Just like Vietnam: 8 US Soldiers Killed in Afghan Gunbattle

[Sunni Man]

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???

 

[JW Frogen]

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

Nor do the Taliban have a major superpower sponsoring them as did the North Vietnamese.

We could fight this war for decades, indeed if we gave up on the nation building aspect, armed any group that simply opposes the Taliban (including opium lords) and augmented with Special Forces air power and predator drones we could fight this war indefinitely.

It is far better having the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, constantly running from attacks, Bin Ladin hiding in caves with his yak powered dialysis machine then just giving up and allowing them to control and entire country, planning terror attacks at their leisure.

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

 

[Toome]

Gotta agree with JW: one nasty firefight doesn't define an entire war. Combat is decidedly unfair no matter whose side you're on.

Having said that, I will agree that the similarity with Vietnam can be reduced down to this: why the hell are we still over there? This is a question that needs to be addressed to both administrations. I supported the decision to go over there and get rid of the Taliban and kill as many al Qai'da terrorists as possible. While some folks may not like hearing this, in terms of sheer numbers, we've avenged the 9/11 victims several times over, and we've done so in brutal fashion. I don't have a problem with this. But there's a point of diminishing returns, and I think we've gone beyond that point.

Militarily, we dominate the terrain over there. Being affiliated with the Taliban or al Qai'da is truly a life-ending experience for anyone over there. Even so, we are not winning the political objectives over there, and that's how Afghanistan is similar to Vietnam.

I don't know the solution. If I did, then I certainly wouldn't be punching keystrokes on an internet bulletin board, and I'd be a lot richer. What I do know is that we went over there eight years ago, and we're still there. It's not like we're fighting the Soviet Western Group of Forces in the Fulda Gap. This is a rag-tag bunch of amateurs who never attended a military academy, never schooled in military doctrine, never developed a cadre of NCOs and officers to organize for battle. Not saying that this should be easy. But I am saying that it should take over 8 years to figure out how to put the hurt on them.

And while Bush never figured it out, Obama is a retard by comparison! As much as I hate to say this: if we don't know what the hell we're doing over there, then the smartest thing to do is to pull out even at the risk of joining the long list of superpowers, empires and other nations who historically experienced the same thing in Afghanistan.

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

 

[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).

 

[Sunni Man]

Nor do the Taliban have a major superpower sponsoring them as did the North Vietnamese.

As one Vietnam War historian once said, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age; who are already in the stone age".

Thus the simularity between Vietnam and Afghanistain.

The people of both countries are extremely culturalistic and nationalistic.

They will continue to fight any invader, with whatever they have, for as long as it takes; no matter who does or doesn't back them.

 

[PeterS]

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???

No, we are dealing with another Afghanistan. The question is whether we can retain popular support. Without it we will make the same exit as the Russians...

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't believe our exit from Afghanistain will be a hasty cut and run like Vietnam.

Nor, will it be a total and complete withdrawal such as the Russians did.

I believe we will very slowly draw down our troops to a skeleton force; that will remain for generations.

 

[Zona]

If we didnt create that damn iraq war (for no damn reason) this was would be said and done.

 

[geauxtohell]

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???

This is significant in that, this is the second time (in my memory) that the Taliban has felt strong enough to directly attack a American permanent position during the entire conflict.

That is a troubling development. The head of the Taliban in Nuristan obviously has the manpower and tactical prowess to conduct these raids.

Nearly 300 militant fighters flooded the lower, Afghan outpost then swept around it to reach the American station on higher ground from both directions, said Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh, the provincial police chief. The U.S. military statement said the Americans and Afghans repelled the attack by tribal fighters and "inflicted heavy enemy casualties."

Nuristan, bordering Pakistan, was where a militant raid on another outpost in July 2008 claimed the lives of nine American soldiers and led to allegations of negligence by their senior commanders. Army Gen. David Petraeus last week ordered a new investigation into that fighting, in which some 200 militants armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars pushed their way into the base, which is no longer operating.

Other than that, we've been operating out of FOBs since the onset of the war. It's really the only way to logistically run operations. Though, I don't think that the smallest element that should ever occupy a FOB is an Infantry Company. I think the attack in Nuristan was against a platoon FOB, there is really no way a platoon has enough personnel to simultaneously run operations and provide security.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nor do the Taliban have a major superpower sponsoring them as did the North Vietnamese.

As one Vietnam War historian once said, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age; who are already in the stone age".

Thus the simularity between Vietnam and Afghanistain.

The people of both countries are extremely culturalistic and nationalistic.

They will continue to fight any invader, with whatever they have, for as long as it takes; no matter who does or doesn't back them.

We aren't currently, nor have we ever, been trying to fight a war of attrition in Afghanistan. The center of gravity has always been the people, and not direct combat missions. Trying to conduct direct action against the Taliban is like trying to chase ghosts. Imagine Viet Nam without any cover and concealment.

The is even more true now with Petreaus in command of CENTCOM.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Nor do the Taliban have a major superpower sponsoring them as did the North Vietnamese.

We could fight this war for decades, indeed if we gave up on the nation building aspect, armed any group that simply opposes the Taliban (including opium lords) and augmented with Special Forces air power and predator drones we could fight this war indefinitely.

It is far better having the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, constantly running from attacks, Bin Ladin hiding in caves with his yak powered dialysis machine then just giving up and allowing them to control and entire country, planning terror attacks at their leisure.

IMO, we could completely interdict the Taliban just by subsidizing the poppy crop.

We could burn the damn things after we bought them for all I care. It would still deprive the Taliban of revenue.

 

[Toome]

I don't believe our exit from Afghanistain will be a hasty cut and run like Vietnam.

Nor, will it be a total and complete withdrawal such as the Russians did.

I believe we will very slowly draw down our troops to a skeleton force; that will remain for generations.

I'm not picking on you, but I wouldn't describe Vietnam as a hasty cut-and-run. We withdrew our combat forces from Vietnam in 1973, and the war was over. Both sides stopped fighting. In 1974, North Vietnam renewed the war. The NVA started off with small skirmishes to test the waters. When it was obvious that the United States was not going to respond militarily, it launched its final offensive in 1975 against the RVN forces. There were no US combat forces in Vietnam. The evacuation of the US embassy was an evacuation of US diplomats and support personnel.

The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan over a roughly two-year period, and it was basically a peaceful withdrawal with minor skirmishes. The irony is that the Soviets ended their withdrawal with a successful operation aimed at eliminating mujahadeen attempts to sabotage the roads leading out of the country. So they essentially finished their overall defeat with what amounts to a symbolic victory.

I don't know what to expect from Obama. I think what you posted is closer to the reality of what may end up happening, but Obama is unlike Clinton who only paid lip service. When Clinton said that US troops were going to be in Bosnia no longer than a year, he danced around the technicality of withdrawing the 1st Armored Division within a year..."as promised." He never said that he wouldn't replace them with the 1st Infantry Division by taking out IFOR and instituting SFOR. Obama's not that clever. Clinton was.

 

[Colin]

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).

No, it shouldn't, but while we have dithering politicians who refuse to heed the advice of military chiefs on the ground and a NATO alliance where most of the European partners refuse to pull any weight themselves, we shall be there for another 8 years times 3!

I am unable to speak for your country, but the British were thrown into this war under-resourced and remain so to this day. Commanders have consistently called for more troops and more helicopters and better armoured vehicles. Pleas that fall on deaf ears of a weak and incompetent government. I know from my nephew how frustrating it is for British troops in Helmand. They take ground from the Taliban, but because they have insufficient numbers to hold it, as soon as they move on, the Taliban move back in.

Interestingly, General Sir David Richards, The newly appointed head of the British Army had this to say in an interview this week:

Army chief warns of 'terrifying prospect' of failure in Afghanistan

The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan.

In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.

In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

At home, the Government has come under increasing pressure for the way it has handled the war, with critics saying the armed forces have been under-resourced.

Army chief warns of 'terrifying prospect' of failure in Afghanistan - Telegraph

He said: "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Sir David said that sending extra troops would allow Nato to begin winning the psychological battle against the Taliban who, he said, were masters of propaganda and were "outstanding at psychological warfare".

He continued: "If you put in more troops we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with less casualties. We can start winning the psychological battle which is broadly wrapped around the Taliban saying "the west and the Afghan government is doing very little for you" – we (the Taliban) will offer you an austere future but at least it will be secure". What we need to demonstrate is that we, Nato and the Afghan government, offer a much brighter future which is more secure, with jobs, and education and better health."

The general criticised plans put forward by some members of President Obama's administration – notably those of Vice-president Joe Biden, who is believed to support the view that Nato should reduce troop number in Afghanistan and concentrate on counter-terrorist operations using special forces. Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work.

 

[Toome]

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).

No, it shouldn't, but while we have dithering politicians who refuse to heed the advice of military chiefs on the ground and a NATO alliance where most of the European partners refuse to pull any weight themselves, we shall be there for another 8 years times 3!

I am unable to speak for your country, but the British were thrown into this war under-resourced and remain so to this day. Commanders have consistently called for more troops and more helicopters and better armoured vehicles. Pleas that fall on deaf ears of a weak and incompetent government. I know from my nephew how frustrating it is for British troops in Helmand. They take ground from the Taliban, but because they have insufficient numbers to hold it, as soon as they move on, the Taliban move back in.

The problem is that this is not a conventional scenario, yet it seems that we collectively come back to that scenario. We're not out to drive an organized opposing force out of its garrisons. We're fighting an enemy that openly hides among the civilian population. Our lessons-learned from Vietnam through Somalia should have taught us to go into these fights with clearly-defined and realistically-attainable objectives. Killing Commies for Christ's Sake, or in this case, Killing Terrorists for Christ's Sake, is no longer viable. Yet we seem to allow ourselves to get stuck in this mindset. The problem with singling out Obama bin Laden as the Ultimate Bad Guy is that the public then defines victory as the day when we either kill him or capture him. Real combat doesn't work that way, but that's the corner we painted ourselves into.

The real ugly truth about Afghanistan is that there is no true 100% solution. Not even a 75% solution. The solution was always somewhere around 40%.

That's what Vietnam, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Panama and the secret banana wars should have taught us.

Those who don't learn from history......

 

[Si modo]

Just like Viet Nam, Afghanistan is far away.

 

[Sunni Man]

IMO, we could completely interdict the Taliban just by subsidizing the poppy crop.

We could burn the damn things after we bought them for all I care. It would still deprive the Taliban of revenue.

Never happen.

One of the main reasons we invaded Afghanistain, Was that the Taliban had almost completely destroyed the poppy crop and and thus disrupted the heroin trade.

Major players (governments?) in Europe and other western countries make billions from this illegal drug.

Poppy cultivation and heroin trade has boomed every year in Afghanistain, since the invasion and the Taliban were driven from power.

 

[geauxtohell]

IMO, we could completely interdict the Taliban just by subsidizing the poppy crop.

We could burn the damn things after we bought them for all I care. It would still deprive the Taliban of revenue.

Never happen.

One of the main reasons we invaded Afghanistain, Was that the Taliban had almost completely destroyed the poppy crop and and thus disrupted the heroin trade.

Major players (governments?) in Europe and other western countries make billions from this illegal drug.

Poppy cultivation and heroin trade has boomed every year in Afghanistain, since the invasion and the Taliban were driven from power.

I disagree with every point.

At any rate, interdicting the poppy trade in Afghanistan isn't going to do much to slow down the heroin trade in the long run, it will just move to the next NARCO state. But, it will slow down the Taliban, since that is their major cash cow.

 

[Sunni Man]

At any rate, interdicting the poppy trade in Afghanistan isn't going to do much to slow down the heroin trade in the long run, it will just move to the next NARCO state. But, it will slow down the Taliban, since that is their major cash cow.

Then why hasn't that happened?

Answer: Because the poppy fields are under U.S. and UN protection.