Only 45 American soldiers and 25 Afghans had occupied the Wanat outpost for a few days before the attack. Far outnumbered by militants, the force was nearly overrun and fought a four-hour battle before the Taliban were repelled. In addition to the nine American deaths, 15 American soldiers were wounded. Four Afghan soldiers were wounded. ...
In Kabul, Capt. Mike Finney, a spokesman for the NATO force, said that “the citizens in Wanat and northern Kunar Province can be assured” that NATO and Afghan troops would continue to patrol the district and maintain “a strong presence in the area.”
U.S. Abandons Site of Afghan Attack
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan — American forces have abandoned the outpost in northeastern Afghanistan where nine American soldiers were killed Sunday in a heavy attack by insurgents, NATO officials said Wednesday.
The withdrawal handed a propaganda victory to the Taliban, and insurgents were quick to move into the village of Wanat beside the abandoned outpost, Afghan officials said. Insurgents nearly overran the barely built outpost in a dawn raid on Sunday, the most deadly assault for United States forces in Afghanistan since 2005.
Those forces have fought some of their most difficult battles in Kunar and Nuristan Provinces, with their thickly forested mountainsides and steep ravines. Guerrillas mount ambushes and rocket attacks from the mountains and then easily escape.
Local people have been angered by civilian casualties caused by American airstrikes aimed at militants, and some now may be cooperating with the militants, Afghan officials said.
Rahmatullah Rashidi, the leader of the provincial council of Nuristan, said some insurgents occupied Wanat on Tuesday immediately after American and Afghan troops had withdrawn. “They were up in the forest not far away,” he said. But on Wednesday, he added, a council of village elders persuaded the Taliban to leave, saying they feared that the Taliban’s presence would draw more fighting.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Just to be Clear
When John McCain says he knows how to win wars, which wars would he be talking about? Does he mean that in the same way I would mean it having studied Hannibal's march across the Alps and down the back of the boot? Or does he mean it in the "I've learned from my dysfunctional past" sense where recurring Boom Bashes in Vietnam, Iran, Somalia and Iraq have taught him what NOT to do. OR does he mean it in the sense of, "I know how to kick ass in small countries who don't have armies like Panama and Grenada."
It seems to me like all of this stuff is simply a way to get paid. There simply is not enough dying going on to merit any of this being called "war." It's more like a kerfuffle.
"King and chief probably had a big beef;
'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.
Do Those Colors Run Now?
Just askin'.
"King and chief probably had a big beef;
'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.
McCain doesn't know how to
McCain doesn't know how to win wars. He knows how to have more and more people killed. And get shot down - sorry, couldn't help.
He is winning at war
If winning means making the military industrial complex richer then he's very successful,
If the war is against poverty he and his Republican pals are winning for the prison industrial complex
If the war is against truth and justice he winning for the devil
etc etc etc...
This whole thing is stupid.
People (starting with candidates) need to either understand or acknowledge that the titular leader is just a part of a huge, complex group. Wars aren't won by the leader. The USSR can justly claim to have "won" WWII, and Stalin was absolute dictator, but the Soviet victory didn't materialize because The Supreme "knew how to win wars." France didn't beat Prussia, Austria, and Spain because "Napoleon Bonaparte knew how to win wars." I'm not saying Clausewitz is the be-all and end-all of strategic thinking, but if you haven't even read the Cliff Notes version of On War, well, you really have no business setting yourself up as Alexander the Great 2.0.
I'm not going to speculate on how responsible Sen. Obama is for this, but I think a lot of the hostile commentary on him reflects a view that Barack Obama is, indeed, identical with the Obama campaign or the DNC. Obama is now, so to speak, like a newly hired CEO of a gigantic and really dysfunctional corporation. There are huge swathes of the beast his influence will never touch. The collective hive mind of the organization is tasked with "having opinions" on so many subjects that he requires a huge staff of people to tell him stuff like, "If you do x, you're totally going to lose this crucial demographic." So boom, he's got a laundry list of arrant nonsense he's got to peddle, whether he believes it or not.
The first book he wrote, in 1994 (IIRC) was really good; the second, The Audacity of Hope, was obviously vetted by a lot of political experts who cleansed it of anything sincere or meaningful. I do think he's a great man, and he could be an outstanding president, but he's PART OF A VERY LARGE ORGANIZATION; when you cast your vote this 4 November, remember that it's for a huge apparatus that Obama serves.