Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
-
Preview: Witness November 21, 2009 5:05 AM
-
Preview: The Cost of Dying November 20, 2009 11:47 AM
-
Preview: Cameron's "Avatar" November 20, 2009 11:43 AM
-
On The Set of "Avatar" November 19, 2009 10:34 AM
-
Kroft's Reporter's Notebook November 19, 2009 11:39 AM
-
60 Minutes, 11.15.09 November 15, 2009 4:58 PM
-
Rooney on U.S. Citizenship November 15, 2009 4:57 PM
-
Resurrecting Eden November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
B-Rex November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
The Deadliest Weapon November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: An Ancient Craft November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: Bomb Squad Training November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: Dino Chicken November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: Water World November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: The Deadliest Job November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: 5 Bombs in Two Days November 15, 2009 4:53 PM
-
Web Extra: Evo Devo November 15, 2009 9:22 AM
-
A Day's Work for U.S. Bomb Squad November 12, 2009 1:55 PM
-
Pelley's Notebook: Iraq November 12, 2009 10:45 AM
-
Pitts' Notebook: IEDs November 12, 2009 10:43 AM




Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.
As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we?re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.
Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of ?Second, Do no (more) harm!? The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we?re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?
Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.
Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.
Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.
Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:
Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.
Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr
Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr
Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr
Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr
These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ?vanquished? 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.
Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years
Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.
Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don?t, they don?t. DUH!
Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they?ll own it.
Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.
WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!
So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!
For shot I say support the General I strongly believes he knows what he doing.
But, it's hardly news that a general advocates committing more troops --- not unlike going to a hair stylist and walking out without a haircut. Again, it's what they do.
Want another poll? A majority of Afghans want us gone -- they say we're making things worse.
Of course, that's not realistic: We need the troops to protect the 70,000 private contractors profiteering from this latest war against this latest boogieman. A trillion dollar war, by the way -- which is making 100 or so multinational corporations with lucrative defense contracts very happy indeed.