While theoretical discussions continue about reactionary strategies – Pentagon and NATO strategists continue with tactics decided by the losers in charge of politics.
NATO and U.S. airstrikes have killed scores of Afghan civilians this week, residents and officials said on Saturday, deaths likely to deepen discontent with foreign forces and the Western-backed Afghan government.
Several residents and the head of a district council in Farah said an air attack in the Bala Boluk area had killed 108 civilians.
“Women and children have been killed and 13 houses destroyed,” said Bala Boluk council head Haji Khudairam. “In the bombing, in total, 108 civilians have been killed.”
But Western unwillingness to accept casualties among their own soldiers and a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power to beat the Taliban, and that almost inevitably leads to civilians deaths, military analysts say.
Casualties are also boosting Taliban numbers.
Folks whose brains are hardwired to the RNC seem to forget all the brave blather from Bush and PNAC and the rest of the neocon dinosaurs about ensuring that the ignorant, arrogant mistakes made by the Russians in their Afghan War – would not be repeated.
Uh-huh.
So if there’s a Republican president, then liberals will complain if there are no American casualties, and if there are, they’ss complain even louder that it’s time to get out.
Rehashing the same Afghanistan story over and over is somewhat tiresome. You are aware that other things occur in that country?
Such as these two stories (courtesy of strategypage.com)
July 3, 2007: The Afghan army completed its first independent operation.
June 30, 2007: In the south, a large group of Taliban were cornered in a village.
[edited: see comments guide – just give us links, tinyurl if needed]
#1,
No, we are complaining because Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and diverted resources to Iraq. Now we have two unfinished wars, and an emboldened Iran and the nuclear armed Pakistan government looks like it might fall to fundamentalists. Also he did it in such a way (torture and such) that Europe and capitalist Asia is now unwilling to be involved.
All while letting Mexicans steam into the country at the behest of his corporate backers.
Terrorists are civilians. That’s why they are called “terrorists” instead of “military”. That, and their violations of the Geneva accords against using women and children as human shields. Did you have anything to say when Clinton ordered high altitude bombing in the Balkans?
#4,
You mean the bombing campaign when the Airforce was calling the Serbian government buildings a hour or so before they bombed em and said, “hey we are gonna drop bombs on that bulding in an hour or so, you guys should get out of there.” Then they would evacuate the building, and the media would show up and film the demolition from a safe distance?
That balkan bombing campaign?
>>the ignorant, arrogant mistakes
Well, that just about sums up the legacy of Dumbya’s regime. One ignorant, arrogant mistake, followed by another. And another. And (gasp!), yet another.
Stealing the election, the misbegotten invasion of Iraq, letting the Taliban retake Afghanistan, attempting to turn Social Security over to his hedge-fund pajama pals, no health care reform, pardoning Scooter pie, my fingers are getting tired typing them all.
I guess I should try listing Dumbya’s successes:
[…]
To steal a line from Staples, That Was Easy!!
Well, let’s be honest: vicarious learning isn’t a strong point for the US higher leaders (military or political): in this case, they happily blunder into the same traps as the Soviet did two decades earlier; in Vietnam they happily blundered into the same traps as the French…
#7 – what’s someone doing wandering into a discussion with actual knowledge and understanding of military history? Begone, ye heretic!
No, you are complaining because it’s Bush. If he had all the troops in Afghanistan, the whining would be about the death toll there. They;d have a little tougher time talking down the war, but I think they would still have an impact.
The Soviets failed because they used equipment and tactics developed for a European campaign, they underestimated their opponents and the CIA was smuggling tons of armaments into Afghanistan.
Now the US wasn’t trained well to handle insurgency operations, they originally underestimated the real opponents, the Islamic zealots, and Iran is providing arms.
You win an insurgency action by outlasting the political will of your opponent, not by body counts.
>>No, you are complaining because it’s Bush.
Well, yes and no. It seems like Dumbya is like a reverse King Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit. Ball teams, oil companies, the presidency of the USA, everything. Seems like Dumbya is the chicken, and we’re the egg. Or vice versa.
In any case, my list of Dumbya’s successes throughout his “career” remains the same as it ever was:
[…]
’nuff said.
MikeN – don’t let facts get in your way! You have a point to make and you’ll make it without letting this liberal leftist reality get in your way.
#4, Phillep
Terrorists are civilians. That’s why they are called “terrorists” instead of “military”.
Tell that to the Palestinians whose house is blown up by an Israeli helocoptor. Tell that to the Afghan families whose loved ones are dead from NATO airstrikes. Tell that to the Chechen children orphaned by Russian tanks… . When someone kills your family, they are all killers, murderers, and terrorists.
Did you have anything to say when Clinton ordered high altitude bombing in the Balkans?
No. But most Right Wing Neo-con Evangelical Conservative Republican Radiohead shut-ins did. Did you forget how they claimed Clinton’s campaign to save the Kosovo Muslims from genocide was all a ruse because Clinton had had a blowjob. Somehow they were more concerned about Clinton’s blowjob then they were about mass murder.
But I was unaware that it was “high altitude” bombing. It was precision bombing.
I suppose the bombing of the Chinese embassy was precision then.
#9. “No, you are complaining because it’s Bush. If he had all the troops in Afghanistan, the whining would be about the death toll there.”
Not hardly. Afghanistan was necessary, since the 9/11 plotters were there, sheltered by the Taliban. (I will not make the obvious contrast with Iraq)
People would still be beefing about the conduct of the war – bungling the capture of the AQ leadership, the Pakistanis’ limited cooperation, the killing of large numbers of non-combatants in air-strikes, the ‘friendly fire’ incidents.
But the legitimacy of the war would only be questioned by the hard-core pacifist types and the 9/11 revisionist types.
Every death of every US soldier and marine in Afghanistan is a loss, no doubt, but at least they are not dying for a lie …
Fahrenheit 9/11 said the Afghan war was to build a pipeline. Having the media play up the death toll to build up opposition would be part of Democrats’ playbook. They were determined to bring down the president over the war, just as soon as the economy didn’t go into recession.
#16,
You are incorrect sir. The war was the result of Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden. The botched rebuilding effort was a result of the pipeline.
#14, Mike
Yes. Unfortunately, the coordinates were correct. Someone hadn’t upgraded their maps that the Chinese Embassy had moved into the building which had been a Yugoslav government installation.