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

Skip to comments.

US planning full invasion if special forces fail
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 10/31/2001 | Michael Smith and Toby Harnden

Posted on 10/30/2001 4:57:32 PM PST by Pokey78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Mulder
Hey everybody,,,,,,and Illbay, your description as an "abortive raid" is ridiculous.

It is a raid, you go in, hit, gather, and get out. The intel is the reaction of the Taliban to the raid.......we see where they come from and know more about their strength and reactive ability,,,,,time it takes them to get word etc......."abortive raid"?? sounds like the liberal media message to me.

21 posted on 10/30/2001 5:42:55 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Is it possible the people would live with a constant, low-level of terrorist threat?

For what its worth, my expectation would be that with Republican leadership, the press would be screaming that it is unacceptable and urge people to demand more safety. If a Democrat was in charge, the press would be doing their best to get people to accept it as normal.

22 posted on 10/30/2001 5:43:46 PM PST by Wissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Boss_Jim_Gettys
Yet how can this be if they were being repulsed by the ferocious 10' tall Taliban warriors (both of them)? Just doesn't make sense unless the video were shot on the same soundstage as the Apollo moon landings.

Mmm...What about lost wheels, crashed helicopter with two killed? This war is not a holiday as Pentagon video has presented it

23 posted on 10/30/2001 5:49:10 PM PST by Yuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
God, I love it when a plan comes together!
24 posted on 10/30/2001 5:54:20 PM PST by jokemoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Is there Anyone in Charge, I'm getting an Ulcer reading this stuff!

I don't know how to link a thread but read this!.........Bureaucrats vs. Warriors, The Makeup of Our Forces! Enjoy /sarcasm ......Huston we Have A Problem!

25 posted on 10/30/2001 6:01:35 PM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horsewhispersc; Yuri
you think 2 dead and some wheels are terrible,,,,,get over it, this is war, we will have 200 before you know it - when the real ground portion starts....

There is no problem, it just disconcerting that we are in the dark - war is not easy stuff.

26 posted on 10/30/2001 6:07:34 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Look, it's been obvious from day one, that we were going to have to go into Afghanistan and take control of territory. What you do, is grab an airfield, set up the perimeter and start flying the men and supplies in 24/7. In and out raids were silly from the start.

They will fight it like maniacs. Much better use Northern opposition forces...

From Telegraph.co.uk report

US special forces beat retreat as enemy 'fought back like maniacs'

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 26/10/2001)

THE American troops who took part in last Friday's raids inside Afghanistan encountered far heavier opposition than they expected, forcing commanders to call in the SAS for future missions.

The "cosmetic" raids were designed to provide a show of something happening on the ground, both for the psychological impact on the Taliban and to appease a US public increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of the war.

Targets were selected because they were thought to be poorly defended and could be easily filmed to demonstrate that ground troops could go where they wanted.

But the soldiers from Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS, and the US Rangers were stunned by the resistance they met and had to get out sooner than expected, Pentagon sources said.

"The raid was a success from the intelligence point of view," one said. "We got lots of intelligence. But our men were surprised by the amount of resistance they ran into.

"The speed with which the Taliban launched a counter-attack came as a bit of a shock. They fought like maniacs, we didn't expect that. Intelligence got it wrong."

Two US Rangers were killed when their helicopter crashed inside Pakistan. Another helicopter landed so quickly while attempting to get the Rangers out that it lost part of its undercarriage.

27 posted on 10/30/2001 6:09:44 PM PST by Yuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Obviously you didn't read the thread I put in my post for if you did you should be pi##sed! If not, nuttin to respond to here!
28 posted on 10/30/2001 6:13:50 PM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
There will be a large ground force deployed regardless of what the telegraph twits say when the time is right.

The SF aborted a mission but it was not a failure. They re-deployed after pushing their probe to do what the mission called for; force enemy activity and communications to evaluate strenghts and locations.

Of course they quoted the ever mysterious and unknown "American defense sources". Could be a janitor from the pentagon. Just like "senior govt official said". Turns out to be a retired postal management worker.

29 posted on 10/30/2001 6:22:12 PM PST by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yuri
So they fought like "maniacs" and couldn't manage to kill one out of a company of troops on their own soil? In that case the Japanese and VC were much better jihadists than this. Even squad sized VC elements were capable of more destruction. I don't know what the heck anybody expected the people to do, surrender? The one's who're eager to surrender have already defected -- the next large batch of surrenders wouldn't come until the Northern Alliance starts making visible progress or comprehensive U.S. action appears to be imminent.
30 posted on 10/30/2001 6:24:03 PM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: zog
"Seems like with total air superiority, they could take and hold a base. And if the base acts as a taliban magnet, I'm sure dien bien phu style mistakes won't be made again. The weaponry is different now, and the taleban really don't have major supply lines in, they have to fight with what they can carry now, which ain't too much anymore."

The military is worried that bin Laden might have a nuke or two up his sleeve. Wouldn't be good for the public if our newly constructed firebase with lots of troops on it was nuked.

31 posted on 10/30/2001 6:26:16 PM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Yuri
if the equation of "they fought like maniacs" and none dead from a firefight doesnt cause some disequilibrium for you and others then your are very very gullible.
32 posted on 10/30/2001 6:28:22 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
We live with the fact that we are part of a far more lethal and dangerous society than in the past. P>------------------------------------

This is an old wives tale at best, or agit-prop for more repressive law schemes, considering the source. - Most american historians agree that the 19th century was a FAR more violent society than our present day.

Look it up.

33 posted on 10/30/2001 6:29:12 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
I believe that a land invasion would be a disaster

Until the supply lines are secure, whether through Pakistan, Uzbek, or Iran, ground invasion is out of the question. Which of those supply areas is secure that you would turn your armies loose in Afghan?

34 posted on 10/30/2001 6:35:25 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nagdt
Ditto: nuke 'em baby, nuke 'em

sounds good to me

35 posted on 10/30/2001 6:39:35 PM PST by mjp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: StormEye
Post 15

I'm with you StormEye. I don't think our "political military" is prepared to take the risk that is reqired to win.

36 posted on 10/30/2001 6:49:32 PM PST by DonnerT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
It will NOT be a few killed here and there, as you say...If we do nothing, next time it will be 30 planes...and after that, 30 cities....they will not stop until they are stopped...
37 posted on 10/30/2001 7:00:14 PM PST by Uglywhiteguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Why should the anthrax attacks, which have resulted on less than a handful of deaths warrant tactical nukes, and NOT the murder of 5,000 innocents at WTC & Pentagon?

HUMMMM?

38 posted on 10/30/2001 7:04:46 PM PST by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Most american historians agree that the 19th century was a FAR more violent society than our present day.

But I'm not talking strictly about violence. I'm talking about TOLERANCE of crime and criminality.

Here is the major difference as I see it. The American West (which is what I think you have in mind) was lawless, but that was a function of "law enforcement few and far between." But the penalty for criminal behavior was lethal, and the great majority of folks, who were law-abiding, would not tolerate a continuation of criminal mischief the way we do today.

There was no quarter given to lawbreakers, none. They received a fair trial, and that was it. For most of the serious crimes we see today the penalty was death. And people were not only allowed, they were EXPECTED to protect themselves.

The difference of what I am talking about today is our passive acceptance of evildoing in our midst. We had decades of "victimization" of lawbreakers, in which they were put on a pedestal as "victims" of racist, sexist, class-conscious society. That was the first major chink in society's armor.

Soon it became not only tolerable, but chic to be a criminal in many of our subcultures ("Gangsta" rap is a good example of this glorification of the criminal, not as a rebel with a cause as it would be centuries gone past, but as a purveyor of murder and mayhem for its own sake, for the "juice").

39 posted on 10/30/2001 7:04:50 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: StormEye
The military is worried that bin Laden might have a nuke or two up his sleeve.

What if bin Laden is already dead? Do we just go home?

40 posted on 10/30/2001 7:05:58 PM PST by allrightythen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 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