Posted on 10/30/2001 4:57:32 PM PST by Pokey78
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.
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.
Mmm...What about lost wheels, crashed helicopter with two killed? This war is not a holiday as Pentagon video has presented it
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!
There is no problem, it just disconcerting that we are in the dark - war is not easy stuff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
sounds good to me
I'm with you StormEye. I don't think our "political military" is prepared to take the risk that is reqired to win.
HUMMMM?
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").
What if bin Laden is already dead? Do we just go home?
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.