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
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
NATO Commander: Coalition Dropped the Ball in Afghanistan
2006-10-18
WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan failed to follow through as it should have after ousting the government in 2001, said the NATO commander in the country.
For an Ally with only 10,000 troops in the field in Afganistan and Iraq, they sure know all the answers.
The mistake — adopting "a peacetime approach" too early — set the stage for this year's deadly Taliban resurgence, British Gen. David Richards told Pentagon reporters Tuesday.
You Brits did such a good job in Basra!
He said the international community has six months to correct the problem before losing Afghan support. "The Taliban were defeated. .... And it looked all pretty hunky-dory," Richard said of the environment at the end of 2001. "We thought it was all done ... and didn't treat it as aggressively as ... with the benefit of hindsight, we should have done."

Progress made on security, rebuilding and good government didn't meet Afghan expectations, and this year the "Taliban exploited ... this sense of frustration amongst the people," Richards said in a televised conference from Afghanistan.
Not a word about the Afghan people lifting some of the load on rebuilding and goverance ...
Insurgent bombings, ambushes and rocket attacks surged this year. Since the Taliban was overthrown, many of Afghanistan's former rulers are thought to have found sanctuary across the border in Pakistan.

Five years later, NATO forces, along with Afghan Army and police forces, are planning a series of operations throughout the country this winter to do road building and other reconstruction projects in more secure areas and bolster security to prepare for reconstruction in the less secure areas, Richards said. If there is not measurable improvement in six months, he said, Afghans may choose "the rotten future offered by the Taliban" rather than the hopeful future that the coalition offered but didn't deliver.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#62   the only countries that fought with us in Viet Nam were Australia and South Korea

Sorry, RWV, but dead wrong. You left out both the Kiwis and the Thais, not to mention the real help we got from the Hmong and several other indiginous natives of Vietnam, Laos, and northern Cambodia. I also think a couple of platoons of Filipinos were there for a bit. What really chaffed my butt was the British merchant ships that regularly pulled into Haiphong harbor to unload. There were others, too. Our failure to mine the coastal waters of North Vietnam is one of many failures I have catalogued in my notes on that phucked up war.

As for our British General, how long has he been in country? Does he really know what's going on? Does he get real intelligence, or some of the crap we got prior to invading Iraq? Yeah, much of the "resurgence" in the Taliban offensive is being staged by Chechens, Uzbeks, and most of all, Pakistani Pashtuns. A little napalm on a few crossing points at the right time would put a stop to that.

UK, I served 26 years in our Air Force, 16 overseas, including a tour in merrie olde England. I'm one of less than one percent of enlisted AF members who has combat time. Yeah, I smell bullsh$$, too.

It won't be hard for anyone to find my views about building up the strength of our armed forces - I've been quite vocal about them. No need for a rehash.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-10-18 23:52  

#61  I've been deployed 6 of the last 5 years....top that, UK!
Posted by: Frank G   2006-10-18 23:31  

#60  For what it's worth late at night, the only countries that fought with us in Viet Nam were Australia and South Korea. Through the years, I have had occasion to work with the militaries of many countries and I firmly believe the only ones we can count on to stand by us when the shit hits the fan are the Aussies and, if it is not politically inconvenient, the Brits.
Posted by: RWV   2006-10-18 23:01  

#59  Is that what they call dry humour, Shipman?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 21:18  

#58  Gotta cut ol' UK some slack, soon his country will be ruled by the mooks, and he will be wearing a pink burka.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-10-18 19:27  

#57  He did know the Ballad of the ISI tho, points for that.

Fighting Fuckwits from the Sky,
allahs men who jump and cry.

Men who mean just what they say,
they will change it again today.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-10-18 18:06  

#56  ol' UK has been a spearpoint for 4 of the last 5 years.

I recognize thisn from about 6 months back. He's constantly at war. I'd be angry too if I never had a break to get to the nearest Internet Cafe and fire off an angry missive to Rantburg. Good news is he (I assume he) is building up tons of combat experience to use against the local Bad Boyz. No guns allowed, maybe cricket bats.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-10-18 17:55  

#55  Pebbles

Quite to the contrary. The NATO commanders made it abundantly clear before taking over command of Afgahnistan that they were not going to go crashing around like the heavy handed Americans!
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 17:23  

#54  "The problem, to me, is that all too often we don't stomp hard enough IMO."

Which seems to me to be what the NATO commander is saying.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2006-10-18 17:14  

#53  Okay, I'm having a vision here.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-10-18 16:27  

#52  ItÂ’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

Cid Caesar:

If it werenÂ’t for Lend-Lease Britain would have sunk into the ocean.

Terri Thomas:

Bosoms!!! Bosoms!!!! If the American women quit wearing Bras your Economy would collapse!
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 15:42  

#51  To LH's increase troop strength comment, post 9/11 would have been an ideal time to increase the size of the Army by 1-2 divisions and increase Marines troop strength as well. Missed opportunity, along with making an actual declaration of war and cutting some non-essential government services/spending. We should have put the country onto a war footing, not told them to go out and shop. Please note that I am a fan of the president, but feel that this needed opportunity won't come again until thousands more American civilians are dead.

The UK on this post does not seem like the regular guy posting under that nym...or have I been missing something?
Posted by: remoteman   2006-10-18 15:36  

#50  Per #28, I'm marveling (read: boggle, then choke) at the three tours in Afghanistan and (at least) one in Iraq. Think about that, for a moment. Unless a UK tour is quite short, relative to the US, then ol' UK has been a spearpoint for 4 of the last 5 years. Apply your BS meter to that and see what reading you get.

Pfeh. Enough of this. Toodles, UK. HANL.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 15:26  

#49  The USA is happy to give out the talk about other countries but cannot take it when it is sent their way, after you are all so clever you voted bush into power!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, all things considered, voting Bush in as President appears, on the face of things, to have been a smart decision by this country's voters IMO.

Now, about this country's talking the talk and walking the walk,

The Revolutionary War
The Barbary Pirates
The Phillipine Insurrection
The Spanish-American War
The Mexican-American War
WW1
WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
Afghanistan

and about ten thousand other little "hotspots" around the world in the last 2-1/2 centuries.

Yes, we do talk the talk and we do walk the walk. We get a little pissed off when we hear about how stupid, backwards, and ungrateful we are by citizens of countries whom, without our assistance, would have been speaking German or Japanese currently.

Tell me, UK, what would you have us do? Get out of NATO? Fine. Suits me. France tends to block anything we want NATO to do these days anyway and they're not even a real member. Pull out of Germany? Please! Pulling the corps out of Germany would save us billions and free up troops to use elsewhere. Pull out of the UK? I would hope that Britain and Britons would see us more as friends and would not force us to do that. It would be a loss to two people's with common ancestry, common backgrounds, and common purposes. How about cut & run in Iraq and Afghanistan? That would suit a lot of our voters over here who are by tradition and outlook isolationist - but it would not serve our national interests (nor yours) nor the interests of freedom and democracy around the world.

So, what do you want us to do?

Yes, the USA does leave a rather large footprint when it stomps around the world, but that rather large footprint has always had good intentions behind it. The problem, to me, is that all too often we don't stomp hard enough IMO.

And don't try to feed us any bs about "If you haven't been in uniform, you don't have a right to comment" because I do have a right - it says so right in our Constitution (and I believe it says so in a couple of Britain's historical documents as well). Not to mention that I've earned that right despite having never been in uniform by serving alongside members of the military (or former members on occasion).

Just my humble commentary and comments. Please pardon my questions above if they have previously been answered.



Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-10-18 15:16  

#48  ...
"I ambushed you with a f***in coffee cup!!"
Posted by: eLarson   2006-10-18 15:10  

#47  lotp - Another doomed romantic, lol. I was disabused of that silliness in S.A. - seems she never got over hers... and that sad personal flaw did, indeed, leave the entire world with a messy legacy. Mine only cost me a little lost sleep. I see Iraq as little different from any other inane Yugoslavia-style confabulation.

Isn't this is where Aris used to take over the thread and pontificate at extreme length on the granularity of independence movements and the superiority of slate politics? Lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 15:08  

#46  will someone please point me to where, prior to 9/11, the bush admin increased US troop levels? I believe it wasnt till 2004 that the admin agreed to increase the end strength of the US army.

TW, you shouldn't have apologized. Jeebus, I'm non-mil, but even I can follow a timeline, LH. Let's see the Military's Fiscal Year (Budget year) ran from Oct.1, 2000 - Sept. 30, 2001. Clinton was in office for that budgetary year. 9/11 happened right BEFORE a new fiscal year started, and, thus, the military's budget could have ALREADY been passed by then (I'm not sure). But, also, you have the trouble with that little thing called the Constitution, where the President CAN'T single-handedly just shower money on the military.

All of this shows that Bush's first effect (through increasing the budget) at the EARLIEST would've been 10/1/2001. That doesn't even address the logistics of recruiting, training up and possibly deploying ADDITIONAL troops. Get out of your blame Bush mode for that. No one in their right mind thinks Bush could've increased the military (at all, much less by several divisions) BEFORE 9/11.
Posted by: BA   2006-10-18 14:57  

#45  The Brits did indeed create the mess in Iraq and did so intentionally to keep the Kurds from coalescing control over oil resources.

Gertrude Bell was a key player in this and in other badly drawn boundaries.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-18 14:56  

#44  Thanks trailing

Former Marine. Not as lean, not as mean, but always a Marine.

I spent 10 1/2 years in the Corps and was looking at tour three in Vietnam when I decided it was not worth risking my allergic reaction to flying bullets. If the Politicians had ever tried to win the damn thing it might have been different for my career. Like UK, it cost me a marriage.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 14:55  

#43  Gee, I'm sorry, Spence old boy.

So far in this thread, the only thing that UK has posted that rings true is that there is no boathouse at Hereford.

Other than that, I still see a giant turd posted up at #11 and nothing to justify believing UK is anything other than a poseur who decided he needed some armor (armour, lol) to cover his ass.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 14:53  

#42  Oh, and the Brit intervention in Sierra Leone saved a lot of lives (for those to whom that matters).

True, and they even had a great rescue op that teached the sierra leonese drug-krazed boy-soldiers a lesson (How the hi-tech army fell back [Free Republic])
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-10-18 14:51  

#41  Boathouse? I don't like your attitude, .com.
Posted by: Spence   2006-10-18 14:49  

#40  liberalhawk
YouÂ’re correct; in the 8 months prior to 9/11 the Bush Administration did not add a single Division. They were too busy trying to cancel High Tech Boondoggles like the Stealth Comanche helicopter.

Problematic Land-Locked Countries:
Switzerland
Austria
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Hungary
Botswana
Kazakhstan
Paraguay
Liechtenstein
Uzbekistan (Surrounded by 5 other land-locked countries)
Etc. etc.

Thanks for the reminder re: Turkey and the Kurds. Iran, maybe, maybe not.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 14:43  

#39  Oh, and UK, we remember John Major. Love him or hate him, George Bush is at least effective where he thinks it really matters.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 14:38  

#38   will someone please point me to where, prior to 9/11, the bush admin increased US troop levels? I believe it wasnt till 2004 that the admin agreed to increase the end strength of the US army.

Quite true, liberalhawk, and I didn't say that. Our guys are suffering, too, although at least they have enough bullets, and they get useful body armour and helmets instead of those stylish berets. Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that you go to war with the forces you've got, but he isincreasing numbers as fast as the guys can be properly trained, and moving people out from Germany and South Korea, where they were forced to sit around while their fellows went off to be shot at.

(And thanks for the details on Shah Massoud and Sierra Leone. I know I can count on you to remember such things for me!)

UK, mind your manners. In this thread alone we have Broadhead6 who not long ago came back from a second tour in Iraq with his Marines, GolfBravoUSMC who is obviously a Marine, .com who did things in VietNam, Pappy is Navy... and some of the others have done things I don't know about. ;-) You might want to mention something to establish your bona fides to people who can judge the real from the fakes.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 14:36  

#37  "The Brits and French scattered them between Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. "

to be fair, the brits and french had no control whatsoever over Turkey at that point, which was in full militant secular nationalism under Attaturk. They had some, but limited influence, over Persia. really they just divided those they controlled between Iraq and Syria. A landlocked Kurdish state would have been as problematic then as it is now.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-10-18 14:18  

#36  "UK, have you considered blaming your Labour government, which insists on loading on missions without increasing troop levels"

will someone please point me to where, prior to 9/11, the bush admin increased US troop levels? I believe it wasnt till 2004 that the admin agreed to increase the end strength of the US army.

Oh, and the Brit intervention in Sierra Leone saved a lot of lives (for those to whom that matters).
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-10-18 14:15  

#35  Thank you, GolfBravoUSMC. It's always a pleasure to read your posts. As for the problems of the Middle East (and Africa, and to some extent Asia) being partially due to how countries were carved out of territories by the British and French colonialists... nowadays that is all laid at America's door by the ignorant of the world.

UK, have you considered blaming your Labour government, which insists on loading on missions without increasing troop levels? Iraq has only been in play since 2003, Afghanistan since 2002. Pennies to pounds you've done a tour or two in Yugoslavia, perhaps somewhere in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa for the UN? I agree the schedule you present is unacceptable, but proper staffing is your real issue (I won't even think about what Labour's done to your logistics -- to handicap willing soldiers so is a crime in the eyes of this little suburban housewife).
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 14:11  

#34  1. Youre thinking of Shah Massoud, TW.

2. I dont think there was anyone better available than Kharzai in 2001. I think the progress Afghan did make from 2001 to 2004 was beyond what could reasonably have been expected. Remember when folks were saying that hed never control anything outside of Kabul, that wed fade out of the country like the Soviets, etc, etc. Lets keep things in perspective. Hes done a very good job of keeping the NA warlords in line. Kabul itself has done well economically. But hes been particularly poor in the admin of the Pashtun areas, esp these last two years. Sometimes even a good guy wears out his welcome, sometimes its just time for fresh blood.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-10-18 14:11  

#33  finally two people with brains
Posted by: UK   2006-10-18 14:06  

#32  UK
Look inward. BritainÂ’s Socialistic approach to staying a world power short changes the Military. That's why you've spent so much time away. Under Clinton the US started to adopt the same policies. We seem to trail behind Britain 20-25 years and make the same dumb mistakes.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 14:04  

#31  UK, if you're not trolling, I wish you courage, and I understand your feelings about all that.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-10-18 14:04  

#30  there is no boat house in hereford
Posted by: UK   2006-10-18 14:02  

#29  I do not believe a single word of it, UK. Not one. You'd have to tell me the color of the boathouse at Hereford before I'd even deign to respond again. You demonstrated gross stupidity the other day and I see no reason to give you any credence or buy your claim.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 13:59  

#28  i tell you why i am pissed off
out of ten years military service i have spent seven on operations , lost one wife to divorce becuase I was never at home. I am back form Iraq for six weeks now, in four weeks we deploy to afghanistan again for the third time , I am sick of the light approach pull all the troops out blanket bomb the whole region.
Posted by: UK   2006-10-18 13:56  

#27  Trailing

Hamid lived in Fremont CA. I've eaten at his relatives Afghan Restaurant. Food is good, but, floors and windows are dirty.

He had another relative killed by the Taliban while trying to enter Afghanistan during the 2001 bombing. I think he would have been a stronger leader.

Hamid was wounded by friendly fire during the assault on Kandahar. You may remember the incident where the Special Ops guys accidentally sent their own coordinates to a B52 dropping JDAMs.

On another note, sometime last year, there was a British General that said we were going about the war in Iraq all wrong. It seems our friends are quick to join the hostile British press. The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst sometimes seems to be the British Army equivalent of Berkeley.

A little history lesson: If it werenÂ’t for the asinine way the British and French carved up the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire maybe we wouldn't be in such a deep mess. Of course at the time they had an Empire mentality. The fact that Iraq is made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds is their doing. They learned long ago the way to manage a large Empire with few troops is to play warring factions against each other. You'll maybe remember Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King".

The Kurds were odd man out. They ended being the largest ethnic group in the area without a country. The Brits and French scattered them between Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Saddam did his ethnic cleansing thing and inserted Arabs into traditionally Kurdish majority cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. As my English wife reminds me the Brits have a lot to answer for what they did in the Middle East.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-18 13:54  

#26  Oooh, it speaks squeaks again, lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 13:52  

#25  if you hadn't been training and arming binny's boys we wouldn't have had this mess in the first place
Posted by: UK   2006-10-18 13:48  

#24  TW/.com - good points. One of my peers did six months working all over the eastern country side of Afghanistan. He was a liaison bringing in the locals to make deals w/the new gov't. He had an interpreter, rode all over the place w/some body guards in a toyota 4-runner, and slept in American safe houses all over kabul etc. Pretty interesting deployment from his stories - one of the taliwhackers even tried to set an IED for him but it detonated early - hahaha.

(Basically his job was setting up bribes for support from the local tribes so they'd shun the taliwhackers - age old persian tribal custom as he tells it.) Anyways, most of the info I get on Karzai is from him & unfortunately it ain't good.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-10-18 13:20  

#23  Hamid Karzai was the only-option, compromise choice when whatsisname was murdered by those clever Al Qaeda guys carrying genuine Belgian journalist documents just before we went into Afghanistan. He looks simply smashing in that traditional cape & chapeau costume, he speaks lovely English thanks to his Stateside (didn't he spend a goodly portion of his adolescence in the US?) education, and he grew up watching his uncles and father handing out favours to hangers on. As far as I can tell, he did nothing to earn the position he was given except appear at all the right cocktail parties, and he's been dancing madly on the brink ever since. Perhaps I'm reading him wrong, but he's always felt to me like a Kofi Annan having to deal with reality... the gentleman belongs at the UN doing good works for the benighted world, not stuck out where he has to charm people who cook over dried-dung fires.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 13:05  

#22  I changed "dog" to "aide" at the last second. I like dogs, lol.

Thanks for the personal notes, BH6 - I have been very frustrated about Afghanistan because the drumbeat MSM memery has been relentless. I should've known that the number were were seeing trumped the meme.

Regards Karzai, he has been such a "darling" of every news source, and it was hard to dispute - what with his legendary escapade (singular) with that SF team, that my doubts about him and how he has dealt with the warlords, drugs, corruption, the guy who was to be executed for apostasy, the whole fucking nine yards we've been fed for the last 2 or 3 years (*takes deep breath* lol) have been held at bay. I don't like his ass either - glad to know that shit stinks to someone else, lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 12:05  

#21  "Personally, I would challenge the fucker to a duel, and kill his aide, too, but that's just me."

-LOL, ditto bro'. That's my kind of language - give him the old Arron Burr.

I'm interested as to why Gen Richards did not mention Paki-land's involvement in helping to "re-surge" the taliwhackers.

Overall, I call shennanigans on this General. I've had plenty of buddies who just came back from Kabul, etc. They all say things are going way better then expected and the majority of afghans favor coaltion troops etc. It's more about warlord territorial pissings and pieces of the pie then really wanting the islamonazis back in power. BTW-they also tell me that Karzai is a fairly corrupt politician and many in the coalition do not like him.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-10-18 11:58  

#20  "...you don't need to be of nato you can do everything yourselves..."

You mean you would really really let us out of our agreements? Please? We would like to stop giving europe a free ride...
Posted by: flash91   2006-10-18 11:51  

#19  Um, my original issue with this twat is that he didn't show the professionalism to discuss this within NATO - make his points there and deal with it - that he decided to be, yet another, grandstanding asshole shitbrain flapping gums to the MSM.

IIUC, he gives up the command in Feb. I hope he is cashiered.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 10:58  

#18  1. Im not clear on what the number of UK troops in IRAQ has to do with whether this general knows what hes talking about wrt Afghanistan

2. Clearly the Afghans themselves werent going to fix up governance. What little abilities they had in that area were trashed in 23 years of Soviet occupation, civil war, and Taliban rule. It was clearly the job of the outside world (not just the US) to help them get on their feet.

3. Are most afghans so disappointed as to suppor the Taliban? No I dont think so - not the non-Pashtuns, and not the small minority of secularists and religious moderates in Kabul. But for the average conservative rural Pashtun, who may not have loved the Taliban, but who never felt oppressed by them (cause they didnt ban anything HE wanted to do), and who distrusted both the non-Pashtuns of the northern alliance, and the well connected royalist types around Kharzai, the lack of progress is probably sufficient to push him off the fence to the Taliban corner. Which is enough people on the Taliban side to make a big mess. Almost certainly not enough for the Taliban to march into Kabul again. But quite enough for some of the ex-NA warlords to decide that this democracy thingie isnt working, and to oust Kharzai and install their own regime. That is if the coalition lets them get away with it. Whether THAT would be a good long term solution, could be debated.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-10-18 10:54  

#17  15000 in Northern Ireland

QUAGMIRE!!!@
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-10-18 10:48  

#16  What the British General meant to convey is that the destruction of the Taliban regime was incomplete and operations should have continued (deep) into Pakistan. There can be no Afghan peace as long as Pakistan fuels the Taliban.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2006-10-18 10:17  

#15  The mistake — adopting "a peacetime approach" too early — set the stage for this year's deadly Taliban resurgence, British Gen. David Richards told Pentagon reporters Tuesday.

This year's Taliban resurgence came from Pakland with paid Pakland bodies. Now the only way to truely and effectively address that is to mount kill and destroy operations into the Taliban base areas in Pakland. Just like when you Brits had a similar problem with Afghans raiding into the British colony of India around a hundred years ago. So, are you proposing to to just that? Heh?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2006-10-18 10:07  

#14  But, UK, if we had voted for Gore or Kerry, you would have thought that we were all retarded.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-10-18 09:34  

#13  [Note to self: try to be nice. It's non compos mentis - and probably 12 or 13 yrs old...]

"I am looking forward to a time when the USA can deal with its own problems."

Ahhh, so the Talib and WoT have nothing to do with you or anyone else, just the US. I see.

The rest of that confabulation of rank idiocy isn't worth parsing - you've identified yourself adequately in the first sentence.

Yeah, Bush is extra evil and we bash everyone regularly. Except we don't. It's the Kool Aid swilling fucktards like you who created the BusHitler BDS bullshit and have spewed unsubstantiated bile for the last 5 years.

You want out of NATO? You wanna be left alone in your Paki Paradise?

Fuck, that'd be okay with me. One less disaster to worry about cleaning up, later. First we'll cherry-pick the Good Guys and get 'em out before you go under, though. They don't deserve to go down with the likes of you.

Don't forget to always take the tube, dood.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 09:34  

#12  Seems the UK has a paucity of punctuation marks, in addition to a surfeit of Monty-type officers
Posted by: Pappy   2006-10-18 09:32  

#11  I am looking forward to a time when the USA can deal with its own problems. If you are so wonderful and all knowing you don't need to be of nato you can do everything yourselves which would suit the rest of the world just fine if all else fails you have Israel and to finish off we the British have 8000 troops in iraq 5000 in Afghanistan 15000 in Northern Ireland and another 2000 spread around the world engaged in other operations not bad for a country with a standing army of 98000 and a population a fifth the size of yours. The USA is happy to give out the talk about other countries but cannot take it when it is sent their way, after you are all so clever you voted bush into power!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: UK   2006-10-18 09:24  

#10  tw - This has been going on for years (decades - e.g. Montgomery the Grate), now, first one soft power asstard, then another. For all the imagined professionalism, this is just about as unprofessional as it can get.

Just imagine the squealing and harrumphing if the US military commanders openly and publicly returned the favor?

Obviously, since none of this shit is ever retracted or apologized for in the same manner in which it is issued, it is an attitude shared across the UK Command and in MoD. Personally, I would challenge the fucker to a duel, and kill his aide, too, but that's just me.

Enough, already.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 09:07  

#9  Progress made on security, rebuilding and good government didn't meet Afghan expectations
So the Afgans prefer the Taliban's progress on rebuilding and good government? Ingrates. If it weren't for the AQ types, I'd say let the Talibs have the place and good riddance.
Posted by: Spot   2006-10-18 08:20  

#8  Golly, .com, what would you say if you felt free to fully express yourself? ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-18 07:51  

#7  I would suggest that the General vent his spleen in the direction of the Pakistani ISI, the creators and enablers of the Taliban.
Posted by: doc   2006-10-18 07:05  

#6  
No guerrilla group has ever been beaten where they had both financing and a secure harbor for resupply and training.

The FLN had both in Algeria and was beaten by the French parss whose officers had been at Dien Bien Phu and learned their lessons. Between those leassons were: political action , make people know that supporting the FLN had a price (the FLN didn't heistate to masscre whole willages so people were feeling it was safer to anger the French than the FLN), protecting the populations, ideological action (they favoured educating woman as a a counter aginst the proto-islamist ideology of the FLN), they also asked for political reforms.
Posted by: JFM   2006-10-18 04:09  

#5  HHHHMMMMMM, LIMITED ATTACK ON AMERICA in the name of OWG, VERSUS TOTAL ATTACK OF ANNIHILATION-DESTRUCTION; IRAQ = SPAIN, etal = ENTIRE WORLD, as the Radics say. Obviously its a local quandry that isn't a WORLD WAR.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-10-18 01:30  

#4  Geez, I hate cowardly second-guessers.

What a pretentious counterfeit and arrogant narcissistic poseur cock-of-the-walk ponce.

We should send a message to the Talibunnies that an attack on this poofta's quarters would not be opposed.

Fucking John Kerry bitch.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-18 01:11  

#3  That graphic is a pretty obtuse joke even by the Burg's standards (and yes, I can read a Java object model).
Posted by: phil_b   2006-10-18 00:58  

#2  Simple case of penis envy
Posted by: Captain America   2006-10-18 00:49  

#1  No guerrilla group has ever been beaten where they had both financing and a secure harbor for resupply and training. We are not fighting Taliban in Afghanistan; we are fighting Pakistan' surrogates. Musharaf delivers an occasional Arab to maintain the US aid channel, while implementing his pre-911 "Pakistan in depth" policy.
Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550   2006-10-18 00:32  

00:00