Posted on 10/14/2009 8:59:28 AM PDT by Jbny
The terms counterterrorism and counterinsurgency have become common currency this decade in the wake of September 11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. To a layman’s ear, they can sound like synonyms, especially because of our habit of labeling all insurgents as terrorists. But to military professionals, they are two very different concepts. Counterterrorism refers to operations employing small numbers of Special Operations “door kickers” and high-tech weapons systems such as Predator drones and cruise missiles. Such operations are designed to capture or kill a small number of “high-value targets.” Counterinsurgency, known as COIN in military argot, is much more ambitious. According to official Army doctrine, COIN refers to “those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency.” The combined approach typically requires a substantial commitment of ground troops for an extended period of time... READ THE REST AT COMMENTARYMAGAZINE.COM
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Most devastatingly, make sure the women are educated so they quit taking the abuse from men in that culture.
Someone that can think at the speed of war...in seconds...not weeks...waiting for dozens of politically motivated quislings to opine in.
Amen!
This administration dose not have the WILL TO WIN!
With America becoming a communist nation with King Obama, a Muslim, and his corrupt anti-American machine we will have lost in Afghanistan in the matter of time.
Watch this Frontline piece. It is the most information on Afghanistan you can get.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/
Ahhhh...'The Community'.
"...McChrystal cites an anecdote involving an “ISAF unit and their partnered Afghan company” that were “participating in a large shura [tribal council] in a previously hostile village.” During the shura, which was attended by “nearly the entire village,” he writes, “two insurgents began firing shots at one of the unit’s observation posts.” The sergeant in charge of the post could have returned fire but he chose not “to over-react and ruin the meeting.”
Phew!! That was close to another statistic!
"...The risk of the counterinsurgency approach—which helps to explain why it has not been adopted in Afghanistan until now or in Iraq until 2007—is that, in the short term, it will result in more casualties for coalition forces."
Thanks for putting our guys lives and asses on the line for the Taliban Obama and McChrystal!!!
Counterinsurgency Memo: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
“It’s the ROE’s Stupid” fits.
“RULES OF ENGAGEMENT REVISITED’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2346439/posts
“OBAMA’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN COSTING OUR TROOPS LIVES”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335891/posts
“THE RULES MURDERING OUR TROOPS”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2347085/posts
Then there is this:
“No Rush to Escalate (”war kills off great reform movements”)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2355050/posts
____________________________________________________________
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf
“...I recognize that the carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force entails risks to our troops...”
“...The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us - but we can defeat ourselves...”
This is all that comes to my mind when I read that:
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
“’We’re pinned down:’ 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335142/posts
If your going to keep them over there Obama&Co.. NOW, can we PLEASE have some Troop-centered and protecting ROE’s! And give them the equipment and manpower they need to back them up!
Sorry, I do not give a damn about afghanistan or any other stan right now.
I’m busy fighting a war against the overthrow of my country by a f-ing marxist and his cronies.
McChrystal just has not clue about Islam and the culture there.
To our troops detriment.
Speak to any military member who has returned home and they know full well what Islam is. Something is very wrong.
Fox News had a segment this afternoon about Afghanistan.
McChrystal is backing off his “assessment” now. He is saying that there is too much corruption in Afghanistan. That Afghanistan is “too illiterate.” That the threat from Al Qaeda isn’t in Afghanistan anyway, but in Pakistan, and THAT is the Pak military’s problem.
He NOW says that no matter how many troops we have in Afghanistan, we can’t “win.”
It was all for nothing. And of course, it’s Bush’s fault.
LOL we win when we are able to Americanize their women.
Anyone who backed McChyrstal’s original assessment is going to get their butts burned big time.
bam and McChrystal have put their heads together to lose, pull out, blame Bush for Vietnamizing Afhanistan, and make obama look like a bloody genius.
McChrystal never went there to win a war. He went there to make it as unpopular as he could and he did it by sacrificing American Troops, by making almost impossible for them to fight or even defend themselves.
His call for more Troops was as phoney as his pronouncement that the taliban is not a threat to US...even as they attack in the heart of Pakistan, backed by Iran, and are closing in on their nukes.
This will be a political win for obama. And the Conservatives who trusted McChrystal will be chewed to bits.
Smoke and mirrors Baby!
“You then have to develop who you can leave this to, because the only other alternative would be to kill them all.”
Well, if we killed them all, they would be free! Or, we could leave...which we should in my opinion. These people will die first. Our move.
Thank you for the info and ping... It’s really hard to keep up with everything! I can’t remember so many bad things happening all at once..
You win the war by killing what makes them money to fund their operations as well.
Destroy for years their drug crops from the air.
Go after charities and anything else that funds terror.
One of the main reasons we went into Iraq was that they were paying 25k per suicide bombings in Israel with their oil for food money.
THIS article was published on, of all days, September 11, 2009. You can see what the islamists advice to obama is here:
Excerpt: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/frontpageFeaturedArticle/article_6398.shtml
Afghanistan: When will the war end, and can the U.S. win?
By Ashahed M. Muhammad -Assistant Editor (09-11-2009)
“I don’t believe that the war is slipping through the administration’s fingers. And I think it’s important—first of all, the nation has been at war for eight years. The fact that Americans would be tired of having their sons and daughters at risk and in battle is not surprising,” said Sec. Gates. He also cautioned against determining the success or failure of the military operation based on what may be considered a limited perspective.
“I think what’s important to remember is, the president’s decisions were only made at the—on this strategy were only made at the very end of March. Our new commander (Gen. McChrystal) appeared on the scene in June. We still do not have all of the forces the president has authorized in Afghanistan yet, and we still do not have all the civilian surge that the president has authorized and insisted upon in Afghanistan yet,” said Sec. Gates.
Prof. Starks said in spite of what the generals are saying, the reality is that Pres. Obama is going to be forced to consider a withdrawal “sooner rather than later.”
Leading Islamic scholar Imam Zaid Shakir of the Zaytuna Institute, a non-profit, educational religious institute and school based in Berkeley, California agreed. His advice to Pres. Obama would be “blame it on Bush and get out.”
“It’s an unwinnable war, it has nothing to do with stopping terrorists, in fact, if anything, it is going to create more animosity towards this country and it is going to create more people who have reasons to seek revenge against this country,” said Imam Shakir. Pres. Obama should not be deterred by the possibility of being called weak by the right wing, he added.
“It takes more strength to do the right thing. Sometimes it takes more strength to walk away from a fight you shouldn’t be involved in than to display a false sense of macho and a false sense of courage by engaging in that fight. It takes more courage to defy the warmongers, it takes more courage to defy the militarists, it takes more courage to stand up to admit that you made a mistake,” said Imam Shakir.
The message out of DC has been changing subtly for days now. Here is what I mean:
Excerpt: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_6497.shtml
Afghan War meetings haunted by fears of defeat
By Gareth Porter -InterPress Service- | Last updated: Oct 14, 2009
Then McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, generating a big headline in the Sep. 21 Washington Post about Gen. McChrystal’s warning of “mission failure.” That leak was obviously aimed at making it more difficult for Mr. Obama to turn down his eventual troop deployment request.
But Gen. McChrystal’s “initial assessment” presents such a formidable array of obstacles to the success of a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan that it could be seen as an invitation to the president to reject the strategy.
Both leaking such a relatively bleak assessment and requesting 40,000 more troops may have been aimed primarily at ensuring that Gen. McChrystal and his boss, Gen. David Petraeus, cannot be blamed for defeat. Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have closed ranks behind Gen. McChrystal’s strategy and can be expected to endorse his troop request.
********************************************
Now who’s advice is oabama REALLY listening to?
And then there is this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B91PY20081210
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - U.S.-led coalition forces killed six Afghan policemen and one civilian in a case of mistaken identity while targeting a Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday, the U.S. military and police said.
Scores of Afghan civilians have been killed in air strikes by international troops in Afghanistan this year, Afghan officials say, feeding a perception that NATO-led and U.S. coalition forces do not take enough care when using air strikes.
Though it is rare for foreign troops to hit their allies in the Afghan security forces, the latest incident is the third reported case of friendly fire in as many months, and is likely to strain relationships between the two sides.
“One local national and six Afghan national police were killed in Qalat district in Zabul province, during an operation targeting a known Taliban commander,” said Lieutenant Commander Walter Matthews, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Kabul.
Thirteen others were also wounded, he said
The incident was a case of mistaken identity on both sides, with Afghan police and U.S.-led coalition forces firing on each other, said Matthews.
**************************
Convenienly and effectively HIDDEN in a ONE LINE THROWAWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ARTICLE:
It was not clear who opened fire first.
IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHO OPENED FIRE FIRST.
“One of the main reasons we went into Iraq was that they were paying 25k per suicide bombings in Israel with their oil for food money.”
That was a righteous war and one worth fighting...I just don’t see the value in this one...
May the unanswered calls of these Marines haunt their dreams until they repent of these egregious sins.
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,”
~~ Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf
“...I recognize that the carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force entails risks to our troops...”
“...The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us - but we can defeat ourselves...”
This is all that comes to my mind when I read that:
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
“’We’re pinned down:’ 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335142/posts
I’m still in a learning mode, so please forgive me if this is a naive question. Is it me or does it seem like McChrystal is trying to act like a community organizer? He can’t treat middle easterns like Americans! My neighbor served 8yrs in iraq back in the 90’s, and boy does he have some stories. They are nothing like us, I don’t understand what McChrystal’s goal or agenda is...!
Re:not clear who fired first. Fill me in, do you believe that? I’m reading this as either someone is not trained properly or what else?
See my post at #15. It looks like it to me too. Liberals are just idiots enough to try something like that in Afghanistan. They really aren't in touch with reality.
If you get a link for this please send it to me.
Thanks.
It is a fact that the American Troops do NOT trust the Afghan police or the Afghan army. They have turned on Americans many times.
One article had an interview with American Marines who stated that they were positive Afghan troops were giving troop movements and locations of planned strikes to the taliban because the taliban were always ready for them.
I’ll have to locate the original article.
But there are MANY articles about Afghan troops turning on Americans.
FYI:
(AP) An Afghan policeman conducting a joint operation with U.S. soldiers opened fire on the Americans, killing two of them before fleeing, an Afghan official said Saturday, raising fears that militants have infiltrated the ranks of Afghan forces.
The U.S. military earlier said two American troops died in a firefight in Wardak on Friday, but declined to confirm any new details.
Although Afghan forces have periodically turned their guns on international troops, training and working jointly with Afghan police and soldiers on patrols and operations are key to the U.S. strategy of curbing the spreading Taliban-led insurgency.
Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the Wardak provincial governor, said the policeman fired on the Americans while they were patrolling together Friday night, killing two and injuring two. Shahid said two of the officer’s relatives were in custody for questioning.
A third U.S. service member died Friday of wounds from a bomb attack in Wardak the day before.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
Over a period of less than a month last year, Afghan policemen twice attacked American soldiers in the east. In October 2008, a policeman hurled a grenade and opened fire on a U.S. foot patrol, killing one soldier. In September 2008, an officer opened fire at a Paktia police station, killing a soldier and wounding three before he was fatally shot.
Most recently, an American service member and an Afghan police officer argued in Kabul because the American was drinking water in front of police during the Ramadan fast, prompting the police officer to shoot the American. Other American troops responded and seriously wounded the Afghan.
**************************
That article was from Oct. 3, 2009.
I would bet my bottom dollar that the Afghans opened fire first.
Oh my gosh, now it all makes sense. It’s like in vietnam, not knowing enemies vs civilians because they were dressed alike etc.. Oh my gosh..
I had an acquaintance (who was a sniper in the war) tell me that after 9/11, children were used as shields, or basically used to warn the bad guys of our troops approaching. Guess who was forced to take out the spotters...the terrorists are absolutely evil monsters (and I say that with r-rated thoughts)...
Saoirise, did you have a copy of that article? I know you just posted about the overturn of the conviction for Lance Cpl.Holmes of the United States Marine Corps. This incident occured in Iraq, however, it is indicative of the same situation:
“Conviction overturned in Iraqi soldier's death - Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362285/posts
LCpl Holmes was on duty at night in Fallujah with an Iraqi guard when the guard refused to put his cigarette out at Holmes continual request (Holmes’ concern was that it would tip off the insurgency and snipers to their physical location). The Iraqi also refused to stop a cell phone conversation.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26924302/rampant-corruption.htm
Video AND transcript. Transcript has some typos. McChrystal is referred to as “crystal.” I corrected some of it.
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
Shep: “ the bottom of the hour it could be the starkest assessment yet of the rapidly declining situation in Afghanistan. The word that the war effort could be derailed regardless of whether we send ten or twenty or forty even 80000 more troops. The conclusion which really isn’t that surprising if you think about it. *Come (comes) from the top US commander on the ground *general stamina crystal (General McChrystal.) This is according to sources from the Pentagon to the Associated Press. — say that *generally crystal, (General McChrystal) was avoiding the *rampant government that,(ramped up troop) option in Afghanistan *what is now,(With us now,) senior fellow with the nonpartisan center for strategic and international studies Rick Nelson is with us. — specialty is counter terrorism Homeland Security. And defense related issues are good to see you
>thank you.
Shep: But he — up I mean this is a country where 10% of the people read. Where where voting fraud was so rampant across 800 different polling stations legitimacy of the Karzai government is very much in doubt. And now we wonder if it’s possible to nation build over there I’d like who’s surprised by this assessment.”
>” I don’t think a lot of people — and I think that’s one of the reasons why the president is taking time to make this decision to commit to extra troops to Afghanistan. We have to remember that the troops — originally there and even the president has said there — there to eliminate the threat of al-Qaeda. So no matter what we do *and (in) Afghanistan. *—(Whether) we solve the Afghanistan problem or not the fact remains that the terrorists still have a safe haven in Pakistan.
Shep:Yeah and OK it just seems like we keep fighting the wars in the wrong place. They have a safe haven in Pakistan so how do you figure out how to get the Pakistan they’re not even in Afghanistan largely anymore are they.
>Well absolutely not and Afghanistan because of lot of things have changed since September 11. The countries not the same it was even though the assessment is rather stark. We do obviously have a large US and NATO presence there there is some semblance of a government and there is — some stability relative to where it was before.”
Shep:” All right if if is is do you — the assessment that many of the Afghan people again as I mentioned illiterates. Do you do you *—(agree with) the assessment that that they may come to believe that we’re the enemy. And that they would side with those who were wanting to do us harm as our numbers increase — potentially. *Life.” (Loss of life.)
>” He could the issue we need to be concerned about what our numbers increasing Afghanistan is not so much the population. Of Afghanistan but the more so the militant Pakistan military in Pakistan and I *—(ISI) side. Clearly they’re the ones that were going to rely on — need to win this war against terrorism as — no longer called. And those are the individuals that we need to be most *—(reliant on.) Troop increases in Afghanistan US troop increases will definitely serve contrary to that purpose and so so as you look at this thing in the big picture.
Shep: *What we do.(So what do we do?)
>Well that’s a great question obviously and one of the president is weighing very very heavily right now.”
>I think the mistake when we can’t make is to assume that
the only option is to commit additional troops and that we must stabilize Afghanistan and must move forward. That is an open ended commitment. That may as you pointed out — may or may not result in — solution to the problem of terrorism. And global terrorism in Pakistan. Yemen’s small — other places and I think it deserves it adjusted due deliberation.”
Shep: You just and due deliberation is under way Rick Nelson senior fellow for the center for strategic and international studies — great to see thanks for coming. Thank — shut.”
“How We Can Win in Afghanistan”
~~~
ARC-LIGHT the poppy fields,,,!!!
Kill the poppy farmers,,,!!!
ARC-LIGHT the border areas,,,!!!
Blow up every water plant in Iran,,,
Give the basturds something else to think about!!!...
I used to have a tagline that said something like, “we should withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq — via Tehran”.
___________________________________________________________________
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.
To: NormsRevenge
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran.
Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...osts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT • 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST • 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
___________________________________________________________________
Here’s the article referencing the study in 2008 by the Rand Corporation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/06/us-intelligence-afghanistan
From another commentary on the Rand study:
It said NATO officials have uncovered several instances of Pakistani intelligence agents providing information to Taliban fighters, even “tipping off Taliban forces about the location and movement of Afghan and coalition forces, which undermined several U.S. and NATO anti-Taliban military operations.” No timeframes were given.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/pakistan-trained-taliban_n_106130.html
Thanks. Gitin er’done.:)
Thank Iia.:)
Your welcome. :)
How high is your TV pile now? My TV is nearly blocked by thrown shoes and bedroom slippers. Almost threw my wave radio once...but Rush saved it.
All the way to the sky !!!...;0)
Foolin’ aside ~ It seems to be one lie after the other on
the MSM...
So who are these security forces? They include the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). International forces and private contractors have been training Afghan recruits for both of them since 2001. In fact, the determination of Western military planners to create a national army and police force has been so great that some seem to have suppressed for years the reports of Canadian soldiers who witnessed members of the Afghan security forces engaging in a fairly common pastime, sodomizing young boys.
Sex abuse and silence exposed
DND brass told of rape of boys by Afghan allies
“Of greatest concern to the MP members was the belief that if they were (to) intervene in any instances of this nature that they would not be supported by the C o C,” the e-mail added. C o C is a military term for chain of command.
Having sex with children is against the law in Afghanistan, but some military officers have argued that since it is practised by some Afghans, particularly in Kandahar, then the Canadian Forces should not get involved in what should be seen as a “cultural” issue.
“All the Muslim terrorist from within and from surrounding countries keep residing there producing real threats to our lives. They want us all dead. That is a problem for me.”
Me too. What Arab country doesn’t? Should we kill them all? The problem is in Pakistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.