Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Please describe the "macro-failure" you allude to.
Hmm, lets see.
Bin Laden still not caught.
The Taleban alive and well and living in Afghanistan, and steadily taking over Pakistan.
The US and others bogged down in an unwinnable war.
The US having brought itself down to the level of the terrorists rather than keeping the moral high ground.
The muslim world galvanised against the US rather than against the extremists and fanatics they don't even themselves like.
Iran approaching nuclear status and the US now lacking the credibility to deal with it.

But hey, an American platoon, with the advantage of NVGs, managed to ambush some Afghans.
Fucking awesome dude.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please describe the "macro-failure" you allude to.
Hmm, lets see.
Bin Laden still not caught.
Irrelevant

The Taleban alive and well and living in Afghanistan, and steadily taking over Pakistan.
"Alive and well"? You really need to read more.

The US and others bogged down in an unwinnable war.
Such insightful analysis you have there. Based that on all of your years of military-political training, have you?

The US having brought itself down to the level of the terrorists rather than keeping the moral high ground.
What does that have to do with the military situation on the ground in Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...nothing.

The muslim world galvanised against the US rather than against the extremists and fanatics they don't even themselves like.
See above. Probably why the GCC is so concerned about Iran...but that's the next topic.

Iran approaching nuclear status and the US now lacking the credibility to deal with it.
That's right. The US is the only country in the world concerned or dealing with the Iran situation. Such ridiculous blinders you wear, Dilbert.

But hey, an American platoon, with the advantage of NVGs, managed to ambush some Afghans.
Fucking awesome dude.
I forgot the OP was descriptive of the entire war...except it is. Multiply the outcome of that single platoon's engagement by a few hundred. No impact whatsoever.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Irrelevant
But a good example of macro failure though, the guy who planned and funded 9/11 still not caught?
"Alive and well"? You really need to read more.
They are gaining ground in Pakistan, and will retake Afghanistan as soon as the occupying forces leave - see also the point on 'unwinnable wars'.
What does that have to do with the military situation on the ground in Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...nothing.
Its an example of a big fat fuck up which will take years to recover, compared with one minor ambush.

FEOS wrote:

I forgot the OP was descriptive of the entire war...except it is.
Did you mean this bit?
Fight by fight, the infantryman’s war in Afghanistan is often waged on the Taliban’s terms. Insurgents ambush convoys and patrols from high ridges or long ranges and slip away as the Americans, weighed down by equipment, return fire and call for air and artillery support.
Or maybe this?
It was one of hundreds of firefights that have occurred in the Korangal Valley, an isolated region where local insurgents and the Americans have been locked in a bitter stalemate for more than three years.
Waged on the Taliban's terms, stalemate, is that what you meant?
Last week a patrol from the First Infantry Division reversed the routine.
Sounds like one engagement, a few days ago, like you said, need a few hundred more to mean something.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-04-24 06:23:43)

Fuck Israel
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6923|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Micro-successes are somewhat outweighted by macro-failure.
Please describe the "macro-failure" you allude to.

If you consider Taliban/AQ influence in AFG being limited to a handful of PAK border provinces to be "micro-successes", with the TB getting their asses handed to them in every engagement while constantly reducing their influence, then just what in the fuck is your criteria for a "non-micro-success"? Opening a fucking Disneyland in Kabul or something?
It's abit more than that in terms of Taliban influence in Pakistan. That isn't the fault of anyone's except the Pakistani forces/government themselves. The main reason is that most of the Pakistani Army are still on guard on the Eastern border because they're all paranoid that India will attack them, the other reason is that most of them feel that fighting the Taliban isn't their war and they're only fighting for the Americans (that goes for nearly everyone in Pakistan, and they'll probably still be saying that when the Taliban are patrolling the streets outside their homes)

Anyway, here's the map showing the situation in Pakistan atm:

https://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt351/calj576/NWFP_redmap_02102008.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Mek wrote:

That isn't the fault of anyone's except the Pakistani forces/government themselves.
That and the US sweeping them out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
Fuck Israel
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6525|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Mek wrote:

That isn't the fault of anyone's except the Pakistani forces/government themselves.
That and the US sweeping them out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
They've been in northern Pakistan before the US arrived. If Pakistan had pulled its weight on their side of the border the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Irrelevant
But a good example of macro failure though, the guy who planned and funded 9/11 still not caught?
I thought KSM had been waterboarded over a hundred times. Do you mean to say AQ did that, not the US? You should let the news outlets know.

Dilbert_X wrote:

"Alive and well"? You really need to read more.
They are gaining ground in Pakistan, and will retake Afghanistan as soon as the occupying forces leave - see also the point on 'unwinnable wars'.
What does that have to do with the military situation on the ground in Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...nothing.
Its an example of a big fat fuck up which will take years to recover, compared with one minor ambush.

FEOS wrote:

I forgot the OP was descriptive of the entire war...except it is.
Don't bother yourself with researching the topic beyond a single article or anything. I guess since this single article is convenient to your ill-formed position, you'll not venture beyond it...certainly not actively seek out information that contradicts your view.

If you bothered to research the topic even one tiny bit, you'd know that the Taliban are originally from the ungoverned tribal regions of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. So the fact that they are back there and not where they tried to set up and run an entire nation by their bassackwards code should tell you something about how successful they've been. And, conversely, how successful the Coalition was in kicking them back to their Pakistani mud huts.

But you just can't be bothered, can you?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Did you mean this bit?
Fight by fight, the infantryman’s war in Afghanistan is often waged on the Taliban’s terms. Insurgents ambush convoys and patrols from high ridges or long ranges and slip away as the Americans, weighed down by equipment, return fire and call for air and artillery support.
Or maybe this?
It was one of hundreds of firefights that have occurred in the Korangal Valley, an isolated region where local insurgents and the Americans have been locked in a bitter stalemate for more than three years.
Waged on the Taliban's terms, stalemate, is that what you meant?
Last week a patrol from the First Infantry Division reversed the routine.
Sounds like one engagement, a few days ago, like you said, need a few hundred more to mean something.
Because the media hasn't portrayed the Afghanistan War as unwinnable since they were wrong about the Iraq War, have they?

Do you think it was coincidence that the Afghanistan War started being covered as "unwinnable" immediately following visible, measurable, improvements in Iraq? Every news outlet wants to relive the journalistic "glory days" of Vietnam...so they're fabricating it.

Fucking sheep.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard