DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Video Lounge » A Look at How Tough the Afghan Fight will be

A Look at How Tough the Afghan Fight will be

I really respect Getty Images’ John Moore and one of his packages from his last trip to Afghanistan struck me as we are considering Gen. McChrystal’s decision to avoid fighting in populated areas.

From John’s images and commentary, we can see that on the ground, this attempt at sterilization will be very difficult and throw ambiguity into the fight for coalition troops.

There may just be some areas where the hearts and minds approach just won’t work ever.

– Christian

Share |

June 26th, 2009 | Video Lounge | 45514 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/06/26/a-look-at-how-tough-the-afghan-fight-will-be/A+Look+at+How+Tough+the+Afghan+Fight+will+be2009-06-26+19%3A05%3A27Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « …and for the Taliban too… | Troubled Seas Ahead » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Drake1 says:
    June 26, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Old footage, but if you like that, you can also check out this.
    http://​www​.pbs​.org/​w​g​b​h​/​p​a​g​e​s​/​f​r​o​n​t​l​i​n​e​/​w​a​r​b​r​i​e​f​i​ng/
    Bunch of tribes with no unified voice, who prefer to live the way they want w/o foreign interference, no matter how many gifts(with strings)we bring.
    Young men by nature also lend themselves towards being easy prey for any cause that involves fighting-especially when it involves another foreign invader.
    In that “War Breifing” I link I posted, a soldier said it don’t matter if you from Kabul…if you ain’t Korenghali like them, you ain’t one of them.

    Reply
  2. Crusader says:
    June 27, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    My brother recently came back from Afghan. He spent a lot of time in the middle of nowhere on a base. A lot of the “locals” that worked on the base were Taliban infiltrators. The base’s liberal wingnut commander tried the “we are your friends” thing with them. To make a long story short, she ended up getting several American GI’s killed because she valued the Taliban’s lives over our GI’s.
    I have to agree with what Sonny Puzika said on “Deadliest Warrior” when a rifle shot hit a target between the eyes, “That’s winning their hearts and minds…”

    Reply
  3. CWK says:
    February 16, 2010 at 8:03 am

    There’s a big difference between “we are your friend” and the approach of giving the elders a choice — you can either work with us and prosper — or work against us and wind up on the losing side in the shooting war. Many of these folks don’t want us there — or for that matter, the Kabul government’s representatives. Expecting non-Taliban tribal elders to embrace us, unless they are thoroughly disgusted with the Taliban because of problems caused by the Taliban, is unrealistic — at least until the ANA and ISAF secure the areas so the Taliban cannot carry out reprisal killings with impunity and we provide worthwhile services the local people want (not what we think they want or should have).

    In pro-Taliban areas, the process is going to be slow and will involve gradually convincing the local people that our quarrel is with al-Qai’da, and that if they will agree (and do) keep their areas free of al-Q fighters and offer at least nominal allegiance to Kabul, then we’ll have done what needs to be done. Making the entire Taliban movement our enemy means that we are choosing to fight an indigenous movement that has a strong ideological component. Generally a bad idea, but an especially bad idea in Afghanistan where blood feuds run for generations. We don’t have nearly enough forces to cover the whole country with a security blanket to smother the Taliban, and the likelihood of that happening is zero. Working with the limited resources we have means focusing on what is achievable, not what would be an ideal outcome.

    Reply
  4. CWK says:
    February 16, 2010 at 8:03 am

    There’s a big difference between “we are your friend” and the approach of giving the elders a choice — you can either work with us and prosper — or work against us and wind up on the losing side in the shooting war. Many of these folks don’t want us there — or for that matter, the Kabul government’s representatives. Expecting non-Taliban tribal elders to embrace us, unless they are thoroughly disgusted with the Taliban because of problems caused by the Taliban, is unrealistic — at least until the ANA and ISAF secure the areas so the Taliban cannot carry out reprisal killings with impunity and we provide worthwhile services the local people want (not what we think they want or should have).

    In pro-Taliban areas, the process is going to be slow and will involve gradually convincing the local people that our quarrel is with al-Qai’da, and that if they will agree (and do) keep their areas free of al-Q fighters and offer at least nominal allegiance to Kabul, then we’ll have done what needs to be done. Making the entire Taliban movement our enemy means that we are choosing to fight an indigenous movement that has a strong ideological component. Generally a bad idea, but an especially bad idea in Afghanistan where blood feuds run for generations. We don’t have nearly enough forces to cover the whole country with a security blanket to smother the Taliban, and the likelihood of that happening is zero. Working with the limited resources we have means focusing on what is achievable, not what would be an ideal outcome.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    Recent Comments
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      Gentlemen,from a...
      Roy M Brown
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Mac, has the Air Force ever asked the Army what it...
      TMB
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      With unlimited resources, the US could buy an...
      SMSgt Mac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      RE: “A LAAR aircraft capability has the...
      smsgtmac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Just when we thought prop aircraft were gone...
      Max
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Hey if it works for the troops on the...
      Marshall Tall Eagle
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      If you are going to do close air support (CAS),...
      LTCMike69
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The Air Force has got it backwards again. Here it...
      gmanaz
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Damn it! I thought this hole tanker BS was over with...
      Thunder350
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      my bad… i misread your second to last...
      Project Thor
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage