Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Afghanistan Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Muted Afghan Reaction to the Kunduz Airstrike
timon_phocas    9/9/2009 3:10:28 PM
Read this on LongWarJournal website h**p://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/2009/09/muted_afghan_response_to_kundu.php 'Muted' Afghan response to Kunduz airstrike By Bill RoggioSeptember 8, 2009 4:49 PM Afghan troops secure the site of the Kunduz airstrike. AP photo. The Washington Post notes that the reaction to last week's bombing of the two hijacked fuel tankers in Kunduz province has been "muted." Instead, popular and official reaction to the lethal airstrike has been far more tolerant than after similar past incidents. There have been no angry demonstrations against Western occupiers, and no blistering condemnation by President Hamid Karzai or local authorities. So far, not even the families of the dead have come forward to protest. In a separate story at The Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran notes that the local Afghan officials have actually supported the strike: At midday Saturday, after visiting the hospital and flying over the bombing site in a helicopter, the team met with two local officials. The NATO officers were expecting anger and calls for compensation. What they received was a totally unanticipated sort of criticism. "I don't agree with the rumor that there were a lot of civilian casualties," said one key local official, who said he did not want to be named because he fears Taliban retribution. "Who goes out at 2 in the morning for fuel? These were bad people, and this was a good operation." But what follows is a stinging indictment of the German military operations, or lack thereof, in Kunduz and the North: A few hours later, McChrystal arrived at the reconstruction team's base in Kunduz. A group of leaders from the area, including the chairman of the provincial council and the police chief, were there to meet him. So, too, were members of an investigative team dispatched by President Hamid Karzai. McChrystal began expressing sympathy "for anyone who has been hurt or killed." The council chairman, Ahmadullah Wardak, cut him off. He wanted to talk about the deteriorating security situation in Kunduz, where Taliban activity has increased significantly in recent months. NATO forces in the area, he told the fact-finding team before McChrystal arrived, need to be acting "more strongly" in the area. His concern is shared by some officials at the NATO mission headquarters, who contend that German troops in Kunduz have not been confronting the rise in Taliban activity with enough ground patrols and comprehensive counterinsurgency tactics. "If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz," Wardak told McChrystal. "If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault." McChrystal seemed to be caught off guard. "We've been too nice to the thugs," Wardak continued. The Kunduz incident highlights the fact that the under-application of force in counterinsurgency can be just as deadly as its opposite. Read more: h**p://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/2009/09/muted_afghan_response_to_kundu.php#ixzz0Qdaf4hEo
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

timon_phocas    Bing West Comments    9/9/2009 3:16:41 PM
Bing West, author of "The Strongest Tribe" blogs a lot at the LongWarJournal. He often states that the new, restrictive Rules Of Engagement are endangering our troops' lives. My son, deployed in Afghanistan since June, grouses about the ROE's every time he calls. 

 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    ROE Cost U.S. Lives    9/9/2009 3:24:45 PM
This report from Jonathon Landay (McClatchy reporter) describes an ambush in which 4 marines and 9 Afghan soldiers were killed, and in which repeated calls for artillery and air support were refused. Not only did they refuse supporting fores for buildings, but also for the trees surrounding the village. 
 

 

GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.

Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this

 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Reports like this really bother me!!!!!   9/12/2009 12:47:41 AM









This report from Jonathon Landay (McClatchy reporter) describes an ambush in which 4 marines and 9 Afghan soldiers were killed, and in which repeated calls for artillery and air support were refused. Not only did they refuse supporting fores for buildings, but also for the trees surrounding the village. 


 


 


GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless
gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides
and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their
ammunition.


"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's
leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to
capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.


Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind
stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an
hour for U.S.
helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five
minutes away.


U.S.
commanders, citing new rules to avoid civili

 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    I've got skin in this game   9/17/2009 8:06:30 PM
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    I've got skin in this game   9/17/2009 8:19:34 PM
Twenty-odd years ago I watched with alarm as fellow Marines were committed to peace keeping action in Lebanon. I knew that they were being sent into a shooting gallery where anyone who wanted some face time in the news could get it by killing a few Marines.  I heard that squads sent out on patrol were being threatened with prison if they couldn't fully justify returning fire. My fears were paid off in spades as the battalion headquarters was wiped out.
 
Now, twenty years on , my son is with 4th Infantry, 4th ID in Afghanistan. He complains about the rules of engagement every time he calls. We've removed any penalty for attacking Americans. Our soldiers, sailors and marines are, effectively speaking, hostages.Here we go again.
 
This is deeply, outrageously wrong. 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/18/2009 12:59:50 AM
Actually the hijacked tankers were being used as wedding limos by the local Taliban, which got stuck in the Kunduz riverbed before activating a rapid taskforce to loot gasoline (which would also serve to lighten the truck) for the upcoming kegger party at 2:30 in the morning. 
Unfortunately the wedding cake was lit up preemptively.
 

*cough*
 
Please join the petition by Feedback Comment to SP to have BlueWings banned from this site for consecutive years of aggrevated trolling (flames, unsubstantiated comments and outright falsities).
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy