Eight U.S. Soldiers Dead in Bold Attack in Afghanistan

[spanone]

KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, American and Afghan officials said, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen in a bold daylight strike that was the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year.

The attack took place in the Nuristan province, a remote area on the border with Pakistan. It began Saturday morning, when insurgents stormed the area, pounding the two American base camps with guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

Americans fought back, striking their attackers with helicopters, heavy guns and airstrikes, but the insurgents were persistent and the battled lasted into the afternoon, said Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for NATO forces in Afghanistan.

It was unclear whether insurgents made it inside either of the two compounds, but Colonel Shanks said that by the end of the battle, American forces still controlled the outposts. The Americans shared the compounds with Afghan security forces.

“The militants put on a very aggressive attack,” Col. Shanks said. “Our forces had to use a considerable amount of firepower to counter it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

[Obamanaut]

1. Bring them home and let the "insurgents" have the place. nt

[spanone]

2. they have had 7 years to learn to fuck us over....thanks mr bu$h*

bring them home President Obama

[madokie]

3. It appears the blood bath has begun

Didn't I read we lost 5 yesterday or was that the day before?
I hate war, I hate killing no matter the killer or the killee

[Don Caballero]

4. May peace be with their loved ones

This is very sad. We must come up with a strategy to win this war. The President is currently meeting with those who will help craft his decision. AfPak, unlike Iraq, is an area that must be monitored closely. The attacks on our nation were planned from this area. Bin Laden is still planning operations from this area with his base of extremists.

[spanone]

5. NO we need a strategy to get OUT of this war...there is NOTHING TO WIN.

[Don Caballero]

6. We need to disable Al Qaeda and the Taliban

before we leave AfPak. Bin Laden is still leading thousands of militants willing to die to destroy the United States.

[spanone]

8. ain't gonna happen

[Don Caballero]

10. If Al Qaeda and the Taliban

are not defeated and another attack on America is the result, the President will be blamed and the Right Wing will go nuts. We cannot afford to lose our majority.

[spanone]

11. aint' gonna happen...been there almost 8 years....ain't gonna happen...bring them home

they can attack us from anywhere..

[thunder rising]

14. Let's sacrifice American youth (forced into military service by econ) for out political gain

I didn't think I would ever see that statement here.

Flush the CIA. Create an intelligence organization that is about intelligence instead of death squads and solve the problem intelligently.

Oh, I know, we could hire H1-B to do the thinking, since we are so FUCKING STUPID.

[Pavulon]

17. I disagree with the political part. however

i agree with the part about preventing attacks. The goal line needs to be set and "win" defined. Lets be right fucking clear however. ANY person outside of the US NOT holding citizenship funding these people is a military target. If that person gets in their car and a shaped charge takes him out, fair game. He taking a piss in an airport and someone puts a suppressed .45 round in the back of his head, fair game.

The trainers and funders behind the war are targets. Primary targets.

[thunder rising]

22. Was this misplaced?

[Pavulon]

23. yep, was a reply to 10.(nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

26. You are advocating a policy of

extra-judicial assassination.

And just how are you any different or better than Cheney?

[Pavulon]

29. Or LBJ or JFK or get off your soap box and look at how

the government operates in a FUCKING WAR, now or 60 years ago. I am ABSOLUTELY advocating the use of CIA and MI6 assets to find and KILL people funding attacks that kill americans anywhere in the world. If we are going to play war those are the rules.

Killing these people is more effective than killing meat puppets by the thousands with combined air and arty assets in some shithole country like Afghanistan.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Except extra-judicial assassinatims were

banned by an executive order signed by Gerald Ford back in 1976.

But we're at war, so quaint and obsolete things like THE LAW don't matter.

Again, how are you any different or better than Cheney?

[Pavulon]

35. Banned killing heads of state.

there is no law against splattering terrorists all over the desert floor in yemen. Better is subjective, we dont arrest people in yemen. We figured out that did not work after the Cole incident.

Look, if you want to play and loose keep the existing strategy. We are at a fork in the road, choices are leave and target key players, or escalate.

Riddle me this, who do you think signs off on predator strikes that targets individuals? Dick FUCKING Cheney, right, i mean he still runs those operations?

Grow up.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. Your use of the word "terrorists" suggests the

very problem with the brutal and callous policy for which you so tirelessly advocate.

Leaving aside the whole idea of Kant's principle of "universality" (if it's OK for us to extra-judicially assassinate, it should be ethically OK for our adversaries to do the same without resort to childish bouts of name-calling like "terrorist"), you are perfectly willing to do away with with such quaint and obsolete concepts as DUE PROCESS and PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. And all in the name of what exactly?

If Ford's ban applied only to heads of state, then why did Bush feel compelled to sign his own executive order in October 2001 (technically, a classified "Finding") essentially reversing said ban?

I am perfectly aware that Obama is continuing the murderous tactics and policies implemented by his predecessor. That does not make the policies or the tactics morally justified, enablers like you notwithstanding.

[Pavulon]

57. The tactics used since inception of the nation state.

now if we lived in costa rica this would not really be an issue. So lets be realistic about what is going on. The US and other nations use military resources to kill people. Call them what you will, they are people that for one reason or another are going to die.

The other guys do kill our people in places like jordan and in the old days greece. As long as people are motivated to try and kill us by God, Politics, or whatever we will be in the business of killing them first. IF they happen to be in the US then they are subject to the FBI's jurisdiction and a traditional court system.

If they are in Yemen, Somalia, or Afghanistan they are subject to US Military actions.

I dont care what they are called but the reality is stark and not some new evil plan from bush.

[thunder rising]

59. The military is not a police force it is a very blunt instrument used to kill wholesale.

If a killing were justified the population should see the evidence.

Secrecy enables such actions as the mass murder of indigenous South Americans to prop up dictators. These actions are "chickens" that are now coming home to roost.

The citizens of the United States have spoken, ENOUGH! We have to stop murdering people to profit the rich.

[Pavulon]

64. Lets focus on the matter at hand, right now.

the us is fighting people who justify their actions with a radical form of islam. They are located in multiple places and are communicating. We listen in.

So if we determine a group operating in kuwait is giving millions to the taliban to purchase weapons and supplies we have a few choices. If kuwait will handle the problem great, let them lock the guys up for 20 years or chop off their hands.. If they will not then you have different choices.

Defraud them, take their money. Kill them outright and let it be known that this will happen to anyone who works to kill americans. or just do nothing. This is military action. The hard part is killing the right people.

What we can not do is tip our hand on how we listen in and who is on our side.

[thunder rising]

67. Another circular arguement. We created a situation and now have to fight the cold war against a new

enemy. And, how cool is this, they are everywhere and anybody. That's fucking paranoid.
The "little head"/killer wing of the CIA found a new reason to exist.

[Pavulon]

69. One day we will all just get along

and people will accept "please" as a reasonable request not to bomb embassies, blow up ships, kill people at hotels in india, bomb the wtc in 1992, try to shoot down jet liners and the list goes on...

Until those guys just decide to chill out we will be in the business of killing them.

[thunder rising]

36. The problem is that it wasn't a war until we made it one. This was a criminal matter and should

have been handled as such.

Specifically, the situation is analogous to Ia Drang Valley, we were attacked and the enemy retreated, hiding in the hills. Where, BTW, they happened to be well armed and prepared. The lazy psychotic CIA suggested we follow them. "Look like an ambush to you"

[Pavulon]

38. The CIA bled the USSR out

in Afghanistan. The attack on the USS Cole is a MILITARY matter.

[thunder rising]

41. Wrong. The pashtuns bled the USSR out. Just like they are doing to us. BTW, who is mnfg those AK's

We like to think the CIA "turned the tide", but now we know. The USSR could no more have "won" than we will. The most we did was speed up the time clock.

[Pavulon]

43. NO they used weapons WE BOUGHT from Egypt and gasp>>

Israel. The CIA did its job and used the local population to carry out American policy by proxy. The CIA and ISI ran that war. Where did the stinger's come from, pashtuns make them too?

[thunder rising]

47. The proof is in your face. They confound us without those weapons. Again whose mnfg the AK's

[Pavulon]

48. Let see which war, Egypt supplied weapons

so did israel to the CIA and ISI. The Israelis captured those from egypt.
Now let be serious. Do you think the pashtuns are supplying all the weapons and ammo? Reloading AK and 12.7 rounds.

AK's dont get stale, those weapons have been around.

[thunder rising]

54. You make my point for me. Who is mnfg those AKs. And, they were only old 6 yrs ago. Now they'er new

That is unless we've totally quit the policy of rounding up weapons from the dead so they can.
phhht.

[Pavulon]

55. They are not new. They are not fielding

new weapons from someone's arsenal.. They have weapons from their civil war (ongoing) and weapons acquired over decades. Packed in cosmoline for new meat puppets to carry around. They have millions of rounds supplied during the same time by various nations.

When a G8 member begins supplying them with advanced weapon systems you have a vietnam like situation. In my personal experience when we (Army NG) took possession of weapons in Yugoslavia some were kept for training purposes (returned to US) and the vast majority were destroyed or rendered inoperative by various means.

[thunder rising]

61. When you have an actual rebuttal, let me know. Again you make my point for me.

[Pavulon]

65. One question, who is the USSR in your vietnam comparison?(nt)

[thunder rising]

68. ahh Pav, we discuss this below ... and you lose there too.

[Pavulon]

70. I missed the name of the super power supplying them?

migs, aa systems, heavy and small arms. Shipped right in to NV. Is it China? Russia? Germany...

The vietnam comparison is lazy. The comparison to algeria is a bit better.

[thunder rising]

34. What is needed is a litte transparency AFTER the fact. The only thing that is really covered up is

the lazy stupidity and psychotic foundation of the intelligence community.

[Ikonoklast]

51. We'd be killing a lot of the Saudi Royal Family, then.

They fund Islamic militancy on other shores so the radicals don't focus their hatred on them.

[Pavulon]

52. You never know..

people die in car accidents, plane crashes, or have strokes. Like I said, those who pay for americans to die are military targets.

[Ikonoklast]

63. Or of 'thirst'.

From Gerald Posner's "Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11":



http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/18/saudis/index.html

Zubaydah told his interrogators that he had attended a 1996 meeting in Pakistan where Mushaf Ali Mir struck a deal with Osama bin Laden that provided al-Qaida with protection, arms and supplies. The arrangement was blessed by the Saudis, Zubaydah said. He named a fourth Saudi prince, the kingdom's then intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, as the nexus of the Saudi-Pakistani-al-Qaida axis. Zubaydah said Turki attended several meetings with bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1990's, including one in Kandahar in 1998 at which Taliban members were present, where Turki pledged steady Saudi aid to al-Qaida as long as the terrorist group promised not to attack the kingdom.

Prince Turki, who is now the Saudi ambassador to London, told an Arab newspaper in September, "This information is totally false and groundless. I have had no contacts with bin Laden since 1990, and have never had contacts with al-Qaida, which is a satanic terrorist organization." He also pointed out that Saudi Arabia revoked Osama's citizenship in 1994.

According to Posner, about a month after the interrogation CIA officials, who had found no evidence to discredit the story, cautiously raised the Zubaydah information with their counterparts in Saudi and Pakistani intelligence. Here, the story line veers from le Carré to "The Godfather." Shortly after the U.S. inquiry, on July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed, age 43, died unexpectedly of a heart attack. On the way to Ahmed's funeral the next day, Prince Sultan al-Saud was killed in a single-car crash. A week later the third prince Zubaydah had fingered, Fahd al-Kabir, was found dead 55 miles east of Riyadh -- according to the Saudi royal court he'd "died of thirst" while traveling in the summer heat. Seven months later Pakistani air force chief Mir, his wife and 15 of his closest associates died in a plane crash near Islamabad. The plane had recently passed maintenance inspection, and the weather was clear. According to the Asia Times, "Reports at the time said that the pilot had been changed just minutes before takeoff."

Were they killed to keep from revealing any al-Qaida connection to the Royal Family, and the Pakistani Intelligence Service, to the CIA?

Safe money says 'yes'.

[Pavulon]

66. Lets close the loop.

what are you saying the CIA's role is with al qaida one year before 9/11 and right after? The role of the ISI is basically quiet support.

[Ikonoklast]

71. I believe the CIA was caught either loafing, or just behind the curve.

Either they didn't want to believe that factions within the political and military structures of our erstwhile allies were secretly supporting terrorism, or they still had active assets in those organizations, that they controlled indirectly throught the Saudi intelligence service; feeding the CIA deliberately misleading information as to the scope of al-Qaida's plans.


I think that some of the players in this drama were, or had been, working for the CIA in some capacity or another. Passive intelligence, paid informers, whatever.

[Pavulon]

72. I agree. Once again..

starting with soviet tanks into hungary, the gulf war invasion, and other events they missed out on, CIA has missed quite a bit. I would not doubt if some of the assets were playing both sides.

[Ikonoklast]

75. And the ISI has their own agenda of staying in power, and controlling

things from the shadows, come what may.

If 'allowing' certain segments of the military to fund and equip either the Taliban or al-Qaida keeps the scrutiny off their own internal problems, and the entire corrupt political machine that rules Pakistan, so much the better.

But they are riding a tiger. Having to initiate the Swat Valley operation (at our demand) may have enlightened them to the reality that things may be slipping away from them.


But I agree as to how to defeat this; it is a money and materiel problem. Stop the flow of each, and you'll defeat the major players.

No guns, no bullets, no MONEY, and things would get quiet in a hurry.

[Pavulon]

76. Hopefully the people making the calls..

are informed and making decisions based on long term strategy and logic. Not getting a real warm fuzzy on that one.

[Ikonoklast]

77. Fuzzy, yes. Warm? Not so much.

The metric needs to be that we do not have any true friends in this fight, only temporary alliances where there is an intersection of national interest, foreign policy, realpolitik, and mutual concerns among each of the parties involved.


Today, we throw rocks together. Tomorrow may prove different.


Hard to make reliable predictions based on such shifting variables.


It is truly astounding that things have actually gone this well, and I am not being facetious.

[thunder rising]

12. It's the worst motivation to continue a war due to the loses incurred in the war. If the CIA was

really worth a shit they could ferret out Osama. But being the thugs they are that's not going to happen. The CIA is very good at retribution on unarmed villages and peasants. Their days of being super sleuth ended when they started using torture. The best people left and the ignorant killer psychotic thugs took over.

Fuck the CIA. Time to disband that organization and rebuild an intelligence organization the is more about INTELLIGENCE than death squad.

[Pavulon]

31. Read legacy of ashes, they never were super sleuth..

they do however carry out a specific need. The US can and will continue to use means to change the playing field in its favor. The CIA is a massive organization of at least 3 major branches.

[thunder rising]

37. The CIA is lazy, psychotic and more often than not WRONG.

[gratuitous]

19. I agree

And we're not going to drive out violence with violence. Heresy, I know. But sometimes heresy is required.

[Catshrink]

9. And the terrain makes the task of monitoring very difficult.

My question is: What does "victory" in Afghanistan look like? Once that is defined, the next question is: can we attain that? "Defeat al Quaeda" or "Defeat the terrorists" is just too vague -- but that was the Bush approach. I want to believe Obama is more realistic and analytical.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. "Win"? How 'bout we GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE ASAP!?

:shrug: Bin Laden? :rofl:

[thunder rising]

28. I think we should hire H1-Bs to replace Nate Silver's needed talent in the CIA. Since we can't be

recruited, cause we're the INTERNAL ENEMY. The CIA is blind the THE FACT that American support intelligent extermination of the various plotters. One bullet to the head of the correct target and everybody cheers; obliterate a village and miss everybody of importance is inhuman and lazy.

The military wants to play this war just like Vietnam.

[thunder rising]

7. "a remote area on the border with Pakistan." What a surprise; who'da thunk. Vietnam all over again

Pakistan playing part of Cambodia.

[Pavulon]

15. Who is plating the part of the USSR? You know the important

part of funding and backing a proxy war against the US. Unless you identify that role, the comparison falls apart.

[thunder rising]

16. OK, the Pashtuns have a high quality gun metal smelter in those mountains and secret RPG factories

In Vietnam we were "defeated" by a nation transporting munitions by bicycle through the jungle.

[Pavulon]

18. The soviets dumped in migs, advanced air to air, and crates

of new weapons on ships in hanoi harbor. Hand made AK's do not cover the question. WHo is the power BACKING the enemy here in a PROXY war?

[thunder rising]

20. The only difference is the enemy is not playing to win. They are playing not to lose. Pashtuns have

killed empires painfully slowly for centuries.

[Pavulon]

25. We have to define "enemy"

the enemy may be one set of people if we are on the ground where they live. Those people may not be our enemy if we are not there, or if we pay them, or any number of other factors. I would say the pashtuns are not our "enemy".

Our enemy are the people funding and planning attacks on the US and its interests.

[thunder rising]

30. Exactly! And if the CIA were really about intelligence instead of death squad we could identify

those targets.

[Pavulon]

33. The CIA is 3 or 4 major agencies under one budget.

there are agencies dedicated to research, agencies dedicated to collection, and agencies dedicated to field operations. In the real world sometimes people need to die. Killing the right ones is important.

The guys funding islamic terrorism and attacks like those in London, Spain, and New York are military targets.

[thunder rising]

39. They act more like a young man with a hard on. Thinking with the wrong head.

[Pavulon]

40. There is a written history full of examples

you could site , your post is a bit lacking in detail and seems like a generalization not backed by fact.

[thunder rising]

42. Noam Chomsky from his first book to his last. Well thought, well written and cited

[Pavulon]

46. I tend to read content from SMEs.

chomsky does not have any expertise on the operational history of the CIA across 7 US administrations. There is a VAST amount of content published by people who have internal knowledge. Both positive and negative views made by those with real knowledge, not opinions from a linguist.

[thunder rising]

49. Troll much? And Einstien didn't have the expertise to realize E=MC^2 was patently in error

Whatever an SME is ... I'm fearful.

[Pavulon]

50. Subject Matter Expert. Ie books on the CIA

are best written by those who either oversaw the agency or participated in its operation. Noam is not in a position of knowledge to offer more than his opinions on the subject. You could write a book too, it may be popular. But without any real context it is just punditry.

How is what I said trolling? Because I prefer information from those who have it vs those who offer op ed.

[thunder rising]

56. Thevenin or norton? Hence, it is possible to characterize something from external evidence

Part of my "problem" with the CIA is that they readily carry out the neocon policies. The policies that have been shown to be in extreme error and just murderous. They love to kill and it shows.

IOW: their actions scream so loud I can't hear what they are saying.

I have to add that they always assume that the "enemy" does not have the same will power that we do.

Borrowing from "Gladiator" at the beginning, the barbarians facing certain death cut the head off the messenger in response to a surrender offer (surrender in those days meant, we'll kill you quickly) So to the question of "Why don't they give up?" the answer was "Would you? Would I?"

[Pavulon]

58. The CIA is summarized as generally incompetent.

they completely missed major events and generally failed to use resources wisely. This is taken from public record. Legacy of Ashes is worth a read. It is objective and written by people who participated and have context of how the CIA and policy put in place by civilians is carried out.

But back to the conflict at hand. It is not about will power, or killing lots of people. David Galula's books have become more popular after 8 years of war. We tend to overlook history.

[Flaneur]

73. Well, there is all that opium money.

Gonna go kill ya some poppies?

[Pavulon]

74. Legalize it...

thats another thread..Same questions. Who is the outside force supplying the massive arsenal (there is none) to insurgents? The vietnam comparison is flashy, but falls apart at closer examination. I repeat who is the proxy?

[Pavulon]

13. Killing their ignorant meat puppets will not win this war.

there will be no lack of robots willing to go splat for allah to fill the ranks. Preventing attacks here will be done with thorough destruction of the groups and people who fund it. If some guy in Kuwait or Saudi is writing checks, he is a military target and can be killed. Their trainers and fundraisers should be the victims of car bombings, sniper attacks, and it should be made clear who is doing it.

If people there want to support a new government they have a chance, if they choose to live in the dark ages it is not our job to change their mind. If they house people who are attacking the US or our allies that can be handled with laser guided munitions.

We need to define "win" and work towards it.

[thunder rising]

44. Yeah! But if you look at it from their point view ... it will. That's exactly the situation.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. "Bring it on!," the Emperor taunted. And so

they did.

[thunder rising]

27. Exept they didn't. They play the game of economics. How much does it cost to place a future cadaver

in a lightly defended outpost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Cannon-fodder to cover the asses of the politicians and generals.

But, of course, it would be too embarrassing to admit that the war is lost in Afghanistan and get the hell out rather than pour more lives and money into a hopeless quagmire.

[NNN0LHI]

60. Time to pull out the soldiers and call in the lawyers

Someones going to have to clean this mess up.

Don

[tekisui]

62. Escalation and expansion.

Wars without end....