That Baghram attack lasted AT LEAST NINE FUCKING HOURS.

[unhappycamper]

Taliban attack key US base in Afghanistan
By RAHIM FAIEZ and HEIDI VOGT
Associated Press Writer
May 19, 7:28 AM EDT

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Insurgents launched a brazen pre-dawn assault Wednesday against the giant U.S.-run Bagram Air Field, killing an American contractor and wounding nine service members in the second Taliban strike at NATO forces in and around the capital in as many days.

At least 10 insurgents were killed as Taliban suicide bombers attempted to breach the defenses of the base north of Kabul, while others fired rockets and grenades inside, according to a statement issued by U.S. forces.

The attack started around 3 a.m. Blasts and gunfire only subsided around midday, said Master Sgt. Tom Clementson, a spokesman for U.S. forces. No insurgents managed to get into the base and none were able to detonate their suicide vests, the statement said.

The Bagram attack came a day after a suicide bomber struck a U.S. convoy in Kabul, killing 18 people. The dead included five American troops and a Canadian, making it the deadliest attack on NATO in the Afghan capital in eight months.

The back-to-back attacks show the militants intent to strike at the heart of the U.S.-led mission, apparently part of an offensive announced by the Taliban earlier this month - even as NATO prepares for a major operation to restore order in the turbulent south.



unhappycamper comment: Nine fucking hours is nine fucking hours of eternity in combat. How can the 'insurgents' sustain an attack against The World's Best Fighting Force for nine fucking hours?

Bring them home.

[whyverne]

1. I guess the waiting till they run out of ammo strategy isn't working.

Where the heck do they get all these munitions?

[SoCalDem]

3. drug addicts who buy their "product", and munitions-dealers HERE

(and elsewhere)..:(

[Art_from_Ark]

38. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an arms pipeline

from former Soviet republics.

[SoCalDem]

2. There is an UNLIMITED supply of zealots, just waiting to step up and die

We cannot "kill em all"...and we should stop trying..

We need to leave..and send them a nice note:

"When y'all are ready to advance beyond the 13th century, call us. In the meantime, your passports will be denied entry into the "civilized world", you can feast on sand, rocks & poppy. You seem uninterested in becoming anything more than a backwards, belligerent death-cult, so just focus on killing each other..we're done with you"..

[NNN0LHI]

6. You forgot, and we are not going to give them any more Stinger Missiles if Russia invades them again

That will show them.

Don

[tavalon]

10. Russia wouldn't invade them again, as you know

Their little empire was destroyed in no small part because of their own quagmire in Afghanistan.

[SoCalDem]

13. Putin was probably laughing his ass off when Georgie sent troops there

:(

[Robb]

18. It's a senseless comparison.

In the 1980s the US, Saudi Arabia and half the "civilized" globe gave huge financial and military assistance to the Afghan resistance movement that eventually forced the Soviets out. They numbered at least 250,000 fighters by the time the USSR left town. There's less than a tenth of that in today's Taliban.

[SoCalDem]

11. Yep...the law of unintended consequences

We never learn, do we?

[Turbineguy]

14. And allow the women to leave.

[greencharlie]

32. said perfectly...

It's like a video game... in that the enemy will continue to "spawn" as fast as you kill them...

This war will last as LONG as the US pushes it. There can be no victory, just more war. Write it down now, Afghanistnam will account for more US lives than Iraq by the time it ends.

[grantcart]

39. idiotic comment bordering on bigotry

There is a very small number of "zealots" that would have to be measured in tenths of a percent of the Muslim population.

[readmoreoften]

43. Or maybe they're attacking Bagram because it's the site of torture and disappearance.

of civilians.

[MisterP]

52. that's the same attitude that the "we have to stay there to civilize them" group has nt

[hobbit709]

4. 9 hours of sustained activity is not "rabble' tactics

The Taliban is organized, trained, disciplined and evidently has enough resources to carry this off.

If we don't get out now, we're going to end up like the Brits in the 1800's.

[Robb]

7. Yeah, they're a fucking juggernaut.

:eyes:

[Soylent Brice]

15. you're right. they're not a juggernaut. but, for such a "non-juggernaut"

they've been doing a bang up job keeping us there for the last 9 years.

:shrug:

[Robb]

17. We haven't been fighting this war for 9 years.

Bush et al did a monkey dance in AfPak while they did their best to loot Iraq. Afghanistan didn't get the attention it merited until someone smacked the collective foreheads of the current administration.

[Soylent Brice]

23. split hairs much?

have we or have we not had troop presence, of any kind, in Afghanistan since 2001?

while i agree with you that the entire Afghan operation was utterly and half-assedly mishandled to the point where we lost a very early opportunity to apprehend OBL, thanks to the fortunate son, it doesn't make it any less true that we have been there for 9 yrs engaged in military operations.

whether it was mishandled by bush and cohorts is a moot point. we have ahd a presence there militarily, engaged in combat for 9 yrs. the taliban and al qaeda have been staving off our forces for 9 yrs.

[Javaman]

26. Military dictum...

The object of the occupying forse is not to lose, the object for the occupied is not to allow the occupiers to win.

[Robb]

28. It's not splitting hairs at all, especially in the context of the Taliban's abilities.

If you want to claim a ball player is a challenge to Michael Jordan, you don't get to use as an example a game of one-on-one where Michael had one arm tied behind his back and keeps his eyes on someone in the stands the entire game. It's a senseless comparison.

Bush et al's mishandling of Afghanistan is extraordinarily relevant. No plan for withdrawal, for example. A waste of time, treasure and troops since 2001, to say nothing of even going to Afghanistan in the first place.

[Soylent Brice]

33. you still didn't answer my question.

the Jordan/basketball analogy has no bearing here whatsoever.

just because Bush fucked things up it does not dismiss the fact that we've had military operations, being ran by military commanders, for 9 yrs.

[Robb]

34. I absolutely did.

You said "they've been doing a bang up job keeping us there for the last 9 years." The implication is that the Taliban have somehow managed to withstand the full weight of the US military apparatus through some mystical power of theirs.

The Jordan analogy works. We've had "military operations being run by military commanders" since the AWOL chimp sent them there, sure, but it was a farcical half-assed grim show with no plan that is hardly worth giving the Taliban any credit for resisting.

It's a matter of intent; it would be like saying Germany successfully resisted US troops' invasion throughout the 1990s. The US troops weren't there to invade Germany, so it's silly to give the German army credit for repelling them.

[Soylent Brice]

40. so, in your opinion,

when do you think we "really started fighting" over there?
i'm sure there are some vets of this war that would love to know how you weigh in on this? no matter how half-cocked the plan was we have had american men and women (and many other nationalities) that have been fighting their asses off, bleeding, and dying over there for 9 yrs. it does not serve your rationalization well to belittle the efforts what our troops did over there for 8 yrs prior to President Obama's election.

also,
i never once claimed they had mystical powers, but they have had a lot of success preventing us from gaining too much ground, and keeping it. that is a fact. whether you want accept that is up to you.

there are a lot of weird comments on both sides of this argument. to be clear, i am no fan whatsoever of the Taliban or al qaeda. i am not praising them as some great force to be reckoned with that is fighting for such a noble cause, that has a mighty army, etc etc.

they are fuckheads. period.

my very consistent point is that i am against war. i'm sure everyone would like us to win this war, but many refuse to acknowledge the possibility that it may never happen.

i want the war to end, and i recognize that anything is possible, winning and losing this war, and peace.

[Robb]

41. Accusing me of minimizing the efforts of the troops serving there is beneath you.

Your position has always been quite clear, and quite reasonable. And no one, myself included, has suggested you are somehow praising the Taliban as fighting a noble fight. You have been consistently against all war.

I believe however you are overestimating the capabilities of the Taliban, and underestimating what has been accomplished by ISAF forces there in the last year or so. Since this administration came online, the war is actually being fought where it matters -- in the mountains of the border with Pakistan, and in the back rooms of the Afghan National Assembly. Measure success or failure there, not in the streets of Kandahar.

[Soylent Brice]

45. you said, "We haven't been fighting this war for 9 years."

how am i, or anyone here for that matter, supposed to interpret that?

because in a literal context it means you're saying, "We haven't been fighting this war for 9 years."

your reasoning was that we weren't "really" fighting because bush had fucked it all up from the start, which i agree with that part.

i am not accusing you of minimalizing the efforts of the troops. i am responding to what appears to be, unless i am somehow reading everything you're saying all wrong, your rationalization that the taliban forces are not a 'juggernaut', and that us being there for the last 9 years is all phooey because the first 8 yrs don't count somehow, because "We haven't been fighting this war for 9 years."

from your comments you lead one to believe that somehow the last 8 yrs are a wash or something.

i'm not overestimating the abilities of the Taliban anymore than the US Army underestimated the abilities of the Viet Cong, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.

on a personal note:

i do apologize if you interpreted what i said as an attack, because i can assure you it most certainly is not. i am merely concerned with your comments in this thread. as far as i'm concerned i was participating in a discussion where we just happen to disagree. FWIW.

[Vinnie From Indy]

46. I think you have a fundamental ignorance of the nature of guerilla warfare

The fact is that history has proved over and over again that a native population intent on resisting using guerilla tactics wins solely by outlasting their technologically advanced opponents. On the flipside, the US is constrained from bringing to bear it's full military might for a variety of reasons including, largely, a moral component. The US certainly has the power and could choose to nuke every populated area, murder every suspected guerilla on the spot and generally lay waste to the entire country. We choose not to wage total war on Afghanistan and we always will. Those are the basic outlines of the war. The Afghanis that are resisting merely need to to make the country ungovernable by striking when the situation best serves them.

In addition, this war is a failure in large part because victory has never fully been articulated. What would a win be in Afghanistan? Every Taliban member dead? A Jeffersonian Democracy of tribes that have fought each other for centuries? Would a victory be having a US backed dictator crushing internal dissent?

You write,
"I believe however you are overestimating the capabilities of the Taliban"

That statement alone implies you have very little understanding of asymetric warfare. The fact is that the Taliban only need the the capability of making the country ungovernable and unsafe and they will always have that capability as long as they have fighters willing to die. In addition, the Afghani tribal peoples have been fighting technologically superior opponents since before the time of Genghis Kahn. We will simply never subdue them without deciding to lay waste to the vast regions of the country and all who live there - civilians and Taliban.


You write,
"Measure success or failure there, not in the streets of Kandahar."

I would sincerely like to know what "success" would look like in Afghanistan in your opinion.

[Robb]

48. Nonsense.

I would sincerely like to know what "success" would look like in Afghanistan in your opinion.

No, you wouldn't. Because I've answered that question over and over, and you've ignored it. Visit any of my posts on Karzai's up-and-coming cabinet members. Success has been articulated by this President also. Apparently you've ignored that, too.

But on the rest.

You presume to educate me on asymetric warfare, or frankly Afghan history?? Please. This myth of the unbeatable Afghan army tends to ignore minor issues -- like the army that outlasted the Soviets was (a) funded to the gills by the US, Saudi Arabia, and thousands of independent wealthy donors, and (b) numbered more than a quarter million. Even the most ambitious Taliban PR agent can't say a number more than 3,000 with a straight face -- and with the economic measures put in place by this administration, the only funding available is from Pakistan; the Taliban's association with Al Qaeda has proven to be an economic disaster in that respect.

So try pulling the other one.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. REally?

In what post above did you offer what a success would look like? I looked and could not find it.

Also, please name an invader of Afghanistan that successfully occupied that country? That should not be so hard for someone that claims to know the history of the region.

The only thing more impressive than your ignorance is your arrogance! Cheers!

[Robb]

57. Too easy. Only have to go back to the 1990s.

Pakistani Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith Muslims.

Early 1990s they started training and fighting with the local Taliban in the effort to force out the "Northern Alliance." By the time they "officially" took power in 1996, there were as many Punjabi jihadi in Afghanistan Taliban leadership positions as locals.

It was easy; the "invaders" brought capital, network and influence. Groups like those that eventually became Tehrik-e-Taliban had the Pakistan government's blind eye, if not outright support -- part of the deep strategy for keeping the Indians at bay. They brought the lion's share of weapons, they brought manpower, and they brought the connections to Middle East money -- and because no one else brought shit, they were welcomed with open arms. By the time the Taliban settled into running things like mafioso, they offered security -- combined with the threat of taking it away. "Nice restaurant you have here, shame if somthin' was to happen to it."

The President defines success as disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its allies. My definitions lack alliteration, but if you knock out the Taliban and bring anything, you get to sit at the table in Afghanistan. Bring security, capital, network and influence, in that order, and you win.

China is discovering they only have half the equation; they've been moving to bring in development without lasting security arrangements, and you can see how well that's working for them.

Cheers, yourself. :eyes:

[hobbit709]

16. Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Elphinstone's_Army

We have the same arrogant attitude to the "uncivilized" natives as the Brits had.

The Brits marched in 3 times and took the country but were never able to hold.

[arcadian]

27. Robb, seriously why are you so invested in the War in Afghanistan?

For all the wrong reasons.

[ShamelessHussy]

36. More like a tar ball

Or the old school quagmire

[theHandpuppet]

8. Yep, I think people tend to forget...

The Afghans are battle-hardened troops who have been waging war against "superior" forces for decades. These are the same folks who sent the Russians packing with their tails between their legs.

[Mudoria]

22. For "battle hardened troops"

whenever they get into a firefight they seem to do an awful lot of dying. Maybe they should stick to suicide bombings and IED which is about all they seem really good at.

[Flaneur]

44. It's called asymmetrical warfare.

Yes, of course, the Taliban can't take on the US military head-to-head and win. But they don't have to.

Plus, they are apparently willing to accept high numbers of casualties.

[tavalon]

9. There are plenty of people out there who think St. Ronnie took down the USSR

but it was the quagmire they got into in Afghanistan that really did it. That country, somehow, is unbeatable and we would do well to declare Osama Bin Laden dead (which he most likely is anyway) and get the hell out. At best, this will end like Vietnam, at worst, well, ask Russia.

[malaise]

5. Bring them home

NOW

[tabasco]

12. Yeah, it was a regular Gettysburg.

Sending a couple nutbags every half hour to try and get inside the wire is not my idea of a major offensive.

[Robb]

21. BUT TEH TALIBANS CANNOT BE STOPPT!!11!1

:D

[proteus_lives]

31. Exactly.

It's not exactly the battle of the Somme.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

37. you do realize those "couple of nutbags" are actually handing our asses to us, right?

Because we are NOT winning in Afghanistan right now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Looks the other way around to me.

[tabasco]

58. So the taliban took the air base?

Damn.

[spanone]

19. when people are fighting for their homes & land......

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

24. they "rinsed" the article. They deleted any mention of length of time

No one wants to hear how powerful the taliban are becoming once again, that's such a buzzkill. reality sucks.

[Robb]

29. Um, no they didn't.

...No insurgents made it inside the base, but blasts and gunbattles raged for eight hours as U.S. soldiers hunted the attackers down in the surrounding fields north of Kabul, she said....

[Javaman]

35. oh okay, thanks,

they just changed it. It first read that it started from 3am and lasted until noon.

Interesting edit. huh.

[Javaman]

25. Also, I found this interesting...

Small groups of suicide bombers - some wearing uniforms that appeared to match those of U.S. or NATO forces - tried to storm the base's defenses, while others fired rockets, grenades and guns over the walls into the base, said Maj. Virginia McCabe, a spokeswoman for U.S. forces at Bagram.

[greencharlie]

30. afghanistnam? There are STILL US soldiers there?

:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. We lost. Get out. Get over it. K&R

[amborin]

47. K&R

[TexasObserver]

49. I agree. How in the world do they maintain a 9 hour attack?

Since when don't we control the skies?

[htuttle]

53. The only reason I can think of to not send a bunch of attack helicopters to assist...

...is that they were worried about losing them.

Otherwise, what -- were they all 'busy'? What could be more important than staving off a 9 hour attack on a base?

on edit: Weren't A-10's designed for this very mission? Are we out of them?

[Rex]

55. Unconventional attacks maybe.

Random attempts at different time intervals.

[madokie]

50. We used to get shelled for hours on end at Cam Rahn Bay

almost always at night but there would be an occasional one lobbed our way during the daylight hours. They might lob 1 or 2 or 30 or 40, you just never knew when or how many. If you hear it flying you're safe from that one, not so sure from the one they would be walking in right behind that one though. You could go to the bunkers if you weren't on duty and you felt you'd rather fight the coral snakes, sometimes that was a tough one. Most times I was there I had no choice to go to the bunker as my duty station was at the admin building, post office to be precise.

[Rex]

54. It won't matter what we do or how we do it, the Taliban will claim victory

once we do withdraw all U.S.-led forces from Afghanistan. Same in Iraq, they will have another dictator as soon as our tanks load up and we fly home. It has become clear that Bush/Cheney had no intentions of fighting a winable war in either country - they just started two wars to make money for their peers and paymasters.