1 And they're getting ready to cross the border to kill the rest of these bastards.  Our guys are awesome.

2 Not a surprise. You can't win wars with small arms. Afghanistan is a meat grinder for the Taliban just like Iraq was for Al-Qaeda.

3 Actually the bar is even lower than you imply Ace. All our enemies have to do is invade a hospice unit somewhere and trip over some old geezer's plug and it is somehow a victory for the terrorists. If these attacks were reported by someone with an ounce of sanity the headlines would read... militarily defeated enemy turns to attacking the helpless. Or if Islam were anything other than a death cult the headlines across the ME would read... militants sully the name of Islam by killing innocents in its name. At least the terrorists have the excuse that they have been brainwashed into the cult since birth... what excuse does our media have? I can't help but wonder how many fewer thugs we would have had to face on the battlefield had our fifth column at home not been so set on carrying water for the enemy.

4 We are going to have to try again on that COP; it has been abandoned.

5 In Mogadishu, a few score American troops faced down many thousands of militias and locals, killing hundreds (or thousands), and accomplished (enough of) their mission despite heavy losses.

To this day, thanks to the scumbags in the MSM, people remember that as a defeat - it was in fact one of the most astonishing victories since Marathon.

US: 18 dead, 73 wounded.

Somalia: Estimates range from 500 to 2000 dead, 1500 to 4000 wounded

The Somali figures are all over the map because of politics. You can't find a reliable source that hasn't given at least three different figures. The Somalis exaggerated the figures at first to gain sympathy, then when it backfired they lowballed to try to put a stop to the embarrassment.

And yet this is a defeat because the press said it was, and while they may not have the final word, they have the biggest microphone.

6

Yeah..

That's basically been the way all US military conflict is covered since Vietnam. Including Vietnam.

7

It's the soft bigotry of low expectations, a typical liberal mental disorder. The same stupidity allows one to excuse the gangbanger who shoots up a preschool playground in a drive-by.

As Kos would say, "Screw Them". It's easier to rationalize with Charlie Manson than with a progressive who works for the MSM and types out the Narrative^tm every day.

8 Yeah, when that story came out a few days ago, I searched in vain for a story that included the numbers of soldiers in the outpost, vs the number of attackers. I had read that the taliban had sustained heavy casualties, but no numbers.

I just KNEW it would turn out to be something like this.

The MSM are such slimeballs.

9 Insurgents depend upon preying on the people they claim to represent for supplies and recruits. Bringing them to battle is always to the advantage of regular forces. Even if regular forces are overwhelmed, the casualties among the insurgents take much longer to replace than the casualties amongst the regulars. Modern industrial powers can support much larger forces in the field, can train soldiers more quickly, and kill the enemy in much more favorable ratios. Insurgents depend on long periods of seeming peace to recuperate and retrain-- pace and force are on the side of industry. In a cold-blooded analysis, for US forces, all battles are victories regardless of the number of survivors.

10 The MSM has invested in defeat. You will hear nothing positive. When we finally succeed you will hear nothing but the cost.

11

Merovign,

That reminds me of my first reaction to the college professor who wished for "a million Mogadishus."  I thought we could trade the greater Los Angeles area, an improvement really, for at least a billion casualties in the ummah.  Then we wouldn't have to hear the threat about "1.whatever billion Muslims" who all want to kill us. 

Yeah, not the nicest observation I ever made.  But college professors and jihadis deserve as much abuse as you can heap on them. 

12 ...while the bar for success for our enemies has been reduced to simply being able to mount an attack at all. I disagree. They don't even have to mount an attack anymore. They need merely show up and scratch their asses for a few minutes.

13

The MSM is just trying to do their part... for America's enemies.

I count myself doubly lucky in that I do not live next to a sewage treatment plant, nor do I have any friends who work in the media.  If I am ever so unfortunate as to meet someone who works there, you can be sure they will know right away they are not gonna become a friend, either.

14

"The attackers quickly breached the outer perimeter, and, under a withering barrage of supporting fire, a contingent of a mere 70 U.S. and Afghan soldiers combined were forced to fight for survival on their own outpost against the all-out assault from nearly 100 assailants."

Not for nothing, but 70 US soldiers against 100 assailants is not an 8:1 advantage.

It doesn't even represent a disadvantage for US soldiers, who are better trained and far better armed.

Let's face it, the A-team is in Iraq and the B-team is in Afghanistan, and we're getting our noses bloodied when 16 of our guys get cut down by a bunch of fucking goat-herders hepped up on the local opium.

Some command heads better roll for this fiasco.

15

'God I hate those guys'- Dean Wormer on the Delta house.

'God I hate those guys'-Associated Press on the American Military

 

16 ps. and they better fucking hope I am very sober and mellowed out when I meet them.

17 I say we all pitch in to send mathematicsguy over to Vicenza, Italy so he can explain in person why the sky soldiers are "the B-team".

Pogue.

 

18

Hey Math guy.  100 assailants PLUS 400 additional fighters, some of whom where lobbing artillery down on the COP, which was hastily erected and not fully secured. 

Plus, I didn't realize that there are A-Teams and B-teams, the latter of which are dropped into heavy insurgent areas.  Tell that to a widow that you're sorry her B-Team husband got killed by the Taliban.

19 Hey, mathematicsguy--we have a 'B' team. It's made up of guys who have to be deported from Canada for their desertion, or who march in Kos rallies in D.C. There are no 'B' team guys in Afghanistan. But to your trivial point, 500:70 is closer to 7:1 than 8:1. Oh, and go screw a goat.

20

Our MSM does the same thing, too, of course. Last year especially as the "resurgent Taliban" was resurging the usual casualty rate per "battle" was 1 NATO soldier and 50 Afghan Army dead versus 1,000 dead and captured Taliban. Try to guess whose casualty rate got the most ink? And, as Ace points out so well, the Taliban even showing up was some sort of superhuman, unprecedented victory in itself.

21 The B team is in Afghanistan?  You, sir, are one of those things that begins with "i."

Let's ask the AP if they can spell "Tet."

22 The Airborne unit out of Italy, SEALS and 160th SOAR hardly qualify as a b-team.  The guys they're fighting aren't goat herders either.  Well maybe they goat herd in addition to training and fighting wars for the past 3 decades, I don't know.

23 Did I mention that I really despise the media?

24 You know, I'm beginning to suspect this goes beyond bias.  I think the media just has more sympathy or may be empathy for the terrorists.  Is it possible they just like them better or feel some sort of bizarre kinship wiht them?

25 The Airborne unit out of Italy, SEALS and 160th SOAR hardly qualify as a b-team.

SEALs?  I didn't hear nothin bout no SEALs.  If you saw somewhere that SEALs were there, spill it.  One of my best friends is a SEAL and it keeps my armchair ass up all night.  Gentlest man I've ever met, and he;s been that way since he was 3.

26

I nominate the MSM en masse to be the "A"-team in the "Prizon Bitchez" league.

27 Great article, thanks for linking to it.

What an amazing group of young Americans we have serving our country!

28 Of course the media liberals sympathize with the terrorists.  The terrorists are attacking Americans.  They're killing American soldiers.  That is exactly what every liberal secretly dreams of doing.

I used to think they were just stupid, naive, gullible, and ignorant.  But after a couple of decades of exposure to liberals here in New England I realized that isn't the case.  They really do hate America.  It really is that simple.  They can't get through a conversation without some disparaging remark about America or Americans.  They seldom if ever refer to themselves as "Americans" -- and when they do you can hear the quote marks.

They are the true enemy.  They've been the propaganda wing, fundraising arm, and intelligence service for every one of America's enemies since the Japanese surrendered.  The specific ideology doesn't matter -- they'll support anyone who wants to kill Americans.  Communists, Islamic theocrats, Latin fascists, you name it.  The only common thread in all liberal causes for the past half-century has been harming America.

29 I am starting to get the feeling The Deciders are starting to paint everything as a "glorious victory" for the Taliban in the same vein that they were awarding "glorious victory" trophies to al-Sadr every time he would step out and lose 200 Mahdi Army guys.

30 Yeah, I really don't get the MSM war reporting casualties only as if they were dying in house fires or something. They don't report battles well. They don't report strategy well. They just toss off casualty reports.

June 6, 1944

Thousands of GI's die in Northern France

I mean, how is that helpful at all?

31

One of the dead is from the town adjoining mine:

http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/church_15636___article.html/redding_news.html

32 I think the math is off on the odds.  800 enemy combatants versus ~50 US Solidiers is not an 8:1 advantage for the enemy.

I'd say it's about a 3:1 advantage for the US soldier.

;-)

33 One word:

Tet.

34

Yes, the B-team is in Afghanistan.

"Three days before the attack, 45 U.S. paratroopers from the 173d Airborne, accompanied by 25 Afghan soldiers, made their way to Kunar province, a remote area in the northeastern Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, and established the beginnings of a small Combat Outpost (COP). Their movement into the area was noticed, and their tiny numbers and incomplete fortifications were quickly taken advantage of."

So, let me get this straight ... we have the best-trained, most well-equipped military in history, and for some reason, commanders think it's strategically intelligent to send 45 paratroopers into a remote area on the Pakistan border to establish a small combat outpost?

To what fucking purpose, one wonders. That kind of thinking gets people killed.

This is B-team folks. Not the troops ... the Command.

We should not be sending 45 paratroopers into remote areas to be cut down by Taliban. That's militarily fucking stupid and heads should roll.

The B-Team command staff running Afghan operations had better get its head out of its ass and start fucking rolling up some Taliban before the Taliban get the idea that its O fucking K to kill our guys.

35 This is one of the things about the MSM that really burns me. Their unapologetic, non-analyzed, non-cross-referenced, wholly biased in favor of the AK-waving terrorists. Why? 'cause the Taliban \, Al Quaeda, and other assorted jihadi-men are fighting against the Evil Imperialist States of Amerikkka. Apparently, we're so powerful we have to be stopped from conquering the entire planet, but at the same time our sturmtruppen are so incompetent that a typical Roarke's Drift scenario undermines our entire chance for victory. Apparently we must be fighting Ewoks in Afghanistan, then. o_O

If it wasn't for the MSM and Al-Jazeera (Should we call it Al Jezebel-a after the Great Whore?) the GWOT would've been over 2 years ago. Instead, these bloody leftards with journalist credentials are keeping the war-and the killing and destruction-going onward as misled young Muslims decide to join the Ever-Victorious Jihad, only to get turned into kibble when they assault a US or US-and-allied position in Iraq or Afghanistan that they were led to believe would be an easy victory. Yeah, keep feeding the Amerikkka-hate to the Jihadis, you MSM twits. You are making us kill them, those misled young idiots are dying for your misplaced sense of outrage and international angst. I would feel outraged about your outrage myself, but every Jihadi who stops a bullet or a bomb fragment is one less who won't breed another generation of destitute goat-herders angry 'cause they got left behind the rest of the world in 1683.

36 How many deaths are the MSM responisible for?  They have lengthened the duration of the Iraq and Afgan wars by constantly telling the bad guys that they are winning when clearly they are not.  This has helped the Taliban and AQI to recruit more naive young men only to be slaughtered for nothing.

37

Bteamnoticer, who I am guessing is also the alleged mathmatician, doesn't seem to have any clue as to military operations.  My guess is the guy has never known anyone in the military and clearly did not serve himself.

He believes wars are won by sitting on our asses, in the rear, with 1,000s of troops dug in to protect themselves, taking no risks and fighting no battles.  Otherwise, you are "b-team".

Unfortunately, this is probably pretty close to idiots like Obama's and any dems' thinking.  these people are not just clueless, but dangerous.

38

I suppose in "bteamnoticer's" mind, military commanders should keep troops in america for the duration of any war b/c they might get hurt - that is sound military theory that should win us any war.

39 I have no idea why my above post ended up blue?

40 Bteamnoticer, who I am guessing is also the alleged mathmatician

No need to guess.  It is certain.  Or at least posting from the same computer.  Look at the hash codes.

41

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/17/2008  A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/07/web-reconnaissance-for-07172008.html

42

Newsflash, math/bteam 'braniac':

When a small outpost is established it usually doesn't require a Division-sized element.

By the looks of it, 45 well-trained, highly motivated US Soldiers was pretty much all that was needed to repel an attack from about 500 al Qaeda/Taliban attackers.

Not bad for a fucking "b-team".

43

At least the terrorists have the excuse that they have been brainwashed into the cult since birth... what excuse does our media have?

They've been brainwashed into a cult too—the cult of Utopian Socialism with a side helping of Epicurean state-of-nature worship. We can return to the pre-civilization paradise, in their minds, if we can only destroy the industrialized capitalist West which has corrupted the purity of man in his natural state.

And bteamnoticer? Yes, we want small forces in the hinterlands because large forces are very bad at blending in and gaining the confidence of the locals. You can't push a watermelon through a straw; and you can't send 10,000 men into tight mountain passes or small rural villages. Idiot.

44 mathguy/bteamnoticer writes: We should not be sending 45 paratroopers into remote areas to be cut down by Taliban. That's militarily fucking stupid and heads should roll.

You sir, are, what's the phrase I'm looking for?  Genius?  No, that's not it.  Idiot?  Well, of course but that still isn't it.  Sodomizer of goats?  Yep.

Asshole, commanders didn't send 45 troops out to get killed.  They sent them to establish an outpost to observe infiltration routes from Pakistan.  Following your logic, you should never leave your home because something might happen to you.  By the way, how's the view from up your ass?

45

"Asshole, commanders didn't send 45 troops out to get killed.  They sent them to establish an outpost to observe infiltration routes from Pakistan.  Following your logic, you should never leave your home because something might happen to you.  By the way, how's the view from up your ass?"

Thank God you people aren't in charge ... I'm quite sure there would be more unnecessary death.

There is an alternative to sending 45 troops into a meat grinder with zero support from the armed forces and that is to send in 4,500 troops to establish your forward bases. With jets circling overhead.

That's the problem with you people ... you think there are only 2 alternatives ... either a) sit on our asses and not get shot or b) send 45 troops to be ambushed. You're fucking morons all right.

The B-Team in Afghanistan thinks just the way you do and that's why our troops are getting mowed down by fucking hillbillies with 1940 weaponry. We aren't taking them seriously enough.

Commanders in the field in Afghanistan need to start hunting Taliban, not establishing small combat outposts ... but rather going in with overwhelming force and killing the enemy army.

That's how wars are won.

46 mathematicsgu/bteamnoticer: "This is B-team folks. Not the troops ... the Command."

Glad to see you're walking back your original assertion somewhat. Your original point was that the COP soldiers didn't really face a significant disadvantage due to approximately equivalent numbers, better training, and more arms - that they were facing incompetent, under-armed goat-herders hopped up on opiates. Translated: "Hell, of course the soldiers should have won the skirmish. How embarrassing that this group of B-teamers suck so bad that they lost a sizable part of their force against a bunch of tribal misfits. Yeah, they won, but sheesh, what a thin win." So let's not say there was a mispeaking or that we misunderstood your comment. You smeared some fine men.

Next, never underestimate the enemy. We don't know the specifics of what logistical support and arms were available to whom for how long. It's quite possible that the ambushers actually had more to work with until air support entered the fray. Plus, locals have an advantage of knowing terrain and regional formations. Since this was an outpost, intelligence is always limited to those external to the region. Maps and areal shots get you only so far. Further, an inspired enemy, even one stimulated by something beyond hatred of the infidel, can inflict serious damage when there is no fear or risk they won't take due to that stimulant.

Third, this was "the beginnings of a small Combat Outpost (COP)" which was expected to grow in due course or resize in response to logistical needs of the bigger plan. It's just stupid-silly to say that every advance into foreign territory mandates columned land marches, especially in the notable terrain these soldiers were visiting. Outposts very commonly are developed with an advance team with subsequent resupply and expansion... hence the name "outpost." Every installation outside of this country begins as an outpost. In this particular case, they had not yet established adequate defense of that outpost because they were reportedly discovered too soon. It would appear that this assault was an exceptional case not because of the use of this very technique of hopscotching to make progress was unusual and worthy of some command reprimand but because their initial footprint may have been too large, too soon. Or just chance events typical of war. But outposts, even small ones, are just about as common as soldiers themselves.

So, before you condemn the "B-Team," know what the hell you're talking about. Relying on the MSM is wholly inadequate if not actually factually incorrect.

47

Commanders in the field in Afghanistan need to start hunting Taliban, not establishing small combat outposts ... but rather going in with overwhelming force and killing the enemy army.

Apparently, bteamnoticer is incapable of reading my comments. Again, moron, you don't send large forces into asymmetrical warfare. This isn't France of 1944. There is no "enemy army" to kill. Do you not know what a guerilla war is? How many times do I have to post the same comment before you actually read it? How many times will you have to read it before the meaning of it breaks through that block of calcium you call a head?

48 Hey. chip, just for the record, that professor (Nicky de Genova [sp?]) was in New York.  Aim better, willya?

49 An old joke from 2002, but appropriate.

A large group of Taliban soldiers are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a sand dune. "One US Special Forces soldier is better than ten Taliban."

The Taliban commander quickly sends 10 of his best soldiers over the dune whereupon a gun battle breaks and continues for a few minutes, then silence.

The voice then calls out "One US Special Forces soldier is better than one hundred Taliban."

Furious, the Taliban commander sends his next best 100 troops over the dune and instantly a huge gunfight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence.

The American voice calls out again "One US Special Forces soldier is better than one thousand Taliban."

The enraged Taliban Commander musters one thousand fighters and sends them across the dune. Cannons, rockets and machineguns ring out as a huge battle is fought. Then silence.

Eventually one wounded Taliban fighter crawls back over the dune and with his dying words tells his commander, "Don't send any more men, it's a trap. There's actually two of them."

50

mathematicsguy/bteamnoticer/what ever you're calling yourself lately:

.....unnecessary death? 

Hate to break this to you, but death and wounding are a risk factor in any battle.  What pray tell, is your 'expertise' on setting up covert outposts? From the statements you've made, you demonstrate little understanding of risk versus mission.  You cannot send an "overwhelming force" to set up what is supposed to be a small Combat Outpost, which is a temporary fort.  It's used as a base for recon patrolling.

You can read the full story of their gallantry and the citation awarded here:

http://northshorejournal.org/173rd-airborne-brigade-combat-team-heroes

It was not a standard "forward base".

Those so-called 'fucking hillbillies with 1940 weaponry' know that mountainous terrain like the backs of their hairy little hands.  And yes, we do take that seriously.

If we were to start hunting Taliban in earnest, we'd have invaded/bombed Pakistan already, That's where they run to regroup before they cross back over the border into Afghanistan.

Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, should have been leveled on 12 September 2001. But, I'm a former Soldier, not a politician.

That's how wars are won. Quickly.

Having said that, opinions expressed by armchair 20/20-hindsighted asshats like you are insulting and just plain stupid to those of us who have served in the military and been to war. 

We appreciate the same constructive criticism we would ourselves give to the Chain of Command as well as policy makers. 

Talk to or read the opinions of the boots-on-the-ground commanders for their reasons behind their battlefield decisions before you open your piehole.

Like the Associated Press, you haven't told the whole story.

51

   I'll give it one more month before Afghanistan turns into the "bad" war.

    Any takers?

52 Bteam knucklehead....I guess that means that special forces and other masters of small unit tactics should morph into division size forces. Yeah, thats the ticket.
Not to mention that snipers routinely go out in groups of two.Sometimes, what's required is a scalpel not a sledge hammer.

53 bteamer, how dark is it in there?

54

Based on his comments I'm pretty convinced that Bteamer is a parody.

He argues first that our troops were not outnumbered and we should be embarresed that we took as many casualties as we did by these goat-herders (the original b-teamer argument).

then he turns on a dime and argues that the commanders are the real b-teamers b/c they sent out so few troops to deal with an overwhelming force.

And, he wants all of our troop movements in a combat theater to be done with 4,500 troops and jets circling overhead.

I like that this guy is not pinned down by any one argument and can make contradictory arguments withint a few comments.

this can only be a parody of a leftist arguing.  Even most leftists are more subtle in their blatant contradictions and argument changing if not their stupidity.

55

richard mcenroe

I'll be happy to throw in enough New York to accomplish the same goal!  (It was just a sarcastic observation which happened to have a kernel of truth.) 

As for this idiotic 'b-team' garbage: 

It's a brilliant strategy to put small groups out in the boonies to draw out the enemy so they can be killed.  In this case it sounds like they cut the margins too close, but still accomplished the goal.  If you move two batallions into an area they 're not going to come out and fight but go where you have less troops, or Europeans.    

56 Only one month, irongrampa? Give it 2 weeks at most if another leadstorm erupts in a valley "controlled" by the "religion of peace".

57  货架/ 货架、

58

 

great posting i<a href="http://www.flashreplica.com/" title="louis vuitton">Louis Vuitton</a> like it ..

Good to see the film, in the past I have read

59 I never buy from louis vuitton bags, the price is expensive and I always bought online.

Hi, everybody here, I just spent more than 1000 USD in louis vuitton outlet and bought one gift for my wife, I think it’s worth and the bag drives my wife crazy.

Anybody knows the numbers of louis vuitton outlet in CA, I need to call them and get my bag repaired