| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| War in Afghanistan: a tour of hell. |
| 2008-08-13 |
|
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #14 You must have learned something from that documentary? There's folks called 'marines and corpsmen' that that take precedence, including ones who've been there and are going there. I barely keep up with my professional reading. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-08-13 12:34 |
| #13 On a more positive note, along with providing all the coalition soldiers with the tools they need to do their job, Afghanistan is such an inherently unpleasant place that the personnel there should have a world class recreational and recovery facility. That is, get a top notch brigadier with a hefty budget to build a recreational barracks of the kind that used to exist in Germany. But far more elaborate. The idea would be to create a modern hotel (not too outrageous, there are several in Kabul), with all the amenities you can think of. Surrounded by a several mile deep landscaped area, looking like something you would see in western Europe or the US. Not anything like Afghanistan. And not an Afghan or a military uniform to be seen anywhere on the grounds. Civilian dress, and the majority of employees would be western women. Gourmet food prepared by chefs, not cooks. Much of the place would be a health spa, with a big emphasis on therapeutic massage of several kinds. Being alone would be subtly discouraged, with counselors trained to "buddy up" and stimulate the personnel to talk. And talk and talk. This is a major pressure release. Lots of trained clergy around as well for the same reason. Other than combat personnel, access should be strictly limited. Lower stress duty assignments would almost never have access. Far more enlisted than officer. Importantly, it would be an individual activity. Personnel from the same unit would intentionally be segregated. They should be thrilled to bump into each other. While it is easy to equate recreation with electronic entertainments, that should be avoided, as it can interfere with recuperation. And while it should feel very "homey", it would be an exceptionally serious activity. A very advanced effort for physical and psychological repair. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-08-13 11:08 |
| #12 Those formidable Taliban again. Exposed on the ridges, they seem like an ideal target for UAV and conventional airpower. |
| Posted by: KBK 2008-08-13 09:27 |
| #11 The soldiers, 18 of them, have a grim resignation about them now. No need to read further. The first paragraph telegraphs (no pun intended) the gist of this story. You see, those dumb colonials (or cowboys, depending on the story's hook) are resigned to their fate. Not determined, but resigned and defeated. Some of our worse enemies are those closest to us. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-08-13 07:59 |
| #10 Pappy brings to that job his experience as a military veteran who retired after major combat wounds incurred during Gulf 1. McZoid, you have very little to teach him about warfare or events in any of our active theaters. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-08-13 07:31 |
| #9 McZoid dear, Pappy works with the troops as they go to and from the battlefields. He gets informal reports from the source, not mediated through a movie camera. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-13 07:01 |
#8 I am also a big advocate of self-immolation for peacenik demonstrators: |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-13 06:33 |
| #7 For techno-penants, "shrapnel"="fragmentation" (real shrapnel hasn't been used in decades). Remembering the hundreds of innocents who burned to death at the WTC, I wouldn't mind seeing some Tali-bastards lit up anyway. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-13 06:29 |
| #6 Napalm is fine with me. It IS cruel, of course, but not exceptionally so to anyone who has seen a lot of shrapnel and bullet wounds over the years. The peace movement's tacit acceptance of other weapons is obviously a bait-and-switch. If they had any chance of banning artillery or small arms, they would suddenly find them just as objectionable as napalm (though only when they are used against against terrorists and communists). |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-13 06:23 |
| #5 Pappy: You must have learned something from that documentary? |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-13 05:43 |
| #4 conditions at the US Army's most attacked outpost in Afghanistan are reminiscent of the First World War trenches. Quite a contrast to the ISAF publication posted yesterday. I'm not sure the information in the article quite supports the journalist's premise. Thoughts from those of you qualified to judge, please? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-13 04:47 |
| #3 Someone has never been in a combat zone me thinks and bases all his opinions on hearsay and jaded articles he has scoped off the net. Its pretty shitty all round in any combat area .. |
| Posted by: Mad Eye 2008-08-13 04:45 |
| #2 I listened to the voices of Iraq field troops in the "Bad Voodoo War" documentary. Nobody else did. My, you certainly are pleased with yourself. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-08-13 01:49 |
| #1 They are attacking from unpopulated borderland spots. Napalm did the trick in Vietnam. However, post-Carter, find yet another way of disproportionate retaliation or take the loss in morale. I listened to the voices of Iraq field troops in the "Bad Voodoo War" documentary. Nobody else did. It is folly to impose futility on willing and capable troops. Comedian Artie Lange - who did a USO tour of Afghanistan last month - quoted US troops denouncing the indulgence of the Heroin Industry. It is suicidal to create conditions where a murderous enemy rakes in enough money in June to finance weapon's purchases for a year. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-13 01:29 |