Dozens killed in Taliban attack on Kandahar airport.

Started by Valigarmander, December 10, 2015, 02:40:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Valigarmander

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35043938
QuoteDozens of people have been killed in a Taliban attack on a heavily fortified civilian and military airfield in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

At least 37 people, including many children, were killed in the clashes, along with at least nine militants, the defence ministry said.

A number of hostages were seized in the 26-hour attack but the Afghan army says it has now regained control.

This is the latest in a series of ambitious raids by Taliban fighters.

The Taliban briefly seized the northern city of Kunduz in September.

The group described its fighters as "martyrdom seekers" who had launched "thunderous attacks on foreign and hireling personnel".

The attack continued until one gunman who had held out on his own for several hours was killed late on Wednesday.

At least 35 people and one Taliban fighter were also injured in the attack, the defence ministry said.

The airport compound houses Afghan military and civilian sections as well as a Nato base.

Tolo News TV said the insurgents were dressed in military uniform and were equipped with light and heavy weaponry.

They breached the first gate and then entered an old school building, trading fire with security forces.

Witnesses reported that some of the militants took families hostage and used them as human shields. They said they could hear Afghan soldiers calling on the fighters to let the women and children go.

Kandahar airport director Ahmadullah Faizi told AFP news agency that some passengers waiting to board a commercial flight to India had been trapped inside the airport's civilian terminal, at some distance from the fighting, during the attack.

US Army Col Michael Lawhorn said the Taliban fighters "never physically entered the airfield". There were no coalition casualties.

Correspondents say the attack is a huge security failure because the attackers were able to smuggle weapons into an area supposed to have been made secure by the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

Kandahar army commander Sher Shah told reporters that radio intercepts had found that some militants were speaking in Urdu - a language more common in neighbouring Pakistan. Afghan officials frequently blame Pakistan for the unrest.

The statement by the Taliban claimed that they had killed up to 80 soldiers. This figure could not be verified.

Separately, the Taliban claimed to have captured Khanashin district in southern Helmand province. A local official confirmed the district had fallen.

Militant violence has increased across Afghanistan since the departure of most Nato and US forces last year.

The latest violence came as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani called for help to defeat terrorism, at a regional conference in Pakistan.

Mr Ghani condemned the Kandahar attack as cowardly and expressed his condolences to the families of the victims.

Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani, speaking at the conference, called on Pakistan to help restart stalled peace talks with the Taliban.

TomFoolery

How sad. I spent a good part of my deployment at Kandahar Airfield. The airport there was adjacent to a small part of the NATO airfield.



To say that it's a huge security failure is an understatement. KAF was (and still is) one of the most heavily fortified bases in all of Afghanistan. The airport technically has a civilian and military side and I'm guessing they came in through the civilian side right through the ABP.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Baruch

Reminder for those with short memories.  The Taliban problem is a Pashtun problem.  The Pashtun exist on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.  The Pashtun want their own country, or at least to be the tribal dominant in Afghanistan ... as they have been traditionally.  This is also the area under Muhammad Omar, where the mantle of Muhammad was "claimed" ... which was a restatement of the original revolt in the 1920s ... to establish a Caliphate (after Turkey surrendered it).  So basically domestic political violence and tribal warfare/domination.  Not a good place to try to establish a permanent presence ... and something that will always attract the attention of Iran and Pakistan.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SilentFutility

Seems like well over a decade of vast military expenditure, tragic human suffering and significant loss of human life has made Afghanistan a safe place to be and stopped terrorism worldwide.

Oh wait.

Baruch

The US was doing well initially, with only special forces and bombers involved.  Lost cost, and difficult for the opposition to hit back.  Basically create a kill zone.  Then the US ignored the Powell doctrine about "no nation building" ... due to internal politics within the George W administration.  Powell was ignored even as the Sec Def ... and used and abused to present false evidence regarding Iraq.  The Machiavellians won over the pragmatists.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SilentFutility

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 06:05:56 PM
The US was doing well initially, with only special forces and bombers involved.  Lost cost, and difficult for the opposition to hit back.  Basically create a kill zone.  Then the US ignored the Powell doctrine about "no nation building" ... due to internal politics within the George W administration.  Powell was ignored even as the Sec Def ... and used and abused to present false evidence regarding Iraq.  The Machiavellians won over the pragmatists.

Doing well by what measure exactly? A good kill count? I don't consider killing lots of people for little practical gain to be doing well.

Baruch

In the first six months, the ability of the Taliban to rule, or to even move about Afghanistan was restricted.  It is unnecessary to kill your enemy, just make life difficult for him.  From Tora Bora forward ... the US military officers wanted to earn promotions, hence the need to invade with a big force ... so the captains can be promoted to majors etc ... and unnecessary lieutenants can be ... meat shields.  This was an Air Force plus Special Ops war ... and the Navy, Marines and Army were all sad ;-(  Opportunistic taking out of high value targets was impeded both the DoD lawyers and forcing them across into Pakistan.  Enemies need to believe that they are safe ... within your kill zone.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SilentFutility

Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2015, 05:51:14 PM
In the first six months, the ability of the Taliban to rule, or to even move about Afghanistan was restricted.  It is unnecessary to kill your enemy, just make life difficult for him.

So?
Removing a strong government without a viable alternative creates either a power vacuum or you need to leave massive amounts of troops there to keep stability. The 2nd option was chosen and it is anything but a stable place and never has been.

Life in Afghanistan is very hard right now, it was hard before the invasion and it was hard in the first 6 months.

We made progress with short term military objectives, that says nothing about whether or not we were doing well at achieving an overall goal for the country and also I'm yet to be convinced there really was one beyond "kill a bunch of baddies and then the country will be good and peaceful" which has literally never, ever worked.

Baruch

The US doesn't do nation building ... not even US building.  It is best at tearing down nations, including itself.  The stated goals for Afghanistan after 2002 were ... Quixotic in the extreme ... not to be believed, given that the clear primary target turned out to be Iraq.

Afghanistan had a strong government, so did Iraq.  If the intent was to support a strong government in those places, then it was unnecessary to carry out any military operations at all.  The strong governments in place were not wanted by the Anglo/US imperialism.  Keeping weak governments in place, who are subservient to Anglo/US imperialism ... is a well known fact.  This is the same pattern the US did multiple times in Vietnam.  We were constantly changing the S Vietnamese government ... for their own good.  Eventually they got a strong government, from Hanoi.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SilentFutility

Quote from: Baruch on December 16, 2015, 06:50:09 PM
The US doesn't do nation building ... not even US building.  It is best at tearing down nations, including itself.  The stated goals for Afghanistan after 2002 were ... Quixotic in the extreme ... not to be believed, given that the clear primary target turned out to be Iraq.

Afghanistan had a strong government, so did Iraq.  If the intent was to support a strong government in those places, then it was unnecessary to carry out any military operations at all.  The strong governments in place were not wanted by the Anglo/US imperialism.  Keeping weak governments in place, who are subservient to Anglo/US imperialism ... is a well known fact.  This is the same pattern the US did multiple times in Vietnam.  We were constantly changing the S Vietnamese government ... for their own good.  Eventually they got a strong government, from Hanoi.

So to summarise, they didn't do well in the first 6 months, and it was a useless, tragic waste of money and life, and has caused untold human suffering.

Baruch

Clarifying ... the US did do good for the first six months ... and have wasted the last 14 years there ... a tragic waste of money and life, useless, and causing untold suffering ... just like we did in Vietnam.  It isn't a bug, it is a feature.  Unless you count the resumption of opium production, to provide feedstock to the CIA drug war ... against Russia.  It worked with China vs Britain in the 19th century ... and the Bush family was involved in that ... and it may be working in Russia today.  Since the days of rum, sugar and tobacco ... the Anglo-American combine has been the primary producer of addiction world wide.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.