The Enemy Strikes Hard in Afghanistan

From the AP:

A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos. It was the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene. A senior U.S. administration official in Washington said the craft was apparently shot down by insurgents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated…

Hopefully the reaction will be to go very hard after the Taliban unit responsible for this…we dare not let them think they have scored a victory; make them pay a price all out of proportion to our losses.

This is a good time to remind ourselves that while we sit fat, dumb and happy, young men and women are still laying it all on the line for us.  What is our budget debate or debt downgrade or the 2012 election compared to what the armed forces are doing, day after day, with little thanks or note from us?  We have allowed ourselves to be too distracted … and I hope President Obama gets a grip on the Afghan campaign, and brings it back to the forefront of public consciousness.  It is time to win this campaign and then come home…whatever it takes, do it, and let’s have done with these savages in the Taliban.

22 thoughts on “The Enemy Strikes Hard in Afghanistan

  1. Green Mountain Boy August 6, 2011 / 12:53 pm

    Anybody want to bet where that “rocket” came from? Anybody want to bet that it didn’t get supplied to taliban by the paki isi? Anyone want to bet the isi didn’t provide the info on where those troops would be at?

    • neocon1 August 6, 2011 / 2:02 pm

      Prayers to these brave young mens friends and families.

      • neocon1 August 6, 2011 / 3:35 pm

        Mostly members of seal team 6

      • Mark Noonan August 6, 2011 / 7:00 pm

        Neocon,

        Seems to be – and we need to find out if the Taliban were tipped off by anyone…and if they were, bring such a wrath against them that no one will ever think of doing it again.

  2. js August 6, 2011 / 8:47 pm

    whats this…an attempt by the obieOne corrupted CIA to..make good to the paki’s…who literally lied about bin Laden for almost a decade…hmmm

  3. 6206j August 6, 2011 / 8:49 pm

    Get them the F out of there, let the afghans sort it out. Come on Barry, the public wants out, 10 years is enough and we got the guy we we wanted.

    • bardolf August 6, 2011 / 11:28 pm

      6206

      You don’t understand. Leaving now would show weakness. What we need to do now is double our efforts to win. 10 more years. Maybe the grandkids can get a piece of the action.

      Or we could do like Reagan in Lebanon. Say that getting Bin Laden was the goal (it was the goal if I recall) say we were trying to finish up helping Karzei but the humanitarian aid is too expensive.

      Given the gunwalker scandal I wonder if an agency gave stingers to someone who gave them to the Taliban.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 7, 2011 / 12:02 am

        Entirely possible that weapon that shot that helo might have came to the tali by way of pakistan by way of the U.S. Scorch that hellhole till there is nothing left then leave.

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 10:36 am

        GMB

        I agree start in iran, mecca then afg….one missile 10 mrv’s would do it.

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 10:36 am

      Ya gotta love these RRL weenies. They may not have the integrity to stand up and announce a political philosophy, but it still oozes out of their posts.

      The Left is a personality-driven ideology. While it is a big-government, central control, collectivist model, it also depends heavily on the politics of personality and the politics of identity. It has to. This is as deep as its base is willing, or able, to go.

      Just look at how they post here. They never argue from a position of, well, a POSITION. It is never an argument of policy, backed up by a commitment to an ideology. No, it’s almost exclusively PEOPLE. The footsoldiers out in the field couldn’t know, or care, less about actual political ideology, but are focused only on people: Who said what, who did what, who did whom, etc.

      And this personality definition of everything pops up in what 6206 evidently thinks is darling wit, in his claim that by killing OBL “we got the guy we wanted”. THE GUY. Typical distillation of an entire political agenda into one person. The guy.

      The RRL elevated OBL to a position of such magnificence in his stunning power and authority, that to them he WAS the threat. Not a symbol of the threat, not just one of many leaders of the threat, but THE THREAT. To them, Bush’s failure to capture or kill OBL was the defining characteristic of his war on terrorism. For the Leftist leaders, this was just another callous manipulation of gullible emotion, but to the simpleminded lemmings such as 6206, this was absolute fact. To them if we had “gotten” OBL the problem would be solved.

      And now, I guess, it is.

      Except for those guys on that helicopter, of course. Evidently the guys on the ground, our guys and the Taliban, never got the memo that we “got” “THE GUY” and it’s all over now.

      Thanks for the addition to our archives of inadvertent blurting of RRL dogma, 6206.

      • bardolf August 7, 2011 / 11:00 am

        Amazona

        6206 proposed getting out of Afghanistan and using the killing of OBL as pretext for doing so.

        This is a blog of IDEAS. Thus far the in the thread the RRL has offered—– just leaving Afghanistan

        The right has offered—-

        1. Stay and WIN (whatever that means and it certainly didn’t happen in 10 years of which 7 were under Bush).

        2. Nuke a couple million people and get out.

        How about sharing your ideas about what we should do in Afghanistan.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:33 pm

        dolf, odd that you might think I have an opinion but was just too—-what, shy?—-to express it. How sweet.

        But I am not a military strategist so I have no specific recommendations for how to handle the Afghanistan situation. Hard as this may be to comprehend, I tend to think that military professionals with military intelligence and military experience, who are actually in the field or communicating with those who are, are more qualified to make military decisions than a rancher in Wyoming

        I would like to see a solution or at least a strategy that does not just toss the sacrifices already made on a scrapheap. I would like to have those sacrifices contribute to an improvement in our own security and/or in the futures of the lands in which they took place.

        i truly do not know if that is going to be possible.

        But my post had nothing to do with any of this, and your foolish and silly effort to spin my very relevant comments on the elevation, by the Left, of Bin Laden to the stature of a nearly superhuman icon into something else entirely is quite consistent with your skittish approach to political commentary in general.

        I made an accurate observation on the depiction, on the Left, of Bin Laden and the absolute utter necessity of “getting” him as THE solution to our terrorism problems, and then I accurately tied this in with the general Leftist belief in the individual, and the politics of personality.

        I notice you chose not to address what was said, or the ideas underlying what was said, choosing instead to flutter off in some other direction where you evidently thought you could get a gotcha.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:35 pm

        dolf, I will also point out the consistency in your posts of conflating POLITICAL ideas with events and people.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:38 pm

        dolf says: “Say that getting Bin Laden was the goal (it was the goal if I recall)… ”

        Whose goal? It was A goal of Bush and the military, but it was THE goal of the Politics of Personality Left.

        Your comment places you firmly in the latter camp. No surprise there.

      • bardolf August 7, 2011 / 4:03 pm

        Amazona

        Nice dodge. While military professionals are tasked with carrying out US foreign policy they are not tasked with deciding US foreign policy. In the same way that I don’t think Bernanke’s expertise is unimpeachable the military professionals in Afghanistan aren’t entitled to decide how long we should stay or how soon we should leave. Based on their past 10 year record there is little support our staying.

        “I would like to see a solution or at least a strategy that does not just toss the sacrifices already made on a scrapheap. I would like to have those sacrifices contribute to an improvement in our own security and/or in the futures of the lands in which they took place.”

        Who wouldn’t? If you are thinking about all those military hating lefties who just want all those sacrifices to be in vain you are delusional.

        Your contention that the left is cult personality driven (as opposed to the pure ideas of Reagan) is a non starter. There is no reason to argue a premise that is false or to whatever extent it is true applies as well to GOP. Sarah Palin is an icon of the right because of the mythic moose hunter/beauty contestant she portrays.

        As for ideas supported with data (events and people) that’s a good thing. It keeps me from abstractly attributing only the good things to one party and the bad things to another. e.g. The housing bubble kept unemployment from being much higher under Bush. That lets you give Bush credit and the attribute the blame for the bubble to Democratic policies. You can theorize that GOP ideas keep unemployment low while Democratic ideas ruined the economy.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 4:43 pm

        dolf, you do keep digging, don’t you?

        Since when is using an admitted lack of pertinent information to explain not having an opinion on something a “dodge”? (Hint: You might try it sometime. While it would dramatically reduce the volume of your posts, it might improve their content.)

        I not only lack expertise or access to the highest levels of information regarding the military, I also don’t have this information regarding foreign policy. But anyone who does have access to the highest levels of intelligence relating to “foreign policy” would be an idiot if he did not consult with the military about military matters.

        If you are going to quote me, quote me. What I SAID was: “I would like to see a solution or at least a strategy that does not just toss the sacrifices already made on a scrapheap. I would like to have those sacrifices contribute to an improvement in our own security and/or in the futures of the lands in which they took place.

        I TRULY DO NOT KNOW IF THAT IS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE

        I said nothing about “… all those military hating lefties who just want all those sacrifices to be in vain ..” so while you are snidely trying to call me “delusional” you are branding yourself as a liar.

        Your contention that the left is cult personality driven (as opposed to the pure ideas of Reagan) is a non starter.”

        You’re kidding, right? Name one single American conservative leader who has had whole walls of large buildings painted with his or her picture. Ever hear of Shepherd Fairy, the “artist”/vandal who painted adoring pictures of Obama all over sidewalks and buildings and was feted by the Left? I thought Charlie Rose was going to, well, prove his love for Fairy and his work right there on TV, he was so excited and giddy about Fairy’s idolization of Obama. Name a conservative who has been referred to as “The One We Have All Been Waiting For”. Been swooned over, fawned over, been the recipient of such goofball comments as the tingle running up Chris Matthews’ leg, etc. Name one who has made the slightest effort to achieve the type and level of adulation and public obeisance as, for example, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Hitler.

        Surely not even you think you can get away with conflating the respect and admiration for Ronald Regan, which is almost inevitably linked with his conservative credentials, with the hero worship of Barack Obama, whose political philosophy is not even mentioned. Tell us who in the media have fawned over Obama because of his politics, instead of over the man. (Not his actions—his POLITICS.)

        The whole Obama phenomenon was personality-driven. It was all identity, all the time, whether that identity was phrased in the context of his race or his charm or his alleged oratory skills or his legend.

        “Non-starter”! Pshaw. You really ought to stop flaunting your political, historical and cultural ignorance.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 4:52 pm

        “Sarah Palin is an icon of the right because of the mythic moose hunter/beauty contestant she portrays.”

        What utter and complete balderdash. OK, it is completely possible that your own perceptions are so shallow and unsubstantial that the only characteristics of Sarah Palin that you have been able to assimilate are the fact that she hunts moose and looks like a beauty contest winner. And, in true dolf fashion, you even manage to mangle those truths by referring to them as “mythic”.

        Sarah Palin is not an icon of the Right but is a highly respected representative of the Right BECAUSE OF HER CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY STATED AND EXPLAINED POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

        Name a Liberal, any Liberal, who has done this. Name one who has stood up and explained the political philosophy of the Left and how this is the way this person believes the nation should be governed.

        ***********************
        Right. None do. On the contrary, you Libs run as conservatives, hiding your Leftist colors behind a temporarily assumed cloak of belief in the American Constitution. Even when this is discarded, none of you stand up and announce what you really believe.

        If you can’t support a person because of his or her clearly stated and explained political philosophy, what remains to explain your support? I’ll tell you what: Personality, identity, and a ginned-up hatred and distrust for the other side.

      • Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 7:30 pm

        Bardolf, just how do we get out of that mess without seeming weak? If scorching the misreble place is not an option, how do we leave in a possition of strength?
        Bush should of went in turned the upside down then left. Make it clear if it keeps happening then we come back turn it upside down again then leave again.
        Got to keep the uniforms in practice dont ya know.

  4. bardolf August 7, 2011 / 11:55 pm

    Bardolf, just how do we get out of that mess without seeming weak?- Feel the Fang

    We leave just like Lebanon. I really don’t buy into the need to project strength argument. I don’t recall all the attacks on Russia because of their withdrawal from Afghanistan. I don’t recall the attacks from Asian countries after we left Vietnam.

    I don’t buy into the 9/11 was bound to happen because we projected weakness by not going after Cole bombers etc. Those arguments are unconvincing and made to give the world and history more structure than it actually possesses.

    I honestly think that the wars have sapped the energies of 1/2 a generation of America’s most energetic people. Beyond the lives lost, beyond the treasure spent there is a toll on everyone from the constant reminder of family/friends/students/church_members etc. being half a world away, in harms way without a clear goal.

  5. bardolf August 8, 2011 / 12:06 am

    Amy

    I don’t mind Sarah and hope she runs in 2012. I do recall the cult of personality from the GOP at her announcement.

    From NRO in Sept 2008 (just look at all the mentions of her philosophy)

    But, seriously, just look at the negatives: she’s a popular first-term governor, she’s a woman, she’s happily married, she has five kids, one of them with Down’s syndrome, she’s a maverick, she’s from way beyond the Beltway, she’s taken on both the Republican Party and Big Oil, she shoots automatic weapons, she can kill a moose with a butter knife and fillet a sea lion with a smile, her husband’s a roustabout Eskimo snowmobile champ, she’s a hockey mom, she was Miss Wasilla, she looks like she should be playing Cecily, the saucy librarian, in Tom Stoppard’s Travesties, and she doesn’t wear pantsuits. Heck, she hasn’t even appeared yet on Meet the Press! I mean, who in his right mind would vote for her?

    AND SHE QUIT. Now that’s the GOP philosophy everyone knows.

    Being the lover of butchered history I assume you like Sarah Palin for her vast knowledge. Recently she let us know that Paul Revere warned the British.

    • Green Mountain Boy August 8, 2011 / 12:18 am

      And Paul Revere did warn the british. Maybe you need to open the history books back up Bardolf.

      • bardolf August 8, 2011 / 4:11 pm

        LOL

        You’re right. I forgot that most residents of the Colonies at the time considered themselves British.

Comments are closed.