Comments on: TALIBAN FLEES BASES IN PAKISTAN IN ADVANCE OF US STRIKES http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/14/taliban-flees-bases-in-pakistan-in-advance-of-us-strikes/ Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto. Fri, 01 May 2026 04:18:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: tHePeOPle http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/14/taliban-flees-bases-in-pakistan-in-advance-of-us-strikes/comment-page-1/#comment-848770 tHePeOPle Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:00:55 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/14/taliban-flees-bases-in-pakistan-in-advance-of-us-strikes/#comment-848770 I'm sorry, Afghanistan? What are we doing there? I thought we took care of that problem a long time ago when we killed Osama bin... oh, right. Nevermind. I’m sorry, Afghanistan? What are we doing there? I thought we took care of that problem a long time ago when we killed Osama bin… oh, right. Nevermind.

]]> By: ajacksonian http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/14/taliban-flees-bases-in-pakistan-in-advance-of-us-strikes/comment-page-1/#comment-848468 ajacksonian Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:22:25 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/14/taliban-flees-bases-in-pakistan-in-advance-of-us-strikes/#comment-848468 The huge problem with Afghanistan is the need for <a href="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/02/mountain-warfare-and-what-it-takes.html" rel="nofollow">Mountain or Alpine</a> forces. Afghanis and Pakistanis both realize that sending lots of flatland ground forces into mountains is asking for high casualty rates of said flatlanders. NATO, unfortunately, because of the small force sizes in general have absolutely tiny Mountain/Alpine forces. Canada can send in a few thousand because they *train* for it. The US has been splitting the 10MD between Afghanistan and Iraq using Iraq as more restful place for them to practice their skills... yes, those 'light infantry' 10MD have been extremely effective in Iraq, and that is to hand some lighter duty to them! The reason these forces are so sparse is that they need to train at altitude for at least a full year and be specially equipped for it. Last winter the Canadians did something never done before in Afghanistan in living memory: went on a winter offensive against the Taliban. Worked, too, as the Taliban and al Qaeda have only tried to get their forces together in JUN-JUL... Afghanistan has sucked in nearly every Mountain/Alpine troop from NATO and the main problem has been in the ROE, not their effectiveness. The Danes and Norweigans, along with Canadians have done great work with training Afghan troops, but sparse population, difficult terrain and the need for experience is the reason things lag there. Do *not* ask for lots of flatland troops unless it is for guard duty, as they are not the sorts of troops to fight at altitude and climactic conditions of Afghanistan. Can we get off this jag on 'troop amounts' and get on one of 'combat effectiveness'? Do you notice the Nations that the Canadian General cites? ALL are committing Mountain forces to Afghanistan, often only a few hundred but they count at least 10:1 compared to flatlanders. That should be something we can arm-twist out of the Germans for their Gebirgsjäger, the French Chasseurs Alpins and Italian Alpini. Those are what we *need* in Afghanistan. And if these 'allies' will not cough up a few hundred Mountain soldiers, then they are not much in the way of Allies. Those amounts are truly minimal, yet they can't even do that? This is a 'reality check' for Allies. And its getting time to 'rebalance' who *is* and who *isn't* one these days. Look at those contributing in Afghanistan and Iraq... even the Japanese sent their military medical staff to help and are looking to change their damned constitution to send *real* combat forces overseas. Now THAT'S an ALLY. We are getting to see who really is a friend and ally of the US,now... time to rethink these 'strategic alliances' and start pulling close to help those who help us. That is getting to be a short, but very respectable list... The huge problem with Afghanistan is the need for Mountain or Alpine forces. Afghanis and Pakistanis both realize that sending lots of flatland ground forces into mountains is asking for high casualty rates of said flatlanders. NATO, unfortunately, because of the small force sizes in general have absolutely tiny Mountain/Alpine forces. Canada can send in a few thousand because they *train* for it. The US has been splitting the 10MD between Afghanistan and Iraq using Iraq as more restful place for them to practice their skills… yes, those ‘light infantry’ 10MD have been extremely effective in Iraq, and that is to hand some lighter duty to them! The reason these forces are so sparse is that they need to train at altitude for at least a full year and be specially equipped for it. Last winter the Canadians did something never done before in Afghanistan in living memory: went on a winter offensive against the Taliban. Worked, too, as the Taliban and al Qaeda have only tried to get their forces together in JUN-JUL…

Afghanistan has sucked in nearly every Mountain/Alpine troop from NATO and the main problem has been in the ROE, not their effectiveness. The Danes and Norweigans, along with Canadians have done great work with training Afghan troops, but sparse population, difficult terrain and the need for experience is the reason things lag there. Do *not* ask for lots of flatland troops unless it is for guard duty, as they are not the sorts of troops to fight at altitude and climactic conditions of Afghanistan. Can we get off this jag on ‘troop amounts’ and get on one of ‘combat effectiveness’? Do you notice the Nations that the Canadian General cites? ALL are committing Mountain forces to Afghanistan, often only a few hundred but they count at least 10:1 compared to flatlanders. That should be something we can arm-twist out of the Germans for their Gebirgsjäger, the French Chasseurs Alpins and Italian Alpini. Those are what we *need* in Afghanistan. And if these ‘allies’ will not cough up a few hundred Mountain soldiers, then they are not much in the way of Allies. Those amounts are truly minimal, yet they can’t even do that?

This is a ‘reality check’ for Allies. And its getting time to ‘rebalance’ who *is* and who *isn’t* one these days. Look at those contributing in Afghanistan and Iraq… even the Japanese sent their military medical staff to help and are looking to change their damned constitution to send *real* combat forces overseas. Now THAT’S an ALLY. We are getting to see who really is a friend and ally of the US,now… time to rethink these ’strategic alliances’ and start pulling close to help those who help us.

That is getting to be a short, but very respectable list…

]]>