In his latest comments to reporters, US Central Commander Gen. Joseph Votel confirmed that the Afghan military and police and facing increasingly high numbers of battlefield casualties, following what he termed a “difficult and bloody summer.”
This has been well-documented in recent months, with the Afghan military losing ground significantly to the Taliban. The casualties are further exacerbating Afghan military shortfalls, caused by poor recruiting, and large numbers of “ghost troops” who exist only on paper.
Gen. Votel sought to downplay this to the reporters, however, saying Afghan officials have acknowledged the casualties but have said they “will not deter them.” Votel is also keen to see the Afghan military abandon attempts to defend territory and hold military checkpoints.
Instead, Gen. Votel argues that the Afghans should abandon their static defensive positions, which they can’t sustain anyhow, and focus entirely on an offensive war. Afghan officials have yet to comment on this, but it is unlikely that letting the Taliban overrun all these sites is a realistic option for them.
Another loser general, sorry for the repetition.
“I didn’t fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail.” — Harry S Truman
…. and 90% of the politicians would be too.
Here is an article that looks at America’s greatest failure in Afghanistan:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/10/americas-biggest-failure-in-afghanistan.html
This is just another example of a failed nation-building exercise.
“Somalia. . . And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.” –George W. Bush, Oct 11, 2000 here
Our “best interest” is a nebulous term, but when there is no apparent justification for use of military force, the old “national security interests” is always paraded out. Either before or after the term “bad actor” is thrown out for whoever we are or want to bomb.
Nation building? Try theft.
This begins too look like the trench warfare of WW1. “One more push and we will win and ignore the casualties”.
No matter how much the U.S. bribes them and overpays for ghost troops, asking a young man to kill and be killed without necessity is not an easy sell.
Wonder if the Soviets warned of increased casualties before they got out?
It’s not only battlefield losses the general ought to be concerned with. Nearly a million US troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them several times. What happens to them? Who pays the price? Who else suffers from the battlefield losses?. . . Twenty US veterans commit suicide every single day. The effect on the foreigners subjected to these atrocities is unknown, and uninteresting to those in charge of the mayhem.
Isn’t there somewhere else the CIA can get their opium from? Seriously, how many more are going to need to die for their global heroin trade?
The US military has released a report that a US C-130 transport plane has crashed in Afghanistan, killing at least 11 people, a US defense official has said. Among the dead are six US troops and contracted civilians whose nationalities have not been disclosed. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for shooting down the C-130, according to AFP.
The perpetual question, Why do our Afghans fight so poorly compared to their Afghans? Had the same question in Vietnam didn’t we. It would seem one side is fighting for their religious beliefs and to free their land from foreign invaders and the other side is fighting for a paycheck.
Afghans have always fought hard against foreign invaders and their collaborators. This is hardly a new situation for them.
Yes.
. . .a historical letter from Afghanistan (extract):
Yes — It’s because our guys are fighting for us, and their guys are fighting for them that live there.
I assume General Votel is a professional military officer with training. If he is, he should probably be aware that offensive tactics have never worked against guerrilla armies with popular support. When the military conducts its offensive sweeps, the guerrillas simply melt away into the population, who protect and hide them, only to emerge as soon as the military departs. This “offensive sweep” tactic failed in Vietnam, it failed in Afghanistan, it failed in Iraq, it even failed in the Battle of the Atlantic against the Kriegsmarine’s U Boats, which would simply submerge and let the Royal Navy destroyers pass by overhead. If you rule out genocide as a solution, it is only fortified positions (fire support bases, closely defended convoys, etc) that draw the guerrillas into combat and allow a realistic chance of fighting them on *your* terms.
It’s only against a conventional army that offensive operations might win. Now, conventional warfare is the last stage of a guerrilla war, when the guerrillas have grown so strong that they can mount frontal attacks and seize territory from an opponent who is also a conventional army. Is Votel now admitting that the Taliban have reached that stage?
The Taliban doesn’t need “conventional warfare….the last stage of a guerrilla war” to achieve its objectives. It is doing quite well raiding Afghan Army camps and strong-points, and district capitals, etc.