Printable View
Excellent post, photo and analogy: "valley too far." I think that's a sound strategy. but looks it looks like we're going to stay population centric. From Tom's link, Page 3. (For some reason I can't copy the quote.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meinertzhagen
copy it because I just read the whole page and can't determine from where you derived that conclusion (not that I disagree with the statement). Sorry, I'm old and slow...:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank amateur
It's "copy protected," - for me anyway - but here's it is retyped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
"...have separated the insurgents from the population in many areas," Pressler says. "This one area is still contested. We're going to have to go back in there, fight hard to separate the insurgents from the population and that is exactly what we're going to do."
Not that I question you or the statement, it's just weird. :confused:
The Mideast Edition I get at the link is the one for Monday, 21 Jul 08. Only thing I can figure is that maybe Tom posted the link early enough and you hit it and got the 20 Jul edition. Searched the whole PDF and Preysler's name doesn't appear -- nor does '173rd'...
Like I said, no disagreement or questions -- other than the vagaries of cyberspace. :confused:
Thanks for the response!
That's it. Get July 20. Page 1 and 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
returned from dinner. Appreciate it -- any excuse for me to be lazy is good... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank amateur
I see what you meant...
Ken if you can get to the Ebird, you can get the whole thing thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Tom
This article is a good account of what happened. As I suspected, most of the KIA occurred in the fight for the OP. The only problem I have with the article is that they continue calling it a FOB instead of a patrol base.
Quote:
Cpl. Matthew Phillips was close by, so Stafford called to him for help. Phillips was preparing to throw a grenade and shot a look at Stafford that said, "Give me a second. I gotta go kill these guys first."
all us pure retirees out; gotta have a .mil puter for the bird. I cannot now get to some pubs I could get to last year...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom
Dang Ken... I talked to somebody "attribution not allowed" who said that will be changing. I do not have any idea what they meant, but military ID cards becoming CAC cards and allowing retirees access to previously allowed now not allowed stuff? Something like that anyway. Sounds positive anyways.
I get on from home with DEERS data but that is because I am still a DAC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
PM sent
I'm completely heartsick about this. We trained these guys last year, and one of the tasks I wrote was "occupy a COP". And I made some friends in Chosen.
an OP to watch the village. So, as usual, the media blew the reporting...Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm
Tom,
While the commanders assessment is very important it is also important to keep in mind the political factors. This skirmish was all over the news. The politicians don't want to appear ineffective.
This incident is one that will change the face of operations in Afghanistan.
While I would not dispute the role of the political world, I would not rush to judgement concerning ops and this attack. Much is going to change in OEF in the coming months but I doubt those changes will be driven by this attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darksaga
The politicians were already making noises about Afghanistan as were military leaders.
Tom
What it may ignite is more controversy on the M4. At least one news account I read said that weapons froze up during the battle:
Quote:
Outnumbered but not outgunned, a platoon-plus element of soldiers with 2nd Platoon, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team accompanied by Afghan soldiers engaged in a fistfight of a firefight.
After maybe two hours of intense combat, some of the soldiers’ guns seized up because they expelled so many rounds so quickly. Insurgent bullets and dozens of rocket-propelled grenades filled the air. So many RPGs were fired at the soldiers that they wondered how the insurgents had so many.
When you read the piece in full, there is only one instance where a weapon is specifically mentioned as seizing, and that was a M249 SAW. There is no mention of an M4 failure in that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
A bit later than that, the article says "several of the soldiers’ machine guns couldn’t fire..." I'm assuming here (perhaps mistakenly) that probably actually refers to the soldiers' rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedburgh
The rest of the sentence is ....several of the soldiers’ machine guns couldn’t fire because of damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
With the amount of shrapnel flying due to the high rate of RPG fire, plus grenades, that is not surprising - and it is very different from a statement of mechanical failure, as with the SAW.
This is another journalistic effort that comes close but does not quite get it right. First as Jed and Entropy are discussing is the issue of weapons failure versus weapons damage. The other is his use of FOB when it was patrol base. FOB implies a much more permanent structure. So far the coverage has been ok;I am reminded how off base reporting, press and military, was after the 5307th convoy incident. Compared to that, coverage of this one has greatly improved.
Tom