Frontline: Fighting for Bin Laden

[CitadelGrad]

A little of point, but since you mentioned Korea I'll put my 2 cents in. We could easily withdraw from Korea today. The real danger in Korea is that without an American military presence, South Korea is just as likely to invade North Korea as the NoKo's are to invade the South. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

[Skjellyfetti]

a) 92,000 was the first number that popped up when I did a search. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether it's 92,000 or 50,000. That's 50,000 too many.

The number will be down to 10,000 to 15,000 by the end of the year.

And, you don't need to tell me that 50,000 is too many in Iraq. We never should have been there in the first place. Retarded waste of a war (and a war that you supported our involvement in from the beginning).

b) You're missing the point entirely. They can give the APPEARANCE of taking over their own security, but unless WE maintain a substantial troop presence (like in Korea) they will implode almost immediately.

Petraeus and other high ranking guys in the military... that understand the situation MUCH better than either of us (even though we did watch the Frontline documentary ) believe we will be ready to transfer responsibility of security to the Afghans by 2014. I have no reason to disbelieve them. You seem to think that is more "pie-in-the-sky" crap. Mind sharing why they're wrong and you know better?

Are you willing to have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for 50 years? Because it's been 60 in Korea and we're not anywhere near a point where we could bring those fellas home.

No. When have I ever said that? I'm for continuing the drawdown of troops on the schedule agreed upon by NATO and the Afghanistan government. That won't leave us with troops in Afghanistan in 50 years. We'll be down to 15,000 in a matter of months in Iraq...

Because it's been 60 in Korea and we're not anywhere near a point where we could bring those fellas home.

I'd have no problem closing our bases and bringing our troops home from Korea. We don't need them there. Same with Germany. We never should have gotten involved in the Korean War in the first place.

[AZGrizFan]

KY, quit pretending you don't understand the argument. I only bring up Korea as a comparison of what Iraq and Afghanistan will look like (BEST CASE SCENARIO)...

We will have troops in Afghanistan (AND Iraq, understanding you never wanted to be there) 20 years from now......


OR



We will have NO troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and both governments will have collapsed and the countries will be in chaos.

Petraus is a politician, saying exactly what he thinks needs to be said.

[AZGrizFan]

A little of point, but since you mentioned Korea I'll put my 2 cents in. We could easily withdraw from Korea today. The real danger in Korea is that without an American military presence, South Korea is just as likely to invade North Korea as the NoKo's are to invade the South. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

So, 30,000 American troops are keeping South Koreans at bay from charging across the border?

[Skjellyfetti]

Petraus is a politician, saying exactly what he thinks needs to be said.

You do realize you're saying the damn same thing the dumbass ultraliberals said about Petraeus when he was saying we needed to commit more troops to Iraq. Turned out he was right and it worked.

We will have troops in Afghanistan (AND Iraq, understanding you never wanted to be there) 20 years from now......


OR



We will have NO troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and both governments will have collapsed and the countries will be in chaos.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I believe there is a third option. You are pretty adamant that it has to only these two. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing it.

[CitadelGrad]

A little of point, but since you mentioned Korea I'll put my 2 cents in. We could easily withdraw from Korea today. The real danger in Korea is that without an American military presence, South Korea is just as likely to invade North Korea as the NoKo's are to invade the South. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

So, 30,000 American troops are keeping South Koreans at bay from charging across the border?

Yep.

[AZGrizFan]

So, 30,000 American troops are keeping South Koreans at bay from charging across the border?

Yep.

Interesting...in my time there I NEVER got that impression...from anyone inside the US military command or the many ROK military personnel I dealt with.

[CitadelGrad]

Yep.

Interesting...in my time there I NEVER got that impression...from anyone inside the US military command or the many ROK military personnel I dealt with.

I was a nuclear target analyst and liaison to TROKA. Spent a lot of time in that underground bunker at Yong-in with the TROKA brass. I saw a lot of their offensive op plans. Most of them weren't contingent on an attack from the North.

A lot of the old-timers, both Korean and American remembered when Carter tried to withdraw US forces from Korea in '77. As soon as they started loading up on boats and planes, the ROKs started mobilization. When Carter realized what was happening, he canceled the withdrawal.

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting...in my time there I NEVER got that impression...from anyone inside the US military command or the many ROK military personnel I dealt with.

I was a nuclear target analyst and liaison to TROKA. Spent a lot of time in that underground bunker at Yong-in with the TROKA brass. I saw a lot of their offensive op plans. Most of them weren't contingent on an attack from the North.

A lot of the old-timers, both Korean and American remembered when Carter tried to withdraw US forces from Korea in '77. As soon as they started loading up on boats and planes, the ROKs started mobilization. When Carter realized what was happening, he canceled the withdrawal.

Interesting.

[CID1990]

Petraus is a politician, saying exactly what he thinks needs to be said.

You do realize you're saying the damn same thing the dumbass ultraliberals said about Petraeus when he was saying we needed to commit more troops to Iraq. Turned out he was right and it worked.

We will have troops in Afghanistan (AND Iraq, understanding you never wanted to be there) 20 years from now......


OR



We will have NO troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and both governments will have collapsed and the countries will be in chaos.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I believe there is a third option. You are pretty adamant that it has to only these two. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing it.

Point of order....

NOW they are dumbass ULTRAliberals?

Nice try, SK. Unless you consider Hillary and the entire brigade of MoveOn.org "ULTRA"liberals.

They were quite mainstream, Sweetheart.

You are as bad as the Japanese at revising history. Next week you'll be telling us you and the President actually approved of Gitmo.

[Skjellyfetti]

yes. i consider the moveon.org folks to be ultraliberals. s

i don't remember hillary criticizing petraeus for his views. could be though. i'll take your word for it.

point remains that AZ sounds exactly like them when he says that Petraeus isn't testifying his professional opinion... but, just parroting what the President wants him to say.

[AZGrizFan]

Petraus is a politician, saying exactly what he thinks needs to be said.

You do realize you're saying the damn same thing the dumbass ultraliberals said about Petraeus when he was saying we needed to commit more troops to Iraq. Turned out he was right and it worked.

We will have troops in Afghanistan (AND Iraq, understanding you never wanted to be there) 20 years from now......
OR

We will have NO troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and both governments will have collapsed and the countries will be in chaos.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I believe there is a third option. You are pretty adamant that it has to only these two. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing it.

Listen. In BOTH cases, I believe a troop surge will ACCELERATE the facade of a "stable" government (like in Iraq), but it won't change the fact that when we leave (moreso Afghanistan than Iraq) it will fall apart like a fucking house of cards. As soon as we're gone and not there to "referee", those backaswards tribal motherfuckers will be at each others throats like flies on a junebug. But by that time Petraus won't care because he's already got his next gig lined up at the CIA for toeing the company line on this one....

[CID1990]

yes. i consider the moveon.org folks to be ultraliberals. s

i don't remember hillary criticizing petraeus for his views. could be though. i'll take your word for it.

point remains that AZ sounds exactly like them when he says that Petraeus isn't testifying his professional opinion... but, just parroting what the President wants him to say.

You are absolutely full of sh!t, SK.

You are telling me that you do not remember her "suspension of disbelief" comment during Petraeus' testimony?

What rock were you under? She was surrounded by other "ULTRAliberal" bobbleheads at the time.

You're damn straight you'll take my word for it. In terms of real world experience you can't carry my jock.

[YoUDeeMan]

Like we left the South Vietnamese government capable of defending itself? Ultimately that situation was determined by the Vietnamese people. I believe that this situation will be as well.

Not sure what you're saying. That abandoning South Vietnam was the right thing to do... so we should do it to the Afghans (again)? That because we abandoned the South Vietnamese it's ok to do it this time?

The way we exited from Vietnam was one of the biggest failures of the war... it's still a black stain on American foreign policy. I see that as a reason NOT to do the same to the Afghans.

We propped up one of the most corrupt governments in the world in Vietnam...and you say we left too early?

You want to kill more soldiers because you believe American politicians? You are a typical mindless POS. The Taliban don't give a rat's ass about the US...they aren't our enemy. And the people in control of the corrupt Afghan goverment certainly aren't our friends...they aren't even their people's friends.

As soon as we leave Afghanistan, the infighting will start again. And Pakistan and Iran will exercise their own foreign policy over Afghanistan; a policy that will not be in Afghanistan's best interest.

[death dealer]

There is nothing we can do to make the Afghan govt. capable of standing up to the Taliban. No matter how much money we spend and how many lives we waste, the Afghan govt. will fold like a house of cards within six months of the Taliban or anyone else deciding they want it to. They are doomed and we are wasting out time.

[Skjellyfetti]

You want to kill more soldiers because you believe American politicians? You are a typical mindless POS.

No. Generals. G-E-N-E-R-A-L-S.

[CID1990]

There is nothing we can do to make the Afghan govt. capable of standing up to the Taliban. No matter how much money we spend and how many lives we waste, the Afghan govt. will fold like a house of cards within six months of the Taliban or anyone else deciding they want it to. They are doomed and we are wasting out time.

I think this is correct. That's why I don't care much for nation building. Not in our interest. Go in, do what we need to do to deter future hostile regimes, and get out. The chaos that would ensue because we DIDN'T stick around to try to make nice can bee added to the list of disincentives to fvcking with us.

[houndawg]

A little of point, but since you mentioned Korea I'll put my 2 cents in. We could easily withdraw from Korea today. The real danger in Korea is that without an American military presence, South Korea is just as likely to invade North Korea as the NoKo's are to invade the South. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

So, 30,000 American troops are keeping South Koreans at bay from charging across the border?

They would rather play offense and take Seoul out of artillery range?

[YoUDeeMan]

You want to kill more soldiers because you believe American politicians? You are a typical mindless POS.

No. Generals. G-E-N-E-R-A-L-S.

How'd that work with Maxwell Taylor and Westmoreland?

Face it jellybean, generals are a tool for the President. Generals will not change thousands of years of chaos in Afghanistan by 2014. All they will do is carry out Obama's silly policy for HIS war and that will result in getting more of our people killed for nothing.

[Skjellyfetti]

Another great episode on the same subject this week:

Behind the strike that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1st was one of the U.S. military's best kept secrets: an extraordinary campaign by elite U.S. soldiers to take out thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. A six-month investigation by FRONTLINE has gone inside the "kill/capture" program to discover new evidence of the program's impact -- and its costs.
Gen. David Petraeus, since he took command of troops last year, has ordered a major expansion of these "manhunt" missions that rely on highly classified intelligence, cutting-edge technology and Special Operations forces.
In Kill/Capture, FRONTLINE producers Dan Edge (The Wounded Platoon) and Stephen Grey (Extraordinary Rendition) explore the logic behind the kill/capture policy, and ask if this unremitting pursuit of the enemy will help end the war in Afghanistan. "If you are trying to take down an industrial-strength insurgency, you take away its safe havens, you take away its leaders, by detaining them or in some cases killing them," Gen. Petraeus tells FRONTLINE of his decision to step up kill/capture missions after he took command in Afghanistan last summer. The military say these operations have led to the death or detention of more than 12,000 Taliban insurgents over the last 12 months.
Petraeus and his advisers argue that a ruthless, accurate and relentless campaign against enemy leaders will paralyze the insurgency and force them to the negotiating table. "The intent is to do so much damage to the network that it becomes more viable for the enemy to negotiate than to continue to fight," says David Kilcullen, an influential military advisor and counterinsurgency expert.
On the ground in Afghanistan's Baghlan province, U.S. raids have put the Taliban on the run. But FRONTLINE makes contact with a young Taliban commander who says that, after the targeted killings of two of his seniors, he was simply promoted up the ranks to take their place. Khalid Amin speaks to FRONTLINE at the grave of his dead predecessor: "These night raids cannot annihilate us," he says. "We want to die anyway. So those destined for martyrdom will die in the raids. And the rest will continue to fight without fear."
"We're killing a lot of midlevel commanders, but they get replaced by other midlevel commanders," claims Matthew Hoh, who resigned from the Foreign Service in 2009 because he felt that U.S. tactics were fuelling the insurgency.
FRONTLINE finds more evidence of the complexity of kill/capture raids as it joins soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division on an air assault targeting a suspected Taliban insurgent in the dangerous province of Khost. Owing to faulty intelligence, the soldiers end up raiding the home of a wealthy pro-government elder instead: "This is why people are so upset," the man tells the troops, as they lead him away in restraints. "So now I'll join the Taliban and fight against you!"
The military points to hundreds of Taliban fighters who have switched sides since the ramping up of the kill/capture campaign, and they concede that, in the short run, the campaign may lead to a rising level of Taliban violence: This is what happened with the surge in Iraq in the months before the tide turned, they say. But among a group of some 40 Taliban in Kunduz province who changed sides earlier this year, FRONTLINE tracks down a former Taliban commander named Abdul Aziz, who now says he's reluctant to take up arms against his former comrades on behalf of an Afghan government that has yet to pay him or his men.
"I joined the government side about a month ago," Abdul Aziz explains to a villager he meets while FRONTLINE's cameras were rolling. "But the Taliban are still my brothers. Look, we all hate the Americans. They are infidels, they are the enemies of our religion, they are the enemies of this nation."
As one part of a broader counterinsurgency campaign, the military says kill/capture raids win time and space to allow regular troops to seize territory from the Taliban. "By maintaining the initiative against the enemy, that enables the majority of the force to focus on securing the population," said Maj. Gen. John Nicholson, a senior U.S. commander.
In Ghazni province, FRONTLINE witnesses how, after more than 40 such raids by Special Operations forces, soldiers of the 101st Airborne have managed to secure the town of Miri from the Taliban, and re-opened the school and market. The biggest challenge ahead, though: to transfer power to the Afghan government and allow U.S. soldiers to start coming home. "Honestly, I think if we left I think the Taliban would take it over again," warns Sgt. Gavin Erickson.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

On the ground in Afghanistan's Baghlan province, U.S. raids have put the Taliban on the run. But FRONTLINE makes contact with a young Taliban commander who says that, after the targeted killings of two of his seniors, he was simply promoted up the ranks to take their place. Khalid Amin speaks to FRONTLINE at the grave of his dead predecessor: "These night raids cannot annihilate us," he says. "We want to die anyway. So those destined for martyrdom will die in the raids. And the rest will continue to fight without fear.""We're killing a lot of midlevel commanders, but they get replaced by other midlevel commanders," claims Matthew Hoh, who resigned from the Foreign Service in 2009 because he felt that U.S. tactics were fuelling the insurgency.
FRONTLINE finds more evidence of the complexity of kill/capture raids as it joins soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division on an air assault targeting a suspected Taliban insurgent in the dangerous province of Khost. Owing to faulty intelligence, the soldiers end up raiding the home of a wealthy pro-government elder instead: "This is why people are so upset," the man tells the troops, as they lead him away in restraints. "So now I'll join the Taliban and fight against you!"
The military points to hundreds of Taliban fighters who have switched sides since the ramping up of the kill/capture campaign, and they concede that, in the short run, the campaign may lead to a rising level of Taliban violence: This is what happened with the surge in Iraq in the months before the tide turned, they say. But among a group of some 40 Taliban in Kunduz province who changed sides earlier this year, FRONTLINE tracks down a former Taliban commander named Abdul Aziz, who now says he's reluctant to take up arms against his former comrades on behalf of an Afghan government that has yet to pay him or his men."I joined the government side about a month ago," Abdul Aziz explains to a villager he meets while FRONTLINE's cameras were rolling. "But the Taliban are still my brothers. Look, we all hate the Americans. They are infidels, they are the enemies of our religion, they are the enemies of this nation."As one part of a broader counterinsurgency campaign, the military says kill/capture raids win time and space to allow regular troops to seize territory from the Taliban. "By maintaining the initiative against the enemy, that enables the majority of the force to focus on securing the population," said Maj. Gen. John Nicholson, a senior U.S. commander.
In Ghazni province, FRONTLINE witnesses how, after more than 40 such raids by Special Operations forces, soldiers of the 101st Airborne have managed to secure the town of Miri from the Taliban, and re-opened the school and market. The biggest challenge ahead, though: to transfer power to the Afghan government and allow U.S. soldiers to start coming home. "Honestly, I think if we left I think the Taliban would take it over again," warns Sgt. Gavin Erickson.

KY, there's not a single thing here that supports your argument. Thanks for posting it.

[houndawg]

bin Laden is dead. Time to go home.

[AshevilleApp]

bin Laden is dead. Time to go home.

Yes.

[YoUDeeMan]

You have to wonder about kyjelly sometimes...does he really read the article he, or anyone, posts?

Westmoreland and Taylor = G-E-N-E-R-A-L-S. Petraeus - G-E-N-E-R-A-L.

A G-E-N-E-R-A-L can't do squat about fixing a situation that doesn't have a military solution. Petraeus can do little except have our lower class people kill their lower class people. Yippee.

When we leave, after Obama and ky sacrifice more of our soldiers, Affy will go back to being the shithole it was before we got there. Yet somehow, ky and Obama will trumpet victory.

Congrats, ky. Can you explain why you love killing your neighbors while you sit home and type up your support for this war?

[BDKJMU]

A very, very good watch. Long, but well worth it.

That being said, it's fairly obvious that:

a) Pakistan (or elements of their military) knew Bin Laden was there and did nothing about it
b) Bin laden's death isn't going to dissuade the vast majority of Taliban or Al Quada to lay down their arms and negotiate (thus my "pie-in-the-sky" comments on your earlier thread)
c) teaching children to fight means we could be there for 100 years (to use McCain's words)
d) Pakistan (or elements within Pakistan) is openly helping the Taliban and Al Quada
e) If we aren't willing to invade Pakistan (which I'm not), we're completely wasting our time/energy/bodies
f) There is no redeeming quality to Afghanistan; tribal rule, martial sharia law, the whole place is pretty much ****.
g) No matter HOW we leave Afghanistan, it'll be compared to Viet Nam....tactical victory over tactical victory, but in the end we leave without any real goal accomplished.
h) We're wasting Americans every day in that shithole. I'd be fine with getting them ALL out and just using drones/tactical nukes to accomplish whatever "objectives" we've got left.

I agree with pretty much everything you said AZ but there is one problem:
-We leave, fast forward a few years, current govt falls, Taliban takes over, becomes a haven again for Al Qaeda, new terrorist training camps, more terrorist attacks against WEST and U.S. are planned and carried out. Basically are right back to 2001.

You and I are and lots of others are going to be like, "Ok, lets nuke those motherf*ckers!" While we may both agree that we SHOULD respond with tactical nukes, you and I both know that there is about ZERO chance any future POTUS is going to be the 1st to use nukes against another country since 1945 short of a nukes being used on US soil. Tactical nukes ISN'T going to be a realistic option.

So now what does the US do?