US leaders acknowledge 'tough' going in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush on Wednesday acknowledged "a tough month" for NATO and US-led forces in Afghanistan but insisted the war-fighting strategy there is working, despite increasing violence.
"It has been a tough month in Afghanistan, but it's also been a tough month for the Taliban," he said, after the coalition in June suffered its deadliest month since the 2001 ouster of the Islamist militia.
Forty-nine soldiers from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the separate US-led coalition died in combat, attacks or accidents in June, according to an AFP tally based on military statements.
June accounted for more than 40 percent of the 122 deaths of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan during 2008, according to the independent website Icasualties.org.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, confessed meanwhile to being "deeply troubled" by recent military challenges in Afghanistan, as Taliban troops ramp up their attacks on Western targets.
"I am and have been for some time now, deeply troubled by the increasing violence there," Mullen said.
"The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks, and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate," he said.
Bush nevertheless remained upbeat.
"I'm confident that the strategy is going to work," Bush said, sidestepping a question on whether he would send more US troops to Afghanistan by saying that he is constantly reviewing the needs on the ground.
"One reason why there have been more deaths is because our troops are taking the fight to a tough enemy" deeply at odds with the United States, he said. "Of course there's going to be resistance."
"We're constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We're halfway through 2008. As I said, we're going to increase troops by 2009," said the US leader.
"We're constantly reassessing and seeing whether or not, you know, we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective," he said.
Violence has increased in southern and eastern Afghanistan which has borne the brunt of the Taliban-led insurgency since the hardline regime was toppled in a US-led invasion in late 2001.
Mullen said he hoped to be able to deploy more troops to Afghanistan "just as soon as I can," but said "those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so."
He added: "I'm hopeful toward the end of the year, opportunities like that would be created."
Official figures showed that US and coalition casualty levels in Afghanistan exceeded those in Iraq for the second month in a row.
Most of the 49 were killed by roadside bombs hitting their convoys or patrols.
By contrast, 31 soldiers including 29 Americans were killed in Iraq in June despite the fact that there are more than twice as many troops there as in Afghanistan, Icasualties figures showed.
International casualties in Afghanistan also outstripped those in Iraq in May, 23 compared to 21.
Meanwhile, insurgent forces managed to shoot down with small arms fire a helicopter from the US-led coalition in Afghanistan near Kabul, but US officials said there were no deaths or serious injuries.
LINK
heh, during the Soviet occupation, the resistance fighters would bring down Russion choppers flying though valleys with rocks. Yes rocks.
Just start lobbing 5 to 10 pound rocks at any given rotor blade of a helicopter in flight to see what I mean.
Gawd the thing I read that in was pre-internet, Time magazine, so don't ask for a link of the top of my head on that.
That's spin. No mention of how the taliban is gaining strength in Peshwar region of Pakistan and are using that territory as a base to launch suicide attacks. We can't defeat the Taliban if they have sanctuary in Pakistan.
How is that spin? As NATO forces are starting to actively hunt and fight with the Taliban it stands to reason that there are going to be more casualities.
And I believe that your last sentence is spot on.
It distracts from the main problem which is Pakistan IMO.
dubya's going to surge in Afghanistan, but the military brass say Iraq, remember Iraq?, has soaked up all the resources.
The wars are un-winnable, but who cares? As long as the MIC is pocketing $Bs, keep the wars running, start the oil pumps pumping.
"U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars"
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41893
"U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...ondeploy_N.htm
It's REALLY REALLY time that the red-state kids join McSenile's son and help dubya with his bull wars. Where are all the red-state Super Patriots? Not the poseurs on this forum, who are all TALK and NO WALK.
Last edited by boutons_; 07-03-2008 at 10:41 AM.
Excuse me for wanting a little more than "it's gonna work, trust us.""I'm confident that the strategy is going to work," Bush said.
"We're constantly reassessing and seeing whether or not, you know, we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective," he said.
"I'm confident that the strategy is going to work,"
and a huge majority of Ameirca, and the world, knows you're lying, and have been wrong on EVERY count for 7 years.
"Yep, nothing in Iraq has worked..."
50% unemployment, health care a disaster, 100s of 1000s of Iraqis killed, looking ahead to decades of $200B/year oppressive occupation of Iraq by US, ACTIVELY and democratically rejected by Iraqis.
So if Iraq is "won", why can't dubya perform Iraqus Interruptus?
.. because Iraq isn't won, at all, and dubya needs the US military to protect the US/UK oilcos rip-off of the Iraqi oil.
Boutons,
In you opinion should we have invaded Afghanistan?
Yes, going after the Taleban for harboring AQ and AQ was fully justified, as was invading Iraq fully unjustified.
But as in every occupation, the locals, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in THEIR country, are extremely motivated to repel the invaders/occupiers, and will outlast and outlive the occupying forces (see: American Revolution vs King of England, etc, etc, etc).
iow, the natives will NOT BE APPEASED.
So what's the problem with Afghanistan? How do we win that war or do we just leave? Right now as I see it, Pakistan is complicit in the reemergence of the Taliban. How do we solve that problem?
"A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan
Iraq War Limits U.S. Options, Says Chairman of Joint Chiefs"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
========
The problem with Aghanistan is strategic. The attack in response to 9/11 was justified, but there was no post-attack/exit strategy (although building pipelines from central Asian oil basins across Afghanistan is very attractive).
The locals will simply outlast the unwelcome invaders. The best offense is good defense, iow, defend the homeland rather than go on offense into other countries,and above all, avoid open-ended occupation in hostile countries.
what's your solution?
there is no solution, only smaller problems.
Pulling out of Iraq is a start, with surveillance from other US-occupied Gulf states.
Last edited by boutons_; 07-03-2008 at 04:17 PM.
The invaders/occupiers can't win't, no exit strategy, can't leave, are trapped in a hole, the troops are beyond exhausted.
"It's a very complex problem, and it's tied to the drug trade, a faltering economy and, as I've said many times, the porous border region with Pakistan. There's no easy solution, and there will be no quick fix."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines
we need the rest of the worlds help with manpower. Then we need a way to say it's not our fault, so Bush needs to volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb. At that point we can pull out of IRAQ and replace our troops with NATO troops. Of course NATO will allow a genocidal atrocity, so I'm torn. Then we need to focus and kill off the Taliban and secure our borders.
I sure am glad we didn't have many like you in 1775/1776!
"1775/1776!"
... Colonial "terrorists" and "irregulars" kicking out the King who was sucking out taxes and resources, very much the way dubya is sucking oil out of Iraq.
We need a way to say it's not our fault?
Not America's fault, yes. We went in there thinking IRAQ was an emminent threat and they were not. result has been a divided country that if the US leaves will be another killing field. Right now the rest of the world thinks it's our fault and believes it's our responsibility to clean it up. An apology and a plea to the rest of the world for help makes sense to me.
An apology and a plea to the rest of the world for help?
Who thinks like this?
I do,. The apology doesnkt have to be sincere.
Actually, we made a charade in the UN (Colin Powell et all), where all these countries basically called our bluff. And instead of listening, we went there anyways.
So it's too late to say it was not America's fault.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
