View Full Version : "Succesful Operation?"
March-18th-2002, 01:29 PM
" A Successful Operation? <br /><br />Some allied Afghan commanders disputed U.S. claims that Anaconda was a total success. <br /><br />"Americans don't listen to anyone," Abdul Wali Zardran, a commander in the region, told The Associated Press. "They do what they want. Most people escaped. You can't call that a success."<br /><br />U.S. officials have repeatedly defended their characterization of the operation. <br /><br />"We have not seen significant numbers [fleeing the region]," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said today. She said that the conflict had shown al Qaeda and Taliban forces that the allies were intent on pursuing and engaging them, and had disrupted the terrorist group's communications network to a certain extent. <br /><br />The Pentagon has not released estimates of the number of enemy fighters killed in Operation Anaconda, saying that detailed information on death tolls was not available. <br /><br />The operation began on March 2, with the aim of clearing al Qaeda and Taliban forces from the Shah-e-Kot region. "<br /><br /><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/STRIKE_MAIN.html" target="_blank">ABCNews.com</a>
Park City Skins
March-18th-2002, 03:03 PM
Well, I suppose on the plus side Kefka,(welcome back), you did in fact post the link. However, the "copy and paste" you did before hand works alot like the other post. It only tells part of the story. I'm sure that any of the people who read this post will in fact click on the provided link. But, in the spirit of the "copy and Paste" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> there is this. Right before the one that is posted. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />"Operation Anaconda is complete," Air Force Gen. John Rosa said today. He stressed, however, that U.S. and allied forces were still operating in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan where Anaconda took place. <br />"We still have teams operating in the area looking for any remaining Taliban and al Qaeda," he said. Some 500 U.S. and allied troops remain in the region, searching the caves and mountains. <br /><br />Early this morning, Gen. Tommy Franks, head of Central Command, announced the imminent end of Operation Anaconda during a visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Franks was awarding the Bronze Star to four U.S. servicemen who served in the operation in eastern Afghanistan. <br /><br />"This is about you," Franks told the servicemen."This is about Operation Anaconda, which, within 12 hours, will be completed because you did it, you did it on time, you did it with a good plan, you did it with violent execution, you did it taking care of one another."<br /><br />The operation in the mountains near Gardez claimed the lives of eight U.S. servicemen and hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda holdouts.<br /><br />However, many Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are believed to have escaped in small groups, possibly into Pakistan. <br /><br />Success, I guess is subjective. Though I did notice the word some, not all.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 19, 2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Park City Skins ]</small>
March-18th-2002, 07:00 PM
Success is in the eyes of the beholder. If they planned on killing or capturing every single Al-Qaaeda fighter, they failed in doing so. The truth of the matter is that even with reports claiming that hundreds of Al-Qaaeda have been killed, the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks don't comment on the actual fighters killed. Why? There are no bodies or even remains of the "hundreds of killed Al-Qaaeda" to prove this claim. Just another example of the media or I should say the Pentagon witholding the whole truth.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 19, 2002, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Kefka ]</small>
Park City Skins
March-18th-2002, 07:44 PM
By using the word if kefka you have admitted that you don't know what the objective of the operation was. Then you feel free to add your speculation as to what the objective may have been. Remember the article i poste a few days ago? Here's a quote that may help inshedding some light on the objective of the operation.<br /><br />"But I think from the standpoint of a military operation, the intent to go in and to take this area in Afghanistan and to clear it of Taliban and al Qaeda, that it's been highly successful to date," Pace added. <br /><br />Now, it has been admitted by the Administration and the Pentagon that totals of enemy dead is hard to figure. One of the major problems is that the very caves that these fellows hid in quite possibly became their tombs. <br /><br /><a href="http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/strike_main020316_pm.html" target="_blank">http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/strike_main020316_pm.html</a> <br /><br />If in fact they don't know, then how is it that you know the truth? I don't see a lot of withholding here.
March-19th-2002, 03:19 AM
Oh I'm sorry PCS (Can I call you PCS its much quicker to type than Park City Skin) ... <br /><br />They planned on killing and capturing every single Al-Qaaeda fighter, but failed to do so. I'm not speculating, I'm stating the fact that they can not find any bodies or remains of bodies to prove the claims of "hundreds of dead Al-Qaaeda" fighters. So if they can't prove something why does the media continue to say first oh 100 are dead, 200, 400... oh we don't know exactly how many are dead. The Pentagon did not say the number is "hard to figure" they flat out say they will not comment on the subject. Read the reports from the Afghan Northern Alliance Fighters... they simply put state the US does not know what it is talking about. <br /><br />Another thing, it has been reported on the AOP that the civilians in Gardez have said that truck loads of dead American soldiers were being brought back to the American bases. Yet I don't hear a single peep about this from the US media or the Pentagon itself. I feel sorry for the mother of these soldiers when they start asking why their son's haven't come back yet.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 19, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Kefka ]</small>
Park City Skins
March-19th-2002, 05:32 AM
PCS is just fine. I have in fact, been called worse. kefka, in one post you say "if they planned", that is speculating. Now you say they did plan that. Did I miss somehting here? Or did you just forget to post the link or the quote for the specific objectives of the Operation? Sigh. Here I go again.<br /><br />There are clearly a lot of people who are willing to guess at those numbers," Rumsfeld said. "I'm not one of them."<br /><br />More such operations could be ahead, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday.<br /><br />"There are still significant numbers of terrorists. It's a huge country," Wolfowitz said in a CNN interview.<br /><br />Aside from already known pockets of resistance in the country, the number who slipped away during Operation Anaconda and threaten to regroup and fight again could be 100, even 400, say U.S. officials and Afghan commanders.<br /><br />Numerous al-Qaida fighters fleeing the battles of the last two weeks are believed to have escaped into Pakistan, one U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.<br /><br />An 100 additional fighters escaped in the other direction and were traveling to the north and west inside Afghanistan, a second U.S. official said.<br /><br />U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have said several hundred were killed in the assault by some 2,000 troops from the United States, Afghanistan and other nations.<br /><br />"We can't yet know how many fighters or bodies are still in the caves that have not been searched ... how many dead al -Qaida were buried ... precisely how many have escaped, although we suggest there are people in all of those categories," Rumsfeld <br /><br />Looks to me like those are comments kefka. And I dare say that's a version or to of "don't" know in there as well. The numbers don't change as you stated kefka. The numbers, and I really can't believe I have to do this, are given as estimates. They go "from" 100 to "400", as in an estimate. Look at all that. They are admitting some of these fellows have escaped. They admit there could be enough to regroup. Ect...still don't see the hiding the "truth" as you call it. <br /><br />As for the AOP report, kefka, we have dicussed the need for posting links when making such claims. It helps the validity of the claim. I have scanned several AOP reports and haven't found anything about what you said. Care to assist? Again, how is it you know the "truth"?
March-19th-2002, 08:16 AM
In fairness, this was probably only a qualified success. Numerous Al-Quaeda had probably already skipped across the border several months ago when the Northern Alliance imposed a ceasefire. We were very cautious to minimize casualties on our own side, and not to step on the Northern Alliances' toes. Consequently, we were not as effective in wiping out as many al Quaeda as perhaps we could have been. Still, the remarkably low casualty rate and the destruction of any bases of operation in the area definitely makes this a positive step forward.
March-19th-2002, 08:55 AM
There was a sunday talk show discussing why we don't say the numbers of casualties. There was a retired general who gave what sounded like pretty good reasons to me.<br /><br />Some of the reasons:<br />1) If you do it when you are successful, it's expected when you are not.<br />2) In vietnam we got into a kind of 300 of ours died but we got 1,000 of them type of attitude. It's like gloating about the ability to kill. Yuck!! Theoretically we are there to do a job or accomplish a result. Death, whetehr it's ours or theirs isn't what it's all about. In this case, the opperation was about removing this organized resistance in this region of Afganistan.<br />3) Often times expressing doubts about counts of enemy soldiers (dead or alive) leads opponents into thinking we know less than we do. Hiding one's knowledge isn't a bad thing on the battlefield.
March-23rd-2002, 06:43 PM
"GENERAL FAHEEM'S SECRETARY: NEITHER 800 NOR 500 MUJAHIDEEN WERE KILLED, ONLY 50-60 <br /><br />KABUL(Monitoring Desk): While the U.S. authorities continue to make re- adjustments to the estimates of between 500 to 800 Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces killed in Operation Anaconda, their Afghan Allies have been dismissing such ridiculous numbers. According to the Voice of Germany, the pro-US Afghan commanders have said that the claims of success and estimations are very misleading. The Afghan Defence Minister general Faheem's secretary, Gulbudeen, said that only around 50-60 Mujahideen were martyred during the whole period, and most succeeded in escaping from the region. " <br /><br />Even Gen. Faheem's secretary, who works for Karzai( whom I call Khar-zai, inside joke), states the US is completely clueless. Simply amazing.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 24, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Kefka ]</small>
March-24th-2002, 01:03 PM
Gen. Faheem's secretary?<br /><br />Are we talking about some broad in a burqa who takes dictation?<br /><br /> <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />You're a riot, Kefka. What does the General's butler think of the battle? Does he have any nuggets of secret military intel to offer, too?
March-24th-2002, 08:30 PM
I thought the US military action by placing Karzai into power was suppose to liberate the Afghani people. How are you now trying to put down an article which reported that the Voice of Germany (where the Mr.Karzai and his group were selected) that his General's, Faheem, secretary stated that the US are over exaggerating. Plus why do you assume his secretary is a women? What does being in a burqa have to do w/ telling the truth? And if his secretary is wearing a burqa she must be doing so on her own b/c the US 'liberated' the Afghani people. Right? You reveal more and more about what is in your heart.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 25, 2002, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Kefka ]</small>
March-24th-2002, 11:09 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How are you now trying to put down an article which reported that the Voice of Germany (where the Mr.Karzai and his group were selected) that his General's, Faheem, secretary stated that the US are over exaggerating.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> Uh, what?! Run that sentence by me again, Kefka. I've got out my Federation Triquarter and everything, and I can't make heads or tails of that statement. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Plus why do you assume his secretary is a women?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're right, Kef. I was a bad boy. I made a boo-boo. I made a gender-specific assumption based upon the occupation of the person in question. Send in the P.C. Brigade and cart me off to Sensitivity Training, ASAP! </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What does being in a burqa have to do w/ telling the truth?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're absolutely right, Kef. To be candid, I'm wearing a burqa right now, and I consider myself to be a truthful person. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And if his secretary is wearing a burqa she must be doing so on her own b/c the US 'liberated' the Afghani people. Right?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I don't know about the General's daughter... er, I mean, secretary, but this burqa sure has me feeling liberated! Then again, maybe that's just because I'm not wearing any undergarments with this thing right now. <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ March 25, 2002, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Glenn X ]</small>
March-25th-2002, 09:27 AM
Thats your answer? Thank you.
March-25th-2002, 03:23 PM
Kefka- <br /><br />The premise of your criticism - that we were trying to kill or capture every single al-Qaeda and Taliban fighter in that area with Anaconda - borders on the absurd. (Actually, the operation bordered on Pakistan's Northwest Territory, which is the problem. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )That was never the stated objective. <br /><br />You're also forgetting three things. First, there's a lot of face saving going on among our "allied" Afghan fighters. The undisputed reports are that the Afghans who were to move in and attack the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters crumbled when they came under mortar fire in the early hours of Anaconda, which basically gutted the mission as planned. They retreated, which allowed our enemies to concentrate on only one of our forces. The fact that we were still successful in achieving our objectives points out the training and leadership of the men we have there. But the point is that you shouldn't necessarily buy everything these embarrassed Afghans are saying to various reporters. <br /><br />Second,the real objective was to destroy the efforts of al-Qaeda and the Taliban fighters from reconstituting themselves into a sizeable fighting force. We had reliable intelligence - intelligence that turned out to be accurate, that between approximately 300 and 1200 fighters were gathering in the area. We stopped that process cold, I think you'll agree. <br /><br />We also wanted to destroy the caves and hilltop facilities that the Afghans have used as bases in Eastern Afghanistan, and destroy the supplies and weapons caches that they had there. Again, that's been successful. <br /><br />The third point is that the problem, and it's a problem we've known about since Day 1, is there's a dirty little secret about Pakistan: their central government doesn't really have control over all of the territory within their borders. The Pashtun tribal area in the Northwest Territory of Pakistan - which borders Eastern Afghanistan where Operation Anaconda went forward - is the prime example of this problem. <br /><br />The Taliban, who are of course allies of al-Qaeda, are primarily of Pashtun ethnicity. The Pashtun Paki's typically are sympathetic to them and are offering fleeing Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters shelter and/or safe passage through their territory. This is a problem because they can just as easily filter back into Afghanistan and <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/084/nation/Pakistan_said_still_to_aid_Al_Qaeda+.shtml" target="_blank">cause problems there for the new government</a>. If we or our allies stay there as a security force, <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&u=/ap/20020325/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_554" target="_blank">then they'll target us</a>. <br /><br />Pakistan has managed to position themselves as our ally in this fight, and we need their cooperation of their government. Nevertheless, we have to ensure that there's no safe harbor within Pakistan for terrorists to operate because if that can happen in Pakistan, then it's only a matter of time before the same is true again in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how we work this situation out with the Paki's, who of course view this as a minor problem relative to the nuke-toting 500,000 or so Indian fighters massed on the Paki's eastern border. And you thought that you had problems, right?<br /><br />Anyway, choosing to piss all over Operation Anaconda seems a little bit pessimistic.
March-25th-2002, 03:29 PM
You know, I wonder if the US has ever done anything right. Everytime I "Just ask this guy" he says YES! But Kefka doesn't seem to agree with him and it's really confusing...
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.