| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| For each Taliban you kill, I can find 20 more to fill his place |
| 2006-07-02 |
| With his neat moustache and casual clothing, Hafiz Ihsanullah is the new face of the Taliban. The 28-year-old former fighter has eschewed the trademark turban and prayer beads of the ultra-conservative Islamic group since he took on a new and powerful role. He has switched from being a frontline warrior to front man for Mullah Dadullah Akhund - the one-legged Taliban commander in Afghanistan, renowned for his viciousness and cruelty. Dadullah is believed to be spearheading the Taliban's biggest offensive since they lost Kabul in 2001, killing at least 100 Afghan civilians and 40 coalition soldiers this year, including two SAS troops during a fierce firefight in southern Afghanistan last week. After the leaders of al-Qaeda itself, Dadullah is at the top of the coalition's wanted list. |
| Posted by:john |
| #25 The cost of a kill in Afghanistan is over $1 million. That's a figure even the US won't sustain. The cost of operations (minus weapons) is $800 million a month. There were an estimated 1500+ kills last year for $640,00 each. Add to that weapons expended and coalition nations operations costs and it comes to more than $1 million. Of that figure, a lot of goes to Pakistan to supply US and coaltion forces. Let's face it, just a 10% Pakistani skim will raise at lot of little jihadis to adulthood. It's very lucrative for Pakistan and in their financial interest (not even including their strategic interests) to keep the pot boiling. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-07-02 23:12 |
| #24 Just came back for spening time with someone who worked and liked in SA for years. He says all the money is comming from the Magic Kingdom. Beans and bullets stillcost money and SA is happy to provide it. His recomendations. First one is 20X50 approx in demensions. Second is item #10 and he never even heard of Dave D's list. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-07-02 22:52 |
| #23 They forgot what happened 5 years ago when their young went to fight US. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-07-02 22:07 |
| #22 OP...I do agree. Given the quality of ordnance we have now vice circa 1972...A couple of arclight runs in the right spots would eliminate a lot of islamo-cockroaches and their minions...especially those that feel safe in concrete re-emforced bunkers. Just read the accounts of the NVA. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-07-02 21:18 |
| #21 I still think a dozen Buffs fully loaded down through the middle of the NWFP would reduce the Taliban numbers by about 70%. Do it once a week for a month or two, and we won't have any more taliwhackers - and not much problem from pakiwakiland - especially after we say "Rawalpindi's next" a couple of times, then follow through. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-07-02 20:44 |
| #20 It is ironic that the antics of the Left bring the next holocaust closer. To the left perhaps. To me it's just good. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-02 20:38 |
| #19 It is actually much cheaper for us to kill large groups, than small 4-man fire teams. A 20-30 man unit in a single location can be eliminated by a JDAM or 155mm cluster munition. The smaller fire teams have to be killed individually, using direct fire like rifle shots or M203 gernade rounds. And if they are saying that they can run gunnies from Pakistan indefinitely, they need to review their border situation with Afghanistan. If the Afghanis get the bit in their mouth, there isn't much on the border to stop Afghani hunter/killer teams from crossing over into the richer hunting grounds of Pakistan. And if the Indians are smart, they will spend the money to encourage such raiding. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-07-02 20:33 |
| #18 "Every time you bring one dead, you will find 20 more volunteers willing to join the fighting," he boasted" OK. Kill 1000. Bring 20,000. Target rich environment. Easier kills for TACAIR. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-07-02 20:02 |
| #17 His point is not the kill ratio, but the dollar cost per kill. On those terms, nukes are quite cost effective. Even more cost effective is cutting off food, fuel, and medical imports. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-07-02 19:43 |
| #16 You actually don't need massive kills. The Pak elite is quite small and easily terrorized into submission. |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-02 19:24 |
| #15 Our cost per kill is unstustainable for most countries. We are looking at thousands per death. However, America is a very rich country and we can afford it. This is something that most third world fighters do not and can not understand. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-07-02 19:21 |
| #14 I been slapped down hard here at the 'Burg for expressing the sentiment that this will not end until we kill massive numbers of these people. Wars do not end until one side recognizes that the losses are too great. The asshats have not experienced this yet. I still believe that the WOT is on course to get a lot of Americans killed. This will result in a truely brutal retaliation. It won't matter who is president - Repub. or Dhimmiecrat. The public in America will demand it. There will be only limited tolerance for moonbats here. It will be an awful time. GWB has not come to grips with this. I suspect that he is obeying the First Law of Leadership - do not give an order that you believe will not be obeyed. The MSM are non-combatant enemies. Our intelligence agencies are penetrated. The supremes extend Geneva Convention protections to non-state actors. The list goes on. It is ironic that the antics of the Left bring the next holocaust closer. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-07-02 19:20 |
| #13 bigger weapons |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-02 19:19 |
| #12 Hunting is good. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-07-02 18:45 |
| #11 pacifying? You mean the PR releases.. I agree, Wazoo is equally bad, but you have to actually put forth a REAL effort, not PR, to make it work. AND(!) don't quit at the first ceasefire offer. Crush your enemies |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-07-02 18:43 |
| #10 Take the battle to the enemy and that means bombing in Balochistan Last time I checked, the Pakistani Army was busy pacifying Balochistan. While the Balochis aren't saints, it's Waziristan that seems to provide most of the basing for cross-border operations. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-07-02 18:39 |
| #9 IIRC the periodic Baloch rebellions were the actual trigger for the first madrassa expansions. The ideology of Pakistan was islam and it was felt that while Punjabis would be loyal, other regions needed the inculcation of islamic identity to hold the pakistani state together. |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-02 18:37 |
| #8 One problem is that the officer cadre of the Pakistan army, educated in British type "public schools" and a staff college created to develop soldiers for the Raj, is quite personable. They drink whiskey, play polo and cards, and get along quite well with foreign officers and officials. Some, like Jinnah, may even eat bacon. The typical officer may appear to be "one of the boys". Many have formed lasting friendships with many senior American Generals and SD officials. However a scorpion, no matter how friendly it is, remains a scorpion. Its nature is to sting and it has its own agenda. |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-02 18:32 |
| #7 John, I'm with ya on that. In fact, I've learned to not question your info on Paki/India stories...what's your background? If I may be so impertinent to ask? Just wondering..you have a wealth of knowledge in the area. I can be reached via email by dropping the NoSpam from the addy :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-07-02 18:29 |
| #6 One point about the madrassas - before partition in 1947, there were just 2500 registered madrassas in the entire Indian subcontinent. Today there are 10 000 in Pak Punjab province alone, and 25 000 in all of Pakistan. There are an additional 25000 - 40000 unregistered koranic schools. This growth was a policy of the Pakistani state. The first growth spurt followed the defeat in the 1965 war. The second followed the 1971 war defeat. There was a belief that a vast army of irregulars could defend Pakistan and defeat India in Kashmir. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and US funding provided another huge boost - foot soldiers for the jihad, first in Afghanistan and then in Kashmir. Now the jihadi army is being redirected from Kashmir to Afghanistan, with additional recruitment. The Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani ISI and this offensive is a policy of the Pakistani state. To pretend otherwise, as many in the DoD and State do, is to delude oneself. |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-02 18:25 |
| #5 Just exactly what side is Pakistan on again? Someone in Washington D.C. needs to get a clue. It's pretty evident they are aiding and arming the Talibs. I suggest we ignore there "sovereignty" and bomb the hell out of these scum. Regular old iron bombs not is this jdam stuff. Shoot anythiong or anyone trying to cross the border. See if they can sustain those losses. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-07-02 18:19 |
| #4 I expect our cost per kill would go down dramatically should we disregard the border. F*ck Perv's and the ISI's lies. Take the battle to the enemy and that means bombing in Balochistan |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-07-02 18:14 |
| #3 "Yesterday's Nimble wanted us to get rid of the cheap killing tools. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-07-02 18:07 |
| #2 His point is not the kill ratio, but the dollar cost per kill. He claims, perhaps rightly, that we are having to spend too much per Talibaner we wack to sustain indefinitely while he can sustain the death rate we are inflicting. The upshot is that we have to be more efficient at killing - is it possible with the politically necessary (Afghan and Western politics) rules of engagement? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-07-02 17:58 |
| #1 ok - so we'll kill them too. With the current kill ratio odds aren't in your favor, if you get my drift |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-02 17:41 |