Comments on: Afghanistan: Fighting In A "Hornet's Nest"

U.S. General Tells 60 Minutes More Soldiers And Assets Needed To Defeat Enemy

[veteranx-2009]

"... And you didn''t hear too much about Afghanistan on the news ..." Only in the U.S., where the media serves up slop to the pigs. Read this article from the UK on Oct 17th: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/afghanistan-nato

".. British defence officials said last night they were investigating reports that civilians, including women and children, were killed in an air strike by Nato forces in southern Afghanistan.

Angry villagers took 18 bodies - including badly mangled bodies of women and children - to the governor''s house in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah, Haji Adnan Khan, a tribal leader in the city who had seen the bodies, was reported as saying. He said there might be more bodies trapped under the rubble.

A BBC reporter in Lashkar Gah said he saw the bodies - three women and the rest children ranging in age from six months to 15. The families brought the bodies from their village in the Nad Ali district ..."

Maybe this has something to do with why Afghanistan is a hornet''s nest?

[redlipsahead]

OBAMA SAID LETS SIT DOWN WITH THE TALIBAN AND TALK IT OVER WITH SOME FRESH OPIUM.

OBAMA SAID, DONT WORRY, BE HAPPY AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

[cariboubarbi]

Bu$hco should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq.

Now both countries are a disaster.

[sly_64]

Thanks GAWD for the surge it has saved us all,

The republiCON party is the new NAZI Party


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by pythoncharly

Seth McFarlane sure thinks so, did you see the new Family Guy episode last nite ?

[markavelli2]

"""One ''''drone'''' could have done this job. Don''t risk our men. ""

I agree. This has always amazed me. I''ve seen plenty of war footage from Iraq and Afghan showing troops taking fire from an ambush in daylight or night time. I can''t help but to think "where is air support?" Meaning an eye in the sky. Why doesn''t our military follow a patrol around high in the sky, very high. Simply using various technologies in spotting the enemy as they prepare to engage our troops.
Then I turn on the Military Channel only to see it boast about some fancy war machine that obviously doesn''t get used very much....
Any Soldier want to explain why they don''t follow a ground patrol around high in the sky?

[grouchyjohn]

Apache yes, drones no. You sound like Congress. Those drones cost a whole lot more than gas for the Apache. And it looked a lot like the combat scenes were staged. First sound of fire, rule one is get down unless it is mortar fire and then the rule is get out as you are more than likely in a kill zone.
Infantry Officer, Vietnam, 1968 and lived to tell about it. Obama...... if he had the courgage to be there would stand up and make another speech. Too bad he is not there.

Posted by mroutside12 at 10:22 AM : Oct 20, 2008





While I appreciate your service, you can''t compare Vietnam to Afghanistan. They are two entirely different wars, with different enemies, using different tactics.

The fact that our current military effort is BARELY BEING supported or encouraged by our own White House is starkly different from Vietnam too.

And what would a speech by Obama do to help our DESPERATELY underfunded and under supported troops in this neglected war?

[grouchyjohn]

Too bad that most of our resources are being wasted in Iraq for nothing.

If the 140,000 troops and the $10.5 BILLION a month we''re wasting in Iraq were redirected towards Afghanistan / Pakistan, we might actually have a chance at winning the war on terror.

[britpatjax]

Looking at the video of the enemy you see what I already stated. They had captured the US vehicles passing. How can these tribesmen just stroll the hills? More to the point, how can you kill a population? The Russians failed and must laugh to see this item? what do we accomplish? We are just wasting resources.

[britpatjax]

Watching them walking thru the cornfields reminded me of many a good old ''western''. They did not have the high ground and spotters? Why not. I think a lot of the footage was for effect. Its hard to see how getting one shooter and taking hits back is going to win any war? How many more enemy were watching from the high ground? This is not how I got trained in the British Army. Their guy was hit and they all stood up and called for the medic. On another day they all would have been ''taken out''. As said before. One ''drone'' could have done this job. Don''t risk our men.

[britpatjax]

It is hard to se what we are doing there? For a start we have the means to get right to the top and check that mountain with an apache? Why risk these men? We also have drones for the task. We might want to withdraw and rework the objectives after six months to recover the economy.

[gop_will_win]

Conservatives fulfill the dream.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Nancy_Naive
======================
Ofcourse we do, thats because we are superior to liberals.

[gop_will_win]

Republicans dream of starting wars and creating victims.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by onemoretim
===================
There is nothing wrong with that.

[icewinds-2009]

It is BLATANTLY obvious that most of the comments on this page are strictly emotional and have NOT the SLIGHTEST resemblance to anything FACTUAL. PLEASE DO SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH BEFORE YOU PRESENT YOU COMMENT AS THE TRUTH!!!

[gop_will_win]

Liberals dream of losing wars and victimhood.

[icewinds-2009]

Take an honest, hard look at most of the comments on this page. We can''t even agree to disagree anymore. If you listen real hard you can hear most of the rest of the world laughing at us. If we don''t quit acting like the worlds spoiled brats, we will go DOWN. We are defeating ourselves from within.

[liberalme]

There is no end here, just more of our men dying and Iraq just delayed it, because these conditions weren''''t going away. I think those who pretend that if we hadn''''t entered into Iraq that Afghanistan would be a victory by now should re-read the article.

Posted by promaclaura

The purpose of going into Afganistan was to get Bin Laden, the purpose of invading Iraq was for oil.

Bush failed at both--bring our troops home---let them declare war on each other since they have been doing since the beginning of time--we need our troops here to protect our country, not to die in vain so the republicans can proclain another "mission accomplished".
We don''t need to be in either place--there is nothing to win.

[checkthepast]

Clinton''''s role, failing to address terrorist issues, and the mess that was dropped in Bush''''s lap months after taking office.

Posted by kw60543

The reason Bill dropped it in Bush''s lap is that his own lap was always too busy to deal with national issues.

[promaclaura]

Did anyone read this article?

-in canyon valleys and jagged mountain hideouts
-It''s in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but desolate mountains stretching endlessly into the distance"
-It%u2019s one of our worst areas. They have the advantage, they know this terrain more than we do."
-It often takes eight hours or more of climbing to 10,000 feet
-"The terrain here will kick your ***. I mean, it''s not a joke.
-after a steep - at times vertical - climb to the top of the mountain to search for a weapons cache

Get your heads out of GW''s butt people, these are the facts about the battlefield in Afghanistan. Even if we had not gone into Iraq these conditions we are putting our military into would be the same. Yes, the enemy did run into Pakistan for haven and they still have it. To win in this scenario we would have to be at war with Pakistan.

There is no end here, just more of our men dying and Iraq just delayed it, because these conditions weren''t going away. I think those who pretend that if we hadn''t entered into Iraq that Afghanistan would be a victory by now should re-read the article.

[kw60543]

I hope you do a follow-up story showing whether or not there was an INCREASE in the violence and casualties after your story. I like being informed but not at the expense of the security of our troops. The focus should be on what to do now that we are there and if everyone really wants to discuss why we''re there, they really should go back to Clinton''s role, failing to address terrorist issues, and the mess that was dropped in Bush''s lap months after taking office.

[whiskyrokr]

But the "surge" is working. Come on get with it.