That invincible US infantry

[Owen Byrne]

Bill says:

> Not sure I see the point in this article (a rational point at least :-)
>
I think the point is in the headline - Mr. Taylor is a Canadian military
analyst - and the message is to the Canadian government. The United States
cannot be trusted.

> Is it a statement that people in complex situations make mistakes?  Is it
a statement that
> inexperinced commanders make mistakes that more experienced commanders
wouldn't make?  I
> would answer 'well duh..' tell us something we don't already know.
>
As he said this operation is being presented as an "unqualified success."

> > Knowing it would be unable to keep such losses hidden, the Pentagon did
its
> > best to put a positive spin on the setback.
>
> And why would anyone expect otherwise?
>
And, at this point, why would anyone believe a word that comes out of Donald
Rumsfield's mouth?

>
> Yep. And you can bet the US military knows about this. It is a bad
situation. Does Scott
> have any useful recommendations?
>
Its from a Canadian perspective. Useful recommendations - ignore anything
the US says - especially anything like "you can bet the US military knows
about this." Clearly recent history shows that this is not the case and,
more importantly, they will do their best to cover up any problems they have
rather than dealing with them.
Ideally get out of a situation where Canadian soldiers are following US
orders.

> >
> > >From the outset, the Americans have not disclosed what, if any, exit
> > strategy they have for the current deployment in Afghanistan. The
post-Sept.
> > 11 manhunt for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network has somehow
evolved
> > into the stated objective of eliminating the last vestiges of the
Taliban.
> > The only reason the Taliban regime was originally targeted was due to
its
> > refusal to hand over bin Laden.
>
> Is that a fact? Scott must not be reading US media. I though the idea was
to take the
> Taliban out of power and keep them out of power. Somehow evolved??? In
Scott's mind. He
> should check his premise, it is faulty :-)
>

US media? Think back to last September. George presents a list of demands -
hand over bin Laden and close down the terrorist camps. No, don't worry
about anything resembling international law or trials - prostrate yourselves
before us. No, we're not willing to present any evidence, to the UN or
anywhere else. Oops, too late. Now we're going in to get him. ... Time
passes... daily updates on the search for bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Change
in policy - now we're attacking the Taliban (read we can't find bin Laden).
That the US media chooses not to question any hypocricy that the government
wishes to indulge in is the problem he's pointing out.

> >
> > By last November, northern and eastern alliance Afghan warlords had
already
> > crushed the Taliban's forces and forced the leaders into exile. For
months
> > now, not even U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has believed bin
Laden
> > remains anywhere near Afghanistan. Yet the fighting continues to
escalate.
>
> Escalate? If anything it has decreased. When a band of armed resistance is
found, it is
> taken out. How comlicated is this to understand really?  How old is Scott?
>
Again I think that's partly from a Canadian perspective. But in the news
recently:

A-10s formerly based in Pakistan now based at Bagram (They were brought in
because of attack helicopters suffering "serious damage" from small arms
fire, and the Warthogs have armor against that).
http://salon.com/news/wire/2002/03/25/bomber_jets/index.html

1600 British troops deployed to Afghanistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/25/ret.british.troops/index.html

Of course if you accept the party line that Operation Anaconda was an
unqualified success, then I can see where the belief that "if anything it
has decreased" has come from.

I love the reasonable argument "How old is Scott?" Just for reference, he's
41 (same as me). Old enough to have a military career and publish several
books on military history. Old enough to remember that the war in Vietnam
was also an unqualified success, and that the US presence would end "any day
now", right up to Tet (also an "unqualified US success"), which all those
poor misguided people back home somehow perceived as not matching with the
party line at the time.
Since then it seems clear that the US military perceives its greatest threat
is people back home actually knowing what's going on, and they spin every
detail to the point where they have absolutely no credibility. And just like
Vietnam, the truth, when it leaks out, is striking, because it contrasts so
greatly with the official line.

Owen