The thin red line....

dean_acheson · 03-01-07, 03:05 PM

.... gets alot thinner. A really sad day, in my book.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

ASWnut101 · 03-01-07, 03:07 PM

I just got done reading that exact story in my local newspaper. Odd.

Dowly · 03-01-07, 05:00 PM

Couldnt be arsed to read the whole article, but the point in it is that soon the US will be all alone in Iraq & Afghanistan?

If that´s so, I can only say: SO WHAT? The coalition cant win in either of those countries. Why waste more lives?

XabbaRus · 03-01-07, 06:34 PM

I think the point is that Britain and Canada sends troops into harms way whilst other NATO allies sit pretty. They could share the burden.

This has been brought up before but I was reading a couple of months ago some interviews with British soldiers in Afghanistan and they were not happy with any of their NATO partners except for the Dutch, Canadians and Americans.

When a bunch of paras had to go help out the Danes who were holed up one para was very scathing about how if they had come out under the cover of para and marine support then maybe there wouldn't have been the casualties.

I can understand the German sensitivies to send troops into battle, though maybe it is time they got over it. However it is the French who piss me off the most.

SUBMAN1 · 03-01-07, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I think the point is that Britain and Canada sends troops into harms way whilst other NATO allies sit pretty. They could share the burden.

This has been brought up before but I was reading a couple of months ago some interviews with British soldiers in Afghanistan and they were not happy with any of their NATO partners except for the Dutch, Canadians and Americans.

When a bunch of paras had to go help out the Danes who were holed up one para was very scathing about how if they had come out under the cover of para and marine support then maybe there wouldn't have been the casualties.

I can understand the German sensitivies to send troops into battle, though maybe it is time they got over it. However it is the French who piss me off the most.

Well said

dean_acheson · 03-01-07, 07:14 PM

um, the point is that really the only other country in the world that can project power in the world besides the US is the UK, and that power is rapidly dwindling from a lack of desire to spend funds.

agree with the French comment. I've known some French citizens that I cared a great deal for on a personal level, but the jerks from the Quai d'Orsay still act like the Sun King is still running the known world.

Skybird · 03-01-07, 08:21 PM

It is a delicate detail that when Germany's Tornados will start their patrols in Afghanistan this spring, in case of them being shot down the German contingent has no means available to start a S&R mission by itself - even under peaceful conditon, even less so in a hostile environment. The helicopters planned to be given to the BW with that capability habe been delayed since long and are expected to enter service not before 2011. The German pilots, in that case would depend on Americans and British and Canadians to dig them out. Which they cannot afford to reject, else public opinion in Germany will force the government to retreat the German completely sooner or later.

Clever.

As a matter of fact the German ground force in the north even is not mobile enough to evacuate itself in case of being overrun, and is in no position to withstand a concentrated and dediacted attack on it's tactical positions. Again, the dependency on transport capacities by others - or fight a costly fight for survival to escape on the ground via the northern border.

Really, VERY clever.

It escapes my understanding how a government can release troops that badly prepared, tactically, and under such unacceptable logistical conditons. I had talked to a returning liaison officer last year. He said that the German commanders are both frustrated and enraged about the incompetence and dilletantism by which the politicians handle Afghanistan. Infantile daydreaming and naive hopes.

Beyond the Germans, if it would not be about life and death, the tactical situation has been messed up so substantially that one could burst with laughter.

Forget Osmaa bin Laden, he is not important anymore. The new enemy is Mullah Dadullah, who is no unknown to me. I feared his return since he escaped Dostom's massacre in 2001 after the Taleban's temporary drive-out. That guy is clever, and he is both a beats and very brutal. Maybe the Pashtun eqivalent to Dostom, who is an Uzbek. Would have been better for NATO if somebody else would have taken command on the other side. Instead they choosed the most competent and ruthless one they have. Clever bastards. Even worse, this man is a jihaddi-magnet and makes clever use of modern medias for propaganda. His videos and DVD are said to be available in every shop and village, in vast numbers, both in Afghnaistan and Pakistan. So far, the battle is in relatively clearly defined areas, seen that way, you have a not a frointline, but a front-territory. The danger is that Dadullah changes tactcis and starts to infiltrate the whole country, and then launching attacks at will thorughout the country. If he manges to establish the bbase to do so (and what will hinder him?), then you can very much conclude that the game may not be over yet, but that the final outcome is decided. A lot depends on the Afghnas themselves. If they do not stand up against this, then NATO has no chance.

There is one side one should be even more angry about than the French, that is Pakistan, our trustworthy ally. I came to think that before trying to win Afghanistan, one needs to turn Pakistan into rubble. That they are still dealt with as a "friendly nation" and ally is unbelievable - un-be-lie-va-ble.

Chances in Afghanistan are not as decisevly lost as they are in Iraq, which can be given up completely (as I understand it, this is very much the hidden message of new Gen. Patreus' reports, if being red between the lines, and Patreus has understood more than any other American top general that Iraq could not be won militarily alone). but Afghanistan'S chances have constnly detoriated at increasing pace, and now are grim. I think it is possible that this year 2007 is the decisive year, from NATO's view. If it does not implement a decisive and lasting victory over the NeoTaleban this year, it means, that the Taleban will win the long conflict, by simply being able after 2007 to refuse NATO success eternally in the times to come. then it will end like Vietnam sooner or later, and like Iraq is set to end: hasty retreat when the foreigners simply have gotten sick and tired of it. Don't ask me how a lasting victory over the Taleban can be acchieved, and how it should be understood. It is more an academical thought experiment for me. In reality I do not see what such a victory should be. Only the afghan people themselves can acchieve that, by turning against the taleban themselves, in huge numbers, and in a lasting effort. And that is a very uncertain perspective, if you know just a bit about the history of relations between Afghan tribes. They do not know what lasting allkiances is. they broke them opportunistically even during the Soviet occupation, and many switched sides repeatedly. As they use to say over there: "you can lease an Afghan, but you can't buy him forever."

However, let's not forget that the Taleban are a Frankenstein monstre, created by the CIA and the ISI in cooperation. The problems in Afghanistan are homemade and qualify for the description as defined by this CIA term: "blowback".

03-01-07, 03:05 PM	#1
dean_acheson Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Midwest - USA Posts: 1,057 Downloads: 42 Uploads: 0	The thin red line.... .... gets alot thinner. A really sad day, in my book. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

03-01-07, 03:07 PM	#2
ASWnut101 Admiral Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,021 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I just got done reading that exact story in my local newspaper. Odd. __________________

03-01-07, 06:34 PM	#4
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I think the point is that Britain and Canada sends troops into harms way whilst other NATO allies sit pretty. They could share the burden. This has been brought up before but I was reading a couple of months ago some interviews with British soldiers in Afghanistan and they were not happy with any of their NATO partners except for the Dutch, Canadians and Americans. When a bunch of paras had to go help out the Danes who were holed up one para was very scathing about how if they had come out under the cover of para and marine support then maybe there wouldn't have been the casualties. I can understand the German sensitivies to send troops into battle, though maybe it is time they got over it. However it is the French who piss me off the most. __________________

03-01-07, 05:00 PM	#3
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	Couldnt be arsed to read the whole article, but the point in it is that soon the US will be all alone in Iraq & Afghanistan? If that´s so, I can only say: SO WHAT? The coalition cant win in either of those countries. Why waste more lives?

03-01-07, 07:14 PM	#6
dean_acheson Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Midwest - USA Posts: 1,057 Downloads: 42 Uploads: 0	um, the point is that really the only other country in the world that can project power in the world besides the US is the UK, and that power is rapidly dwindling from a lack of desire to spend funds. agree with the French comment. I've known some French citizens that I cared a great deal for on a personal level, but the jerks from the Quai d'Orsay still act like the Sun King is still running the known world.

03-01-07, 08:21 PM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,629 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It is a delicate detail that when Germany's Tornados will start their patrols in Afghanistan this spring, in case of them being shot down the German contingent has no means available to start a S&R mission by itself - even under peaceful conditon, even less so in a hostile environment. The helicopters planned to be given to the BW with that capability habe been delayed since long and are expected to enter service not before 2011. The German pilots, in that case would depend on Americans and British and Canadians to dig them out. Which they cannot afford to reject, else public opinion in Germany will force the government to retreat the German completely sooner or later. Clever. As a matter of fact the German ground force in the north even is not mobile enough to evacuate itself in case of being overrun, and is in no position to withstand a concentrated and dediacted attack on it's tactical positions. Again, the dependency on transport capacities by others - or fight a costly fight for survival to escape on the ground via the northern border. Really, VERY clever. It escapes my understanding how a government can release troops that badly prepared, tactically, and under such unacceptable logistical conditons. I had talked to a returning liaison officer last year. He said that the German commanders are both frustrated and enraged about the incompetence and dilletantism by which the politicians handle Afghanistan. Infantile daydreaming and naive hopes. Beyond the Germans, if it would not be about life and death, the tactical situation has been messed up so substantially that one could burst with laughter. Forget Osmaa bin Laden, he is not important anymore. The new enemy is Mullah Dadullah, who is no unknown to me. I feared his return since he escaped Dostom's massacre in 2001 after the Taleban's temporary drive-out. That guy is clever, and he is both a beats and very brutal. Maybe the Pashtun eqivalent to Dostom, who is an Uzbek. Would have been better for NATO if somebody else would have taken command on the other side. Instead they choosed the most competent and ruthless one they have. Clever bastards. Even worse, this man is a jihaddi-magnet and makes clever use of modern medias for propaganda. His videos and DVD are said to be available in every shop and village, in vast numbers, both in Afghnaistan and Pakistan. So far, the battle is in relatively clearly defined areas, seen that way, you have a not a frointline, but a front-territory. The danger is that Dadullah changes tactcis and starts to infiltrate the whole country, and then launching attacks at will thorughout the country. If he manges to establish the bbase to do so (and what will hinder him?), then you can very much conclude that the game may not be over yet, but that the final outcome is decided. A lot depends on the Afghnas themselves. If they do not stand up against this, then NATO has no chance. There is one side one should be even more angry about than the French, that is Pakistan, our trustworthy ally. I came to think that before trying to win Afghanistan, one needs to turn Pakistan into rubble. That they are still dealt with as a "friendly nation" and ally is unbelievable - un-be-lie-va-ble. Chances in Afghanistan are not as decisevly lost as they are in Iraq, which can be given up completely (as I understand it, this is very much the hidden message of new Gen. Patreus' reports, if being red between the lines, and Patreus has understood more than any other American top general that Iraq could not be won militarily alone). but Afghanistan'S chances have constnly detoriated at increasing pace, and now are grim. I think it is possible that this year 2007 is the decisive year, from NATO's view. If it does not implement a decisive and lasting victory over the NeoTaleban this year, it means, that the Taleban will win the long conflict, by simply being able after 2007 to refuse NATO success eternally in the times to come. then it will end like Vietnam sooner or later, and like Iraq is set to end: hasty retreat when the foreigners simply have gotten sick and tired of it. Don't ask me how a lasting victory over the Taleban can be acchieved, and how it should be understood. It is more an academical thought experiment for me. In reality I do not see what such a victory should be. Only the afghan people themselves can acchieve that, by turning against the taleban themselves, in huge numbers, and in a lasting effort. And that is a very uncertain perspective, if you know just a bit about the history of relations between Afghan tribes. They do not know what lasting allkiances is. they broke them opportunistically even during the Soviet occupation, and many switched sides repeatedly. As they use to say over there: "you can lease an Afghan, but you can't buy him forever." However, let's not forget that the Taleban are a Frankenstein monstre, created by the CIA and the ISI in cooperation. The problems in Afghanistan are homemade and qualify for the description as defined by this CIA term: "blowback".