Navy Seals and U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-09/navy-seals-and-us-strategy-afghanistan
Yesterday President Obama sought to reassure a jittery public that the U.S. government can meet its deficit challenge and that in Afghanistan, 'we will press on and we will succeed.' Last Saturday, 30 American troops died when their helicopter was shot down in an area not far from Kabul. Seven Afghan soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were also killed. It was the largest loss in a single day for the American military in Afghanistan since the war began nearly a decade ago, and it highlights the risks of our current strategy. Join us for a discussion on the new questions about U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
Guests
Thom Shanker
Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times.
Paul Pillar
director, graduate studies at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University and a former CIA National Intelligence officer
Commander Anthony O'Brien
former Navy Seal,
retired Lt Commander
Lawrence Korb
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
They died doing what thye loved and were commanded to do.
Increasing SF numbers AND increasing taskloads- increases in casualities to be expected.
Although drone bomb perfect for some- less willing nations abhor accidental collateral damages of their citizenry.
Apparantly human fighters still more intelligent?
Descriminate for sure(enhanced descrimination?).
Where do the old useless sailors go? We have need to know.
NOW.
We love our troops! Give the boys(and girls) what they need!
And when whatever tasking passes and the survivors no longer useful- yup same old story.
2008- one state over 1000 homeless veterans. Large chunk with 'mental' health issues. Go figure.
Stress- a bodies NORMAL reaction to UNnormal situations.
Now we are broke- how about giving US a break-
J O B S(ok food, shelter, meds maybe till then?) !!!
Thats right. We cannot 'afford' IT.
May God have mercy on the dead, the dying, and those who could have made a difference- but CHOSE not to...
How do insurgents get their arms, from whom? U.S. made? How did we label the Afghanis that evicted the Russians? Insurgents?
Diane, we are victims of a closed and controlled system of information. As a journalist your job one is to expose the system. Can you? Will you? Would you sacrifice your job?
"We don't torture." We do not "deliberately" kill innocent people. Arms and munitions do.
Semi Anon wrote:
"less willing nations abhor accidental collateral damages of their citizenry."
Marvin Wagner wrote:
"How do insurgents get their arms?"
After 10 years and thousands of best as casualties, I have two words; "Afghan desert".
Was this a military blunder?
How come this giant helicopter (target) had no protection, such as attack helicopters?
The real question is -- who actually made the call for assistance and was it a set-up?
This is good point.
Still, why anyone would send a big giant transport helicopter into unsecured, unprotected area.
Afghanistan could not be controlled by Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, British Empire and Soviets.
The ultimate arrogance is - we think we can do better.
There are rumors that our government wanted these Seals killed because they were causing dissent over the lies being perpetuated over the killing of Osama bin Laden.
They were, after all, the same seals that were involved in his supposed capture, which we are now learning are filled with Government trying to cover up with changing story lines.
I am wondering if there has been any discussion about the use of tactical nuclear weapons in these tough areas of Afghanistan.
I wish there would be less made of these soldiers being "30 of our best". It implies these deaths would be less tragic had these been 30 standard issue ground pounders.
In the last ten years I have noticed that the American people get outraged when soldiers die, as though soldiers being sent into harms way then being killed is a concept they never considered.
About the length of this 'war' when the American people allowed themselves to be distracted in supporting the invasion of Iraq and leaving the job in Afghanistan unfinished, what did they think was going to happen?
I think the American people didn't think.
speedplay38 wrote:
I am wondering if there has been any discussion about the use of tactical nuclear weapons in these tough areas of Afghanistan.
//
Not by sane people.
This is again a reminder of the fact that we did exactly the wrong thing after 9/11. If instead of going in Afghanistan and killing our enemies (which is exactly what Al Kaeda "heros" do as well: kill what they perceive as their enemies), we could have parachuted food, appologies for ignoring them and excerpts of Coran where Islam proves itself a peaceful religion. Backed that with some investment in Afghanistan (much less than a billion a week), maybe a billion a month and we would be more secure and would have a friend there. Of course, the Military-Industrial complex would have not made such profits as they did this way, we would have had a bigger government, and more poor people employed to produce the goods to send there rather than employed to kill people there.
Dianne's show is following the tired old media script of analyzing an event before even the most basic facts have been determined. We're always so shocked when our soldiers die. We're used to using foreigners as cannon fodder and pursue endless war while claiming to be grief-stricken and appalled by loss of American life. In any other war, the loss of 30 soldiers in a day would have been considered a day of unusually low casualties. People die in war, but in our wars, we can only accept the sacrifices of others. We've started two decade long wars over the loss of two buildings. In WWII England the loss of two buildings would have been considered a "good" day.
I'm disturbed by the commentator - who never spent a minute in combat - simply dismissing a viet nam vet's concerned for the morale of the unit involved. This comment needed followup, and the caller deserved to be thanked for this observation (and his service). He's been there. The commentator hasn't.
urbanrage - you probably believe that landing on the moon was hoax too
We keep the debt deal negotiations secret, but we make public the deaths on Seal Team 6.
Why was that particular information made public and what good does it do?
Their job is difficult, but here is a little cost analysis. It is estimated that NASA and the US government has spent $100 billion on building an orbiting laboratory, the International Space Station, over the last decade. And over more or less the same decade, the US military and government have spent well over $1000 billion in conflicts and war in just the Middle East. The US space program has killed roughly 25 people in on-the-job accidents, including the loss of one Space Shuttle, and the US military can account for 10s if not 100s of thousands of fatalities with regards to its involvement and operations. The US space program has a huge, though underutilized, space laboratory to show for its decade of work. The US government and military has ongoing debt, ingrained animosity in these countries and a future which probably end up abandoning the region to show for its efforts. We can send thousands of troops to the Middle East as needed but now have to buy seats on Russian rockets to get our astronauts to the Space Station. I am sorry folks, but this all just does not seem to add up to me. I thought we were a nation based on freedom, justice, law and human rights; all bound by a pioneering spirit.
Our space program has been one of human history’s greatest national and international generators of inspiration, motivation, good-will and technical advancement, and therefore best uses of money. And if we continue down the path we are on right now, China will be the prieminent space power within a few decades. Then where will the nation be?
You sound like a fence sitter and that is the problem with the American people.
Nothing like having an event to galvanize opinion to help shape your intended goal.
And your 'expert' please stop using the term 'chopper'. It offends those of us who were...
Also small SF were specialized for tasks. Greatest fear for SF was dilution of talent by being 'biggie' sized.
And there are many different SFGs.
Lady business caller- former Wall Street?- stick to your 'expertise- how are your economic business decisions doing?
Maybe mission was to draw fire... to locate targets...
had an instructor who had three
'hard' landings in Vietnam(or thereabouts) that way. One was an overnighter before extraction. He found God that night.
Was past fan of glow in the dark glass parking lots option- but eventually you wind up with one world park in the dark glow by blinded people. But IT would burn pretty.
Willing to work for food.
spedipaid38(close enough government work) said "You sound like a fence sitter and that is the problem with the American people."
Especially considering the fences are either white picket or barbed wire(depending on location, location, location).
speedplay38 wrote:
You sound like a fence sitter and that is the problem with the American people.
//
You?
You Who?
Me?
If Me ... Thanks for supporting my argument, as unintentional as your support may be. ;)
(I come to NPR to avoid the Right Wing mentality. It seems that mentality can follow and find me anywhere. :( )
After the British took over the control of the Arabian Peninsula from the Ottoman Empire in the wake of WWI, they had to realize quickly that their advanced technologies of deployment and overwhelming fire power were quite effective in quelling local hotspots of upheaval temporarily, but did not help resolve the troubles in the region in the long-term. In fact the British government eventually abandoned its efforts of military domination because of the mounting cost with little outcome.
The situation in Afghanistan, appears very similar. We are making more enemies than friends and seem unable to disengage without losing face. Yet another March of Folly.
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/07/computers-mind.html
urbanrage wrote:
"There are rumors that our government wanted these Seals killed because they were causing dissent over the lies being perpetuated over the killing of Osama bin Laden.
They were, after all, the same seals that were involved in his supposed capture, which we are now learning are filled with Government trying to cover up with changing story lines."
Factually UNTRUE. Not the same SEALS. All from the same unit, but not from the same Team. Get your facts straight before you spread your "rumors".
cszabo1 wrote:
"This is again a reminder of the fact that we did exactly the wrong thing after 9/11. If instead of going in Afghanistan and killing our enemies ... we could have parachuted food, appologies for ignoring them..."
"Apologies for ignoring them"? We sould apologize to Afghanistan for providing safe haven for people that left 3000 dead on our eastern seaboard? I should mark your post as "offensive".
On the program focusing upon the loss of 22 Navy SEALs, your guests revealed
their ignorance once again. Although I think my fellow former officer (I was
the same rank in Army Special Forces) had the answer had Diane let him speak
instead of running over him (listen to the recording.) The reason the
projectile could not have been a Stinger was that THEIR BATTERIES ARE DEAD!
The unique batteries used to launch the missile died years ago and that is
why our planes do not bother to dispense defensive flares over Afghanistan.
Secretary Korb says that he was in on the debate about giving them to the
Afghans? Well, that should have come up. Shanker is the NYT military
correspondent? Drew Middleton was a military correspondent, not Mr. Shanker.
The battery issue was discussed and concluded years ago. Note how our planes
behaved over Libya when faced with the real threat of "manpads."
The tactical employment of the Rangers and the Chinooks is relevant and I
disagree with the LCDR. The element of surprise is key. Without surprise, the
Chinook is woefully vulnerable. The first time we tragically lost Chinooks is
when they went into a rescue and were ambushed by small arms and RPGs. They
knew we were coming. This time, they knew we were coming! First, Rangers are
normally the reaction force and not the primary snatch or kill force.
Secondly, the SEALs and whoever was in the 3rd Chinook were overqualified for
a reaction force and should not have blithely motored in on Chinooks.
So, JSOC screwed-up and sent the wrong force and the wrong backup on the
wrong helicopters. Small raiding forces are not *supposed* to become
decisively engaged. That they did is the product of bad intelligence, bad
planning, and bad force selection. To end up with this kind of fiasco, you
usually need to make 2 or more mistakes. That's what JSOC did. Although all
the reports are not yet in, that much is clear in the fog of war.
We keep discussing the errors or merits of past decisions, the Afghan war, the Iraqi war. Nobody is paying attention to the cost and potential risks of our military deployment elsewhere.
Case in point: We have bases in South Korea and Japan. While North Korea is a despicable and evil dictatorship, our military presence does not seem to make the rulers of North Korea any more humane. Nor do our military bases prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear or missile technology.
Granted, North Korea may have a larger conventional military than the South does. But if we made it clear that we are going to withdraw our troops within a number of years; this would give the South an incentive to recruit some of its considerable industry and human resources towards building up their defensive capacities, and no longer depend on the US military backing.
How about devoting a DR show to address the question of why we do need to maintain military bases in such distant parts of the world? The absence of current military action there seems to make our public ignore the issue.
Manned space missions have no demonstrable reason for being, especially with the existing and continuously advancing of robotics. It is like the scaling of the Everest, whose main achievement has been turning the mountain into a garbage dump. Meanwhile, unmanned probes keep sending back new data on our solar system.