Ze Frank: The History of Afghanistan in 3 Minutes

dt3 said:
I'm pretty sure those numbers include non-combat troops. The numbers nova is referring to are strictly for the ratio of combatants to combatants. Air bases are a good example of what I'm talking about: it takes hundreds of people to run a large one around the clock, and those people aren't actively engaging the enemy. They get counted as troops in theater, but they aren't participating in combat so it skews the numbers.
Click to expand...
So how many additional troops you envisage for 10:1?
 
kelvin070 said:
Like I said earlier this is not a numbers game.
Allied troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1

But NATO advantage in Afghanistan hasn't led to anything close to victory

Newsweek
Click to expand...

Its not JUST a numbers game. You have to follow the strategy to win. Right now in a lot of areas we're not doing that. We're running patrols and the like without really controlling the territory.

dt3 said:
I'm pretty sure those numbers include non-combat troops. The numbers nova is referring to are strictly for the ratio of combatants to combatants. Air bases are a good example of what I'm talking about: it takes hundreds of people to run a large one around the clock, and those people aren't actively engaging the enemy. They get counted as troops in theater, but they aren't participating in combat so it skews the numbers.
Click to expand...

You got it. Supply and maintenance guys sitting back at base aren't taking and holding territory.

dt3 said:
I don't know, I don't have the information to even make a guess. I don't know how many enemy combatants are over there, and I don't know how many combat troops we have over there. But, here's a good article about how it takes approximately 1 support person for every 2 combat troops:

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
Click to expand...

IIRC from my ROTC days its more than that for the US Army given our structure and doctrine. 2-3 is what I remember but that could be wrong....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it looks like Dear Leader Obama is gonna take the "lets fuck things up" option...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?_r=1

President Obama’s advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we tried that once before in a little place in SE Asia and it didn't work out so well.

Then the Russians tried that in Afghanistan a few years later and it worked even worse for them.

JFC what an incompetent boob.....
 
Back
Top