&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/afghanistan-war-badly-resourced/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“Afghanistan war has been under-resourced for years”
Published: 02 September, 2009, 22:57
Edited: 28 October, 2009, 02:43
Afghanistan, Garmsir : US Marine Staff smokes before their team sets out to search for Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) in Garmsir district of Helmand Province on July 13, 2009. (AFP Photo / Manpreet Romana)
(20.2Mb) embed videoTAGS: Conflict, Military, Politics, Central Asia, USA
The Bush administration focused so much attention on Iraq that the forces in Afghanistan simply didn’t have the troops or the resources, said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
In a recent assessment, the commander of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, said a new strategy is needed to defeat the Taliban.
The question is, Korb said, “Can they turn it around?”
“You’ve got two issues,” he said. “One, can you turn it around strategically, and general McChrystal seems to think that’s possible; the second question is whether you can convince the American people to spend the blood and treasure to do it, and that’s a separate issue.”
Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s deputy head of intelligence was killed in a suicide attack outside a mosque in Laghman Province, in the east of the country. The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the bomb and acknowledge Abdullah Laghmani was targeted. Twenty-two others died in the blast.
01.09.2009, 23:04
Pentagon’s attempt to keep US media locked and loaded fails“The press officers that we had interviewed explained why this rendering a profile of a reporter… would go against the whole spirit and rules of the embed system,” said Kevin Baron of the Stars and Stripes newspaper. |
02.09.2009, 23:30
3 comments
“Arrested U.S. pedo-tourists just tip of iceberg”Pedophilia is widespread among US military officials and high-level diplomats going to Southeast Asia, claims investigative journalist Wayne Madsen. |
That's only an excuse from US and NATO gerenals for miserable war results. The truth is miscalculations and wrong strategies. According to Pentagon and NATO headquarters the Afganistan war was to be over in 6 months just as Iraq war too. Already at the end of 2003 when the US and intelligences from other countries realised that USA and NATO will not win the war in Iraq, USA army and NATO tried to escalate the war, so that they would have had better positions to use their aged, clumsy conventional troops and arms, which are not for modern movable, local and regional querilla wars. But the Iraqi resistance kept on querilla strategy which gave no room and possibilities to US and NATO forces. The only what happened was that suddenly USA and NATO had far too big and far too expensive but for querilla wars ineffective conventional troops in Iraq. So NATO understood it quickly and withrew its troops from the country. Now the same Iraqi symtoms can be seen in Afganistan. The US and NATO generals will more soldiers, more arms, more money but without any concrete changes in the strategy. And, as it is kown, NATO has split in two sections, those countries which obey NATO's article5 and fight together with US troops and those which don't. Talibans have now destroyed US-NATO-Afgan intelligence in the south and in the north, they continue to destroy US-NATO transports in the south and now in the north too, NATO is spit and US-NATO troops are becoming expensive and even if or that's why they have no war strategy for Afganistan, so it is understandable that US-NATO generals will blame the Iraq war for the bad and worsened situation in Afganistan. The only thing that US-NATO learnt from the Iraq war is that this time they will see that NATO countries and NATO led ISAF countries will pay more of the war costs than in Iraq war.
no, no and no! this war can absolutely be won. The issue is not with strategy or funding. These problems are the superficial answers. This is a small unit war. As a body is made of cells, when the cells are ill the body is ill. Likewise in a war that places primacy on the small unit when the small unit is dificient, then by nature so to is the large aggregates of the small units. You could cut costs dramatically, reduce troop levels and still win conclusively! How? Its simple in practice but difficult in theory. This sounds funny because it is usually the other way around. In this case it is the un willingness from those in positions of power to realize the efficacy of placing primacy in research and spending on solely training the small unit. When the small unit is trained sufficiently, it can then operate in an independent manner, that is far swifter in action and reaction. This is the only unit that can defeat a guarilla opponent. You must have better assets, better training, and better small unit tactics. We have one of those. Why can I say that? Because as a squad leader in 3/2 Marines in Iraq twice this is the approach that after intensive study I was forced to implement. And believe me the results were astounding. The enemy is cunning and swift, but with proper allowance, no warrior is capable of more cunning initiative than the American soldier. I stress the word allowance. The fear of the chain of command forces an atmosphere of micro management that completely impedes the swift actions that must be used in a conflict of this nature. The infantry handbook teaches the infantry unit to attack......on line. That is a tactic from vietnam? no. korea? no. WW 2? no. WW1? you guessed it. Does that tell you anything? If there is a general alive who reads this CONTACT ME! We copied the blueprint of the german storm trooper in forming the small unite ie. the squad. But we used it the same as 12 men. ARRR!!!!