Article

2010-04-25 India-Pakistan

US rethinks tiny, remote but vital Afghan outposts

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2010-04-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 This is why outposts are always supposed to be covered with heavy artillery support. Highly surgical attacks with very precise munitions have their purposes, but there are times when an area fire for effect is the cat's pajamas.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-04-25 07:43|| 2010-04-25 07:43|| Front Page Top

#2 You would think that the concept of a firebase would have been refined in Vietnam. Khe Sanh anyone.

Posted by bman 2010-04-25 11:06|| 2010-04-25 11:06|| Front Page Top

#3 as in real estate: location location location. The worst COP attacks have been when they were established in low areas with high ground for the insurgent's use in attacking

Posted by Frank G 2010-04-25 11:14|| 2010-04-25 11:14|| Front Page Top

#4 with their fighters shown in videos swarming through the abandoned bases.

And to CSM Hall I might ask..... knowing that you were pulling out and "what was to be expected," did you have no grids for the COP's, no preplanned fires and air strikes available to disrupt the filming and vaporize the swarming vermin? Yet another missed opportunity.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-04-25 11:22|| 2010-04-25 11:22|| Front Page Top

#5 My guess us that they had a designated civilian (aka unarmed terrorist) with them at that base.

Its the best insurance against attack money can buy.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-04-25 11:51|| 2010-04-25 11:51|| Front Page Top

#6 as in real estate: location location location. The worst COP attacks have been when they were established in low areas with high ground for the insurgent's use in attacking

Exactly, unless you're trying to lay down a cunning trap.

Posted by Shipman 2010-04-25 13:20|| 2010-04-25 13:20|| Front Page Top

#7 ...anyone.

The object is to deliver ordnance on target. How it gets there isn't important. What is important is logistics of getting it there. Fire bases are good, but have a large log tail to sustain let alone keep enough of what its suppose to deliver on hand. You're literally dealing with the end of the world as far as the means to project the amount needed on hand with stuff being trucked, trained, flown, or portered through Pakland and the various Stans which may or may not open at the moment, along with the Russian owning part of the business as well. It appears they're reaching the point of diminishing returns in that just to get something someplace it consumes all the resources just to arrive. There is only so much lift available into country and then out to the edge. At a certain point you have to make a decision to not project that you can not cover well enough with assets on hand or expose it to greater threat because the mission is that critical. Thus 'rethink'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-04-25 14:43|| 2010-04-25 14:43|| Front Page Top

#8 At a certain point you have to make a decision to not project that you can not cover well enough with assets on hand or expose it to greater threat because the mission is that critical. Thus 'rethink'. This might apply to Afghanistan in general.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-04-25 15:17|| 2010-04-25 15:17|| Front Page Top

#9 This might apply to Afghanistan in general.

Never forget.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-04-25 22:33|| 2010-04-25 22:33|| Front Page Top

23:56 trailing wife
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:34 gorb
23:31 gorb
23:28 gorb
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:25 gorb
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:42 Barbara Skolaut
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:33 Procopius2k
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:25 gorb
22:25 Procopius2k
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:17 JosephMendiola
21:55 Atomic Conspiracy
21:54 OldSpook
21:52 Broadhead6
21:41 Broadhead6
21:37 Broadhead6
21:19 M. Murcek
21:18 eLarson
21:17 M. Murcek