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

Skip to comments.

Failure of the 82nd airborne [Guardian Barf Alert!]
The Guardian ^ | Thursday December 19, 2002 | Dan Plesch

Posted on 12/20/2002 1:55:18 PM PST by NorthernRight

Analysis


Failure of the 82nd airborne

As the US prepares for war on Iraq, its troops in Afghanistan are coming under increasing attack from the forces they were sent to dig out

Dan Plesch
Thursday December 19, 2002
The Guardian


American forces in Afghanistan have suffered a series of setbacks during 2002, and a year after the fall of the Taliban the US army is under almost daily attack in its bases in eastern Afghanistan. In the latest incident, in Kabul yesterday, two American soldiers were seriously injured in a grenade attack.

The main US force in the country is the 82nd airborne division, which is based at Bagram near Kabul. There are secondary bases at and around Khost in eastern Afghanistan, some 20 miles from the Pakistan border. Since mid-September US forces based in this area have been increased to more than 2,000, from just a few hundred earlier in the year, with a full battalion of parachute infantry at the new base of Camp Salerno outside Khost.

Several US-led attacks, using hundreds and even thousands of troops, have been ineffective, suffered outright defeat, or resulted in disaster. These failures have led the US to keep its forces mostly inside their bases: at Khost and Kandahar they are under attack almost daily from missiles and machine guns.

When it was launched in March, the US gave Operation Anaconda maximum publicity. It was supposed to crush remaining al-Qaida forces. Locally recruited Afghans were trained to act as "beaters", driving al-Qaida from its high mountain caves on to the guns of US soldiers lying in ambush. The reality was that it was the US army that was ambushed.

According to the Washington Post and other US reports, the plan was betrayed to the enemy through the Afghan militias. At a dozen mountain passes, al-Qaida attacked US and allied forces as they jumped from their helicopters to take up what they thought would be their own ambush positions. So intense was the enemy fire that for two days the US could not fly in helicopters to support its own troops, who remained pinned down in vicious fighting. The US had eight men killed and 100 wounded before al-Qaida pulled back.

After proclaiming the operation a complete success, the US announced that no more operations of this kind would be undertaken. During the summer, the units involved - the 101st air assault and 10th mountain - were replaced by the 82nd airborne. This is the most highly trained infantry unit in the US army, and one Pentagon planners would prefer to have available for Iraq.

It began operations intended to dig out enemy forces from the villages of eastern Afghanistan. Newsweek described as "a disaster" its first high-profile mission, quoting other US troops and civilian witnesses. They said that 600 soldiers had gone on the rampage in Operation Mountain Sweep, undoing in minutes six months of community building. They went through villages "as if Bin Laden was in every house", said one of the US army's own special forces soldiers. So serious were the complaints from other units about the conduct of the 82nd airborne that the army took sworn statements from all the officers and senior NCOs involved. The civilian casualties have not been accounted for. The 82nd is continuing to conduct cordon and search operations and has reduced media access.

One senior US editor told me he had been prevented by his own organisation from filing reports on the futility and brutality of US operations. He said the only comparison in US military history was with a punitive expedition into Mexico conducted by General Pershing in 1915. This produced virtually no results after months searching the desolate Mexican countryside in search of Pancho Villa, chasing up false leads provided by the local population.

Former British officers well informed on the Afghan operations are concerned at the US approach. British troops are trained to operate according to rules of engagement governing when it is considered acceptable to shoot to kill. This approach is designed to ensure that force is used to help achieve wider political goals. In the US army this kind of fine-tuning is not regarded as relevant.

Despite its power, the US has not been able to prevent its bases in Afghanistan from coming under frequent attack. Mostly, these achieve little more than keeping the troops in their dugouts. From time to time, as yesterday, a few soldiers are wounded and trucks blown up.

Containing the violence at this relatively low level could be considered a victory in itself but it will be hard to keep the lid on indefinitely. At the same time, the vaunted claim not to have once more left Afghanistan in the lurch is looking increasingly hollow. Some aid has been delivered, but its impact has been negated by the actions of US forces in alienating the population.

US strategy appears to be limited to continuing to pay local warlords to keep the peace, but these efforts have not even been enough to get control of the opium crop, which has this year produced some 2,000 tons of heroin destined for our streets.

A fresh brigade of the 82nd airborne arrives in Afghanistan this month, and early next year the Germans and Dutch, with Nato help, will take over in Kabul. Under pressure from President Karzai, the Pentagon is now considering setting up a dozen new bases around Afghanistan to liaise with local warlords and assist in delivering aid. A B52 strike was called in to support US soldiers as they prepared one of the first of these new operations in the Herat region.

The risk is that, given the US's negative reputation, these new outposts will also come under attack, destabilising rather than stabilising the country.

· Dan Plesch is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies

dplesch@rusi.org


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 82ndairborne; afghanistan; guardian; southasialist; warlist
More wishful thinking and leftist propaganda from the Guardian.
1 posted on 12/20/2002 1:55:18 PM PST by NorthernRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; Nix 2; Utah Girl; Grig; MadIvan; Agent99; SunStar; smith288; McGruff; McTex; ...
Ping! - FYI
2 posted on 12/20/2002 2:00:35 PM PST by NorthernRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthernRight
This "research fellow" isn't fit to polish the boots of the lowest ranking private in the 82nd Abn.
3 posted on 12/20/2002 2:07:07 PM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donozark
This "research fellow" isn't fit to polish the boots of the lowest ranking private in the 82nd Abn.

May I humbly (as a grateful civilian) suggest substituting "lick" for "polish"?
4 posted on 12/20/2002 2:14:53 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: donozark
This "research fellow" isn't fit to polish the boots of the lowest ranking private in the 82nd Abn.

May I humbly (as a grateful civilian) suggest substituting "lick" for "polish"?
5 posted on 12/20/2002 2:14:53 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: donozark
This "research fellow" isn't fit to polish the boots of the lowest ranking private in the 82nd Abn.

I wasn't airborne, but I was assinged to the 101st for a short while way back when. I survived airborne rules and training for long enough to know that airborne is something to respect. One notch below special forces maybe, but way, way above average.

6 posted on 12/20/2002 2:17:48 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NorthernRight
About six months ago, the British newspapers were heralding the imminent deployment of the Royal Marine Commandos, who unlike the fat and pudgy US troops, would lope around the mountains like gazelles and achieve more than Operation Anaconda.

The Royal Marines were excellent troops, but the British, hampered by the lack of tactical airlift, marched battalion sized units around the mountains for months. The Al-Qaeda stepped around these big columns. The Royal Marines never fired a shot in anger. They were withdrawn. An operational failure caused by using good troops in the wrong way, or perhaps in the only way the British in their mobility poverty could, but the wrong way nonetheless. If the Royal Marines could fail, albeit for reasons beyond their control, I doubt whether the Guardian's journalists could come up with a better plan, despite their sneering.

It is certainly possible that the 82nd's operations are not perfect. But I guess the Guardian's money quote must be: "Under pressure from President Karzai, the Pentagon is now considering setting up a dozen new bases around Afghanistan to liaise with local warlords and assist in delivering aid."

You don't ask for seconds if you don't like the grub.
7 posted on 12/20/2002 2:25:26 PM PST by wretchard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: templar
Home page of America's Guard of Honor, the All American 82nd Airborne Division.

I am proud to have served in Division.

AIRBORNE! ALL THE WAY!

8 posted on 12/20/2002 2:26:00 PM PST by Harley109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *southasia_list; *war_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
9 posted on 12/20/2002 2:31:14 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NorthernRight
Almost sounds like they WANT to become Dhimmi and have the muslims hordes descend upon their wives and children.. and themselves.
Don't they remember what the terror butt boys did to Pearl?
They assume that the press is safe and protected.
10 posted on 12/20/2002 3:18:56 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthernRight
"Despite its power, the US has not been able to prevent its bases in Afghanistan from coming under frequent attack. Mostly, these achieve little more than keeping the troops in their dugouts"

Don't blame the 82nd. Finish this job before Iraq.

11 posted on 12/20/2002 3:34:14 PM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthernRight
Unbelievable. This guy makes a pretty accurate critique of US warfighting policy in Afghanistan (as neither sufficiently aggressive nor savvy), and you folks take it as an insult to the honor of the 82nd Airborne.

It's a fair bet that anyone who really cared about the 82nd -- or our armed forces in general -- would be interested in seeing it employed in a proper, war-winning manner rather than huddling in base camps and taking fire day after day.

Try reading for content. Not everything in the Guardian is trash.

12 posted on 12/20/2002 11:53:07 PM PST by silmaril
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
imho everything in the guardian is trash.
13 posted on 12/21/2002 3:02:02 AM PST by kim r.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: silmaril
I fail to see how our Afghan attack could have been done better. The Taliturds couldn't wait to run to Pakistan. They collapsed almost overnight with minimal casualties on our side. Guardian was (at that time) telling us we would lose thousands. NOT! 82nd is infact engaging in aggressive patrolling. SF has complained about it being "too aggressive."

And this "research fellow" would do better reporting on the British rifle that doesn't go bang when trigger is pulled. SA-80 is a piece of junk. Big scandal there. Time for them to go back to the FN-FAL before their troops enter Iraq.

14 posted on 12/21/2002 5:43:33 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
For your evaluation.
15 posted on 12/21/2002 6:40:31 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton
8-Up Bravo Sierra.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

16 posted on 12/21/2002 6:46:25 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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