U.S. Abandons Afghan Base, Taliban Move In
Troops Reportedly Arm Local Cops Before Bailing On Remote Outpost, Then Cops Flee Militants
-
Face covered Taliban militants pose before they execute two Afghan women in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on July 12, 2008. (AP PHOTO)
-
Play CBS Video Video Taliban Kills U.S. Troops Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in a Taliban attack with the distinct markings of al Qaeda. Lara Logan reports on the group's growing stronghold in Afghanistan's remote, mountain regions.
-
Video 9 Dead In Taliban Attack Nine U.S. Soldiers were killed and fifteen others wounded in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years. Kimberly Dozier reports.
-
Video Violence Flares In Afghanistan An attack by insurgents against a U.S. base in Afghanistan left nine U.S. troops dead. Since May, more U.S. and allied troops have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Thalia Assuras reports.
-
Fast Facts Afghanistan Learn about the people, economy and history.
-
Interactive Crosshairs: Taliban America's fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Compounding the military setback, insurgents quickly seized the village of Wanat in Nuristan province after driving out the handful of police left behind to defend government offices, Afghan officials said.
Some 50 officers were headed to the area to try to regain control, said Ghoolam Farouq, a senior provincial police official.
Sunday's attack by some 200 militants armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars was the deadliest for the U.S. military in Afghanistan in three years. Rebels fought their way into the newly established base, wounding another 15 Americans and suffering heavy casualties of their own, before the defenders and warplanes could drive them back.
The assault underlined how Islamic militants appear to be gaining strength nearly eight years after the ouster of the Taliban, and the difficulties facing foreign and Afghan forces trying to defeat them.
NATO said the post, which lies amid precipitous mountains close to the Pakistan border, had been vacated, but insisted that international and Afghan troops will "retain a strong presence in that area with patrolling and other means."
"We are committed, now more than ever, to establishing a secure environment that will allow even greater opportunities for development and a stronger Afghan governmental influence," NATO spokesman Capt. Mike Finney said.
We are committed, now more than ever, to establishing a secure environment that will allow even greater opportunities for development and a stronger Afghan governmental influence.
Capt. Mike Finney, NATO spokesmanSami said U.S. troops armed local police with more than 20 guns before they left, but that the officers had fled the village and crossed into neighboring Kunar province when 100 militants moved into Wanat.
In other related developments:
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From War On Terror
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 122 CommentsVietnam redux.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 05:44 AM : Jul 17, 2008
+ report abuse
************
complain that we are stealing it...go to gas station for a fill up then..complaining that we are not stealing enough...repeat
"the bi*tch loves her steak but simply refuse to accept how the cow was butchered"
There are no benefits for Americans in Afghanistan. Your tax dollars and cumulative borrowed debt to finance these operations only benefit the corporations who purchased the oil& gas rights in the Caspian Sea Basin, nothing more nothing less.
July 15, 2008 Bush morning news conf: "Everything''s going well so far in the Caspian Basin. "
February 12, 1998 John J. Maresca vp of UNOCAL oil appeared before a House sub committee. The purpose of the meeting was to gain support for exploitation of oil & natural gas resources, for the rights purchased by BIG OIL in the Caspian Sea area.
In his testimony he stated, "The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets ".
The exploitation option stated : "One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed by American companies because of U.S. sanctions (with Iran ) . The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which of course has it''s own unique challenges. " He continued saying, " the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments,lenders (world monitary fund & world bank ) ,and our company "......"
UNOCAL and other American companies are prepared to undertake the job ".
Since 01/20/2001, nobody in the administration has bothered with preserving, protecting and defending the (according to W ********* old piece of paper) the Constitution. A legal case could be made for the converse. Even Ashcroft wouldn''t have signed off on some of the administration''s actions. Some Gonzales'' opinions are the only thing that might resemble a viable criminal defense for their actions. There''s nothing to indicate that McBush would feel differently about the Constitution, since he''s been an accomplice after the fact by supporting the administration''s end runs around it.
Obama seems just a little half baked to me as far as having the ability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Posted by rosieod4prez at 07
DUHHHHH Neither has AWOL Bush or 5 Deferrment Cheney---but here we are, in 2 wars---by the way, are we still after Bin Laden? Isn''t that why these wars were started?
Where is that guy these days?
McCain is in total agreement with Bush on the important issues of the day. Obama is too much like Bush because he''s inflexible. Obama flip-flops too much is too flexible. Obama is just like Carter.
So, Bush is like Obama and Carter. And, McCain agrees with Obama, Carter, and Bush on the most important issues of the day. Is this correct?
The totally confused McCain campaign has gotten me totally confused.
McCain complains that Obama flip-flops too much. But he also says Obama is inflexible and unable to change his mind like Bush. So, is McCain complaining that Obama is too rigidly flexible? Or, more likely, is the McCain campaign coming off it''''s hinges?
Apparently, he thinks Obama is much like himself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245636/
June 19, 2005 - Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: And what people point to--and this is an article in your hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, "At Odds With Bush. John McCain repeatedly has taken maverick positions that have put him at odds with President Bush''s administration, and rankled his party''s right wing.
SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I''m different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I''ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone''s, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I''m particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I''ve been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.
Now, McCain is saying Obama is like Bush. Does that mean that McCain is saying he''s been in total agreement with Obama on the most important issues of the day as well?
Posted by vietnam21 at 07:11 PM : Jul 16, 2008
They will kill off a wedding party and bring the bodies to the place the predator struck to blame the US for it.
Obama seems just a little half baked to me as far as having the ability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Posted by rosieod4prez at 07:58 PM : Jul 16, 2008
How so?
How is McCain "more qualified"?
So, now we have a potential president, obama, who would negotiate with the likes of Ahmandinajad with no preconditions; and, according to you, would n ot be able to ask for a declaration of war, because he has no military service.
Obama seems just a little half baked to me as far as having the ability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 122 Comments