# Canadian Troops Surround Taliban



## tomahawk6 (23 Dec 2006)

NATO forces have trapped up to 900 taliban. This is a team effort with British, Canadian and US troops involved in the operation. The taliban have two choices to either fight or die, I suspect it will be the latter.Good luck and good hunting !!

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ce19040c-55c8-4c38-8351-36d115ecca48


----------



## brihard (23 Dec 2006)

Hm... A Christmas battle, anyone? Here's the bit that frightens me-



> The rockets came from a compound one kilometre away, where up to 35 Taliban remain huddled, using women and children as human shields.



This could get bad...

Best of luck to our boys. Give 'em Hell.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2006)

The Taliban could always give up (at least some of them - if the hardcore types continue with knee-capping and beheading "volunteers", as well as taking hostages, then I don't think they will be maintaining the loyalty of the "volunteers" for very long).

As to the 35 trapped in a compound with hostages - NATO can always wait them out.  That is one of the advantages of Armour.  They can SLOWLY close with the enemy and NOT destroy it.  They can just sit there with a very low level of vulnerability, out of reach of the folks on the inside but with the folks on the inside still within reach of the tanks.

If they are trapped in isolated pockets, and the rest of the community can go about its business then it seems to me that NATO wins.

Visions of a Blackhat in his armoured fort staring down from his hatch with the 105 pointed at a couple of lowly mujahideen: "Are you ready to take your F*****G Blankets now?"


----------



## rmacqueen (23 Dec 2006)

I kind of wondered from the beginning if they weren't trying to box the Taliban in.  It seemed strange that the British would cross from Halmand a couple of days before the big announcement of a new operation and then all the noise they made about what they were doing.  Trying to get them to retreat right into the waiting NATO forces on the other side.

Keeping my fingers crossed but the tanks do make this a different battle than last time.


----------



## Franko (23 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Visions of a Blackhat in his armoured fort staring down from his hatch with the 105 pointed at a couple of lowly mujahideen: "Are you ready to take your F*****G Blankets now?"



Point of note....the Taliban and the Mujahideen are totally different. 

Most of the Muji went into the Northern Alliance and are now apart of the ANA/ ANP.     

Mind you I'd hate to be in their sandles right now....hearing the Leos, but not knowing from what direction they are coming from, feeling the earth shake.

Yep....some brave warriors cowering behind women and childeren.

Regards


----------



## karl28 (23 Dec 2006)

Good hunting  and a safe return  for the  troops


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Dec 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Mind you I'd hate to be in their sandles right now....hearing the Leos, but not knowing from what direction they are coming from, feeling the earth shake.



I've been in their shoes, so to speak, but only on exercise, in Canada, using blanks.  Still, the anticipation was mind numbing.  At first, you think that the tanks are minutes away.  The minutes turn to hours.  Man, its eerie.

Being on the other side, riding with them, well, behind the tanks, in M113s (days of old), that is just f'ing incredible.

Best of luck to our warriors, who stand facing the enemy on this holiday weekend.  God speed!


----------



## warspite (23 Dec 2006)

Best of luck to the troops, may you stay safe and happy hunting


----------



## super26 (23 Dec 2006)

Good Hunting and let the outcome be a good one!


----------



## schart28 (23 Dec 2006)

Best of luck..


----------



## blacktriangle (23 Dec 2006)

Give them hell, and get back safely everyone. 

Merry Christmas!


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2006)

Good hunting.


Give em Hell!


 :evil:


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Dec 2006)

When the time is right, no quarter drawn or given. 

Wear 'em down Canucks! 

They'll cave like a cheap house of cards.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Pearson (23 Dec 2006)

Stay safe lads......


----------



## CrazyCanuck (23 Dec 2006)

Give 'em a nice Christmas present of hot lead, they'll be wishing for a lump of coal after that


edit: clarify


----------



## old man neri (23 Dec 2006)

A Sgt I once knew had a great saying for moments like this;

"It's a good day for a fire mission"


Good luck.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Point of note....the Taliban and the Mujahideen are totally different.
> 
> Most of the Muji went into the Northern Alliance and are now apart of the ANA/ ANP.



Thanks for the correction.

Agree with you on the "brave warriors'.  Hope the guys all stay safe.


----------



## Adrian_888 (23 Dec 2006)

If they try and wait for the taliban to starve or something, wouldn't the hostages die first because they probably wouldn't feed them?  Wouldn't that be the same as bombing them along with the hostages?   ???


----------



## midget-boyd91 (23 Dec 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> If they try and wait for the taliban to starve or something, wouldn't the hostages die first because they probably wouldn't feed them?  Wouldn't that be the same as bombing them along with the hostages?   ???



 I very much doubt that they would wait for the Taliban to starve to death. That would take months because you are forgetting that they are in farmlands right now and have food and water. Also .. it would be far far different from bombing the Taliban with human shields.


----------



## Kalatzi (23 Dec 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The taliban have two choices to either fight or diehttp://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ce19040c-55c8-4c38-8351-36d115ecca48


I may be a touch naive but I had a choice between fighting and Dieing I'd go for the former. I assume you meant surrender or die, which leads me to the next gem of hyperbole



			
				Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> When the time is right, no quarter drawn or given.


Really???? 

To the troops - Good luck and Keep safe


----------



## Warvstar (23 Dec 2006)

To all the troops out there, Stay safe and Merry Christmas.


----------



## Pea (23 Dec 2006)

Give'em hell!

Happy Holidays to all our troops fighting this holiday weekend. Stay safe guys/gals.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (23 Dec 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I very much doubt that they would wait for the Taliban to starve to death. That would take months because you are forgetting that they are in farmlands right now and have food and water. Also .. it would be far far different from bombing the Taliban with human shields.



Why not just burn the feilds closest to the Taliban stronghold, compensate the farmers and assure them that the feilds would grow back the next year? it would also give our guys a clear line of fire, and give any fleeing Taliban nothing to hide in. It's an old tactic and probably not very useful here because of the hostage thing. Of course if it's green pot plants then they won't burn and burning the brown ones has 'adverse effects.' Though in a perfect world if you were to burn the feilds and the Taliban saw the tanks aiming at them out of RPG range they would be inclined to surrender.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I very much doubt that they would wait for the Taliban to starve to death. That would take months because you are forgetting that they are in farmlands right now and have food and water.



Napalm bomb it then?    ;D


Do we have proof of the "hostages" or call thier bluff? 
Watch some how I am wrong. Hints why I am not CDS.  ;D


----------



## Franko (23 Dec 2006)

I think the "scorched earth" policy was droped a few decades ago.      

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2006)

Looks the RCR will have a another Christmas battle to toast to. Hopefully without to many losses. Hope they have the snipers deployed, picking off anyone with a weapon. Harass them into surrender or attacking.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I think the "scorched earth" policy was droped a few decades ago.
> 
> Regards




What do you mean this ain't the Eastern Front?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Dec 2006)

Anything worth harvesting has been done already.  If the Taliban are surrounded in a compound or grape hut and they haven't planned for the long haul with supplies as well as for the cold it is unlikely they will get any supplies now.


----------



## anton (23 Dec 2006)

I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Dec 2006)

Sorry for the hostages but I like the suggestion to use snipers to encourage the Taliban to emerge or better yet some 105mm gunfire from the Leo's to demonstrate that resistance would be futile.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2006)

I am sure the panzers are there...

 ;D


As for the Art of War..


http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html





> III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
> 
> 
> 1. Sun Tzu said:  In the practical art of war, the best
> ...




Art of War is a GREAT read! ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Dec 2006)

anton its pretty hard for an enemy surrounded armed with RPG's to mount any kind of breakout against the Leo's or LAV's.  Plus we have the ability to accurately and effectively engage the Taliban from a safe distance.


----------



## brihard (23 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...



Sun Tzu didn't have M777s.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2006)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Sun Tzu didn't have M777s.




Yeah he wasn't that advance back then.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Dec 2006)

Anton,

Its hard to gain a real picture when you are reading news reports from half a world away.  While Art of War is an easy and illuminating read (compared to some other theorists), be careful reading Sun Tzu and trying to apply it to the real world without context.

Cheers

R5

p.s. Stay safe troops!


----------



## CrazyCanuck (24 Dec 2006)

Wouldn't destroying this pocket of surrounded Taliban entirely send the message that "We live, you die, best if you surrender" it could be good propaganda for later


----------



## old man neri (24 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...




I don't think this applies to suicidal maniacs.

The other concern of course is that they will drop their arms and try to disguise themselves as innocent villagers.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (24 Dec 2006)

I have to post the link here, I was reading about the Taliban types the RCR's are closing the sack on while I listened to my daughters sing Christmas Carols.  The resulting corruption of Santa Clause is Coming to Town goes out the RCR's and attatchments who are getting it done in the sandbox. 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55061.0.html


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2006)

In another war, the Rwandan People's Front would surround a pocket of enemy on three sides, but the "open" side was closed by fire. or better yet, an ambush.....


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Dec 2006)

Give them an out... straight into a killing field.


----------



## warspite (24 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I don't like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...


In all fairness would this not apply to conventional forces, with insurgents it seems to make more sense to trap them and make sure they can't escape before you attack but that's just me. I claim no real life military experience or strategic knowledge


----------



## Scratch_043 (24 Dec 2006)

Also, the problem with 'waiting it out' is that it would give them time to disguise themselves as the part of the group of 'innocents' around them, allowing them to escape (or, more dangerous scenario, they can mount ambush offensives on the troops coming in after them.)


----------



## ClaytonD (24 Dec 2006)

Boater said:
			
		

> Why not just burn the feilds closest to the Taliban stronghold, compensate the farmers and assure them that the feilds would grow back the next year? it would also give our guys a clear line of fire, and give any fleeing Taliban nothing to hide in. It's an old tactic and probably not very useful here because of the hostage thing. Of course if it's green pot plants then they won't burn and burning the brown ones has 'adverse effects.' Though in a perfect world if you were to burn the feilds and the Taliban saw the tanks aiming at them out of RPG range they would be inclined to surrender.



Well, I'm only in Geography 12. But I'm pretty damn sure that if you scorched the fields, the plants would NOT grow back next year. In fact it could wreck the land for a long time.

Now of course this depends on climate, soil, and effects of the burning... Even then, probably not a good idea if you want the plants to grow back.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Dec 2006)

Clayton - burning stubble in fields is a well-known method of clearing fields in the fall.  On the prairies we occasionally have car accidents because of smoke from intentional fires obliterating the view.

Historically it has been a common way to return nutrients to the land and archaically it was used by natives to clear forested land for agriculture and to manage berry patches.


----------



## KevinB (24 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...



Its a good thing no one is listening to you then...


P.S. how can a fight to the death get fiercer? A fight to the afterlife?


----------



## rmacqueen (24 Dec 2006)

Keep in mind, as well, that the hardcore Taliban are not going to just up and surrender because they are surrounded.  We are dealing with fanatics and conventional thinking goes out the window in that case.  One has only to look at Hitler's Germany to see the effects of fanaticism.  Under conventional thinking the allies should not have had to reduce Berlin to rubble but the fantics refused surrender even though it was obvious they were defeated.

The trick is going to be to separate the ideological Taliban from those who are simply fighting _*for*_ the Taliban.  If they can start to do that then the morale will breakdown and the part time fighters will give up, which will also give the "hostages" a chance to get out as well.  

In that regard, IMHO, I think you will see a lot of phsy ops in the next few days with the noose slowly tightening around them.  Nothing affects morale more than watching tanks driving around with impunity and making it obvious you have nowhere to go.  I can also see the Leo's firing a few harmless shots into the area to drive this point home.  Heavy metal can be pretty intimidating when you are on the receiving end ;D


----------



## TN2IC (24 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Heavy metal can be pretty intimidating when you are on the receiving end ;D





Ride of the Valkyries from Die Walküre, by Wagner. Just let the panzer play too.... it would be a nice show.  8)


http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10177










It's an older photo... but it makes a point.  :warstory:


----------



## George Wallace (24 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...



That, next to someone trolling the site, is the silliest thing I have heard all day.  Why would we want to allow fanatical terrorists the oportunity to escape and be able to fight another day?  Just because you read something in the "Art of War", doesn't make it written in stone......  As an MP, would you let a criminal have an escape route out of a crime scene if you had him cornered?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (24 Dec 2006)

The recruiters for these terrorist butt monkeys are always talking about their ability to hit and fade, how all our conventional might is nothing compared to their faith, ruthlessness, and cleverness.  Right now that conventional might is grinding slowly and inexorably as a glacier over a shrinking pocket of increasing terrified terrorists.  How easy is it to sell hit and fade against the example of trapped rats brought to bay and hunted down to the last rat dead or in irons?  Allowing even the illusion of an escape route, even if no living terrorist escaped the cordon would weaken the psychological effect of a total defeat.  If we are passing along quotes to justify our position on this issue, I would favour Napoleon in this situation "The morale is to physical as three is to one".  How much more true is that of unconventional forces without the strong national and regimental traditions of service to keep them on the firing line?  This is not a blow against 700-900 insurgents, this is a blow to the heart and soul of the enemy.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2006)

At most, one could be allowed to escape to take the word back to those who wern't in the trap.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (24 Dec 2006)

There is no reason good enough to let one escape.  One can give word of the insurgents fate just fine lead away in irons to await trial, and followed by a flat-deck displaying the weapons born by the slain.  Similar to the old Roman triumphs, and with a similar message.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Dec 2006)

anton said:
			
		

> I dont like this tactic. Closing in on an enemy on all sides will make the enemy fight to the death alot fiercer. It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...



How will an enemy who is willing to use suicide in his normal operations fight any more fiercely when cornered?  

Here, I'll give you ShamrockTzu's Art of War:

1.  When fighting an enemy that does not fear death, do not fear to deliver it.  Should that enemy be given an escape, they will take it and return to fight just as fiercly as before but with the added danger of now knowing your tactics.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Dec 2006)

You don't need to let one go.  They have cell phones and other means of communication to get the word out.  Their buddies know they are trapped, have no doubt of that.


----------



## old man neri (24 Dec 2006)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> You don't need to let one go.  They have cell phones and other means of communication to get the word out.  Their buddies know they are trapped, have no doubt of that.



They also watch the news I am sure. Hell, some of them probably troll this very forum.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Dec 2006)

Another quote, seeing as we're in the mood: "Never do an enemy a small injury."


----------



## ClaytonD (24 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Clayton - burning stubble in fields is a well-known method of clearing fields in the fall.  On the prairies we occasionally have car accidents because of smoke from intentional fires obliterating the view.
> 
> Historically it has been a common way to return nutrients to the land and archaically it was used by natives to clear forested land for agriculture and to manage berry patches.



Gotcha,  I'll do my homework next time.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (24 Dec 2006)

Well if the Taliban are surrounded they aren't going anywhere, so NATO could have a bit of fun with them. Give them a few sleepless nights of Tanks continually circling them, have a couple of fighter jets do low level passes over them,  shoot above their heads, pound the area with artillery, drop some propaganda and just make the point that we decide when they die. It could be very useful from an intelligence point of view to see at what point they either A)snap (try and fight their way out or something similar) or B) surrender


----------



## TN2IC (24 Dec 2006)

Boater said:
			
		

> so NATO could have a bit of fun with them.




Waste tax payer money.... noooo....  ;D




Giv er!   :evil:


----------



## darmil (24 Dec 2006)

Watch your six and give them hell boys!


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Dec 2006)

Although everyone likes to be on the side of a winning team, personally, I'd like to keep the bravado down.  I just wish these guys success.  And a safe Christmas.  As I type this, it's around 3 am on Christmas morning on the front line.  God Speed to the men and women over there.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (24 Dec 2006)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Waste tax payer money.... noooo....  ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We could always call it a Psychological Warfare Training exercise to cover the costs 

On the serious side to the troops: Thank you and I hope you guys have a peaceful and uneventful Christmas, more than any others you deserve it


----------



## Adrian_888 (25 Dec 2006)

old man neri said:
			
		

> They also watch the news I am sure. Hell, some of them probably troll this very forum.



Thats a dam good point, because its a known fact the the Taliban use media and crap to find out stuff.  There are ways to prevent people from certain countries from singing up, something to do with there IP's.  I could find out exactly how if any admins are interested.


I got another question though.  People keep saying that they think the non extreme Taliban are going to surrender, while the fanatics will keep fighting. But how are those lesser Taliban going to surrender when they probably have fanatic commanders attached to there platoons who would shoot them if they ran?  The only way this could end is every single person in that area dead, mights as well shell the crap out of them and save Canadian casualties.

Talking about phsycological warfare though... They should string christmass lights on all the tanks and stuff, just to piss off the taliban and show how confident we are.


----------



## 241 (25 Dec 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Thats a dam good point, because its a known fact the the Taliban use media and crap to find out stuff.  There are ways to prevent people from certain countries from singing up, something to do with there IP's.  I could find out exactly how if any admins are interested.



Not to sure how that would work, as I am sure they are not jsut viewing it from Afghanistan but perhaps all over the world...For all we know there are sleeper cells here in Canada viewing it...


----------



## Haggis (25 Dec 2006)

241 said:
			
		

> For all we know there are sleeper cells here in Canada viewing it...



Well they should pay double the usual subscription!


----------



## Chimo (25 Dec 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Talking about phsycological warfare though... They should string christmass lights on all the tanks and stuff, just to piss off the taliban and show how confident we are.



I am guessing you have never seen the nasty side of war with a comment like that.


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Dec 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Well they should pay double the usual subscription!



Good one.  ;D

Merry Christmas 

Cheers,

Smith


----------



## Shamrock (25 Dec 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Thats a dam good point, because its a known fact the the Taliban use media and crap to find out stuff.  There are ways to prevent people from certain countries from singing up, something to do with there IP's.  I could find out exactly how if any admins are interested.



If you can find all the countries from which the Taleban operate, then CSIS may have a job for you...


----------



## ladybugmabj (25 Dec 2006)

hubby called us this morning, wished us a merry christmas..he was just heading on shift. Said it's quiet...that's  all he said.

Merry Christmas all!!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Dec 2006)

I'm going to take a small tangent here.

   To all the troops out on tour and in particular A Stan, Merry Christmas and have a happy New Year. Thankyou for serving, Thankyou for taking the fight to the enemy. Stay safe we are all thinking about you.


----------



## Haggis (25 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I'm going to take a small tangent here.
> 
> To all the troops out on tour and in particular A Stan, Merry Christmas and have a happy New Year. Thankyou for serving, Thankyou for taking the fight to the enemy. Stay safe we are all thinking about you.



Sounds like a worthwhile tangent to me..

Merry Christmas, troops.

Pro Patria and Godspeed.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Dec 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Sounds like a worthwhile tangent to me..
> 
> Merry Christmas, troops.
> 
> Pro Patria and Godspeed.



And here.  Merry Christmas and keep safe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Dec 2006)

>It is always advisable to provide the enemy an opening or an escape route. I think I got this from Art of War or something...

A "golden bridge" doesn't have to literally be a physical escape route.  It just has to be an alternative to fighting to the death.  An offer to accept surrender prior to squeezing the bag can be a golden bridge.


----------



## Adrian_888 (29 Dec 2006)

So how much longer do you think there gona sit them out.  Maby im right and they are going to try and starve them out.


----------



## Trinity (29 Dec 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> So how much longer do you think there gona sit them out.  Maby im right and they are going to try and starve them out.



Don't know.  Any speculation is bad.. any answer is OPSEC.


----------

