Comments

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.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Afghanistan

NATO says 1,000-1,500 Taliban died in Afghan fight

2006-09-21

NATO's Operation Medusa this month killed 1,000 to 1,500 Taliban fighters, its top operational commander said on Wednesday. Gen James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe, said allies of the alliance had committed to provide at least 2,000 of the roughly 2,000-2,500 extra troops he had sought to strengthen the NATO force in Afghanistan. Jones provided a higher enemy death toll than NATO had previously given for the two-week operation, which ended last weekend. NATO had said more than 400 insurgents were killed. The Taliban denied such losses.

Posted by:Fred

#41 If it's a bride price culture, then there's nothing coming from the non-existent husbands for their daughters, or less as they go off to be lower-ranked second or worse wives, and still the family name dies with the dead sons. We win, they lose, buh-bye suckers -- thanks for playing!

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-21 23:12

#40 The family line is continued through the sons, Swamp Blondie, and lost if there are only daughters. I assume the complainers are starting to lose family names. I don't know if the Pashtuns are a dowry or bride price culture, but if it's dowry, then there's the injury of being in a very costly balance of payments situation where they are paying out to get the girls married off, getting nothing from incoming brides for non-existing sons, and enduring the insult of seeing the family come to an ignominious end all at once.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-21 23:08

#39 But in reality, a numerical excess of Pakistani or Pashtun girls just means that Pakistani/Pashtun men who in the olden days of last year would have only gotten one wife now have the possibility of getting a second or third.

TW makes the point I was going to make. I'm kind of curious, though....I was thinking that to the Pashtuns, it would be less of a bug, more of a feature. Unless it was a lot of high ranking sons of local warlords getting iced, thereby lessening the glory of the family name going on for another generation?

Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-09-21 22:42

#38 Interesting perspective on the bodycount thingy, Old Patriot. Could we be relying on the claims of our shooters perhaps? That could at least give an indication...

Shieldwolf, that is good to know. The other part of it is that the Afghanis are still thinking of this as their traditional raiding behaviour, they still don't understand the Western-style, for-all-the-goodies war.

As for the girls, they should go to India, which is growing its own missing girls problem. They'll be happier there in a similar enough culture and climate, not to mention the foods. But in reality, a numerical excess of Pakistani or Pashtun girls just means that Pakistani/Pashtun men who in the olden days of last year would have only gotten one wife now have the possibility of getting a second or third.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-21 19:53

#37 The attrition warfare is already bearing fruit : a couple of months back, a large group of Afghan tribal leaders met with US military officials to try to work out an accord, where we would capture their young men rather than kill them outright.

Why send them back? Keep killing them! They were just about to figure out their first cause<==>effect relationship ever! They might actually generalize it to other cause<==>effects, too!

How "verifiable" is this? I say cut off a foot or something and then give them back. Whatever it takes to ensure they won't be caught fighting again.

These Afghani Pashtun leaders were complaining that their villages were becoming empty of young men, and that their tribes were in danger because of that lack

Well, if they look anything like Mariyah Moten, I'll be happy to go over there to help out wherever I can! :-P

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-21 18:57

#36 "We're pickin' up the pieces of their sweet shattered dreams."

A Gordon Lightfoot reference.

Cool.

Posted by: Mike 2006-09-21 18:29

#35 {basically, we were killing all of the breeding stock BEFORE they reproduced}.

Works for me. A little slow, but definitely falls in with the ~~meme~~ gene pool chlorinating thingie.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 18:08

#34 Interesting, Shieldwolf. Makes sense.

It is comforting to realize, after a fashion, that they still haven't figured out the flypaper thingy. I am grateful that most of our enemies are dumber than rocks. Stupid is as stupid does. Over and over and...

Bodycounts are a 4 or 5-edged thing... OP covers it beautifully.

Posted by: .com 2006-09-21 17:33

#33 Thanks, OP. I find that absolutely unsurprising. The point about the Indian Wars is right on target. I have been reading Utley's book. The resemblance in almost all respects to today's war is uncanny.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 17:29

#32 The attrition warfare is already bearing fruit : a couple of months back, a large group of Afghan tribal leaders met with US military officials to try to work out an accord, where we would capture their young men rather than kill them outright. These Afghani Pashtun leaders were complaining that their villages were becoming empty of young men, and that their tribes were in danger because of that lack {basically, we were killing all of the breeding stock BEFORE they reproduced}. Now, Pakistan has a much larger population of Pashtuns than Afghanistan, so the desired effect will take much longer there - but it will happen. For a similar period of anti-tribal warfare, refer to the US Indian Wars : same killing of the young and crazy lead to the cessation of hostilities by tribes too weak to carry on.
One further point is that the Taliban is now pulling almost all of their cannonfodder from the Paki side of the border, and that is alienating a lot of the Afghanis in the south, who are being to view those "mujis" as foreign mercenaries and hillbillies who burn schools and hospitals.

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-09-21 17:21

#31 Any assessment of destruction after the ARCLIGHT strike was worthless.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 17:19

#30 Body counts are worth every bit as much as my opinion - zilch. I did Bomb Damage Assessment in Vietnam. Much of it was a joke. When we did hit a viable target, the ability to do a body count just wasn't there. We tried to do a bomb damage assessment of a major truck park in Laos after an ARCLIGHT strike - totally worthless. Anything there had either been pounded into oblivion, or the secondaries reported wiped it out. Any assessment of destruction after the ARCLIGHT strike was worthless.

The same is true in Afghanistan. How many bodies have been hit by more than two 30mm shells from an A-10? How much is left (hint - it'll all fit in one gallon-size Ziplock bag)? The only measure of success we can rely on is the number of attacks against NATO or US forces. If that number decreases significantly, we've really hurt them. If the number stays about the same, but the capability of the attackers is degraded, we've hurt them significantly, but they've got replacements. If the attacks continue as they are, we haven't hurt them enough, but wasted a lot of ammo on live-fire training - that troops obviously NEED.

In the end, we will probably wear them down to about the same capability as a small group of criminals in a gang. As someone mentioned, there will be a shortage of marriage-age men. Ask Japan or Korea how that hurts the overall population. We may have a reverse-China problem to deal with - all girls, no boys,vs China's mostly boys and no girls. Maybe they could arrange a swap...

Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-09-21 17:16

#29 #25 Gorb, that would be the brain-dead looking after the legless

Posted by: rhodesiafever 2006-09-21 16:55

#28 The stronger the Afghan state is, the better position we will be in if and when we eventually confront the Pakistani state.

One is obliged to wonder if the F-16 sale to Pakistan isn't some sort of Iranian Air Force bamboozle. Sure, go ahead and sell them the jets. After we've got their three billion dollars, cut off all pilot training, spare parts and ground support so they're stuck with a big fleet of expensive lawn darts.

Lawn darts that we know very well how to shoot down.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 16:07

#27 Almost all Taliban recruits are Pashtun, either on the Paki or Afghan side of the border. There are about 12 million in Afghan, about 28 million in Paki. A total potential recruiting pool of 40 million. But plenty of Afghan Pashtuns really arent in that pool - from relatively secular, educated inhabitants of Kabul (including old commie types) to aristocratic zai types associated with the old monarchy, to particular tribes that are on the Kharzai side of the ledger. Say a recruiting pool of only a few million Afghan Pashtuns really. OTOH, the pool on the Paki side could be much larger, depending on how you read the tribal politics of the FATAs.

So winning by attrition, even at this high rate, would probably take a very long time. The better strategy is to use periods of Taliban weakness to rebuild the economy in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, to strengthen loyalty to the central govt. Even if at this point most Taliban are actually Pakistani (a point of some dispute) they will have a harder time moving without support from locals. The stronger the Afghan state is, the better position we will be in if and when we eventually confront the Pakistani state.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-09-21 15:09

#26 Not to worry, gorb. The muzzies don't like to leave their dead or wounded on the battlefield. They do not have the advanced triage or medical practices that we do, so I believe their are many everyday reminders of what can happen to those who face the Great Satin around the ME.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-21 14:50

#25 The talk about killed/wounded ratios makes me wonder if we shouldn't just maim them and send them back. Make them a burden on their society to the point that they have to spend all their energy dealing with people without a leg, etc.

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-21 14:44

#24 Mike, that's not a bet, it's a metaphysical certainty.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 13:16

#23 I'm in the process of reading Steven Pressfield's 'The Afghan Campaign'. I suspect our guys in Afghanistan sympathesize with the main character of the book. Some things never change ...

Posted by: Steve White 2006-09-21 13:13

#22 "We're pickin' up the pieces of their sweet shattered dreams."

-- unknown Quartermaster Branch NCO, after an A-10 attack.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-21 13:01

#21 Nimble,

When we hit 3000 combat dead, I will bet you a bottle of anything you want that at least some politicians and a bunch of MSM types will start saying that we are now doing nothing but 'taking revenge'.

Mike

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-21 11:47

#20 Join us next week on
"lets make absolutely no fucking sense!"

When we'll be licking green suede
hats poking bolivian iguanas with sticks and translating into english

"They will not stop, what they learn is nor do we.
If you act like you did in Vietnam, they will be in your house."

Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-09-21 11:39

#19 rules of gorilla warefare.

KONG SMASH!

Posted by: King Kong 2006-09-21 11:08

#18 You know, getting rid of this many men, leaves a lot of Muslim women out there who will need husbands to beat them per the Koran. We have alot of men who think that is there mission in life to beat women. Send them to these women. Aatch made in heaven

Posted by: plainslow 2006-09-21 11:07

#17 Great job, I bet it's not easy to kill 1,500 men off of large rocky mountains.

I was watching an interesting show on the Military Channel about rules of gorilla warefare. It broke down both sides of the Vietnam and first Afghan Wars with these 6 ordinal rules.

Both Sides will:

1 State Clear Objective
2 Attempt for Hearts and Minds
3 Build Up Forces in Region
4 Attrition, jocking positions, guriella tactics
5 Tranformation to Convential War, tanks, artillery
6 Take Over Government

The mistake the gorillas usually make is prematurely trying to tranform from gureilla warefare to conventional. So any time the Taliban gather in numbers their going to get wiped out.

The only way we could lose, is if we pull out and leave the country hanging, like South Vietnam.

Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-09-21 11:01

#16 It won't stop until the ideology known as "Islam" is thoroughly discredited and relegated to the ash heap of history. So long as significant numbers of grown adults pretend that there is anything "honorable" about an ideology that teaches that its adherents are PREDESTINED to an earthly reign over "infidels", there will always be ~~extremists~~ literalists who spring forward in a violent attempt to make it so.

Posted by: Crusader 2006-09-21 09:55

#15 Oh the outcome of the war will most certainly change. Our kill rate is way above their replacement rate for their population. Either we are gonna kill all the men 16-40, or enough nuts will die that only the sane men that decide that keeping their asses in PakLand is a much better life choice.

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-09-21 09:47

#14 This is good news. If we killed 1,500, then we wounded 3,000. They may replace them, but the replacements will be inexperienced and they too will die in great numbers. The Taliban is in a downward spiral. The fall offensive may be cancelled. Ticket money will not be refunded.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-21 09:28

#13 They will not stop, what they learn is nor do we.

newc, did you mean:

"They will not stop, unless what they learn is nor do we."?

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 08:26

#12 "the outcome of the war will not change."

They will not stop, what they learn is nor do we.
If you act like you did in Vietnam, they will be in your house.

Posted by: newc 2006-09-21 08:17

#11 "The Taliban denied such losses."

We probably killed 3000!

Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-09-21 07:42

#10 The Taliban denied such losses.

"Come back here and I'll bite your legs off!" [/Black Knight]

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 07:27

#9 Killing these thugs is good. Killing large quantities of these thugs is even better. Have no doubt about it. That NATO is sprouting a set and getting the job done is just icing on the cake. However, nothing is going to change significantly until we choke off the endless stream of these scum coming from Pakistan. That is the real issue. Until that changes, Afghanistan is just another live fire exercise held in a rough terrain shooting gallery.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 07:26

#8 Whatever the case, don't stop killing them until you run out of toe tags. Or they figure out they aren't going to heaven after all.

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-21 07:03

#7 Where's our newest Beltway Defense Expert for comment?

I'm primarily impressed that it was done by NATO troops. It's good to see them in action, getting the experience under their belts and being comrads in arms, rather than bitching wusses.

It's always good to kill the enemy but it reminds me of the definition a computer engineer gave me of MIPS; Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed. Body count is nice, but so what? Are they replacing them faster than we can kill them, like the Yankees in the recent unpleasantness? Or are they all gone? At this rate how long will it take? Etc.

These are all questions begged by the body count, sure to be exploited to deride the war effort by the MSM, and reasons it should not be a focus of attention for the general public. Releasing bodycounts is foolish PR.

We are approaching the day when more Americans will have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than on 9/11. That will be a day of great MSM hand wringing. Does that number make any difference?

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 06:40

#6 G: You can kill thousands of them with smart bombs and the outcome of the war will not change.

Do you mean to say they will win or that no definitive end to the war can be established until the sanctuaries are destroyed? My feeling is that this could go on for decades, Kashmir-like, but we'll leave most of the fighting to the Afghan military. As long as we continue funding or at least supplying the Afghan military, and provide air support, I can't see the Afghan government crumbling. We lost China, South Vietnam and Iran because we cut off supplies. (That is why it is risky for any government to buy exclusively American military supplies - you never know when you'll be cut off).

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-09-21 04:34

#5 Who cares? There are plenty more recruits waiting to be trained in Pakistan. As long as the Taliban have a safe haven to rearm and recuperate, they won't go away. You can kill thousands of them with smart bombs and the outcome of the war will not change.

Posted by: gromky 2006-09-21 03:36

#4 Allahu akbar!

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-21 03:15

#3 Where's our newest Beltway Defense Expert for comment?

Posted by: Pappy 2006-09-21 01:12

#2 "Operation Medusa this month killed 1,000 to 1,500 Taliban fighters"

It's a start....

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-21 00:57

#1 Itsa talibunnies season!

Posted by: twobyfour 2006-09-21 00:14

00:00