Prussian officer named Baron von Steuben. Additionally, many of the American revolutionaries were experienced in combat on the North American continent during the French and Indian Wars, most notably: Rodgers' Rangers whose tactics, techniques and combat philosophy became the forerunners for the US Army RANGERS. Revolutionary irregulars such as Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox), served under the British during the French and Indian Wars and put their expertise to use for the American Patriots in the form of guerrilla warfare. Lastly, General Washington, who was a professionally-trained officer, understood the flaws in British warfighting doctrine. He reshaped warfighting not because he was an amateur but because he was a professional officer who knew how to think outside the box. Also, don't forget that the French sent troops to help the American revolutionaries.

No doubt the British had contempt for the American revolutionaries. But the Americans weren't rank amateurs.

Wanna try again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

General Washington, after getting the crap kicked out of his army several times in the summer and fall of 1776 by a far better trained regular British army, realized the only way to win the war was not to have his army destroyed. Thus he conducted a Fabian campaign for years; hanging on the wings of the British Army, striking quickly and pulling back. He never won a major battle until 1781, five years after his army's battering in New York. He won with the help of a French army and a French fleet.

What Bfrgn does not understand is that the Patriots outwaited and outwilled the British nation until time, debt, a war weary public, and European enemies made her withdraw from our soil.

This sounds eerily similar to Vietnam and Afghanistan. We continue to refuse to learn from history, which means we will continue to repeat it.

Bring our troops home.

 

[Gunny]

It is nothing like Vietnam, indeed at these casualty rates it would take over half a century to equal one decade in Vietnam.

Reminds me of our failed strategy in Vietnam.

Where we measured our success/failure by the daily/weekly body count of both sides.

What I'll remind you of is your attempt to appeal to emotion via a sensationalist, misleading header, when nothing in the article supports it at all.

There is in fact a comparison to made between Vietnam and Afghanistan, but your flailing about in the bush with a blindfold on isn't even close.

 

[Gunny]

The forces opposed to us in afghanistain isn't composed of a "rag-tag bunch of amateurs".

The have been repelling invaders for several dozen generations and resistence to invaders is embedded in their culture.

They use the same tactics, and set up ambushes, in the same valleys and mountain passes that their ancestors successfully utitized.

From a professional soldier's point of view, they are amateurs. This doesn't mean that we should underestimate their deadliness. That's my fault for using professional terms in a mixed audience.

By the way, no, they have NOT been using the same tactics as their ancestors. Otherwise, it would be so easy to predict their movements and kill them.

My point is that it shouldn't take a superpower 8 years to figure out how to defeat an enemy that hasn't been professionally trained and that isn't being sponsored by a professional military (which is how the Soviets were defeated).

Yeah, professional and Sunni Man are mutually exclusive concepts. They ARE amateurs.

It doesn't matter what we can predict. Our military has to fight with its hands tied behind its back and the Taliban knows this and exploits it. We have the military force to EASILY destroy the Taliban, contrary to SM's proud declaration otherwise.

We lack the national will. THAT is our failure. We let the bleeding heart whiners in our ranks dictate policy for fear of having a finger pointed at us.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have heard the exact same excuses for the last 30 years about our loss in Vietnam.

"We were winning, but the politicians lost the war for us"

"We were forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back"

"We won Tet, but the liberal media turned it into a loss"

'We won every major battle"

"We were on the verge of success, but the (take your pick), bleeding hearts/media/politicians/liberals/etc., wouldn't let us win"

Now the exact same pathetic excuses are being put forth about our impending loss in Afghanistain.

 

[geauxtohell]

Bush's strategy worked quite well in Afghanistan....we kicked the living shit out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We did all of the hard work. When NOATO DID NOT step up and fulfill their promise of troops...Afghanistan went back to what it was.

No he didn't.

After ejecting the Taliban from A-stan, but missing the chance to destroy virtually the entire movement at Tora Bora, Afghanistan has remained virtually static since '02.

Some provinces have gotten better, some have gotten worse.

The strategy there now is basically the same as the strategy we had in 2004-05 when I was there.

 

[Sunni Man]

After ejecting the Taliban from A-stan,

The Taliban were never ejected from Afghanstain.

They just fell back and regrouped.

 

[geauxtohell]

After ejecting the Taliban from A-stan,

The Taliban were never ejected from Afghanstain.

They just fell back and regrouped.

We ejected them in '02, they slipped into Pakistan at Tora Bora, fell back and regrouped and have been back in Afghanistan since that time.

How's that work for you?

 

[Gunny]

I have heard the exact same excuses for the last 30 years about our loss in Vietnam.

"We were winning, but the politicians lost the war for us"

"We were forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back"

"We won Tet, but the liberal media turned it into a loss"

'We won every major battle"

"We were on the verge of success, but the (take your pick), bleeding hearts/media/politicians/liberals/etc., wouldn't let us win"

Now the exact same pathetic excuses are being put forth about our impending loss in Afghanistain.

You talking to me, dirtbag terrorist sympathizer?

Those aren't excuses .. they're FACTS. Something you wouldn't know if they were red bricks and fell on your head. You want to debate this issue or what? I'll rip your ass, POS scum.

Not much more pisses me off than some scumbag, US-hating fuckwit, US CITIZEN, whining about how bad we are while our fukkin milk and honey is dribblin down your pencil sharpened chin.

Leave. Go hang with your bro's, pissant.

 

[Gunny]

Bush's strategy worked quite well in Afghanistan....we kicked the living shit out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We did all of the hard work. When NOATO DID NOT step up and fulfill their promise of troops...Afghanistan went back to what it was.

No he didn't.

After ejecting the Taliban from A-stan, but missing the chance to destroy virtually the entire movement at Tora Bora, Afghanistan has remained virtually static since '02.

Some provinces have gotten better, some have gotten worse.

The strategy there now is basically the same as the strategy we had in 2004-05 when I was there.

Incorrect. We missed no chance unless we wished to invade Pakistan. The Taliban ran across the border where we could not legally go after them.

 

[Gunny]

After ejecting the Taliban from A-stan,

The Taliban were never ejected from Afghanstain.

They just fell back and regrouped.

Yeah, across an international border we were refused permission to cross. This puss off at the border shit started with Truman .. a Democrat.

We don't even have to guess what the likes of you would have said had we just gone into Pakistan and wiped them out. You'd STILL be crying. Pansy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then that explains why the bad guys rule Afghanistan outside of Kabul? Yes, Sunni Man is correct, and you are woefully, inadequately, and pitifully wrong, Gunny -- pull your brain out of that helmet and start thinking clearly, man!

 

[Sunni Man]

You talking to me, dirtbag terrorist sympathizer?

Those aren't excuses .. they're FACTS. Something you wouldn't know if they were red bricks and fell on your head. You want to debate this issue or what? I'll rip your ass, POS scum.

Not much more pisses me off than some scumbag, US-hating fuckwit, US CITIZEN, whining about how bad we are while our fukkin milk and honey is dribblin down your pencil sharpened chin.

How does telling the truth make a person unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer?

Gunny, you remind me of a rabid sports fan who won't admitt it when his team loses a game.

"the ref's cheated us"

"the ball wasn't out of bounds"

"the other team cheated"

"the penalty clock was wrong"

In the end; It's the final score that counts. Not how the game was played