Afghanistan...what ARE we doing there?

[D-rock]

We have TF 373 out zapping AQ and Tali leaders. Your military knowledge is woefully inadequate. Nice try.

We gave Stingers to the ISI who then decided which party would receive them.

The Saudis also gave boatloads of cash and volunteers whether we liked it or not.

The muslim world did the same through charities. We had no say in that matter or who would get the Stingers.


Now please sell your revisionist tripe elsewhere.:thefinger

So going by what your saying we gave heavy and sophisticated military hardware to people that anybody with half a brain knew to be corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy to try and suit our own short term shortsighted ends at the time and then when said corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy people later turned against us you think none of it was our own fault? I'm can't understand you're logic.

 

[vodkazvictim]

M1A2, Challenger 2, LeClerc, and the Leo 2 rule the roost.

If you're that desperate go ahead and put me on ignore.

With the exception of Leclerc I'm not aware of any passive protection systems for those vehicles.
Leclerc lacks an APS.
Leo2 is the best European tank, possibly the best tank today. Watch these vids and you will understand why M1 is a pile of shit and the us would've been better sticking with M60 (which if memory serves, the marines in their typically cost-efficient manner of using stuff that actually does the job even if it is a bit older, hung on to for as long as they could).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULC0TOiZZzc

If you can defend M1 after that, I'll be impressed.
It's not desperation.

According to the military channel, the Abrams is the best tank in the world.

That's why put it first in the sentence. :glugglug:

The military channel, they would have no biass whatsoever in favour of the M1 right?

So going by what your saying we gave heavy and sophisticated military hardware to people that anybody with half a brain knew to be corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy to try and suit our own short term shortsighted ends at the time and then when said corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy people later turned against us you think none of it was our own fault? I'm can't understand you're logic.

Thank you
I'd rep u but I can't.

 

[Trident1]

So going by what your saying we gave heavy and sophisticated military hardware to people that anybody with half a brain knew to be corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy to try and suit our own short term shortsighted ends at the time and then when said corrupt, evil, and untrustworthy people later turned against us you think none of it was our own fault? I'm can't understand you're logic.

Oh you mean the Stingers, all of which are nothing more than ornamental wallhangers by now because they're too old for combat use. Oh yes it was our fault handing the ISI those missiles.
But we did so when the Cold War was heating up in '83/'84. Defeating the SU was the only thing in our minds at that point.

 

[Rekrul]

We are allowing politics to play into something that the military should have control over. Military to fight; politicians to fund.

Somewhere along the line it turned into a paved road for money making and it is almost as if it has been a reality show or something for news channels.

I don't want to hop on a soapbox or anything, thing is, we need to either get serious and wipe out the threats, get over the sensitivity towards other cultures and shit like that and realize it is a war; you cannot drive a tank in a sensitive manner, that is not what it was built for, it was built to destroy and help in winning a battle. Same as our whole military function. Military is not for free college and job training; it is for protecting this country when called upon. Or else during basic you would not be learning how to kill with weapons and your own hands and feet, last I knew that is not a prerequisite to get into college or most jobs. Things have just grown so damn soft.

I shall bite my tongue and just try and keep it from getting into anything.

I'd hate to see all go away after all these years. I prefer we just take the gloves off the military, burn the red tape, and let them do what they trained in basic for: to win in war and defeat a threat to not only us, but obviously, in this case, rest of the world.

I'm sorry, but the Soviets did the same thing as you've suggested and they lost in the end because of that. You might want to read this insightful article. Restrictions imposed on military engagements, however unpopular they are, might actually be working.

US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas

Attempts to reduce civilian casualties caused by US-led forces in Afghanistan have led to a decline in insurgent attacks in some areas, a report says.

The document by America's National Bureau for Economic Research analysed incidents involving more than 4,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

The curbs on aerial bombing and mortar fire were introduced last year by the recently sacked Gen Stanley McChrystal.

The general ended his army career at a ceremony in Washington on Friday.

Meanwhile, military officials confirmed on Saturday that four US personnel were killed in southern Afghanistan - continuing a recent upsurge in violence there.

Gen McChrystal was fired from his job as commander of multinational forces in Afghanistan by US President Barack Obama last month over a magazine interview in which he made disparaging remarks about the president and senior colleagues.

In an emotional farewell speech at Fort McNair parade ground, Gen McChrystal said his service had not ended as he had hoped, but he regretted few decisions he had made on the battlefield and was optimistic about his future.

Gen McChrystal, his wife Annie by his side, was given full military honours including a 17-gun salute.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates paid tribute to him, saying: "Over the past decade, arguably no single American has inflicted more fear, more loss of freedom and more loss of life on our country's most vicious and violent enemies than Stan McChrystal."

Gen McChrystal's successor, Gen David Petraeus, is reportedly considering loosening the restrictions on international forces.

'Primary driver'

The authors of the report by the Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research say they analysed 15 months of data on military clashes and incidents totalling more than 4,000 civilian deaths in a number of Afghan regions in the period ending on 1 April.

They say that in areas where two civilians were killed or injured by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), there were on average an extra six violent incidents between insurgents and US-led troops in the following six weeks.

The report concludes that civilian deaths frequently motivate villagers to join the ranks of insurgents.

"In Afghanistan, when Isaf units kill civilians, this increases the number of willing combatants, leading to an increase in insurgent attacks."

"Local exposure to violence from Isaf appears to be the primary driver of this effect."

The curbs were imposed by Gen McChrystal in an effort to win more Afghan hearts and minds.

Those rules ban air and mortar strikes on houses unless allied troops are in immediate danger.

But some soldiers have complained that the restrictions make their jobs more dangerous.

 

[Trident1]

The ROE in Afghanistan are the most stringent ever applied.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Some things we're doing there are stupid though, for example, if a patrol finds an Afghan base in a cave, they may well need to wait outside the cave to call in an aircraft with a precision thermobaric munition to be fired directly into the cave mouth.
The patrol may even have to laser designate the entrance of the cave (they can't go in because you're running into an environment where you can't see your enemies through the only entrance - it's asking to get shot).
This means that:
While waiting for the strike plane to arrive they run the risk of being encircled.
The strike will cost a LOT (bomb, plane, maintenance, fuel).
The bomb will obliterate most things in the cave, including intel such as maps.
The bomb may collapse the cave, or cause it to collapse after the patrol enters to check for survivors and or intel.
If a guy crouching slightly back from the cave entrance with a MANPAD gets a shot off, the pilot will have minimal avoidance time.

Solution? Fire a flamethrower into the entrance of the cave so that the flames eat all the 02, asphyxiating the insurgents.
Cheaper.
Immediately available to the squad (less risk of being outflanked while waiting for a strike.
Can also be used as a weapon when not in urban environment.
Intel will survive if it's located deep enough in the cave not to be exposed to the flames.
Massive psychological impact.

 

[JayJohn85]

The idiots guide to Afghanistan
- Guarding a pipeline
- Trying to destroy the insurgency, Isn't working and local populace generally becoming increasingly hostile
- Taliban like the roaches that just wont go away
- So....You you try to train Afghani's to do the fighting for you and install a puppet government.....Problem is, it ain't as successful as the old CIA tried and tested dictator routine as your trying to install a democracy on one serious fucked up corrupt place. Saddam back in the days when you where all pals was a far more stable venture, alas this war is far too public and half the west is dragged in, So can't do it.......Ahhh the good old days.
- Eventually all forces will pull out, Media and propaganda be cranked up to the hilt as to not appear to be leaving with our tails tucked between our legs.
- Small force and hopefully competent local forces left behind to guard the pipeline the real objective of this cluster fuck
- Wont work, Taliban and local militias naturally bitter about this whole thing.....Without the surge or numbers on the ground due to pull out......Will be harried and attacked until its gone FUBAR.

Nuff said