View Full Version : guerilla attack in afghanistan

Aug 18, 2003, 09:01 PM
Guerrillas show strength with attack

August 18, 2003

KABUL, Afghanistan--Hundreds of insurgents in a convoy of trucks attacked a police headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan, triggering a gunbattle Sunday that killed 22 people, officials said. It was one of the largest shows of anti-government force in over a year.

The fierce fighting in Paktika province was the latest in a wave of violence that has underscored just how unstable Afghanistan remains after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

The assault began shortly before midnight Saturday when about 400 guerrillas traveling in trucks drove across the border from Pakistan and attacked the police headquarters in the province's Barmal district, said provincial Gov. Mohammed Ali Jalali. It wasn't clear how he knew the men came from Pakistan.

''These police died defending themselves,'' Jalali said. ''The attackers, they were a very big group.''

The insurgents held the police station until dawn Sunday before destroying the building and fleeing to Pakistan.


Aug 18, 2003, 09:10 PM
Just like the VC & NVA coming out of Cambodia--except on wheels. It's just really hard to deal with hostiles when they can operate out of a sanctuary.


Aug 19, 2003, 09:02 AM
Oh good, fresh insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq now. And not enough military presence in either country to do the job right.

Aug 19, 2003, 01:45 PM
We seem to be pretty good at "dynamic entry". We also seem to have great difficulty on finding an exit. Combat troops don't make good policemen, and the politicos don't seem to be able to get the various factions to cooperate "for the good of the nation".

Pick your spot: The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I guess our entire military/political structure thinks in terms of Post-WW II in Germany and Japan?


Aug 19, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

I guess our entire military/political structure thinks in terms of Post-WW II in Germany and Japan?


You nailed it right on the head there. See how often people on these boards have compared recent events to post WW2 (which is different from Dubya Dubya 2) Europe.

Aug 20, 2003, 12:28 AM
more info


More than 90 people have been killed in the past week, one of the bloodiest periods since the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001.

At least 65 people were killed last Tuesday and Wednesday in a series of incidents, including a bomb on a passenger bus, a factional clash, fighting between government troops and Taliban guerrillas and an ambush on an aid group.

Aug 20, 2003, 09:33 AM
So after nearly 2 years, Afghanistan is not significantly more stable than it was just after we ousted the Taliban. AFAIK, Kabul is really the only place with any security whatsoever. The rest of the country is basically the same as it was 18 months ago... lawless, tribal regions run by warlords who may or may not be supporting the return of the Taliban, providing support (or aid and comfort if you want to call it that) to terrorists. Let's hope this isn't what Iraq looks like a year from now.

I've gotta admit, when I read the thread title, my very first thought was a giant ape going berserk in Afghanistan:D

IJ Reilly
Aug 20, 2003, 12:00 PM
Although the U.S. has sought to downplay the possibility of long-term resistance, top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III recently acknowledged the seriousness of the escalation. Even before Tuesday's attack, he said the terrorism threat and the amount of sabotage worried him.

"We could and did anticipate we would have criminality, we knew we would have some resistance from the old regime, we knew we would have some terrorism — but I'm a little uncomfortable with the amount of terrorism we have seen and the number of terrorists we are seeing coming in," he said in an interview last week.

"The sabotage part is certainly taking more time than I anticipated, I think largely because I had not understood — I would say we had not understood — how fragile the economic infrastructure of this country was," Bremer said.


Aug 20, 2003, 11:02 PM
Can attacks against an occupying invasion force, it's allies and the infrastructure they most covet (the pipelines) be considered terrorism?

Aug 20, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
Can attacks against an occupying invasion force, it's allies and the infrastructure they most covet (the pipelines) be considered terrorism?

of course not, it's the term that gets the public support.

to some they're guerillas, others they're freedom fighters. if we used the terms 200 years ago that we use today, the american revolutionaries would be considered 'terrorists'.

Aug 21, 2003, 09:29 AM
You know what guys, you are right. Our troops are spread thin, we need more troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, lets have a draft of the best and brightest, and load em up, and ship em out.

Aug 21, 2003, 09:59 AM
Perhaps we should have thought of that before we charged in to Iraq? Let's send the best and brightest off to get killed and leave the worst and dullest here to innovate in industry, run for office, teach our kids! Good idea.

On a related note, I have often wondered what kinds of things would have been invented/discovered/learned by all the people killed in all the wars humanity has seen. What level would our society have been able to advance to if we had somehow managed to avoid slaughtering each other for all these thousands of years?:rolleyes:

Aug 21, 2003, 10:41 AM
"What level would our society have been able to advance to if we had somehow managed to avoid slaughtering each other for all these thousands of years?"

Unfortunately, since wars seem to have been the primary impetus for all manner of advancements, we might not have advanced as far as we have.

Look at only the last 100 years or so: Medicine advanced one heckuva lot as a result of war wounds--there was money allocated for R&D for better treatment. The Cold War with the USSR led to the space race which did so much for communications R&D and computers as well as medicine.

The horrors of war have led to far more philosophical discussions about ways to avoid it than ever occurred before--whether or not they've been successful.

"Sorta": The US view seems to be that war is okay if only the enemy dies. So, as long as we can use "magic weapons" to kill them without our kids dying, it's okay. Airpower and the equipment of the 3rd Division allowed this sort of warfare. Now, with the kids being on the ground and merely "tourists with guns", they're far more vulnerable and the political heat is rising.

The sad thing is that even if we packed up and went home, the sabotage and killing would continue in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have the opinion that were we to leave the mideast with our military, it would send a message to many that it was safe to expand guerilla-style warfare into many other parts of the region.

Which is why I said a while back in another thread that we're riding a tiger...


Aug 21, 2003, 11:03 AM
That's very true 'Rat. Much has come out of wars in terms of medical advances, high tech gizmos, and better ways of killing each other. But just think about those hundreds of years we call the dark ages when learning was virtually non-existent and wars were all too common, all the libraries that were destroyed back when books were a one-of-a-kind item, and all the brains that have been splattered around that might have had a cure for cancer, a Unified Field Theory, or some other Deep Thought. There is no way to know, and I wouldn't advocate not fighting simply on that basis. It's just something I wonder about.

And if we leave Iraq now (or Afghanistan for that matter) we will have betrayed the people of those countries. Again. Like it or not, we are now committed for the long haul, whether the UN backs us up or now. Leaving now would put us in a worse position than if we had done nothing.