Afghan-U.S. patrol ambushed at school in 'Valley of Death'
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
23 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
“I don’t know,” the boy replied. But after a short silence other children in the classroom answered for him: “The Taliban.”
The unfortunate truth. And yet those on the right still chortle when you compare what's happening in the ME with Viet Nam (in either case, the chortlers dodged both to be armchair chickenhawks, but hey).
0
grafton
smithinjapan at 07:41 AM JST - 17th May
A very, very long time ago when I (we) was (were) in school I (we) avoided corporal punishment by giving the correct answer to the questions asked of us. Sometimes we got it wrong but we survived, where the Talliban are concerned maybe surviving isn’t so easy. Get it “right” or end up dead. Even little boys can work that one out.
0
Sarge
"Valley of Death"
They're going to have to change that name in the future. I mean, can you imagine a real estate agent trying to sell a home there...
"I have a very nice brick 2 bedroom house in your price range - it's in the Valley of Death area..."
0
timorborder
Sounds a bit hazardous to your health. Then again, dodging and running doesn't really send a good message to the locals either. What ever happened to the old infantry mantra of bringing the battle to the enemy. Hopefully this new commander for Afghanistan with a background in CRW, etc. will be able to help these troops regain the initiative.
0
Triumvere
smith,
Iraq was the new "Vietnam" a while a go... now it's Afghanistan? Perhaps people are "chortling" because the analogy betrays a poor grasp of both military history and the present situation. Not that isn't anything to criticize, but reflexively calling everything "Vietnam" (as some were calling Iraq even before the invasion) isn't a serious attempt at critcism. In particular, seeing everything through the lens of Vietnam is a vice of liberals (and conservatives) - especially over a certain age - who are still fighting the culture wars of the 60's.
0
timorborder
Pretty good post their Trium vere.
With regard to military operations, it is pretty easy for people who have never been in uniform to see any situation that is FUBAR as a revisiting of the mistakes of Vietnam. By its very definition, however, war (and combat operations) is little more than organized chaos. Moreover, it ain't Hollywood either. No matter how many times you do battle simulations and briefing regarding military operations before hand, everything usually goes out the window in the first thirty seconds after the shooting begins.
With regard to the situation in Afghanistan, I hope that the Allied forces get their act together and start to take the war to the Taliban scum. This of course will mean more deaths on all sides, however, it cannot be helped because negotiating with these folks is not an option.
0
moonbeams
Smith, I read this that the Taliban were already in the school (hence "ambush") so the students had to say Taliban. The boy who answered "I don't know" was stuck between honesty and an instinct for survival.
0
sharky1
Sarge, but if the valley of death is lake front property, it could be worth a fortune!
0
timorborder
Smith, I read this that the Taliban were already in the school (hence "ambush")
If this is the case, it does not say much for the quality of the US/Afghan patrol. A school in Afghanistan does not mean a multi-building campus with all the bells and whistles. Indeed, because the mission was to deliver "pens and books" it is probably rather safe to assume that the school was a rather modest (read small) structure. Now if the patrol was not able to find the Taliban inside such a small room, what hope is there for the future? Were the Taliban sneakily hiding behind the blackboard? Didn't the US/Afghan troops feel suspicious about "little" Akbar sitting in a front row desk hunched down over his Koran? You would think that the beard stretching down to the floor would have been a giveaway that little Akbar was not 7 years old. Even if this was not the case, why did the troops fail to notice Akbar's concealed RPG7 launcher. If the Taliban were already in the school, then something does not quite add up.
0
likeitis
Triumvere: Iraq was the new "Vietnam" a while a go... now it's Afghanistan?
Actually, it was Afghanistan first.
And yeah, it is actually possible for conflicts in two different countries to bear a striking resemblence to eachother at the same time.
But if you object to one or the other being compared to Vietnam, perhaps you could name the conflict it more resembles.
0
teleprompter
What an "Islamophobe."
Innocent, uneducated children instinctively prefer the Taliban?
0
Den Den
Sarge, right on. This is all media hype. Afghan people are very hospitable and the scenery is very stunning. Stupid crusaders giving such awful names creates an image in our minds that this is a hostile land populated by savages.
0
Triumvere
likeitis,
It resembles itself; while two wars may have similarites (superficial or otherwise), conflicts are unique and should be assessed as such. Comparing the current war in Afghanistan with the previous conflicts there (russian, british, etc...) can yeid useful lessons if done seriously, but instead we get: "The mujahadeen won last time so obviously there is no way we could win any war in Afghanistan." That's not a serious peace of thinking. In anycase, those wars are a much better place to start than Vietnam, which had a completely different terrain and political situation.
I'm not seeing the "striking" resemblance to Vietnam here. Perhaps you could illustrate for me why you think the comparison is apt?
0
Triumvere
So far the main similarites are: a mainly indigenous insurgant enemy, with some local support, rough (though very different) terrain favouring guerilla tactics, and an enemy which has its main strength outside the area of the conflict "proper" (that is, the tribal regions of Pakistan). Closer inspection, however, leads me to feel these similarites are fairly shallow; the Taliban isn't the Vietcong, and the world political situation is completely different (ie Pakistan is not N. Vietnam, or the Communist bloc.)
0
likeitis
Spoken like a true war lover. Your insistence that we reinvent the wheel describing every conflict afresh only assures that we never get a general understanding of it until it is long over. What a great way to nip criticism in the bud! No thanks, and no way. Such a case by case analysis is necessary for the fighters of the war as is the comparisons. But for us people not fighting it but analyzing from afar, comparisons are essential to understanding and plenty good enough for our purposes.
The terrain? Do you think any of the critics here gave a second thought the terrain being different??? And if you can't find similarities in the political situation, then you just are not trying, and/or your definition of "politics" is woefully limited. Its not just about being divided into north and south, or communism being totally different from a government based on Shariah! Dig deeper.
Much, much better. But you are overly focused on general details that amount to mere details. We critics are more focused on the general situation, like their morale and our morale, their goals and our goals, their general methods of fighting (guerilla) and ours (bomb the crap out them).
I care about the world political situation about as much as the terrain for this comparision!
How is the Taliban so different from the Vietcong? You think a little black book instead of a little red one is a significant difference? Look, they are/were too dedicated to a cause to chuck in the towel. There is/was no talking them down or appeasing them or expecting a genuine truce. It is/was their country, and they would/will brook no foreign influence imposed by force. They are/were internally focused. They are willing to die for their cause, and kill all who oppose them. They speak the local lingo and mix with the locals easier. They also give the locals ultimatums easier and with great effect, because there is zero chance they will disappear like we might one fine day. And we are/were talking about winning the hearts and minds of the people against them, despite all their advantages against us. Again, we are believing that Coca-cola and stories of freedom will carry us through.
And comparisons to the Russian and British stories are most welcome by me. I would say those comparisons won us our initial successes. But you know what they called the Russian experience in Afghanistan? Russia's Vietnam. And for good reasons.
0
sailwind
Agree totally. The comparision is just superficial. There is no North and South Afghanistan. There is no formal Nation state that we can actually negotiate with as we did with the North Vietnamese and the Paris peace accords. There is no formal backing by other nations for the Taliban as there was for the North Vietnamese Government by Russia and China. The Taliban are nothing but an internal faction now that refuses to be ruled by the Karzai Government and is engaged in a war with the present Afghan Government and NATO and U.S troops that are there to protect it. The only comparisian to Vietnam is that they using Viet Cong type tactics in the way they conduct there slaughter of innocent civilians on purpose. The rest of any comparision is just noise and based on a total lack of knowledge of the history of the Vietnamese conflict.
0
teleprompter
Agreed. And when the so-called comparison is made by posters such as likeitis, who knows nothing about Islam, Jihad, or the long and bloody history of Islamic imperialism, it's just the usual infantile spoon-banging and America-bashing.
0
Triumvere
I'm sorry, if you don't care about terrain or geopolitics then you aren't serious about making an assesment of the realities on the ground, all you care about is making a political point. Your insistance on equating the Taliban in specific with the Afghan people in general is a key obstacle to you understaning of the situation. You need to be paying less attention to "clash of civilizations" nonsense, and more attention to Afghan tribal and ethnic divisions. (Furthermore, I offer that the Vietcong was not really what you think it was - despite operating in the south, it was a primarily North Korean institution, and was rendered militarily inefective by the Tet Offensive - which was as large a military disater for the Vietcong as it was a political victory).
Your list of similarities basically boils down to: "we can't win because their will is stronger than ours", which is of course what most people who compair Afghanistan to Vietnam mean. I don't think it's true; it certainly wasn't true with the current war in Iraq, which holds a lot more similarites with the war in Afghanistan than Vietnam. I think your evaluation of our morale, tactics, and strategy is inaccurate as well. You need to look into COIN operations, especially now that Obama has replaced the commanding officer for the region and is heavily pushing counterinsurgency strategies.
0
Sarge
I have a better name for the Valley of Death - how about Hill Valley 2?
0
likeitis
Well the terrain would have a lot to do with the situation on the ground. The geopolitics wouldn't so much. For example, if someone is arming them, what is important is not so much WHO is arming them, but the fact that they are being ARMED. I only say I don't care as far as the comparison is concerned for the purposes of the comparison. And the purpose is understand what will be the outcome.
No, I do not care about making a political point. I am not running for office. I am not backing anyone. What I care about is the truth, and I am trying to get as much of the truth out there as I can, as I see it.
What I see is a hopeless situation. In fact, I find the Afghans to be even more hopeless than the Vietnamese. And it kills me to see more of our people die because people keep wanting to try out their latest bright idea, or dig the hole deeper trying to fill it.
From trying to fight a like a traditional war, to switching to counterinsurgency stategies. Yet another similarity.
Its more like they can assert their will more effectively. But maybe that is just semantics to you.
I am sure there is a lot I am not seeing. I am trying to keep it simple, rather than get bogged down in details.
It seems to me there are cardinal rules that all the hope and strategy in the world are just not going to change. We tried to violate them in Vietnam in vain. And so we are in Afghanistan.
The whole key to a government and a military working are the people of that government and military. The people have to want it bad enough to succeed. They cannot be puppeteered to success.
We already beat the Taliban back once. If the Aghan people wanted it bad enough, we would not have to do it twice. Which brings us to another thing about morale. It does not matter half as much the state of our morale as the morale of the Afghans on our side. Every day we fight their battles for them is another day they get to thinking they can relax. They had their chance.
Afghanistan one big hotbed of constant feuding. And now we are trapped in it. We are not going to change those people. Its hopeless. All I want is for our boys to come home, and let the Afghans go back to killing eachother instead of ours. I am not going into the back room and high fiving the brotherhood on yet another push of political agenda. I just want what is best out of what is possible. And Afghanistan is not possible, not in any long term sense. I am only afraid you will take that as some sort of challenge. Its not. Its my analysis only.
I hope I will have to eat my hat on this one, but I don't think its going to happen. It seems to me that the cost/benefit ratio already went to hell a long time ago.
0
likeitis
I do not envy your agreement. Frankly, I am glad you are on the other side of the fence. There are a scant few here who welcome your agreement. You tend to undermine those whose side you are on. Just wait and see who rushes to your defense on that.
The first two I can accept your opinion on. I am no expert. The last one though! The long bloody history of Islamic imperialism! If I were looking so far back in history, and seeking to punish the worst offenders in imperialism, I would have to nuke Britian and the city of Rome immediately! My God but you have no sense of perspective.
0
Noliving
timorborder: Well its a good thing that moonbeams misread, the ambush didn't take place in the school.
0
grafton
Likeitis.
I agree with you that as things stand there is no point wasting any more lives in Afghanistan. Bringing out the western forces would go some way to accomplishing that but it would not stop the killing in the country, Afghan against Afghan, & as much as my tolerance for these people has become eroded over the last few years I still hold on to some humanity & feel for the ordinary people that want nothing to do with any of this insanity. Fine, maybe they do just want to get on with growing their poppies & selling their opium, but until we can control our own markets for this product we can’t really blame them. There is however an answer, let’s call it the Sri Lanka answer, but can you see any country going that way? The Americans lost the Vietnam war because the media brought war home to the American people & they didn’t like what they saw, & what they saw was the human cost, both American & Vietnamese. Since that time wars have been fought with a human rights lawyer by proxy attached to every military operation, the press. When CNN broadcast the live bombing of Baghdad America started to lose the war, the Iraqi people became people & that made America uncomfortable. No, Iraq is not Afghanistan, not to you & I & most posters here, but as an image on the TV news around the world they are the same place. There is a general level of ignorance in the world & the press have fed that ignorance by merging the two conflicts as part of a general anti-American propaganda campaign, even within the US. Your comparison of Afghanistan with Vietnam is a part of that. You ignored Vietnams thousand year history which was the real bedrock of that war, America was a bit part player in that war that walked on & walked off again & that cannot be said about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a country, it is a group of constantly warring tribal regions. Not even when it had a king could it be called a country & it wouldn’t surprise me (though I am guessing here) if it wasn’t another of these British construct counties (like Iraq & Pakistan). America can no longer win a war because it can no longer fight a war on equal terms with its enemies. And this is true of all the Western countries, we, the none combatants control what our soldiers can & can’t do on the battlefields. We have forced our governments to institute laws of war that only we operate by, laws that guarantee our forces cannot win & that is the only true comparison that can be made between Afghanistan & Vietnam.
Back to top