You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Two Thirds of Brits want to withdraw from Afghanistan
2008-11-13
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A day after a fierce suicide bombing in southern Afghanistan, insurgents struck Thursday in the east of the country when an American military convoy was attacked in a crowded market, killing one soldier and 18 civilians, according to the United States military and Afghan police officials.

One of the dead was a 12-year-old boy, who died when a suicide car bomber in a Toyota Corolla approached an American military convoy and then swerved into a weekly market at around 8 a.m., according to American and Afghan accounts. Dr. Ajmal Pardes, the director of public health in the area, said 74 people were injured.

The strike was in the Bati Kot district of eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province. An Associated Press photographer said that an American military vehicle, two civilian vehicles and two rickshaws were destroyed.

United States Navy commander Jeff Bender, an American military spokesman in Kabul, said the civilian death count, initially put at 10, had risen to 18.

On Wednesday, a tanker truck packed with explosives detonated outside the provincial council office in Kandahar, Afghanistan's largest southern city, killing the driver and at least six other people and wounding more than 40 others. The blast shook the entire city, caused at least five houses to fall and left a crater near the council building, which housed an office of a national security service.

"The enemies of Afghanistan and peace once again put us in mourning," Gen. Rahmatullah Roufi, the provincial governor, told reporters. He announced a "purification" operation to arrest insurgents in and near the city.

In a separate incident reported on Thursday, two soldiers from the American-led NATO alliance were killed in an explosion in the south of the country in an explosion on Wednesday, the alliance said, but did not specify the soldiers' nationality. The Defense Ministry in London later identified the two soldiers as members of Britain's Royal Marines who were taking part in a joint patrol with Afghan soldiers in the Garmsir district of Southern Helmand Province.

The American contingent is the largest foreign force in Afghanistan but Britain has about 8,000 troops there. A survey broadcast Thursday by the BBC said more than two-thirds of those questioned believed Britain should withdraw its soldiers over the next year while less than a quarter favored their continued deployment.This year has been the bloodiest since the American-led invasion of late 2001 that toppled the Taliban regime, whose supporters have revived their campaign to drive out foreign forces.

The latest American fatalities brought to around 148 the number of American military deaths so far this year, compared to 111 in the whole of 2001, the A.P. reported. Additionally, around 110 soldiers from other coalition forces have died this year.

More than 5,400 people, including almost 1,000 civilians, have died in violence related to the insurgency this year, the news agency said, citing figures provided by Afghan and international officials.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#8  As to using ARCLIGHT strikes, there is an adage that if you grab a man by his balls, his heart and mind will soon follow.

If you are willing to instill the fear that an ARCLIGHT brings, you will have taken the balls of the man on the ground. His heart and mind will not be far behind.
Posted by: Abu do you love   2008-11-13 20:41  

#7  There is really only one reason to fight in A'stan - the people who are fighting against us are depraved and seriously need killing. The problem is you can't easily kill just the most depraved - you are bound to hit some 'innocent' women & kids and baby ducks. You either kill 'em all and let Allan sort 'em out, or leave and let them kill each other until they come after us here again, or continue this attempt at 'civilized' war. In general it is better to be on the offensive and choose your battlefield rather than try to protect everywhere. It's a tough nut to crack, and that's the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place (WMD was a good 'excuse'). This is one of those cases where it sucks to be the boss and to have to decide.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-11-13 18:56  

#6  YS, I spent 26 years in the Air Force, and several of them drawing ARCLIGHT boxes for use in Vietnam. I also had the "unusual" experience of being within 25 miles of one, so I have a sense of what they're like on the ground as well. They worked in Vietnam - read some of the stories told by survivors. The thing they feared the most was an ARCLIGHT strike.

Like anything else, from a slingshot to a thermonuclear weapon, it's just a tool. However, it's a very USEFUL tool, and our failure to use it has been one of the most significant failure of this war. Go back and read some of the comments under the photos in the essay, "Korengal Valley Photos". I guarantee you that if we ARCLIGHTed that valley, the locals that survived would be TERRIFIED of supporting the Taliban, and would refuse to even discuss the issue with an outsider. We cannot win the "hearts and minds" of these tribals until we instill stark, abject fear into them, because the only other feeling they have for us is contempt.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-11-13 18:23  

#5  OP your comments are ridiculous but at least you used something different then your usual 'arclite' temper tantrums.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2008-11-13 16:06  

#4  OP, I agree with you, except for using nukes (unless we are hit with chem or nukes). The fallout would flow over India, a critical ally of ours going forward. I don't want that to happen to them.

But we should definitely employ your favorite arc light strategy should we get the slightest hit that originates in this region.

Afghanistan is not sustainable. It is not going to be a democracy of any recognizable form in our lifetime. Wasting blood and treasure on it is just plain stupid. Better to make sure that Iraq is a success and give our military personnel a breather.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-11-13 15:01  

#3  War is not a game, it's a very serious business. If you're not in it to succeed, you're screwed. The US has, to this point, been a "nice guy", just trying to give the Afghanistanis a chance to develop western-style government. The problem is, the nation is mired in a tribal mindset that it will take a dozen generations to flush. At this point, even I'm for pulling out - and salting the totally destroyed towns and villages of Afghanistan after we do. Pull out through Pakistan, and leave it equally devastated. Let India have what it wants from the remains of the carcass, and let the rest rot. If there's ever another terrorist strike that can be traced back to this part of the world, nuke it. Keep nuking it until there aren't even insects left alive, and the worms glow a bright blue. I have no sympathy, respect, or courtesy for those with the mindset of a seventh-century savage that wants to tear down what they cannot understand.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-11-13 13:32  

#2  It must just be a coincidence that these stories are popping up in the MSM just as Bambi has to consider how he's going to handle Afghanistan. Oh, oh, oh, I know, he'll work for a 'negotiated solution' (*) which allows him to pull our troops out with 'honor'.




(*) defined as giving the Taliban everything they want.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-11-13 12:22  

#1  IIRC, surveys in france are about the same; though, I certainly can understand, and agree to a point, with the feeling of both brits & french. I think I'm not alone, even here, in not really seeing the point of the war until now : ISAF fight, eventually lose men, and even while infliging disproportionate casualties on the taliban, they're on the losing side of the war of attrition (huge cost to maintain forces over there, compared with the wealth pakistain extracts from graciously leaving supplies go while propping up ennemy forces & opium trade; limited manpower, against the never-ending supply of islamic automations from pakistain's madrassa factories).
I'm certainly no strategist, but this so far constraints british forces (among others) in the position of having to suffer casualties, with no end in sight - how much time in afghanistan? The taliban only have not to lose, in the present situation, british opinion can feel that (cf. theRoss Kemp serie), and there's no apparent, obvious british interest over there, especially more since anti-americanism tells people that this is an "imperialist/unjust/illegal/... war", "for oleoducs",... (yeah, 7 years since 9/11 have shown that western attention span IS short), so the people's reaction, UK or french, is "let's have the yankees get themselves out of this one all by their own", no matter what alliances say. It's selfish, but it's understandable.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-11-13 12:08  

00:00