Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Pentagon claims "The war isn't going well"   ( divider line
    More: News  
•       •       •

7653 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2001 at 3:43 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

95 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-11-04 03:46:05 PM  
"They live in caves. Caves, people! That's just too much for us! We really can't beat them unless they go stand out in the fields and we can drop large bombs on them!"
2001-11-04 03:52:03 PM  
We were hoping for an easy,quick solution and its not to be. But I still wouldn't bet on the Taliwackers yet. Noy by a long shot.
2001-11-04 03:54:27 PM  
We didn't win in Viet Nam and we won't win this one.
2001-11-04 03:55:11 PM  
I would take much of this assessment and what that paper tends to offer with many grains of salt. No one to my knowledge ever said it would be swift and decisive. In fact, just the opposite.
I would suggest napalm and plenty of it.
2001-11-04 03:56:22 PM  
1) See cave entrance.
2) Drop big bomb on entrance, and seal it.
3) Log onto Fark, be happy, and focus on boobies.
2001-11-04 04:00:23 PM  
Who didn't see this coming?

Not taht I disagree with the 'war', because I don't. But we were told at the beginning that this would NOT be a speedy process. The shame of it all is that the American (and the west, in general) appetite for instant gratification is causing people to start grumbling. Wake up, people.

Yeah, they live in caves. For those who think that means they're easy pickings, pull your head out of your colon. YOU try going into unfamiliar territory - much less a mountainous region with untold numbers of caves. YOU guess which ones are gonna have people who want to shoot you in the head hiding in them.

This is gonna take some time, folks. Don't let your attention deficit disorder blind you to the facts.
2001-11-04 04:00:33 PM  
Oh boy, time for all you America haters to start judging a war based upon what you get from CNN.

You have no info about what's going on, you have no education in military strategy, and no access to military intelligence information.

All you need though to make comprehensive, sweeping generalizations about the success of this war is 10 minutes of CNN.

I guess you are right, I mean, if a war isn't over in 20 days, what chance do we have?

2001-11-04 04:01:54 PM  
This article is complete bullshiat. It's about as credible as me saying I had my head pressed against a pentagon meeting door and I heard that Donald Rumsfeld said that the moon is made of green cheese.
2001-11-04 04:07:41 PM  
Boy, it's fun to completely fabricate an imaginary Anti-US article and the publish it as fact in a national news paper.

They don't make an asinine tag big enough for this story.
2001-11-04 04:08:59 PM  
Drop big bomb on entrance, and seal it.

they aren't so much "caves" as underground tunnel networks many miles long - there are hundreds of different entrances. that something the Russians learned when they were there - you can bomb mountains till you are blue in the face, but all you get in the end is lots of small rocks.

Anyway - America can't mount a large scale (300,000) invasion, there might even be enough public support for it now, but the casualties from something like that would be catastrophic, and support for it would disappear within the first weeks. I imagine even Bush knows that.

Fb- you are perfectly correct about things we don't know, however we do have access to history and to common sense (well, some of us): That bombing from afar isn't going to do it, is clear; that the US isn't invading Afghanistan full-force is clear as well - what then? That's what most people are curious about.

(btw, what's with "America haters"? I don't think I've seen anyone here claim they hate America. Disagree with what some American leaders are doing - certainly; but hate it?)
2001-11-04 04:14:46 PM  
Tell me I saw a typo! The Royal Marines will provide security for the SAS? Tell me that's some kinda typo! For their rear area maybe? Boy I bet the Royal Navy's larfin at that one! Bet the SAS ain't.
2001-11-04 04:16:28 PM  
Byack in Nyam, we bylew the shyat out of thyem Cyommies.
2001-11-04 04:19:04 PM  
London Telegraph, National Enquirer. What's the difference?
2001-11-04 04:19:13 PM  
I agree, this is crap. I mean, the 'war' may not be going well -I'm not going to believe one way or the other until it's over- but I find this very hard to believe.
However, I find it highly confusing that with Korea and Vietnam, they called them "police actions" when they were fighting against a foreign government. Now we're using our military to supposedly blow up a terrorist network and it's called a war. What the fark?
I think that Dubya's trying to what his daddy tried to to. Go blow up some huts and tanks in the middle east and proclaim himself war hero.
2001-11-04 04:20:32 PM  
Fb, are you kidding? Most of us play Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer!! These battles should be lasting farking 2 hours tops?!?!

Hold on, I need to upgrade my units...

2001-11-04 04:20:56 PM  
Just like the Elite Iraqi Republican Guard was going to stop our army.

I didn't say "stop", I imagine if an allied force of 300,000 troops is deployed in Afghanistan they will be able to go through it in a matter of months and kill every man, woman and child if they wanted to - but how many Americans (and others) would die as the result?

5? 5,000? 15,000?

I don't know. But I do know that it won't be close to the 5 end of the range there.
2001-11-04 04:23:58 PM  
Remove the constraints and will see how well it goes. Screw the P.C.-wimps. Show them what wrath is really like.
2001-11-04 04:28:10 PM  
Hm, and I've been assuming that the reason the Taliban are still there is that we don't yet have a government to replace them with. We can't put the Northern Alliance back in power, they farked it up last time (and let the Taliban in) and the coalition guv we've been trying to put together in Pakistan under the King isn't ready yet. I figure the Taliban will fall about three days after we have a government ready to slide in there.

Oh, and boobies.
2001-11-04 04:28:37 PM  
If we're not willing to go in there and slug it out toe to toe with them we may as well pack up and leave now. We can't win this war if we aren't prepared to take lots of casualties and lose a battle or two. We can win if we're prepared to pay the price.
2001-11-04 04:30:09 PM  
Ill bet you that by 8 o'clock tonight that we will be conquered by extremist towelheads. Uh-huh. Yup. We can't withstand the military might of thrown dirt and sticks.
2001-11-04 04:31:51 PM  
I love the headline though - we are not gonna take the Pentagon's word on this, but they "claim"...

(not to say anything about this coming from the pentagon, I am just talking about the headline)
2001-11-04 04:32:16 PM  
I think the most important phrase in this entire article is the first three words: "Ten days ago." I agree that our outlook wasn't very optimistic heading into last weekend, especially following the capture and execution of opposition leader Abdul Faq.

But I think we've since stepped up our campaign, and are making progress. Rumsfeld just reported this morning that the Taliban is hardly a functioning government anymore. You've all seen that video of bin laden trying to rally islams behind him. I agree with the White House, it's an act of desperation (and Muslim nations aren't buying it, anyway).

I've been really dissapointed with the British press' coverage of this war. With the notable exception of the BBC, the British media outlets seem all too happy to report on the shortcomings of our assault. Go back through the last two weeks of news linked on Fark...doesn't it seem that the articles reported by the British media companies are all negative, while the domestic ones are positive? I mean, you could argue that the American ones are biased, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

I think the American public is half-expecting this war to take a while...but they're looking for something to make the wait worthwhile. Meaning, I don't think they could stomach four straight months of stalemate or (god forbid) persistent defeat.

But I do think they would support several months with small yet cumulative victories (with an occasional reminder from officials on how long wars take to wage). But years of war...that's another story.

I think the problem with the public support of this war is that we don't see this as a fight for our survival...most Americans see this as us giving a rogue nation a spanking and sending it to bed without dinner. Therefore, we aren't prepared for the time comittment of dismantiling a regime. To quote Thomas Paine, "tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered." It's going to take a long time to remove the weeds from the garden without hurting the roses.

Alright, I'll climb down from the pulpit now.
2001-11-04 04:32:22 PM  
Re: lack of good tag

[image from too old to be available]

hope it works, my HTML skills are sorely lacking.
2001-11-04 04:33:20 PM  
We've taken over 5,000 casulties in this war in the last two months. What is the pentigon worried about?
2001-11-04 04:36:31 PM  
I think BigPenguin summed it up quite well: The U.S. military is accustomed to fighting one way. Our armed forces aren't trained at all to do anything other than straightforward fighting. They'll need to learn some new tricks, or resort to decimating the entire middle east.
2001-11-04 04:37:20 PM  
Cheshire, I have yet to hear the Pentagon SAY anything. Some Brit newspaper SUPPOSEDLY has a souce in the very HEART of the Pentagon. One that is willing to risk his career, possibly his life, by revealing military secrets to some British reporter. THAT I find hard to swallow. Wonder if this paper has a political leaning opposing that of the current party in power in Britain?
2001-11-04 04:37:48 PM  
[sigh] Solution is right there in front of us, it's just we don't want to take it because of P.C/Christojudeic libero-conservative bullcrap. This is the exact reason Russian can't win Chechnya, and we didn't win Vietnam.
If you shoot at anything that moves disregarding "What if it's a civilian? Dog? Cat? Deer?" you can be very effective. That's what the other side is doing, but heck, their technology is 20 years behind.
2001-11-04 04:40:11 PM  
Remove the constraints and will see how well it goes

errr... what 'constraints'? You mean the whole "kinda trying not to kill civilians, but not too upset if we do" thing? I don't think that's really holding anyone back too much.
2001-11-04 04:43:34 PM  
What's really weird is that I just read an article that said the exact opposite! Rumsfeld said that the Taliban's military is barely functioning and the US bombings are showing progress.
2001-11-04 05:01:44 PM  
...and I saw Satans face in a cloud of dust over Kabul.... Boobies!
2001-11-04 05:14:39 PM  
There was never a resolve to win in Viet Nam. The resolve was to pull out. Our boys, I still grieve for them.
2001-11-04 05:21:44 PM  
What's sad about this article is that it comes from the same organization that Sir John Keegan (one of the top military historians ever) writes for.
2001-11-04 05:21:52 PM  
fb-: while i agree its a bit to early to judge, i like the fact that you tend to generalize everything in the liberal threads, but when we come here you accuse us of generalization.
2001-11-04 05:33:50 PM  
Seems to me this article isn't really all that far-fetched. There has been a longstanding difference of opinion between the political leaders of the administration who favor a more aggresive campaign, and the military leadership which are more in the mold of Colin Powell, who prefer a more cautious approach.

But the real problem here is that Taleban have fully expected a massive arial bombardment, and dug their forces deep in entrenched positions that are tougher to hit. They want to fight a ground, guerrila war, because they know they posess the strategic advantage. The administration believes you can win all wars on air power alone, and that simply is not true.

All the right-wing trolls here should pull their head out of their ass and look at the criticism with a more objective eye. Complaints about the military campaign aren't necessarily just anti-American rhetoric.
2001-11-04 05:44:35 PM  
When the Pentagon says something its doing isn't going well, you know that is *really* not going well. Oh, and boobies!
2001-11-04 05:46:08 PM  
Oh please...we haven't even got all our ground troops in place. These people are fighting with rocks, sticks and sling shots.

This is total crap!

2001-11-04 05:47:32 PM  
Reports lately are that Taliban troops are taking heavy casualties, which a small force like that can scarcely afford. Come Spring, there are going to be a lot fewer of them, which is certainly a help if we have to invade. One big ground-force omission I noticed in the article is Russia. I'd have thought those guys want some serious payback, so either they're unaccountably not showing up at the party, or we're disinviting them for some reason.
2001-11-04 05:51:08 PM  
The only reason why afghanistan is still harboring Bin Laden is because they have nothing to bomb. The reason the war isn't going well is because there's nothing to bomb. And yes FB-, I did call this before we even started the war, give us a couple years, we'll catch bin laden, give us a couple months, no way.
2001-11-04 05:55:28 PM  
If anyone were likely to get a spy on the inside of the Pentagon, one would think it would be the American media, who would love to do some Vietnam-ish speculation (Brokaw: Its Pentagon Papers part 2!).
The quote seems a little too tame for an angry Rumsfeld ("heads will roll" is not something an angry moss-back says to his officers when they fark up). BBC has become increasingly Tali-luving with their news, I reccomend we take there advisories with a grain of salt.
Still Tostfeld makes a good point. At some point we really are going to have to fight this tooth and nail on the ground.
2001-11-04 05:56:26 PM  
JohnnyMack: Rocks, sticks, slingshots. Oh and they also have AK-47's, Stinger surface to air missile launchers, etc.

Despite what you think, we aren't fighting the Ewoks here.
2001-11-04 06:09:43 PM  
You guys remember Pablo Escobar? Columbian druglord, had billions in the bank, killed well over 5,000 innocents (mostly colombians, though), once blew up a plane to kill one witness on board, had the protection of the government down there, fanatical followers, the whole trip. And he was probably smarter than Bin Ladin (and just as insane.)

Depending on how you look at it, it either took us five years to get him, or four years to figure out how, and ten months to get him.

But we got him, in no small part by sending an army of accountants to destroy his financial empire (they called it "Bringing down the mountain"). Once he lost his financial base, the rest started to unravel.

The first problem with this sort of thing is it takes time. The second problem is that it is unempressive to the average observer. But destroying the financial networks of terrorists is one of the most powerful attacks we can make on them.

It worked on Escobar. It's also how we got Al Capone. It will (eventually) get Bin Ladin and Al-Zawahiri.

P.S. Boobies!
2001-11-04 06:16:28 PM  
Where are the bunker busters. The tanks. The helicopters. Tehhhhhhhhh????? For heaven sake folks. These caves you keep hearing about aren't really the kind one would image. They are intense networks of hollowed out mountian. What we need now are some good, old fashioned siege weapons and tactics. Bombing them, waiting, leting them come up for air and sunshine then having them run back in to the hollow mountian where its safe just isn't going to work. Its stratagey time.

Funky_Thrasher for Hegemon.
2001-11-04 06:17:38 PM  
What exactly did the pentagon expect? The soviets tried bombing them. Didn't work. There's no major infrastructure to bomb. What there is to bomb - these guys know how to do without. As for tossing in special forces on little raids -the Soviets tried that too. Their specials forces were called "Spetznas." That was also unsuccessful. We're just repeating the same historical mistakes - but with an idea of arrogance that we'll succeed where the soviets failed because we're the US of farking A.
2001-11-04 06:29:45 PM  
Expect to see more reissues of "Terrorism threat this week" to continue: it's the States way of justifying bombing the fark out of one of the world's poorest countries.
2001-11-04 06:33:11 PM  
As soon as the Politically Correct influences are removed from the war, and we untie the arm behind us that we aren't using, we would scare the shiat out of the whole world with our firepower.

We actually were entertaining the thought of stopping for Romadan! We will never truly decisively win unless we quit worrying about civilian casualties, and feeding their people.

I was just watching a show on the History Channel about WW2, and how we would absolutely bomb the shiat out of their cities. We meant to kill their people, and that is the kind of attitude we must have to win this thing.
2001-11-04 06:41:00 PM  
Interesting comments all.

Bombing is of limited effectiveness (Kosovo, anyone?), but we're preparing for a bigger strike. And I think it won't happen until Spring, depending on what happens until then.

Is our intent to destroy every terrorist out there? No. So we can bypass most of the caves. When the replacement government comes along, they can deal with the roach problem. We're just here to create a vacuum in Kabul so a decent replacement can be found.

And kick some terrorist ass on the way. Other than that: GET SOME!!!
2001-11-04 06:43:15 PM  
The administration believes you can win all wars on air power alone, and that simply is not true.

Every single administration democrat and republican have tried to start off wars with an air campain. Its cheap, costs a lot less lives and hey if it works then all the better. It also does the job of taking out enemy communication networks and air defence. Its the smart way to start getting ready for a ground campain.
2001-11-04 06:48:58 PM  
canada surrenders.
2001-11-04 06:54:33 PM  
america surrenders. tanks roll through topeka, kansas. victory in north america day.
2001-11-04 07:04:02 PM  
Well, I'm no Queen but I think that the Pentagon is only make available to the public that info which they WANT.

Consider this: This "news release" may be just another part of their strategy, and completely untrue. They know darn well that the Taliban will read it.
Why the fark would the Pentagon TELL people they are having internal arguments and the war isn't going well, unless they are looking for a certain kind of reaction which would help their cause?

They make it sound like our leaders are a bunch of little kids staying awake on Xmas eve, because they want their new toys NOW NOW NOW! and can't be patient.

Rumsfeld should go take a Zanax or Lithuim or something and CALM DOWN.
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.