More

At War: February 15, 2010

First Posted: 04/17/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:30 PM ET

We are blogging the latest news about America's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Email us at AfPak [at] huffingtonpost.com. Follow Nico on Twitter; follow Nicholas on Twitter.

3:30 PM ET -- More civilian casualties. Following on the heels of yesterday's incident, in which two stray U.S. rockets killed 12 Afghan civilians, are reports that 5 civilians were accidentally killed today in an airstrike in Kandahar province. From the Guardian:

A Nato statement said a joint patrol of Nato and Afghan troops saw individuals digging along a path in the Zhari district of Kandahar province today and mistakenly concluded that they were planting an improvised explosive device. Two civilians were also wounded in the strike.


3:00 PM ET -- Marjah just another 'hyped-up' offensive? Simon Tisdall over at the Guardian offers a skeptical take on the media coverage of the Marjah offensive, as well as the current strategy's chances for success:

Assuming they don't get bogged down (and that's a big assumption), just how long US and British elements can and will stay in the field before moving to other fronts is unclear. Some reports say the Taliban are regrouping in Uruzgan, north of Helmand. The question thus arises: is the allied offensive merely displacing the problem? And what about the war's hinterlands: the Talib and al-Qaida bases in Waziristan - where Pakistan perpetually prevaricates - hostile Baluchistan, and the northern borders, where a spreading war threatens fragile Uzbek supply routes?.

Tisdall goes on to write that:

For all the media ballyhoo, the Marjah offensive is thus the starting gun in a race against time; a chance for Obama to escape his "war of necessity" with something approaching honour. But it is a race that the US and Nato, following current policy, appear doomed to lose.

2:30 PM ET -- Soldiers complain about strict rules of engagement. The AP has an interesting piece about soldiers involved in the current offensive complaining about the strict war rules they are being made to operate under. Both U.S. and Afghan troops, the AP suggests, see the rules, which often cause them to have to hold their fire, as a hindrance in their fight with the Taliban. Just what are these restrictions? Here's the AP:

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon -- or if they did not personally watch him drop one.


What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

One U.S. soldier tells the AP with regard to the rules, "I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this. They're using our rules of engagement against us."

Some helpful background on the current rules of engagement, from the AP:

Under the current rules of engagement, troops retain the right to use lethal force in self defense, said U.S. Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the international force.


The rules seek to put the troops in the "right frame of mind to exercise that right," Shanks said. They require troops to ask a few fundamental questions:

• Even if someone has shot in my general direction, am I still in danger?

• Will I make more enemies than I'll kill by destroying property, or harming innocent civilians?

• What are my other options to resolve this without escalating the violence?


2:00 PM ET -- Marjah as a key test of Obama's strategy. The Washington Post this morning looked at how the Marjah offensive is a "a crucial test for President Obama's strategy of more troops, more civilians and more money." The Post's article points to such aspects of the strategy as having the number of Afghan troops outnumber those of US and NATO forces, as well as its plans to hold Marjah until an effective governmental structure can be established.

In addition to Obama's strategy being tested in Marjah, Gen. Stanley McChrystal will also see his new war guidelines tested in the offensive. From the Post:

The first conducted since Obama authorized deployment of 30,000 additional troops, it is being waged under new guidelines McChrystal put in place for forging better ties with the local Afghan population.


U.S. troops have been told to end the "night raids," in which they barged into Afghan homes in search of insurgents, and to send in Afghan forces first. Meetings were held with tribal leaders from the Marja region before the well-advertised offensive began, and news reports from the battlefield indicate that commanders are wary of disrupting the lives of civilians.


12:00 PM ET -- Video from Marjah. CNN's Afghanistan Crossroads blog posted video late last night from the second day of Operation Moshtarak.


9:20 AM ET -- War photos. The Times' front page story this morning on the Marjah was accompanied by a photo which captured something that hasn't appeared all that often in coverage of the fighting in Afghanistan: a soldier wounded during combat. The photo, by embedded photographer Tyler Hicks, shows an unnamed Marine who was wounded in his left arm during a gun battle. In the photo, which doesn't accompany the online version of the article but which you can view as part of a slideshow here, the Marine's wound is being treated by one of his fellow soldiers.

Here's a fascinating description of the scene from the Times story:

By early afternoon, the first Marine was hit. The wounded infantryman, a lance corporal who carried a squad automatic weapon, was struck as he crouched behind a wall, returning fire during a sustained fight in which incoming bullets were whistling and snapping just overhead, or striking the walls. He dropped to the ground.


"Corpsman up!" the Marines beside him shouted, calling for a trauma medic.

The Marine was on his back, blood flowing down his left arm. "Put a tourniquet on him!" someone shouted.

After being treated by a corpsman, the Marine told his sergeant he could still fire his weapon, and so returned to battle.


9:00 AM ET -- Taliban fighters flee Marjah. The New York Times is reporting on its website this morning that a significant number of Taliban fighters have now fled from Marjah on what is the third day of the coalition's offensive on the Taliban stronghold in Helmand. Those that remained were largely in the southern part of the city, officials said at a news conference this morning.

"Today there is no major movement of the enemy. South of Marjah they are very weak. There has been low resistance. Soon we will have Marjah cleared of enemies," the Afghan National Army commander in Helmand, Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, said at the briefing, the AP reports.

The current AP report also details from the frontline of the offensive, where U.S. Marines are engaged in gun battles with Taliban snipers.

Sniper teams attacked U.S. Marines and Afghan troops across the Taliban haven of Marjah, as several gun battles erupted Monday on the third day of a major offensive to seize the extremists' southern heartland.


Multiple firefights in different locations taxed the ability of coalition forces to provide enough air support as NATO forces forged deeper into the town, moving through suspected insurgent neighborhoods, the U.S. Marines said.

In northern Marjah, an armored column came under fire from at least three separate sniper teams, slowing its progress. One of the teams came within 155 feet (50 meters) and started firing.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

We are blogging the latest news about America's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Email us at AfPak [at] huffingtonpost.com. Follow Nico on Twitter; follow Nicholas on Twitter. 3:30 PM ET -- More civ...
We are blogging the latest news about America's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Email us at AfPak [at] huffingtonpost.com. Follow Nico on Twitter; follow Nicholas on Twitter. 3:30 PM ET -- More civ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,945
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (43 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
omobob
left coast, usa
12:20 PM on 02/16/2010
For all the media ballyhoo, the Marjah offensive is thus the starting gun in a race against time; a chance for Obama to escape his "war of necessity" with something approaching honour. But it is a race that the US and Nato, following current policy, appear doomed to lose. All military olans are perfect until the first shot is fired. Where are all those who swore they were surrounded and would not get out? Semper this one.
02:11 AM on 02/16/2010
The fact that you all are the liberals is the saddest part of this entire discourse.

Scarcely a single person on this board spares even 10 seconds to think about what it means for the ordinary Afghan living under the Taliban after the United States once more abandons them to their mercies. How countless more generations will grow under the same doctrine of religiously justified hate and oppression and barbarity that will forever keep them where they are. But you all got hours for half-assed theories of imperialism, evil empires, evil corporations controlling everything etc etc etc.

Sure we might still fail in Afghanistan but I would rather we at least tried. Bush forgot it, Obama half-assed it - that will be the legacy that 1500 coalition soldiers died for. Every soldier I have ever met or fought beside fought to win - and I don't get what is wrong with that, especially when winning here means we could actually give a country a fighting chance.

That used to once be a truly liberal concept - that instead of savagery like the terrorists who attacked us, we responded with real tangible compassion that we paid for in blood. But none of you will ever see it that way and that is actually sad.

Ok now you can cue the outrage on imperialism, collateral damage, arrogance, how Afghans dont really want any of those things i described above etc etc.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spacecreep
10:34 AM on 02/16/2010
Waging war to satisfy your agenda
of how the world should be is neither moral nor just.

And you are most naive to believe that "helping" the Afghans is what motivates our leaders.

The shock doctrine wars generated by a global military machine led by jingoist politicians,
corrupt war merchants, and greedy banksters
are waged to protect profits,
cooperative dictators, and useful drug lords
11:34 AM on 02/16/2010
Yea....... Point in case.
Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
two 'alves of coconut!
01:54 AM on 02/16/2010
This engagement thing:
" If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon -- or if they did not personally watch him drop one."
-----------------
Well, can they take the guy prisoner? It would seem prudent that you could then apprehend the person, seeing as that they're unarmed, and take them to a confinement facility, and whether dead or captive, that particular person would then no longer be able to commit mayhem or violence. One more person off the battlefield, at any rate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:03 AM on 02/16/2010
Ah, taking prisoners. Anathema to the conservative code of conduct, which is, LetGodSortThemOut.
01:15 AM on 02/16/2010
"Soon we will clear the Taliban from its safe havens in central Helmand. Where we go, we will stay. Where we stay, we will build."
Commander of British forces in Helmand, Brig James Cowan,

Now there's a rational approach.

Hope there is enough resolve to see this through.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:34 AM on 02/16/2010
Yeah, Baby!
Now that's how you colonize!
Ironic that this came from a British Commander.
Now these guys know how to expand an empire.
01:43 AM on 02/16/2010
Resolve?

Read this board. Half the people here would surrender to a chimpanzee dressed in a uniform.
01:45 AM on 02/16/2010
LOL Lonemoderate. True, but also don't forget, there's considerable amount of M-lims posting here who worship a wide variety of subhumans like Talibs, AQ, Hamas etc.
11:20 AM on 02/16/2010
And the other half are of lesser intelligence than a chimpanzee.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:30 AM on 02/16/2010
This has been like reading the Who's Who of the GutlessWonders, Rumpledforeskin, Ramirez, EleanorHawking, theborg, cimbri, to name a few. Nihilistpricksthelotofthem.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
12:13 AM on 02/16/2010
Be different, if technology was such that a soldier could tell exactly where that round that made that "tweeezzzz" originated from.

But you can't, always...usually. Some return fire is going to go places where nobody was shooting from, and to expect anything else is to ask for the sacrifice of American lives.

Which is wrong...as long as they're there, they're entitled to stay alive. Don't criticize the American soldier (or Marine, or Navy...or even those skates, the *zoomies) for something they'd rather not do: Killing civilians.

Criticize Bush, for blowing Afghanistan. For lying us into Iraq. For being asleep on 9/11. Anybody but those who have their lives on the line.

(Air Force, I think their real name is. I'm teasing, I'm teasing.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:39 AM on 02/16/2010
Knowing what this was actually all about at the onset, volunteering to be a hired gun is every bit as accountable as the hay seed that called for the invasion.
Bring the troops home and out of harms way. Then we won't have to continue to rationalize their involvement or justify the over 30,000 "civilian casualties".
12:01 AM on 02/16/2010
Afghan war was/is unnecessary. Read Mortensons "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones into Schools"
01:01 AM on 02/16/2010
Afghan war was aboslutely necessary.
Look up: WTC Twin Towers 1998" USS Cole; U.S. Embassies om Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam:f LAX 2000; 9-11: USS The Sullivans;
02:37 PM on 02/16/2010
Look up CIA, Mossad, ISI on something other than corporate controlled media.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RudyHaugeneder
11:57 PM on 02/15/2010
There may a temporary victory, but until Nato troops begin to live among the Afghans rather than retreat to fortresses every night, nothing of significance will be accomplished.
Certainly living among the population will result in considerably higher troop casualties, but it will show Afghans they are seen not only as equals, but as trusted allies in the battle for democracy.

Rudy Haugeneder, victoria, bc, canada
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:58 AM on 02/16/2010
"Battle for democracy"
What a hoot!
11:11 PM on 02/15/2010
Some of you are very nice individuals, but sadly I must agree with Rahm.
photo
wilsonveteran
Free America End Big Government
10:46 PM on 02/15/2010
Oh the great rules of engagement. Shades of Vietnam. But as you all want is a gentler kinder army. For those of you that will say we kill civilians yet we are not considered terrorist. The difference is we do it by accident the Talaban do it on purpose.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:49 PM on 02/15/2010
If you family member gets blown away you will not be saying that goodness iit was an accident and not deliberate.
02:27 AM on 02/16/2010
True that. Chase the dirty US imperialist dog away so that 10 years later no more of your children and grandchildren will continue to be blown away.

The Taliban after all are not the type of fellows to continue waging war after the US leaves. Nope, they got hugs and flower-exchange holidays planned for all, UNLESS you are a woman, a Shiite, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Hazara, a Tajik, Turkmen or Uzbek. Or if you don't want to join their raggedy militia, if you are not a fan of shaving, if you object to their reading of the Quran, if you don't own a Quran, if you like short skirts, if you are not a big fan of goat-love..... you getting it yet?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PocketWatch
10:54 PM on 02/15/2010
Now, here's the thing... If you indiscriminately harm civilians, all you do is make more radicals and enemies. By trying our best to keep this just between combatants (who use civilians as human shields all the time.... nice!), we are trying to minimize that effect. What's so wrong with that? I know it makes things difficult for the troops, but we are fighting people that have no rules. Are we to become like them?
photo
wilsonveteran
Free America End Big Government
11:29 PM on 02/15/2010
First of all our American soldiers are the most compassionate soldiers in the world and without being told often put their lives on the line to protect civilians. However combat is a very confusing time and if you hesitate you die. So why not leave it up to our soldiers to do the right thing. you will be surprised how many times they do that.
11:39 PM on 02/15/2010
The USA is fighting people who DO have rules.
They are doing what any American would do if in the same situation.
They are removing and defeating the invading foreign army that is occupying their country. Believe me I have no love for the Taliban and their draconian polices, the Buddhas of Bamyan being a good example.
What does it take for Americans to get it.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, these are people fighting for their country not for the interests of Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Matt Osborne
10:41 PM on 02/15/2010
Tisdall's a chickenhawk and a culture warrior. The offensive in Marjah will be followed by offensives elsewhere.
11:50 PM on 02/15/2010
See above... I'll get back to you later on that one Matt.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Matt Osborne
05:23 AM on 02/16/2010
Get back to me here.

http://www.osborneink.com/2010/02/afghanistan-and-the-obama-military/
10:37 PM on 02/15/2010
ONOEZ, they're actually having the troops... DO SOMETHING!

The horror, the tragedy! How could this happen?! Why, why can't the troops just patrol around in circles in towns in peace?! Why, oh why must we fight the all-powerful Taliba-

Wait, we won? Wow, you mean our troops are actually equipped to fight battles? I thought the 'Army' was just walking in circles! Huh, amazing how reality is separated from cowardly sniffles.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
10:23 PM on 02/15/2010
Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here....
11:11 PM on 02/15/2010
Best post of the day!
11:51 PM on 02/15/2010
Take me too...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:03 PM on 02/15/2010
O/T

Any Canadians here?
I am in Washington state and have watched the Olympics on Canadian TV my entire life.
They always cover it better.
This year, it's not on my Canadian channel.
Did they change networks or what?
I only get CBUT now, I think I used to get CBC.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
x27
Living is easy with eyes closed
10:04 PM on 02/15/2010
It is on CTV
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:06 PM on 02/15/2010
Thanks!
We have so many channels now.............................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RTWINGER
10:00 PM on 02/15/2010
Serious Question:

How many of you have recently sent a care package or just a simple letter
to a sailor or soldier stationed overseas ??
Giving money doesn't count..

Save the wisecracks and be honest !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:05 PM on 02/15/2010
Honestly?
None.
I have done work on their homes for their wives and children, however.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RTWINGER
10:07 PM on 02/15/2010
thank you for being honest and thanks they need our support also..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RTWINGER
10:10 PM on 02/15/2010
Only one person replies..
10:20 PM on 02/15/2010
I sent some to my husband when he was deployed last year, and I continue to support him and our military friends.