Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taliban in Panjwaii on verge of collapse: NATO
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060908/afghanistan_fighting_060909/20060909?hub=TopStories ^

Posted on 09/09/2006 11:11:41 AM PDT by exg

Taliban in Panjwaii on verge of collapse: NATO Updated Sat. Sep. 9 2006 1:45 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Insurgent fighters in a Taliban stronghold are being pounded by NATO forces and are on the verge of collapse, said the commander of Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan on Saturday.

Backed by U.S. and British air power, Canadian and Afghan troops took turns moving through former insurgent outposts in the Panjwaii region, where Taliban are engaging in a "last stand," according to Lt.-Col. Omer Lavoie

One U.S. soldier was killed Saturday in a rocket attack -- the first casualty alliance forces have suffered during Operation Medusa since four Canadians died last week and another was killed in a friend-fire incident.

NATO said 20 to 30 Taliban were killed Saturday, but the tally could not be independently confirmed.

Lavoie told The Canadian Press that advances by Canadian-led international troops from the north of the Taliban stronghold, along with a firm stand to the south, are punishing the insurgents.

"There's good indication that they are on the brink of collapse in a number of different areas," Lavoie said.

"Like most insurgents, they don't have the sustainment ability to have long, protracted engagements. What we see is mostly hit-and-run tactics."

NATO's commander in southern Afghanistan, meanwhile, said allied forces have no intention of allowing the Taliban to escape, despite reports from local officials of an escape route to the west.

"We've got the Taliban surrounded," said Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser after a tour near the frontlines Saturday.

"We don't want to squeeze them out. We're around them, and they've got choices to make."

On Friday, Canadian foot soldiers were sent scrambling for cover under a bridge as rocket-propelled grenades flew past overhead and landed a short distance away, reports CP.

Small groups of Taliban fighters were testing the troops, triggering fiery exchanges and heavy bombardment.

"As you can tell, we are answering back with authority," said Lieut. Jeff Bell, a platoon commander with the Royal Canadian Regiment based in Petawawa, Ont., who was among the first wave of soldiers to move ahead.

Military officials are revealing little about the operation. Many details cannot be reported by The Canadian Press under the embedding agreement that allows reporters to accompany Canadian troops on the front lines.

More troops needed: general

A Canadian general, meanwhile, has told NATO chiefs that at least 2,000 more allied troops are needed to quell the Taliban insurgency.

Gen. Ray Henault, chairman of the NATO military committee, called Afghanistan the most complex mission NATO has ever undertaken.

He told NATO military chiefs in Poland that alliance forces in Afghanistan are meeting more resistance than anticipated. He said will appeal formally to the alliance's council on Monday for member nations to commit more troops.

Henault said so far, only 85 per cent of forces required for the mission have been supplied by the 26 member states.

With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press


TOPICS: Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghan; roachmotel; taliban; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: Stonewall Jackson
It looks like the Taliban is finally running out of steam.

No, not even close.

Pakistan is full of them, just waiting to get into the fight.

The only way they will stop, is if they collectively decide that the fight is not worth the cost, and I don't see that happening.

We will continue to win the battles, but the war is ideological, and will continue as long as the ideology is growing and still exists.

41 posted on 09/09/2006 12:43:28 PM PDT by Cold Heat (I just analyze it, I did not create the mess...so go pound sand:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Is it safe however?

It's been FDA approved!

42 posted on 09/09/2006 12:44:48 PM PDT by John123 (Boy ... am I gonna miss the cutest little jihaddist in Washington!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: John123
It's been FDA approved!

Pork rinds? ; )

43 posted on 09/09/2006 12:46:49 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

We just need to make them so there are no duds.


44 posted on 09/09/2006 12:53:25 PM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
We just need to make them so there are no duds.

If they are dud's then they aren't dangerous or effective, however they make for an excellent deterrent for a foe's air force if they are not dud's for they can be used to spray runways with time delayed clusters to prevent safe usage of a military runway for a time unknown to the user of that runway.

45 posted on 09/09/2006 1:07:45 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
We will continue to win the battles, but the war is ideological, and will continue as long as the ideology is growing and still exists.

Like single handedly painting an aircraft carrier with a paint roller?

46 posted on 09/09/2006 1:10:09 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: exg
NATO said 20 to 30 Taliban were killed Saturday, but the tally could not be independently confirmed.

By who? The Taliban?
47 posted on 09/09/2006 1:11:13 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
It's been going on for nearly 30 years already...

Bush was the first U.S. president to take it to them, and won't be the last, unless we want to lose.

They don't need a lot of paint rollers to bring our economy down around our ears. That is the reality of terrorist thinking.

I think my grandkids and great grandkids will be growing up to participate in this. We must be prepared for the long war.

They are.........

48 posted on 09/09/2006 1:15:18 PM PDT by Cold Heat (I just analyze it, I did not create the mess...so go pound sand:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I don't want to see it, I just don't get TOO upset. I do care about them, I just get frustrated.

LLS


49 posted on 09/09/2006 1:16:29 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Every time we cream the talibs in the summer offensives the Libs say "I thought we beat the taliban years ago, we just made them stronger, see?"

We need to stop fighting and retreat so we can defeat them sooner instead of dragging this war on.

50 posted on 09/09/2006 1:17:14 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
We must be prepared for the long war.

I am, many people aren't however.

51 posted on 09/09/2006 1:18:31 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dog; Coop; AdmSmith; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Straight Vermonter; Calpernia; Deetes; jmc1969; ...

fyi


52 posted on 09/09/2006 1:24:29 PM PDT by Cap Huff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS; Cold Heat

President Bush has always said that the long war strategy includes way more than military...he sees that these battles will go on and on and on UNLESS the mindset changes in that part of the world. Thus pushing for OUR ways to get traction over there. Agree with him or not, believe it possible or not, his head is in the long game.


53 posted on 09/09/2006 1:29:39 PM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Thus pushing for OUR ways to get traction over there. Agree with him or not, believe it possible or not, his head is in the long game.

This was his proclamation from the onset and it is a well founded proclamation and IMO it is a very honest proclamation.

We are in it for the long haul and to have a mindset otherwise is a mindset of defeatism on the WOT.

Time is on the side of the terrorists for they tote much more patience then most in the free world do.

54 posted on 09/09/2006 1:36:38 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
his head is in the long game.

Yes....

this is why attacking Iran is not likely under Bush. Iraq came because everything was exhausted and had been for years prior to the assault. Iraq was a stepping stone to the rest, and we will continue to work it.

Iran will come in it's own time and place. Iraq will be a part of it.

55 posted on 09/09/2006 1:38:55 PM PDT by Cold Heat (I just analyze it, I did not create the mess...so go pound sand:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Time is on the side of the terrorists for they tote much more patience then most in the free world do.

This is what leadership is supposed to deal with, and I think they are doing their best.

Shame on the Democrats for politicizing the war. I don't think we would have done it that way, had the role been reversed.

One can only hope or guess that the public is smart enough to see this.

56 posted on 09/09/2006 1:42:28 PM PDT by Cold Heat (I just analyze it, I did not create the mess...so go pound sand:-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

What about Iranian nukes? What if Iran attacks first, if they are sanctioned? "Act of war", they've called any type of sanctions. Wouldn't have to be through the UN. We would respond, and am sure we have a plan. What about going pedal to the metal on regime change?


57 posted on 09/09/2006 1:45:01 PM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Shame on the Democrats for politicizing the war.

I agree with your mindset however my heartfelt conveyance on this issue would get me banned.

Yours was well stated my FRiend.

58 posted on 09/09/2006 1:51:17 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Dan Quayle

I peeked at your page. ; )

Dan Quayle got a raw deal via the MSM as many have and IMHO would have made a superb candidate for POTUS!

59 posted on 09/09/2006 1:58:17 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
What about Iranian nukes? What if Iran attacks first, if they are sanctioned?

They wouldn't, they just want to force respect for their ideals and revel in some worldly butt kissing which they would get if they were to achieve nuclear status as a nation.

Nuclear power for energy? My arse!

60 posted on 09/09/2006 2:05:00 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson