Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/12/2002 4:21:49 PM EDT
'Inadequate' US troops pulled out of battleground From Catherine Philp in Leg Diwawl, Afghanistan HUNDREDS of American troops were pulled out of the ground battle with al-Qaeda forces because they failed to adapt to the guerrilla tactics required for fighting in the mountains, according to their Afghan allies. More than 1,000 Afghan troops rushed to the front line yesterday to take up the slack after the withdrawal of 400 US troops from the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. The American military has described the withdrawal as a tactical reappraisal of their battleplan, but Afghan commanders told a different story of inexperienced American soldiers unable to advance through the unfamiliar mountains to track down al-Qaeda and Taleban foes. “They were not trained for the kind of fighting we do in the mountains and, in these conditions, their kind of fighting is useless,” Commander Allah Mohammed said. “They were weakening our morale, it was better for them to go.” As dawn broke, hundreds of Afghan fighters mounted their creaking Soviet-era tanks and set off towards the snow-covered ridge of Shahi-Kot, where the remaining al-Qaeda forces are hiding. Belching black smoke, the tanks chugged their way to a mud-walled fort, where troops were assembling around their leader, the Tajik commander, Gul Haider. The last time that these forces met the Taleban was on the northern Shomali Plain, from where they swept into Kabul as the Taleban fled south. It is hoped their familiarity with the Taleban’s tactics will help them to succeed where American troops failed.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 4:22:30 PM EDT
Shah Mahood Popal, their deputy commander, believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from launching a more decisive attack. “They didn’t want to risk losing lots of fighters. Afghans don’t care if they lose lots of fighters, so we are better suited for the task. They should stick to bombing,” he said. As he finished, the dark shape of a warplane swept the blue sky above and a loud boom ricochetted off the mountains. Three puffs of black smoke rose up from the snowy ridge. “They are still trying to wipe out the al-Qaeda from the air,” Habib Afghan, a commander said, “but if forces don’t go in, it is impossible to finish them off.” The new troops were dispatched from Kabul last week after it became clear that the Americans had underestimated the number of militants still left hiding up in the mountains. Afghan commanders believe that the US has exaggerated the number of casualties in the bombing campaign, saying that at least several hundred al-Qaeda forces are up in mountain caves ready to fight back. “We have been very close to their positions and we have seen no dead bodies,” Commander Mohammed said. Afghan leaders say the many pathways through the mountains are providing not only escape routes for the fighters but a means of replenishing their ranks. Shahi-Kot has been called the last bastion of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but there is evidence that other pockets of resistance still exist in provinces to the south. Commanders say that before Operation Anaconda began, there had been only a small number of al-Qaeda in the mountains. They were attempting to negotiate a surrender when the offensive began, bringing al-Qaeda forces from all over the south running to Shahi Kot to help in the battle. “We were communicating with them, but the Americans would not allow us to negotiate,” Commander Mohammed said. “This paved the way for the other Arabs to join them.” The Arabs are thought to have made their way here from a number of locations in southern Pakistan and Afghanistan, in particular, a secret Taleban base in Zabul Province, north of Kandahar. Former Taleban sources predict that the base could be the scene of the next operation against al-Qaeda. “This battle will not be the last,” one former official said. “The network is far from dead.” Nineteen countries contributing troops to the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Kabul are expected today to agree to stay in Afghanistan for the full six months of the peacekeeping mandate (Michael Evans writes). Britain, which had initially limited its involvement in Isaf to three months, has already said it will stay for the full term. The 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment is in training to replace the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment at the end of next month. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,13-233669,00.html
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 4:57:35 PM EDT
Oh yeah, let me take the word of the frigging losers in the Alliance that got ass-reemed by the Al Quaida at Gardez AND let the terrorists go at Tora Bora. That'll be the day...
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 5:41:09 PM EDT
It shouldn't come as a surprise that our troops are inexperienced and our tactics may not be effective. The Afghanis have been warriors for generations. It's true that Americans will balk at the possibility of suffering heavy casualties. I think they are telling it like it is and I never believed for a second that they were pulling out 400 U.S. troops because the operation was near completion. I suspected that the troops were either exhausted or ineffective. In time as our troops become more seasoned they will be able to handle the job.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 6:16:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe: It shouldn't come as a surprise that our troops are inexperienced and our tactics may not be effective.
View Quote
Really? The 10th Mountain division has seen a shitload of combat.
The Afghanis have been warriors for generations.
View Quote
And these "warriors for generations" got ambushed at Gardez and ran like scared kittens.
I think they are telling it like it is and I never believed for a second that they were pulling out 400 U.S. troops because the operation was near completion. I suspected that the troops were either exhausted or ineffective. In time as our troops become more seasoned they will be able to handle the job.
View Quote
You DO know that not all the US troops were pulled out and many of them are being replaced with other US troops, right? Of course the troops were exhausted---they were fighting on foot at 14,000 frigging feet. I've hiked at about 9,000 feet and it beats the hell out of you. That doesn't mean they were ineffective or that they didn't do their job. We have lots of troops, we may as well keep the ones up there fresh.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 6:17:34 PM EDT
[yawn]
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 7:01:03 PM EDT
This is a reason why we need reporters on the scene just like in Vietnam. To report the facts instead of relying on the propaganda put out by the military. In other words I would believe the facts from reporters over the facts from the military. There will always be those that want to blame the U.S. media for losing the war in Vietnam but the media is guilty of only reporting what they saw. After Vietnam, the U.S. meda has been kept out of any major conflict. It is now tough trying to figure out what is fact and what is not when we are left having to rely on the B.S. the military puts out as our main source. Another unconfirmed story related to the pull back in the current operations. This involves the alleged capture of 18 US soldier/officers by Al Queda. [url]http://www.rense.com/general21/neg.htm[/url] In any other war/conflict/whatever this would be easy to confirm (as in name, rank, number) but since the U.S. won't release the same from the prisoner/detainees/dignitaries/whatever in Guantanamo, why should the Al-Queda release the names of these 18? How convienent for everyone involved except those in the thick of it. I don't particularly agree with this whole mess enough to pick one side or another. In the U.S., we still have an all volunteer armed force. You should know what you are getting yourself into and what your are willing to give up before you sign up. It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter, but don't take that to mean I take any confort in anyone getting killed.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 7:37:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By levi: This is a reason why we need reporters on the scene just like in Vietnam. To report the facts instead of relying on the propaganda put out by the military. In other words I would believe the facts from reporters over the facts from the military. There will always be those that want to blame the U.S. media for losing the war in Vietnam but the media is guilty of only reporting what they saw.
View Quote
On the contrary, the media began taking political positions in Vietnam and also began declaring itself "neutral." Witness the question asked of various network anchors just a bit ago: they were asked if they were travelling with a group of Taliban or Al Quaida to do a story and the group was about to ambush American troops, would they try to warn the Americans? Only one said they would. The hell with the media. They are NOT just interested in reporting the facts, they are also interested in putting their spin on everything that happens. The Tet Offensive, for example, was a crushing defeat for the VC and the NVA, but the US media reported it as if we had lost the war. This, combined with a politicization of the way the war was prosecuted (not striking the NVA in Cambodia for example) is what cost us a victory in Vietnam.
After Vietnam, the U.S. meda has been kept out of any major conflict.
View Quote
And rightly so. Remember when they were waiting on the beach for our troops to come ashore in Somalia? What a debacle THAT was...
It is now tough trying to figure out what is fact and what is not when we are left having to rely on the B.S. the military puts out as our main source.
View Quote
I would believe the military over the media.
I don't particularly agree with this whole mess enough to pick one side or another.
View Quote
You don't agree with WHAT whole mess? Our war in Afghanistan? Well Christ's sakes, dude, if getting a few thousand people MURDERED in cold blood in one of our largest cities doesn't convince you that we have to go to war I don't know what the hell WOULD.
It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter
View Quote
It ain't your war? If you had "Canada" next to your name there, I might let that slide. You don't...I noticed a "USA" there. So it ain't your war? Go to hell. It's OUR war...we were attacked, as a country. If you don't think this is your war, feel free to get the hell out of this country into one that better suits your sensibilities.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 7:46:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By levi: This is a reason why we need reporters on the scene just like in Vietnam. To report the facts instead of relying on the propaganda put out by the military. In other words I would believe the facts from reporters over the facts from the military. There will always be those that want to blame the U.S. media for losing the war in Vietnam but the media is guilty of only reporting what they saw. After Vietnam, the U.S. meda has been kept out of any major conflict. It is now tough trying to figure out what is fact and what is not when we are left having to rely on the B.S. the military puts out as our main source. Another unconfirmed story related to the pull back in the current operations. This involves the alleged capture of 18 US soldier/officers by Al Queda. [url]http://www.rense.com/general21/neg.htm[/url] In any other war/conflict/whatever this would be easy to confirm (as in name, rank, number) but since the U.S. won't release the same from the prisoner/detainees/dignitaries/whatever in Guantanamo, why should the Al-Queda release the names of these 18? How convienent for everyone involved except those in the thick of it. I don't particularly agree with this whole mess enough to pick one side or another. In the U.S., we still have an all volunteer armed force. You should know what you are getting yourself into and what your are willing to give up before you sign up. It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter, but don't take that to mean I take any confort in anyone getting killed.
View Quote
you cant decide what side you are going to pick? you my freind are either very stupid, or have been brainwashed. do you have any idea what happened here 6 months ago? if you are nopt willing to fight for this country...go find one your willing to fight for. "if a man is not inclined to risk his life for his own country, he should look elswhere till he finds a country he will risk his life for" Admiral Spruance WWII US Naval Commander
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 7:49:52 PM EDT
It ain't your war? If you had "Canada" next to your name there, I might let that slide. You don't...I noticed a "USA" there. So it ain't your war? Go to hell. It's OUR war...we were attacked, as a country. If you don't think this is your war, feel free to get the hell out of this country into one that better suits your sensibilities.
View Quote
F*ckin-A, bubba! Like the man said, "you're either with us, or with them." I guess we know the score, don't we?
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 8:25:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2002 8:35:50 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
This was published by the London [i]Times[/i]?? Good god, how the mighty have fallen. They obviously didn't confirm this... Neither Reuters nor AP knows anything about this. They are doing interviews with GI's in Kandahar. You would think they would know about this by now... [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020313/ap_on_re_as/afghan_fighting_320[/url] [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020312/ap_on_re_mi_ea/afghan_back_from_the_front_2[/url] [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020312/wl_nm/attack_afghan_dc_170[/url] The problem isnt that reporters arent getting access. The problem is that once they get the stuff they will only show us 30sec clips of what they think is important. They arent showing even a fraction of what is getting cleared by the censors. Probably because no Americans are being killed
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 9:25:49 PM EDT
Levi, you should kick your own ass for even posting a link to that piece of shit website.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 9:40:20 PM EDT
The Times of London is a British newspaper. Newspapers in the UK are not like those in the US. In the US they pretend to be objective, and to separate the editorial from the news. In the UK they don’t even bother with the distinction - it’s not important to them. The London Times has been know to be a “bit above the fray” in the past, but they need circulation too. Their troops aren’t there, ours are, they need readers, ergo bash the USA. Mike - who is not mentioning who owns the Times.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 9:41:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2002 9:44:54 PM EDT by AcidGambit]
The british press has pulled this US Bashing on and off during thins conflict. Um, that's just what I would expect the new Afgan people to say... Let remember the fact that like 90% of that part of the world doens't believe that their part of this rock was responsible for 9/11. They should, maybe, remember where they would be if it wasn't for us ! Our guys seem to be doing okay... Ya, the alt has caused some problems... Nothing in life goes smoothly. The British press has really begun to piss me off of late. Perhaps we should have let the German's have them, stiff upper lip and all.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 10:54:52 PM EDT
Well my own opinion which is just that, an opinion is as follows. They are fighting at a high altitude which the US Army does not regularly train at. Even the 10th Mountain Division at Ft. Drum does not have mountains as high as those in Afghanistan. So I'm sure the altitude is playing a major role in any performance issues with US ground forces. As for the guerilla warfare issue both the 101st my former division and the 10th are both Light Infantry Divisions. They both train for guerilla warfare. They train to fight in squad, platoon, and company sized units generally. When I was in the 101st we trained mainly in reaching an objective as secretly as possible which meant going through the heavy bush to try to be unseen. Then we would try to hit an objective hard and bug out. Or we would set up ambushes where the enemy would likely travel and bug out. It might take some time to adapt to the terrain, but that is to be expected. Of course we will take casualties and there will be a learning curve. I would like to say that our boys are better armed, have better como, air support, and have better resupply capability. It would not be unheard of to move a battalion sized unit (approx 400) for a little rest with the problems of altitude. The only thing I have heard is that in the Clinton years training has slackened a little due to funding which might cause some issues. If the Afghanis are so good why did they not make any major headway against the Taliban until our air support came into play.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 11:34:21 PM EDT
Your last statement is the best of all. While many of these Afghans have been fighting war all their lives, many of them also have been deciding where their loyalty lies. I think that a lot of the resident soldiers try to go with who is winning or who will help them best in the end.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 4:58:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2002 5:01:48 AM EDT by theprisoner]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Sukebe: It shouldn't come as a surprise that our troops are inexperienced and our tactics may not be effective.
View Quote
Really? The 10th Mountain division has seen a shitload of combat.
The Afghanis have been warriors for generations.
View Quote
And these "warriors for generations" got ambushed at Gardez and ran like scared kittens.
I think they are telling it like it is and I never believed for a second that they were pulling out 400 U.S. troops because the operation was near completion. I suspected that the troops were either exhausted or ineffective. In time as our troops become more seasoned they will be able to handle the job.
View Quote
You DO know that not all the US troops were pulled out and many of them are being replaced with other US troops, right? Of course the troops were exhausted---they were fighting on foot at 14,000 frigging feet. I've hiked at about 9,000 feet and it beats the hell out of you. That doesn't mean they were ineffective or that they didn't do their job. We have lots of troops, we may as well keep the ones up there fresh.
View Quote
As a former member of the 10th Mountain Division I have to say they have not seen any combat since Somalia in '93. They have seen a shitload of deployments though. And far as mountains and elevation go at FT. Drum there is none. Their mountain warfare school is located in Vermont and they very rarely train there as whole units instead individuals are sent mountain warfare school (usually NCO's) and relay what they are taught to the rest. All in all though I still think it is the best Light Infantry division in the Army.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 5:25:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2002 5:28:42 AM EDT by lurker]
i dont have a problem with this. it looks suspiciously like good leadership to me. sure, our boys are a little out of practice. it always takes the US a while to come up to speed. we just dont have 2,000 years experience with continuous conflict, thank goodness. we're also accustomed to having the technological edge, night vision, aircraft, and "smart" munitions. lets do what we do best (bomb them to heck), and let the afghanis take the heavy casualties. the danger here is that we have come to expect victory to be relatively bloodless. lee said something like "it is good that war is so terrible, lest we come to like it too much". as for reporting, you cant absolutely trust either the press or the military. they are both going to try to present themselves in the most favorable light. best to watch them both and figure the truth lies between, or at least nearby.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 5:25:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2002 5:26:06 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Originally Posted By levi: I don't particularly agree with this whole mess enough to pick one side or another.... It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter....
View Quote
Thanks for once again showing your true colors, levi.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 5:29:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By theprisoner: As a former member of the 10th Mountain Division I have to say they have not seen any combat since Somalia in '93.
View Quote
Weren't they deployed in the Balkans as well?
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 5:35:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By levi: This is a reason why we need reporters on the scene just like in Vietnam. To report the facts instead of relying on the propaganda put out by the military.
View Quote
Really? Reporters state the facts, and the military's reports are all propaganda? You're fvcking brilliant!
In other words I would believe the facts from reporters over the facts from the military.
View Quote
I'm overwhelmed by your honesty. What do you want to be when you grow up?
There will always be those that want to blame the U.S. media for losing the war in Vietnam but the media is guilty of only reporting what they saw.
View Quote
The history books I've read all say that South Vietnam was secure when our troops pulled out, and it was a few years later when the North over-ran SVN. Maybe I should listen to the reporters, like you do.
After Vietnam, the U.S. meda has been kept out of any major conflict.
View Quote
Uh...bullshit. They were in Somalia, they were on the beaches (CNN) in Grenada when our troops landed. Yes, they have been distanced some...but they have been far from "kept out". LMAO!
It is now tough trying to figure out what is fact and what is not when we are left having to rely on the B.S. the military puts out as our main source.
View Quote
You have [b]got[/b] to be trolling here...nobody is that stupid, are they? ...snip... won't even respond to that...
I don't particularly agree with this whole mess enough to pick one side or another.
View Quote
You don't particularly agree enough to pick a side? Sounds like you already have....
In the U.S., we still have an all volunteer armed force. You should know what you are getting yourself into and what your are willing to give up before you sign up.
View Quote
Look, Richard Cranium....those guys are out there fighting to protect you, your country, and your right to say & type the bullshit you're spewing. Have a little respect....
It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter, but don't take that to mean I take any confort in anyone getting killed.
View Quote
It ain't your war? I bet New York is full of former peace-niks who'd love to kick your ass for saying that. Maybe you should find a country to reside in where you'd feel differently!
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 6:12:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2002 6:13:39 AM EDT by theprisoner]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By theprisoner: As a former member of the 10th Mountain Division I have to say they have not seen any combat since Somalia in '93.
View Quote
Weren't they deployed in the Balkans as well?
View Quote
RikWriter, yes and they still are although there was never any real action there at least not for conventional ground units.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 6:50:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2002 6:52:01 PM EDT by shooter69]
Thought it was written by the Times of [b]Baghdad[/b] or something. My lord what a lot of tripe that was! I always knew we could count on [b]levi[/b]! He's a swell guy. Believes we shouldn't be fighting this war (or at least he is not going to choose sides); 9-11 victims families should go on welfare; and my favorite... the multicultural rendering of the ground zero firemen statue was none of our business. (other historical revisionism I'm sure he would think a bad idea...)
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 6:44:50 AM EDT
If you look at the effects of high altitude you'll see that it can take up to two weeks to get acclimitized to high altitude combat conditions. Even if the 10th mountain division had been training in Colorado at 12,000 feet for the past month, the second you come down to sea level you lose your acclimitization (in about 2-3 days). Thus 10th mountain troops pulled from the Colorado mountains, flown to Afghanistan, and then slowly re-mobilized to a higher altitude would be expected to have lost completely their altitude acclimitization, and would have to completely re-acclimitize to the altitude. Whereas indigineous Afghan fighters, born and raised in the mountains, would undoubtedly not have left the mountains, and would be in peak fighting form as they would have absolutely no acclimitization to go through. I don't care how fit you are, you have to acclimitize to altitude. High altitude pulmonary edema and high altitude cerebral edema kill people. Strong people. High altitude sickness is worsened with high exertional activities. When I was young and fit, our family was driving across the mountains of Colorado. I remember us stopping at 12,000 feet to get out to walk around. After about thirty yards of walkin I could hardly breath. Had to sit down. Two weeks later I ran a 40 minute 10K race at sea level. Give those guys some credit for being well trained fighters. You go try lugging a 150 lb battle pack around the mountains of Afghanistan at 12,000 feet in the middle of the night, with no altitude acclimitization and see how "combat able" you are.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 8:17:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 9:42:04 AM EDT
I imagine there is some truth to this article. It basically boiles down to the difference in the way we fight and the way they fight. The Afghan commander has no problem throwing men into battle to win the objective. While we try to use our advantage, air power, to weaken or displace the enemy before we go sending in troops. I know which army I would fight for. As far as negoiating with Al Qaeda, No f*cking way. If you let these guys go they will continue to fight.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 11:35:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By levi: .It ain't my war and I am not going to cry about it or anyone for that matter.
View Quote
I think for this one it's troll hunting is now open[img]www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/knifed.gif [/img]
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 12:33:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 12:52:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Happyshooter: Shah Mahood Popal, their deputy commander, believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from launching a more decisive attack. “They didn’t want to risk losing lots of fighters...
View Quote
Amen! Sounds like good American leadership. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. Fill in the blanks... ..believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from______________. “They didn’t want to risk losing lots of fighters... A) Jumping off a cliff B) Impaling themselves on many sharp pointy sticks. C) Launching a more decisive attack. D) Walking into the aircraft propeller.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 3:49:12 PM EDT
Considering it was the damned Afghan "allies" that REFUSED TO ADVANCE under fire from the Al Quaida at Gardez, I consider it a huge laugh that this sorry SOB is criticizing our tactics. If I were over there with those guys, I would find this putz and spit in his face.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 4:23:23 PM EDT
'Inadequate' US troops pulled out of battleground From Catherine Philp in Leg Diwawl, Afghanistan Is that because we wouldn't take bribes to let the enemy escape or because we didn't have anyone fast enough to catch up with the fleeing afgans at that altitude?
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 4:37:40 PM EDT
I think either the media is censoring itself (they dumb it all down and show 2 things- advertisements for their own programs, or something quick and flashy that will get emotion from the audience), the government is doing it for them, or, most likely, both. The media coverage in other countries is MUCH better; I've been to Great Britain and Belize and the people seem to know more about current events than Americans. When the first of the Twin Towers collapsed, CNN was on commercial break- enough said.
Top Top