Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3428)	3/18/2002 7:38:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Comment on mopping up operations in Afghanistan by Sir Realist on the FADG thread - "I've grown too accustomed to how such 'mopping-up' ops occur with unerring predictability: 1) The enemy is thoroughly punished by our bombing sorties and hundreds die, even tunnelled where they used to find safety. 2) Afghan troops act principally as Sherpa guides into the Everests of the region. They deploy less sophisticated weaponry that provides for some containment. 3) The Afghan commanders permit breaches in the containment, perhaps for bribes, perhaps for tribal loyalties but also because, so long as some enemies remain to fight another day, the commanders still have a useful purpose. So self-perpetuation is part of it. 4) When it's clear the strategic efficiency of continued ops doesn't warrant the troop deployment further (too few targets), our troops withdraw. 5) The same two-faced Afghan commanders then spout off about how the US soldiers are useless in this kind of fight, and how their superior Afghan forces will complete the job (of permitting many to escape). That's not to say every US soldier is completely competent or every Afghan commander is corrupt. But generally speaking, that's the case and that's the way I see these battles playing out." Message 17204825