Welcome to hell, operations in Afghanistan
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17018
Printed Date: 19-May-2024 at 22:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Welcome to hell, operations in Afghanistan
Posted By: Lotus
Subject: Welcome to hell, operations in Afghanistan
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 05:33
|
There is an interesting report by a journalist following the
British attempt to take the town of The British government tried to stop the reporter by not allowing him to travel with any of the British forces, so he followed the operation in an Afghan police land cruiser. http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=1006 - http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=1006 Seems the NATO forces in the Helmand region are completely overstretched and under equipped, watching the documentary the British army land rovers used in the operation have no armour what so ever, and were covered in bullet holes by the time the operation was over. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 08:05
|
The British have a highly undistinguished record in Afgahnistan. Or west of ther Indus in general. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 15:59
|
I think it is a bit personal for both sides given the history. Ultimately it is a failed strategy, because the focus has shifted from fighting the Taliban to sustaining kabul. Other NATO countries refuse to go south and the British forces dont wish to hold land without sufficient increase in support. That support in resources and manpower can only come through NATO or US, since the ANA and ANP are a rented army. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 16:10
|
I think they should just realise that the pipeline from CA via Afghanistan is just not going to happen and head back home. Britain's days of imperial adventure are long gone; the sooner that it is realised by poodle Blair and his cronies, the better.
Waste of tax payers' money. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 06:51
|
No-one is going to be able to occupy Afghanistan successfully without the support of the people. It's impossible. I will, however, point out that the Australian SAS have been doing wonders to support British and American troops. Rescuing downed chopper crews, sniping out mortar tubes during an ambush while the American troops fled to cower behind their vehicles, leaving behind their weapons and ammo... The list goes on.
------------- |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 09:59
|
There are a lot of Canadian soldiers in Afganistan too, it's always in the news. it's funny how they always juggle our "peaceful" image with "staying the course, rooting out terrorists,killing badguys (!), blabla.." I personally have been against it since the start because I think it is pointless and "unwinnable". Each war just breeds an ever more brutal radical group in the camps that people are forced into. And yet educated people in Canada are extremely ignorant about this war (in my opinion). They know nothing about any other war there and take its value simply on faith. Most of them are even against the Iraq war very strongly but are in favour of the Afganistan one--how does that make sense? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 11:36
|
Afghanistan has an aura of acceptability around it, Osama Bin Laden having actually stayed there at one point. The war was still unjustified, but it was at least possible to put a decent spin on it.
------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 19:24
|
I think the acceptability is derived more from 911 itself than his staying in Afghanistan, he stayed is Saudi, Sudan too. Afghanistan is more justified than Iraq, which is was based on self interest and a pack of lies that even the idiots fooled by false patriotism are seeing through now. So Afghanistan makes sense, Iraq also makes sense but not for the reasons cited in its favor.------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 00:09
|
May I ask how Iraq makes sense?
------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 10:10
|
The situation in afghanistan as it is, is going from bad to worse. In my oppinion (I'm no expert of course), a major military operation must take place now. The people of afghansitan were originally favouring the new regime, but the continuous unsafety is changing their mind. I think some NATO official had said that unless action is taken in the winter (=now), the spring will find 70% of the population on the Taliban side.
A major military operation however seems difficult. The NATO countries are unwilling to send more troops, and many countries have put restrictions on the possible use of their soldiers.
I don't know the situation of the afghan army now. Heard it has become pretty decent. Upon it relies the future of Afghanistan. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 09:28
A super-power needs to safegaurd its strategic interests(oil) and plan ahead, dollar hegemony(dollar denomination must not be challenged for the sale of oil).
------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 09:32
If a comparison was made, it would be found that the Iraqi army is better than that of the Afghan army. The Afghan army is a rented mercenary army, who are really northern alliance getting paid by NATO, once NATO leaves that responsibilty will fall back to the warlords. ------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 10:50
|
Afghan Army(troopers) were trained by Turkish infantary experts.this means they are the second best military in the world.
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 12:01
A common explanation, which may or may not be true. Unfortunately it is Saudi Arabia which holds the value of the American dollar in its fist. America successfully pissed off Saudi Arabia during the last war. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 18:33
This seems like a mix of real events (SAS snipers taking out a mortar position) mixed with Jihadi propaganda (U.S. troops fleeing w/o weapons).
What probably happened is that SAS snipers on overwatch positions identiifed and fired on mortars while U.S. troops withdrew from the impact zone. U.S. troops in Afghanistan are all veteran / elite light infantry units (Rangers, Airborne, Marines and a Mountian Infantry Division) operating in a light infantry environment . They have no heavy vehicles that can stop mortar fragments. I seriously doubt that veteran troops would be panicked by mortar fire and would think that Humvees will stop mortars etc.
This is not to say that U.S. troop are incapable of panic (maybe Armoured troops being caught in a well planned ambush in urban area). It is just stating that this particular accusation is very, very unlikely.
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 18:43
And how so?
is there an alternative explanation as to why they are there?
------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 18:48
US trained the Iraqi army and everyone knows that the Iraqi army is the bestest, so Afghani army is second bestest. Unless Turkish army is bester than US army. ------------- |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 19:27
  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 09:08
I must firstly point out that the jihad has little to do with Afghanistan.
The exact instance I refer to was an ambush on a US convoy by Taliban forces. It was, however, not in an urban area but in the hills. The enemy attack involved rifle fire and mortar attack. The US troops apparently fled, leaving packs, amunition and all, in the open where it was no longer safe to retrieve them. They were pinned behind their vehicles, and rapidly running out of ammunition. The SAS quickly scrambled to the area, and within a few minutes had repelled the enemy attack, including sniping out enemy mortar tubes, and professionally eliminating the close-range attackers. While this does reflect poorly on US troops, it is a little unfair to compare them to the most elite special forces in the world. ------------- |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 11:09
|
BS, I've heard plenty of stories of special ops superhuman Arnold Swchartzenager's single handedly taking out entire armies. First with respect to the story you've heard let me ask this of you. If it was a convoy that was ambushed how did the packs and ammunition of the American soldiers wind up out in the open when they were evidently riding in vehicles? If anything they would have simply left ther excess packs and ammo inside their vehicles. I'm sorry but if you can't provide a credible source I have to say this sounds like well BS. *Edit*
Of course this doesn't mean that the Ausie SAS hasn't performed conspicuously in Afghanistan such as during the battle of Shahi Kot when SAS soldiers called in airstrikes from an exposed position and prevented hundreds of Talaban and Al-Qaeda soldiers from attacking the already heavily outnumbered Rangers at Takur Gahr.
*Edit* felt my language from b4 was a bit strong and overly confrontational
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 20:00
|
Here
The US soldiers didn't perform as cowardly as you make it seem and certainly didn't drop their weapons but even the most hardened soldiers will be panicked by sudden terrors. Furthermore the SAS liason officers performed better but they didn't perform as you described. There also were no close attackers in this incident as the insurgents occupied the high ground in the areas surrounding the US forces. They needed only fire down on the American troops stranded beneath them.
I think its remarkable the US troopers performed as well as they did given the foolishness of the US commanders.
check this one out
Typical Aussies |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 09:02
|
I did not mean to imply that the Americans were cowardly, I may have gone slightly too far. What I meant, is that their initial reactions were not controlled properly, as they did not think before acting. This resulted in the ammo, and radios being left in the open. The majority of troops were escorting the convoy on foot, which is why they were away from the vehicles. The "insurgents" (word doesn't really apply) were "closer" than the mortar tubes, is what I meant to imply in my post. I was fully aware they were up an incline.
------------- |