Thread: 10 US soldiers killed in attack on Afghan base

Feck me, there has been no peace in Afghanistan since the beginning of time. Even Alexander the Great couldn't bring peace to that country.

KABUL, July 13: A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote US base killed 10 American soldiers and wounded 15 on Sunday in the deadliest attack on US forces in Afghanistan in three years.

Linky 10 US soldiers killed in attack on Afghan base: Suicide attack, clashes leave 64 dead -DAWN - Top Stories; July 14, 2008

So what do you see in near future?

That's a lot of deaths for one day but not much compared to the losses on the other side. Some real war going on over there at times but compared to Vietnam I would guess this is nothing.

Originally Posted by machangezi

So what do you see in near future?

Near and long-term future? I can't give much as I don't now much, but I saw several areas and regions run by local leaders and warlords. As you say, Macha, Alexander the Great had problems. So, did the British. Many fiefdoms, perhaps.

It is a sad story. But did they have a valid visa???

The story is the Islamic volunteers are headed to Afghanistan now that things are turning around in Iraq. Next troops normally rotated into Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan instead. Eventually, NATO will succeed in Afghanistan.

There have been 3 Anglo-Afghan Wars. Britain was defeated in the first but prevailed in the second two and dictated the terms of the the subsequent agreements. They didn't leave troops in place though.

Afghanistan has been neglected. American talent and resources has been tied up resolving the Iraq issue. Iraq is turning around. The Eye of Sauron will soon be turning onto Afghanistan. With more troops providing security air strikes may not be as necessary. If the population feels secure they will provide more support and intelligence for NATO. Things will turn around.

Bribes, switching sides, mercenary work these are all customary in the region so things should turn in our favor once the talent and resources are devoted to resolving the problems.

We have to get Pakistan on board. They have been using the Taliban to destabilze Afghansitan for years. Fighting and killing is part of diplomacy in the region I think. If one country is not fking with the other than the other is fking with the one. Musharraf must go. He did not produce enough. But then again we weren't devoting the time and talent necessary to the mission so I can't blame him fully.


We got to keep the pressure on. Place large bounties on the heads of the Taliban leaders. There is no negotiating with some of them. The negotiation is to turn their leaders over for prosecution by the Afghan government and some of them we will take, give a trial and hang. Eventually they will turn people over to NATO. Treachery is a customary form of ascension in the tribes of the region.


The populace isn't participating because we haven't clearly shown we are capable of providing security while killing lots of Taliban. All that will turn around when more troops, resources and brains are devoted to Afghanistan. Provide security for the civilians so they are confident it is beneficial to assist NATO.

The best the USA can hope for is to pay off a few Afghan warlords and maintain an understated presence, taking out Al Qaeda with smart bombs, special ops and drone planes when they're spotted. Afghanistan bled the British and Russians dry and was instrumental in the downfall of those two empires. Similarly, any American attempt to win a prolonged military conflict there will be disastrous for it's long-term health as a world power. America's leaders should recall this poem by Rudyard Kipling:

Now, it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles, and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.'