Archive for the ‘conventional war’ Category

Bait North Korea

June 24, 2009

The North Koreans are beating their chests so hard I fear an implosion of their torsos.

Yeah yeah, many analysts are saying this most recent barrage of bullshit coming from North Korea is due in large part to a succession issue regarding the youngest son of the Kim dictactor.

None of that matters.

What matters is a North Korea that has the capacity to drop, or launch, a nuclear weapon at either its neighbors or us, the United States of America.

I feel that the current U.S. administration is pursuing a policy of baiting the North into firing the first shot into what would end up being a war to unify the peninsula under South Korean leadership.

The main way in which this baiting would be done, I feel, is through the now-intensified interdiction program established by the most recent UN resolution in which ships from or to North Korea must be searched and detained if any nuclear or missile material is found (Signed even by China and Russia, but their stipulation was that the boarding and searching of such vessels must be voluntary by the captain of whatever ship we’re trying to search).

As it stands now, Obama has already said he would not longer reward North Korean belligerency only to face the same situation months later, whenever the food or fuel or whatever we gave to them the first time runs out.

In fact, the Obama administration has said that if containment via the interdiction of cargo and sanctions does not work, then the U.S. would adopt an “offensive, defensive posture” toward the North. 

If the North ends up firing the first shot, either at our navy or our allies in the region, then a determined coalition could be formed, similiar to that established prior to the First Gulf War.

I mean, seriously, if we’re not trying to bait them into firing the first shot, then what the fuck is our strategy? Are we waiting for the regime to collapse under the weight of more sanctions? Well, it’s been over eight years and that hasn’t happened; the elite of North Korea are apparently plenty content with watching their populace starve to death.

So then what is it? Is the American gameplan to wait until the North acquires or develops the necessary technology to concentrate their nuclear materials into bomb/missile format? Are we waiting for them to develop a viable delivery system?

That would be wonderful, because once the North has these things, it’s pretty much game over: Any conflict with them would amount to at least one, probably more, nuclear detonations against their enemies, and likewise mass nuclear detonation against the North. Why?

Why take this path when we can stop them now?

And don’t spout any of this bullshit about how we’re over-stretched militarily. For shit’s sake, we have the entire Pacific Fleet, on top of however many air bases in Japan and South Korea.

I still think Obama should have authorized the destruction of the North Korean long-range rocket while it was still fueling on it’s launch pad a couple of months ago. That would have sent a very strong message to the entire world: Don’t fuck with Obama.

Sure, it may have started a war, a war in which we would win, most likely, and there you go, no more Kim-led North Korean nuclear bullshit to worry about.

The North does not focus on their crushing defeat in the Korean War by American forces (They were thoroughly trounced and had it not been for massive Chinese and limited Soviet intervention, would have remained the conquered, thus unifying the peninsula under a Democratic government in the 1950s), rather they focus on, and teach their young, the series of faux pas made by the United States since the Korean war regarding the handling of certain incidents.

One of which occured in 1969 when North Korean warplanes shot down a Navy EC-121 surveillance plane and killed all 31 Americans aboard.

In 2003, a group of North Korean warplanes shadowed an American spy plane flying in international airspace over the Sea of Japan and came within 50 feet of the American craft. They followed it for over 20 minutes before breaking off.

Incidents such as these are drilled into the minds of the North Korean citizenry (Who are unable to access any outside media outlets) as proof that not only is the United States out to get North Korea (Which we are, but only because the Kims are fucking lunatics who have a score to settle with their neighbors and us that stem from not only the Korean War but also World War II), but that we are also weak and incapable of a forceful response to such provocations.

It has become increasingly clear amongst analysts and North Korean experts that the North has now concluded that it is in their best strategic interests to continue their nuclear and ballistic missile programs and that the benefits from mastering these things far outweighs anything they may receive by bargaining them away in the Six-Party talks.

Now, regarding an attack against North Korea – their military is strong on paper (Million-man army, over 4,000 tanks, 13,000 artillery pieces, etc.), but how would it hold up against prolonged American bombardment? I mean, how would their bottom of the barrel grunt hold up?

Keep in mind, none of these young soldiers, who make up the vast majority of the North Korean military, have ever been in a war, let alone a sustained bomb/missile/artillery barrage from land, sea and air.

I’m sure many of their highest ranking generals have, veterans of the Korean War, but their fighters have never seen war. Ours have.

The only thing holding the North Korean regime intact, and I repeat, the only thing, is their strong emphasis on the military (It is, after all, a military state.) Their economy is almost non-existent – if it wasn’t for grain donations given to them by China and South Korea they wouldn’t even have enough men to be in their army.

If their military infrastructure collapses, so does the state. And this can be said, to a certain degree, about any nation-state, but North Korea stands at the pinnacle of exemplifying this.

An associate of mine pointed out that regardless of whether they’ve ever seen combat, the isolation from international outlets combined with the brainwashing they’ve undergone would make them fight like fanatics.

Plausible, I suppose, but unlikely.

A counter-argument that outweighs this line of thinking is what would override the other: A fanatical desire to “defend Dear Leader against the imperialistic, evil Americans,” or an astoundingly abrupt, severe mental break due to an appalling, unrelenting bombardment?

I believe that the terror they would undergo during such a bombing (And I’m talking at least a month or more before ground forces, South Korean and, if necessary, American, go in) would take precedence over whatever brainwashing they’ve received.

Anyone who has been in intense combat or has studied the affects of prolonged combat on the human psyche will tell you that fear spreads through an army like an outbreak of flu – from one man in a platoon planting seeds of terror in his comrades to a battalion watching another battalion flee in horror amidst the earth heaving with fire and debris – fear and uncertainty bring an army down.

And as stated above, once their army cracks, the state collapses.

And at this point enters the big question: China.

China does not want North Korean refugees pouring in the millions across their shared border. The Chinese do not want Korean blood mingling with Chinese blood via sexual intercourse. The Chinese want to maintain their blood purity, as their leaders see it.

And not only this, a massive influx of terrified hoards of North Koreans could destabilize an already shaky domestic situation in China regarding the brunt of their masses already consumed by dirt-level poverty.

The Chinese poured a massive army into North Korea in the Korean War because they didn’t want the “imperialist Americans” sitting on their border. They were under the impression that our goal was not to unify the Korean Peninsula, but rather to use it as a jumping off point to attack China.

But things have changed dramatically in the past half-century, and I don’t think China would risk getting into a confrontation with the U.S. again over Kim’s North Korea – they have too much to lose now.

I’ve long floated the idea that the Chinese government uses North Korea as a semi-proxy of sorts, giving them the go-ahead to do these belligerent, outrageous things in order to gauge American response while not being on the receiving end of it. After all, it suits the Chinese well to have a completely dependent, autocratic military state sitting as a buffer region on their border.

But after the recent outbursts coming out of the North these past few months, along with the subsequent series of angry articles directed at the North written by Chinese scholars who, in the past, would always write out against any kind of tough talk made by the Chinese government toward the North, it seems the Chinese are finally getting fed up.

So unless this is some kind of very elaborate ruse, it seems that perhaps the Chinese aren’t using the North as a proxy or, if they were, then perhaps the proxy has thrown off the loose reigns of Chinese guidance and has gone berserk – a monster unleashed kind of deal.

China, putting their reputation on the line, assured the United States years ago, along with the international community, that Chinese-led diplomacy would solve the North Korean nuclear issue. Now the Chinese are embarrassed and pissed off.

Time will tell the outcome of the North Korean issue; but I feel if we don’t act soon, we’ll be caught in a qaundary against a backwards nuclear-armed state making outrageous demands, and threatening nuclear war against any who opposes them.

 

juice

Advertisements

Iran – Elections Aren’t the Issue

June 21, 2009

Fuck the big media circus surrounding the painfully obvious fraudulent Iranian elections – Sure, the Iranians have never taken to the streets to his degree in direct opposition of the ayatollah (and I will not capitalize that), but it doesn’t matter what the outcome is unless it keeps the Iranian government from developing nukes.

Either leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir-Hossein Mousavi, both will pursue the weapons program which, of course, they claim is for civilian purposes (Didn’t Saddam say the same thing before the Israelis wrecked his shit [Osiraq] in 1981?).

Bottom line: The United States of America and Israel, especially, have been developing war plans against Iran for years now, and this election bullshit simply clarifies the need for it, and intensifies it.

Because now that it is clear that  Ahmadinejad will remain the president, the same man who believes the apocalypse will be in 2012 (Rather convenient, seeing as he’ll now be in office come 2012) and who, along with the ayatollah, has called publicly for the destruction of Israel and has been ominously pushing for nuclear capablility since he first came into office, will continue faster than ever to establish Iran as a nuclear state.

And Mousavi would do the same, but would take a softer public face to the acceleration of the program, and likewise would make it more difficult for the Persians to get hit.

The unnamed man says: “Darken the sky with airplanes – bomb them ’till they crack.”

The illegitimacy of the post-election Iranian government will make a strike against them much easier to pull off – it’s a lot easier hitting a dictatorship than a quasi democracy (With their un-elected supreme leader the ayatollah and all that). And speaking of which, we thought pre-election that we were dealing with a quasi democracy – as it turns out, we’re now dealing with a paper quasi democracy (Aka: Dictatorship).

It goes without saying that if we don’t hit Iran before they get nukes, Israel will, regardless of what we (The Americans) say, for they view a nuclear Iran as an “existential threat” to their very existence.

And we all know the Israeli IDF slogan, right?

“Never again.”

Now, as for planning an actual attack, I would need to have intelligence resources available to me that only the top echelons of the government and military have, so I cannot, in this report, lay out the specifics for any strike.

I can, however, lay out a basic, textbook framework:

The Iranians learned from Iraq in 1981 that positioning a nuclear facility in one location is a bad idea (The Israelis launched one wave of aircraft and destroyed it), so to counter that, they’ve spread their facilities across the country, many underground.

Alright, so that rules out a swift, one-time strike. Which means any attack against Iran in order to keep it from gaining status as a nuclear power will require limited war.

First, create a breach in their air defenses at the border and get in the stealth bombers to hit preliminary targets before the main bomber/fighter wave comes through (In the First Gulf War, several groups of Apache gunships created a hole for the initial barrage of warplanes to get through into Iraq), and this is done by simply targeting a series of inter-connected radar/air defense positions along a stretch of the Iranian border. Once the hole is made, pour in the planes of war.

As stated above, the nuclear sites are situated everywhere, so a single strike wouldn’t be enough – the Iranians would know what was up rather quickly and would try to get their own air force off the ground.

Solution: First step is to establish air supremacy by destroying not only air defense systems and radar installations, but also the Iranian air force – preferably while it’s still on the ground (reminiscent of Israel doing just that to the Egyptian air force in their opening salvo in the Six Day War).

Once air supremacy is established, start hitting the nuclear facilities.

And what’s Iran going to do? Send colulmns of tanks and troops into Iraq to take on American forces? We’d bomb them on their way across the border and destroy any remnants with out vastly superior military.

The Iranians will undoubtedly unleash their various proxies across the Middle East in the event of such a strike against their country. Hezbollah, Hamas, various Shiite militias in Iraq, will certainly rise up in full force to create as much havoc and confusion as they can – let them, and see what happens.

Would Russia come to Irans defense? Would Russia really risk nuclear war over Iran? After all, we’re not going for regime change here, nor would we put troops on Persian soil (Although the CIA has supposedly escalated their operations in Iran since the fall of Afghanistan), we’d simply be destroying their air capabilities and nuclear program: The latter of which cannot be achieved without first neutralizing the prior.

Russia can go fuck herself – it’s essentially a third-class state that just so happens to maintain a vast and capable nuclear arsenal. So unless they want to take us on conventionally (Surely they’re smart enough to avoid that), then their only alternative is nuclear war.

I don’t think they’d do it.

And I cannot stress enough that the success of any strike against Iran, or any nation for that matter, comes down to who is put in charge of planning and execution. If they know the score, if their minds are completely wrapped around all the dynamics confronting them in such an engagement, then the plan should be a success – especially when dealing with a military inferior to our own.

Norman Schwarzkopf and his team in the First Gulf War knew the score, and they wrecked the fourth largest military in the world – a military, I might add, that had been hardened after nearly a decade of combat against neighboring Iran.

Fuck the government of Iran (Not the people; the vast majority are young and pro-American … I wonder if they would still hold the same sentiment after we put their government in its place by destroying its air force and any chance it may have at obtaining nuclear weapons?).

A successful strike against Iran would bring great relief not only to the U.S., Europe and Israel, but also to the Sunni bloc of nations in the Middle East who are freaked out over Iran’s attempts at regional hegemony.

Iran has an official “Death to America day” … Give them a month of perpetual American aerial bombardment and I think they’ll keep their mouths shut, and their fake muscles hidden in white billowing blouses.

 

juice

Rebuttal of Pro-Hezbollah, Pro-Hamas Posters

May 2, 2009

The following is a rebuttal of claims made on another blog (link below) in which the author, and those leaving comments, declare as fact that Hezbollah and Hamas do not and have not under any circumstances used civilian shields/infrastructure in carrying out their military operations; particularly in the 2006 Lebanon War.

http://pulsemedia.org/2009/04/28/hiding-behind-civilians/

My response:

The things I reported of here come from years of newspaper and online reading. To think that I have all of these resources in front of me, or bookmarked, is ridiculous.

Nonetheless, I will present some source material, per request, to substantiate what I have written above.

Now, before I present source material, I remember watching an international media conference during the 2006 Lebanon war in which Israel showed imagery captured via satellite of a pick-up truck mounted with a rocket launcher, firing in front of a civilian shelter and then speeding away. Moments later, the shelter was hit by Israeli return-fire.

Your comment regarding the throng of women in Gaza who came to rescue the Hamas fighters who had fled into a mosque, is absurd.

You wrote: “It rates as one of the best and most effective instances of non-violent civil resistance I have seen.”

So, an IDF convoy/patrol comes under ambush by Hamas, who claim so vehemently that they wish to kill Israelis, but when the fighting heats up, they flee into a mosque, and, once surrounded by the IDF, call upon a contingent of the local female population to step into the fray so that they may hide amongst them and escape the battle that they started. Some even dressed in the head-to-toe black garbs they found within the mosque prior to making their dash into the crowd of women.

Non-violent eh? Hamas engaged the IDF in a fire fight. If you’re going to start a fight, then fight. Don’t bring the civilian population into an ambush that you orchestrated and executed.

Regarding the source material below, I am sure you will brush off as nothing more than “Zionist propaganda.”

Excerpts from source reports will be documented below, each with links to the original material.

1) Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), written by a team led by Dr. Reuven Erlich (Col. Ret.):

“This study analyzes two central concepts of Hezbollah’s warfare,
demonstrated during the second Lebanon war (July-August 2006). The first is
the broad use of the Lebanese civilian population as a living shield; the
second, viewing the Israeli civilian population as the primary target for the
enormous rocket arsenal Hezbollah built up over a period of years. Both acts
are considered war crimes under international law.”

“The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which is part of the
Center for Special Studies,2 took upon itself to bring before the public
important aspects of the recent war, sifting, verifying, confirming and
compiling information that illustrates Hezbollah’s policies and modus
operandi. The IDF was forced to deal with a terrorist organization, generously
supported by two terrorism-sponsoring states (Iran and Syria), which
constructed a broad military infrastructure within populated areas in south
Lebanon. The organization systematically used local inhabitants as human
shields, cynically endangering their lives and well being.”

“This study examines Hezbollah’s exploitation of Lebanese civilians as
human shields. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which
constructed a broad, advanced, comprehensive military
infrastructure within densely populated areas of Lebanon.
During the last war Hezbollah used that infrastructure to carry out a
massive series of previously planned rocket attacks against
population centers in Israel.”

“Hezbollah’s long-term plan, which was speeded up when the IDF
withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, was to a construct orderly, organized
military infrastructure within densely populated areas. They
were established in the southern neighborhoods of Beirut
(especially in Harat Hreik, where the organization’s command center is
located), in south Lebanon (especially south of the Litani River, the
heart of its operational infrastructure) and in the Beqa’a Valley
(especially in the region of Baalbek, where its training and logistics
facilities are located).”

“Hezbollah’s main deployments are the following:
a. Offensive: Before the outbreak of the second Lebanon war,
Hezbollah stockpiled an arsenal of more than 20,000 rockets of
various ranges, including long-range rockets capable of reaching
both the north and center of Israel. They were primarily
concentrated in south Lebanon and for the most part kept in
designated storehouses located in civilian structures (private
residences and public institutions) in many towns and villages. That
enabled Hezbollah to wage a long-term campaign against Israel
and to inflict extensive damage on its civilian population. Hezbollah
aspired to create a balance of deterrence with Israel and exploit
it to carry out attacks and encourage terrorism in the Palestinian
Authority-administered territories, and at the same time to
continue building up its military power in Lebanon.
b. Defensive: Hezbollah’s defensive deployment is based on its
military infrastructure south of the Litani River and in the hills
around Nabatiya. Its objective was to enable Hezbollah to conduct
guerilla attacks against the IDF with advanced anti-tank missiles,
engineering forces and well-trained and well-equipped infantry. Its
defensive infrastructure is based on a broad deployment within the
Shi’ite towns and villages south of the Litani River and the intention
to wage determined urban warfare (a concept well-illustrated by
operational plans captured by the IDF during the war). To
6
complement its military infrastructure within populated areas,
Hezbollah also constructed such an infrastructure in non-populated
areas, but its function is secondary in its overall defensive
strategy.”

<This study is huge; read more at below link>

http://www.ajcongress.org/site/PageServer?pagename=secret2

 

2) NGO Monitor:

“Summary:  During the Israel-Hezbollah war in July/August 2006, major NGOs claiming to promote human rights, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW), published numerous reports primarily condemning Israeli military actions.  The claims were based on “evidence” provided by Lebanese eyewitnesses, whose credibility and links to Hezbollah were not investigated.  The Intelligence and Terrorism Center at the Israeli Center for Special Studies, in conjunction with the American Jewish Congress, has now issued a detailed report on these events.  It provides extensive documentation and photographic evidence of “Hezbollah’s consistent pattern of intentionally placing its fighters and weapons among civilians,” showing that Hezbollah was “well aware of the civilian casualties that would ensue” from this activity.”

“This NGO Monitor report compares the documented evidence presented in the report with HRW’s and Amnesty’s claims.”

“Human Rights Watch Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report Discredits HRW’s “Fatal Strikes” Report (August 2006)

HRW’s “Fatal Strikes”
 
Claims HRW “found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.”
 
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report

Shows through images, videos, seized documents, and other evidence that Hezbollah had a deliberate policy of “cynically exploiting the civilian population” by planting its “military infrastructure” within civilian areas.[3]

Specific Instances of Hezbollah Activity in Areas HRW Claims There was No Hezbollah Presence
 
 
“Fatal Strikes”
 
Bint Jbeil: Killing of 4 Civilians on July 15.

HRW eyewitness: “there was no fighting taking place in the village—there was no one but civilians. The civil defense was there to help us [recover the bodies].”
 
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report

20 Bases and 5 Weapons storehouses inside the village are shown in an aerial photograph.[4]
87 rockets fired from within village houses, 109 from within a 200 meter radius of the village, and 136 within a 500 meter radius of the village.[5]
60 regular Hezbollah operatives in the village, including about 15 in charge of storehouses.[6]
Arms, ammunition, and equipment were stored in the village before the war. Some equipment was placed in storehouses; some inside civilian residential buildings.[7]
 
“Fatal Strikes”

Qana: Killing of “at least” 28 civilians on July 30.[8]
 
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report

3 rockets fired from within village houses, 36 within a 200 meter radius, and 106 within a 500 meter radius.[9]
Aerial photograph of weapons storehouse located next to a mosque in the village.[10]
Hezbollah compound in former UN outpost just southwest of Qana.[11] “In Hezbollah’s view, outposts only serve to complement its infrastructure in the villages, perceived as the primary operative system.”[12]

“Fatal Strikes”

Aitaroun: Killing of 16 Civilians, July 16, and 10 civilians, July 17.

HRW eyewitness quotes:
“The positions of the [Hezbollah] resistance are around the village, not inside the village.
“There was no presence of the [Hezbollah] resistance inside the village.”
“To my knowledge, Hezbollah was not operating in the area, but I can’t be 100% sure because we were sleeping.”
 
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report

18 rockets fired from within village houses, 23 within a 200 meter radius, and 54 within a 500 meter radius. [13]
Senior Hezbollah Figure, Nabil Qawouk speaking in Aitaroun at the memorial service for those killed in the village: “The arms are in the villages and towns on south Lebanon, but they are invisible.”[14]
 
“Fatal Strikes”

Dibbin (near Marja’youn): Killing of three civilians, July 19.

One witness told HRW that “Hezbollah was active outside the village but not inside it.”
 
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center Report

Explosives from warehouses inside Dibbin transferred to Hezbollah sabotage teams; these explosives were to be used on key places on roads and junctions. [15]
The Hezbollah defense plan for the eastern sector of southern Lebanon involves both the reporting of fighters to the “infantry center” in Dibbin and the transfer of explosives from “storehouses” in Dibbin, to Hezbollah sappers.[16]
7 rockets fired from within village houses in Marjayoun, 11 within a 200 meter radius of Marjayoun, and 11 within a 500 meter radius of Marjayoun. [17]
 

<This list is quite expansive, and details account after account of Hezbollah deliberately using civilians and civilian infrastructure in its fight against Israel in 2006; click the below link for the full report>

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report

 

3) Anti-Defamation League:

“Hezbollah – a U.S.-designated terrorist organization – has occupied the region south of the Litani River since shortly after Israel’s U.N.-certified withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Following that withdrawal, Hezbollah moved into the vacated area and established themselves in bunkers throughout civilian areas, despite the presence of UNIFIL observer troops stationed there under the terms of Security Council Resolution 1559.”

“Hezbollah terrorists live among civilians, store their weapons and hold meetings in civilian houses, and fire their rockets into Israel from civilian neighborhoods, in direct violation of international humanitarian law.”

 http://www.adl.org/Israel/advocacy/glossary/Lebanon_War_2006.asp

 

These are just a few source reports that validate my claims.

I surmise that the people reading this post and leaving the above comments are at the core anti-Jew, anti-Israel.

May it be known that a large Jewish presence existed in Palestine long before the UN-mandated creation of the state in 1948 (The first proposal [UN Partition Plan] called for two states, Israel and Palestine, but the Palestinians rejected it, and therefore Israel was created in full); so large a presence that the Jews had multiple political wings and armed militias to protect their individual territories and people.

The growing Jewish population in Palestine can be traced as far back as the 12th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

If this turns into a bitter dispute between conflicting ideologies, as I feel it might, then I will refrain from further posting here.

Read the above mentioned reports if you are truly interested.

 juice

Taliban Lack the Will

April 30, 2009

Bottom line: The Taliban lack the will to carry out an effective and sustained close-quarters guerilla campaign against U.S., and even NATO, forces.

They certainly are capable: They have the manpower, the munitions and the TERRAIN to do so.

Sure, they’ll hit Afghan police-manned checkpoints and kill them, or send a suicide bomber into a throng of civilians, or detonate an IED as a NATO convey passes, but these are all peripheral aspects of an asymmetrical war.

In order to be viable, these things must be nitched together within the framework of an overall, comprehensive asymmetrical approach that uses an effective engage and displace policy for their front-line fighters as its crux.

Terrain-features of the Afghan-Pakistan border make up a PARADISE for ambushing operations; and through this terrain U.S. forces patrol daily, and yet, until recently (As outlined below), rarely, if ever, come into any kind of close-quarter ambush combat scenario.

Talibani code of guerilla fighting seems to be to engage American outposts with indirect fire and then flee; just like the tactics favored by their ancestors in ancient times (One reason why the soldiers of the Persian Empire were so disturbed when fighting the Greeks; the Greeks fought face-to-face, whereas the Persians, with their Arab contingents, preferred fighting from a distance via arrows and closing only when a victory seemed certain).

The Taliban as of late, and in very isolated incidents, have been ambushing NATO/U.S. patrols (Not many, but they are starting to walk their talk, or at least trying to give that impression).

One confirmed American patrol was caught in an interesting revenge ambush, which I related in a recent post (Came a week after the same unit devastated a Taliban contingent via setting up their own ambush).

A few others confirmed against NATO forces operating with the Afghan Army.

The Talibani ambushes failed.

The encounters were relatively brief and left the Taliban fleeing amidst the bodies of their fallen comrades, while Coalition/Afghan forces sustained little to no casualties.

But the Taliban are least beginning to actually engage in close-quarters combat again.

When first invaded they tried a somewhat conventional approach, in the form of pitched battles in open areas, in which they were obviously wrecked by overwhelming U.S. military prowess.

After that they withdrew to the mountain areas and would ambush U.S. patrols here and there, but the high level of casualties they would sustain, as compared to the small number on behalf of U.S. and Coalition forces, caused them to back away from the face-to-face ambush scenarios and move more toward the lobbing-mortars-from-a-mile-or-two-away-and-then-fleeing tactic.

More of these real ambushes, and by “real” I mean close-quarters, will come with the influx of U.S. combat troops into the South and Eastern portions of Afghanistan this summer, and especially once said forces begin encroaching upon their opium fields.

<For a related post, see “Cowardice of the Enemy”>

juice

New-Wing of American Military

April 26, 2009

Regarding the plan I documented in a previous post (Wrecking Af-Pak [Phase One]), I’ve come to give more thought to both the strategic and tactical advantages of creating an entirely new wing within the American military infrastructure.

I propose creating a 20,000-strong wing of elite, specialized guerilla units that would operate within the framework of a conventional war spearheaded by traditional American forces.

Say, for instance, a major war with China.

It goes without saying this would involve a heavy advance of traditional conventional methods – methods that … well I’ll just be plain here: American military prowess stands stunningly unmatched by any nation or entity on this planet; due mainly to the resources and effort we’ve poured into military technologies.

But what would it say?

What affect would it have on the minds of a conventional enemy, involved in a major conventional war with the United States, if suddenly there arose large numbers of seemingly independent, well-trained and equipped guerilla units employing terrifyingly unorthodox methods while operating in their rear?

And as stated above, these asymmetrical units would not be merely a nuisance to the Chinese, or whatever power we happened to be conventionally engaged with.

We’re talking tens of thousands of these specially trained American forces, operating WITH our already overwhelming conventional forces.

And as stated in Wrecking Af-Pak, these types of asymmetrical American units would be trained relentlessly and would become the best guerilla fighting entity the world has ever seen.

While operating in the rear of a conventional enemy, they would still be operating within the framework of America’s conventional power against said enemy, in that radio contact and aerial fire support could be called down at a whim.

And this new wing could be employed in any number of scenarios, not just in the confines of a mainly conventional war against another power.

As stated in Af-Pak (Phase One), such units could be used with devastating efficiency against other asymmetrical entities.

Mr. Gates, give it thought.

juice