U.S. troops abandon Afghan outpost following attack

[laststeamtrain]

Source: Reuters

U.S. troops abandon Afghan outpost following attack
16 Jul 2008 08:52:03 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Jonathon Burch

KABUL, July 16 (Reuters) - U.S. troops have pulled out of a remote outpost in northeastern Afghanistan, NATO-led security force said on Wednesday, three days after Taliban militants tried to overrun the base and killed nine U.S. soldiers.

NATO played down the significance of the withdrawal, but Taliban militants are sure to claim victory in driving foreign forces out of the wooded valley, close to the Pakistani border.

Taliban militants briefly breached the incomplete defences of the newly established base in the Wanat district of Kunar province on Sunday and hours of fierce fighting ensued that killed nine U.S. soldiers and many more insurgents.

It was the biggest single loss of life for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since 2005.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL260864.htm

[pinniped]

1. Did someone consult John "know it all" McLame before the withdrawal?

This asshole knows everything, from lowering gas prices, how to win every single war this country has ever waged, to balancing the budget in 4 years, and what ever else needs solving.

[saigon68]

2. "BRING EM ON" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[Bobbieo]

3. Afghanistan was Taliban free before the prick decided to invade Iraq,

We had won that war!!!!!

[SpiralHawk]

4. And opium-heroin production was way down

But since the republicon Crusade began under the 'leadership' of Commander AWOL, both have skyrocketed.

What's up wit dat, 'family values' republicon homelanders?

[whistle]

5. Bingo, key to balance of international trade for the CIA

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. They can't hold it and they know it

Probably sitting ducks for mortar fire, and apparently everybody in the neighboring villages was in on the attack.

Right wingers are fond of saying that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam. This is technically true, of course, if the US gets to solely determine the criteria for what it means to "win a battle," which was largely defined as "no position we held was ever outright overrun" (except for Lang Vei, but that was just a Special Forces outpost...oh, and a few small bases in the central Highlands, oh, and...) If "winning a battle" is defined more broadly and ecologically, then the claim is utterly false. Example: the US Marines held the base at Khe Sahn through the worst of the shelling and wire probes of February-May 1968. But the Marine sand Cav bugged out in May after announcing that they've won the battle by not being overrun. This is a strange way to win a battle: take a pounding and abandon the terriory, but hey, we won! Same thing here. The propagnda the other day on MSNBC was ridiculous: Heroic Defenders Repel Taliban Attack. OK. Fine. They repelled the attack. They weren't completely overrun (and thank goodness for that!). But three days later they bug out, essentially ceding the ground and the territory to the "defeated" Taliban. Only in the limited view of a "battle" as some time-bounded thing could somebody claim that as a victory. From the perspective of strategy, the Taliban won this round, pushing a US garrison from a territory that they presumably wanted to establish as a fixed point.

Not good.