What's to critique. Good article, well written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I'll wait for Ken's comment on the 'bias' of that report.
I saw no bias. As I said, good article. He's got a sense of perspective. He's far less worried about IEDs than you seem to be -- and he's there... :cool:
He also utterly and completely refutes your oft stated contention that no one in Afghanistan knows what they're doing or ever gets in a fight. :D
You and the National Inquirer? Good match, that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
those things are written by all the officers. Then sanitized to not to give anything away and to make sure the necessary "rah, rah" stuff is included.
Of course, been that way in all Armies for a good many years. One always has to read between the lines, so to speak (easier than trying to decipher an ignorant journalist's writing...). What's your point?
Quote:
Read through that all again and see which of the actions they initiated and which the TB initiated. And then help me here. How is it that enemy casualties are an estimate? And why in the same report the enemy casualties for the same contact are different?
Enquiring minds ask questions...
I obviously cannot help though goodness knows I've tried. As have others. :rolleyes:
Enquiring minds can ask stupid questions. Considering the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan which have been discussed on this Board at great length and with which I do not agree -- but they aren't my call -- of course the Talibs initiate most contacts. That is not good. While totally unsound militarily, it is politically unavoidable.
The enemy casualties are almost always an estimate in all wars, only very rarely does one do a complete overrun and get all the enemy.
As for your last question, See Sylvan's comment (LINK). :wry: