MikeyD Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I'm not commenting on the strategic questions in the report, just mentioning the large amount of Marine combat video that was involved. Watching the report it felt like CM had made me into something of a 'mini-expert', I recognized all the equipment and the weapons from both sides, understood the small unit tactics and especially cringed at one bit of bravado displayed by a particular soldier during a rough engagement. The Marines were using exactly the same type armored MTVR seen in the Marine module. Being a PBS program, it'll no doubt be on eight different times at different hours during the month. Its something to check out, especially if you own the Marine module 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Thanks for the heads up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yep..great program You can also watch it online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Frontline is always a class act in terms of in factual depth reporting. I'll have to check this one out. Missed it last night. Thanks for the heads-up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ...especially cringed at one bit of bravado displayed by a particular soldier during a rough engagement. The guy who stood up and started yanking back with his M16? That seemed more like frustration to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Anyone have an idea what that big explosion was just before the marine stood up and started shooting? The soldiers on the ground didn't seem to know. The narrator said IED, my thought was someone had lobbed an artilley rocket round in their general direction. Something in the 107mm Type 63 class. I recall that same reporter for this program did a report where he travelled the length of Iraq by auto - alone - just after the fall of Baghdad in 03. Man, that took some brahma-bull-sized you-know-whats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Yeah, that was quite the hit. My guess is an RPG, simply based on the range of the enemy and the odds of that they would have an RPG more than other weapons. They got damned lucky. Even the flying dirt/rocks didn't appear to injure anybody. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Just watched it online and that was a very informative report. Again thanks for the heads up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Was able to watch it today myself. Does anyone think we can actually win this? I thought the comments made by the Afghani Intelligence Official to be rather interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waycool Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Thanks for the heads-up I enjoyed it as well. Agree Frankster the Afghani intel officer was interesting. A large part of the problem appears to be the Pakistani involvement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It's hard for Westerners to understand the middle east attitude. I still have a hard time understanding it, and this is my 2nd time deployed. Their idea of accomplishing something is putting 20% effort into it and hoping for the 80% to magically happen. Insh-allah! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 To do the other 80% would be to interfere in God's will on earth, and that can't be good. If it's meant to be, it will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Kinda like lottery tickets The difference is when I play the lottery I don't expect to win. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 A parallel: God help anyone who tries to occupy the American southern bible belt! :eek: I was playing the game tonight, and after watching the report it was rather spooky. Same marine patrol, Same dirt road, same low mound they're lying behind with incoming fire, then BOOM I get an explosion out of nowhere that rattles my men! The game was a bit too close to the real thing playing it that time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERISS Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It's hard for Westerners to understand the middle east attitude.! USA has hugely helped the Talibans, instead of Massoud, against the USSR (Europa also nor did help Massoud). Then USA, without evidence, invade Afghanistan (why United Nations followed the US???). Why an afghan would like the talibans the US has put to power, why an afghan would like the US invading them after that? This war is not the afghan people one, they will let talibans and americans die (and helping them die if they don't go away). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 LT Mike is right on the money. Sometimes westerners just cant find logic in situations the Afghanis find normal. You will also notice that the Marines are far more emotional than any Afghani you saw in that video. VERY HARD to read them I tell ya. ERISS, your last sentence is just completely general, misinformed, and just out and out hooey. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Then USA, without evidence, invade Afghanistan (why United Nations followed the US???). Now I believe the Iraq War with it's non-existant weapons of mass destruction was a war based on little evidence, but few nations have gone to war with better cause than the US in Afghanistan. I thank those nations that have contributed in assisting us there. Are you sure you don't have your wars mixed up there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 A parallel: God help anyone who tries to occupy the American southern bible belt! :eek: . Sherman did okay. (Sorry, that was trolling ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERISS Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 few nations have gone to war with better cause than the US in Afghanistan. Are you sure you don't have your wars mixed up there? Are you sure Ben Laden is legaly wanted for blowing up towers in 2001? He is not, he was not legaly wanted when United Nations agreed the war. Afghanistan is the same fake cause as Irak. If USA (and U.N.!) don't care about the laws, killing without evidence, why would USA craft a democracy in Afghanistan?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Can we win this? For a great read about the same attempts by Russia and Britain during the 19th century read "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk. It's eerily the same story then and now. Kick ass book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Osama himself eventually admitted to the 9/11 attacks, which were a quite valid casus belli. So how was this a fake war? Even I knew on September 11 that Afghanistan was in for it, you'd have to be completely ignorant of the situation not to link AQ with the attacks. Weither OBL was a wanted peson is irrelevant, as this was a war against AQ and the Taliban who actively sheltered and supported them. Whether there was an arrest warrant on OBL is irrelevant in this context. And I doubt he wasn't officially on the wanted list anyway. But in the end a nation ALWAYS has the right to defend itself against foreign aggression. The UN agreed this was a just war, NATO did too. What else would you require of a nation before it can take action against foreign aggression? Really, what is your beef? Because your views are not supported by fact in any way, shape or form. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 As for if we can win this? No, we can't win in Afghanistan. But the Pakistan Taliban is rapidly losing support inside Pakistan, both popular as government support (ISI, predominately) so while we might not win it, the Taliban are set to lose it. Because if they lose Pakistan, it's all over for them. They'll no longer be a movement, but a terror group. And when that happens, that's it for the Afghani Taliban too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The US doesn't require a "legal case" for military action in Afghanistan against OBL, Al Qaeda and the Taliban any more than a "legal case" was required for the US to take military action against Japan after Pearl Harbor. No nation needs to make a legal case to the UN (or any other international body, for that matter) to use military force in self-defense. Now, even where unilateral use of force is justified, sometimes it makes sense to jump through some diplomatic hoops to get more folks to help you out with your cause, but this is not a requirement, just smart diplomacy. This is not to say I think it's necessarily in the US best interest to continue to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan indefinitely, or that our current efforts at nation-building in Afghanistan are likely to succeed without substantial changes to the way we're doing things. But this is another debate entirely. As long as the Taliban continue to aid and abet Al Qaeda and OBL, the casus belli is certainly there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 There seems to be a psychological difference between use of the words "winning" and "succeeding". The term 'win' always worried me. Its too much of a sports metaphor, it implies a pointless passtime done for glory. To succeed at something implies that there is a rational objective to be achieved. The concepts are so different its possible we could win in Afghanistan without succeeding, and succeed without winning. In Vietnam the NVA lost every battle but still succeeded, we didn't win the war but did largely blunt that feared 'domino theory' wave of revolutionary communist governments spreading across the Pacific. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The group of men that young Marine was talking to can anonymously support the Taliban and possibly - but probably not - get arrested. Or, they can openly support the Americans and be executed, or beaten, or lose business for it. Seeing as neither side appears to be providing anything substantial that makes the choice more difficult - what do you think those men are going to choose? "What can we do?" is precisely the question that the Taliban has an answer for - they can empower those who wish to be empowered. The American troops can *try* to protect them with patrols every couple days. The only card we hold is the firepower card, and that's never proven helpful in any way but preventing American casualties - important, but it doesn't advance the overall war. Also, did anyone think it was an incredibly poor idea to fly all of those officials around to remote villages? "Here, spend a day with these corrupt officials whose power you routinely circumvent because they're useless. You'll come to respect them, because we have all the 'big players' flying around talking to chiefs instead of, you know, doing their jobs." All that said, I think the Marines in Helmand are making an important step. I just hope the people above them start having some better ideas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.