# 'Taliban surrounded' outside Kandahar



## GAP (31 Oct 2007)

'Taliban surrounded' outside Kandahar
NOOR KHAN Associated Press October 31, 2007 at 6:48 AM EDT
Article Link

ARGHANDAB, AFGHANISTAN — Canadian, Afghan and U.S. troops have surrounded a pocket of some 250 Taliban fighters who have commandeered people's homes in villages just outside Afghanistan's major southern city, officials said Wednesday.

Hundreds of Afghans — their cars and tractors piled high with personal possessions — were fleeing the battleground about 25 kilometres north of Kandahar city.

The provincial police chief said the combined forces have killed some 50 Taliban in three days of fighting. Three police and one Afghan soldier also have died, said Sayed Agha Saqib.
End


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2007)

Heh...
One last fight before winter sets in & the passes close for the winter?

The TB want to fight, have a big fight?  Good for them.  
I think that we (NATO & ANA) will be happy to oblige them in a hard / short fight... we should be able to accomodate the 250 (or more)
Last one out - please take out the trash & turn off the lights


----------



## DirtyDog (31 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh...
> One last fight before winter sets in & the passes close for the winter?
> 
> The TB want to fight, have a big fight?  Good for them.
> ...



As long as there's no repeat of last September, I argee.


----------



## TN2IC (31 Oct 2007)

Get give'em hell boys...  :evil:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Oct 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> As long as there's no repeat of last September, I argee.



What do you mean?


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2007)

... I associated the comment with the Blue on Blue incident involving the A10.  I believe we lost something like 10 people in Sept 2006 during that offensive.


----------



## RHFC_piper (31 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> ... I associated the comment with the Blue on Blue incident involving the A10.  I believe we lost something like 10 people in Sept 2006 during that offensive.



September 3rd 2006.  Op Medusa
4 KIA and 10 wounded.  2 platoons and a engineer det versus an estimated 400 - 600 Taliban in pre-dug entrenchments... a good 4 - 6 hours of fighting.

The A-10 was the next morning... a rough labour day weekend for Charles Coy.


----------



## DirtyDog (31 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> September 3rd 2006.  Op Medusa
> 4 KIA and 10 wounded.  2 platoons and a engineer det versus an estimated 400 - 600 Taliban in pre-dug entrenchments... a good 4 - 6 hours of fighting.
> 
> The A-10 was the next morning... a rough labour day weekend for Charles Coy.


Wasn't it over 50 casualties in 24rs? (for a company sized unit)

That's what I was referring to, hoping that the same "over-enthuisiastic" decisions won't be made by the senior leadership leading to such diastrous consequences.

I most definitely wasn't there (as you were) but I've heard quite a few cynical anecdotes of that day....


----------



## Mike Baker (31 Oct 2007)

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> Get give'em hell boys...  :evil:


+1!  :cdnsalute:


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Wasn't it over 50 casualties in 24rs? (for a company sized unit)
> 
> That's what I was referring to, hoping that the same "over-enthuisiastic" decisions won't be made by the senior leadership leading to such diastrous consequences.


*STOP!* 

MOST of those casualties were due to the unfortunate friendly-fire incident.  EVEN IF you (or others) were there, you would have seen the situation from the ground, NOT the overall allseeing all knowing reasons for ANY decisions made that day.  All the deaths were tragic, but come on: compare that (4 KIA, 10 x WIA) to any non-descript day in world war two.  Yes it was as RHFC_Piper said, a rough labour day weekend, but also note what he said: look at what they were up against, and in spite of ANY decision made by ANY commander at ANY time, we seem to forget that the enemy gets a vote on how things will turn out.


As for the ongoing mission: all the best to our lads.


----------



## RHFC_piper (31 Oct 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Wasn't it over 50 casualties in 24rs? (for a company sized unit)



4 KIA, 10 WIA on the 3rd
1 KIA, 38 WIA on the 4th

So... yeah... C Coy became combat ineffective.




			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> That's what I was referring to, hoping that the same "over-enthusiastic" decisions won't be made by the senior leadership leading to such disastrous consequences.
> 
> I most definitely wasn't there (as you were) but I've heard quite a few cynical anecdotes of that day....



No comment.      

(Not against you... against the situation...)


I know these boy will hand them their asses.  Give 'em hell.


----------



## DirtyDog (31 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> *STOP!*
> 
> MOST of those casualties were due to the unfortunate friendly-fire incident.  EVEN IF you (or others) were there, you would have seen the situation from the ground, NOT the overall allseeing all knowing reasons for ANY decisions made that day.  All the deaths were tragic, but come on: compare that (4 KIA, 10 x WIA) to any non-descript day in world war two.  Yes it was as RHFC_Piper said, a rough labour day weekend, but also note what he said: look at what they were up against, and in spite of ANY decision made by ANY commander at ANY time, we seem to forget that the enemy gets a vote on how things will turn out.
> 
> ...


I was actually going to add that most of the casualties were related to the A10, I should of.  As I can only form an opinion of what I've heard from those on the ground, and from of what I've read, that was what I reflected.  I'm not trying to be an armchair general.

I'll bow of out of this now and wish the lads over there all the best.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Oct 2007)

Going merely from the press reports, ANP advised the military that Taliban were moving in to take advantage of the death of a respected leader, now they are cutoff and fighting for their lives. If this battle plays out well for us, it will seriously hurt the Taliban ability to set up a spring offensive, with morale low and a serious fight back in Pakistan draining off supplies and replacements.

I wonder how the Taliban are enjoying being some the first combat troops (using the term loosely) to experience the wrong side of the Leo 2 debut into real battle?


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder how the Taliban are enjoying being some the first combat troops (using the term loosely) to experience the wrong side of the Leo 2 debut into real battle?



I wouldn't use the term "combat troops" loosely at all on the Taliban.  They have proven their mettle in battle, to varying degrees.  Hell, the Taliban have been in more firefights than I!  Having said that, would this be the Leopard 2's first EVER foray into battle?  EG: First shots fired in anger and all that?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Oct 2007)

I consider many of the Taliban to be first rate fighters and Insurgents, but I don't know if I could really define them as combat troops.

As for the Leo2, I think it saw limited service in some UN zones, but I would say this is the first reallt test against people that are highly interested in killing one.


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2007)

It was discussed in the Leo2 thread but... it can be presumed that demonstrating the Leo2s abilities in combat is something the Germans (Mfg & military) want.  Hence the "loan" of 20 new Leo2 A6Ms.


----------



## GAP (31 Oct 2007)

One more article

Canadian Troops Engage In Major Firefight With Taliban Insurgents
Wednesday October 31, 2007 CityNews.ca Staff
Article Link

Canada's already-costly mission in Afghanistan took another violent turn Wednesday, as the sounds or mortars and machine-gun fire echoed through Kandahar city while Canadian troops confronted Taliban forces just outside the city limits.

The intense fighting has reportedly left 50 Taliban dead and 50 more wounded, and began when Afghan National Police and NATO soldiers surrounded two villages in the Arghandab district.

There were reports the Taliban had amassed about 300 fighters in the area in an attempt to capitalize on a leadership vacuum following the death of a pro-government leader in the area.

"The Taliban are hiding in the houses," said Provincial Police Chief Sayed Afgha Saqib. "We will try and capture them alive."

Panicked residents were quick to flee the embattled district, forming long lines as they made their way into the city centre for safety. The mass exodus was fueled by rumours the Taliban had overrun refugee camps in the area.

"There are a lot of wild stories going on here," one local said. "Some people say there are 250 Taliban and others say it is 1,500 ... People are worried."

The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, or ANSO, issued a warning to non-governmental organizations Wednesday, advising them to stop moving about within Kandahar city and return to safe locations.

The warning added that armed opposition groups were reportedly seen nearby carrying weapons openly and establishing checkpoints, which could be a ploy to draw NATO forces away from the Arghandab fighting. Undeterred, NATO officials said coalition forces are in control of the area.

"The Arghandab district is very close to Kandahar city," said Maj. Eric Landry, chief of planning for the Canadian military contingent in Afghanistan. "This might be a vital ground for the insurgents. It is also a vital ground for us so we want to make sure this district is secure for the population, but also that we have freedom of movement in this district."
More on link


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Canada's *already-costly mission in Afghanistan took another violent turn* Wednesday, as the sounds or mortars and machine-gun fire echoed through Kandahar city while Canadian troops confronted Taliban forces *just outside the city limits*.



No bias there, eh?  I hate CITY TV.....


From what I gather over the OTHER news sites is that it is some 25 km to the north of the city.  Close?  Sure, but "just outside" the city limits?  Gimme a break!
AND the photo they have is of the TALIBAN, not our lads and lasses!  Imagine a news story of D-Day showing a bunch of Wehrmacht soldiers?  Putzes!


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Oct 2007)

> Canada's already-costly mission in Afghanistan took another violent turn Wednesday



Combat operations _violent_??  Whouldathunk?


----------



## TN2IC (31 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> From what I gather over the OTHER news sites is that it is some 25 km to the north of the city.  Close?  Sure, but "just outside" the city limits?



Just outside city limits? Sounds like Operation Typhoon,  02 Oct  1941.  ;D


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2007)

Well,
Anytime you put a large number of irregulars into a head to head confrontation with a large formation of seasoned, organized, well armed and well supported troops, on land of your choosing (+/-) you can only end up with one result... a costly fight for the irregular.


----------



## Haletown (31 Oct 2007)

Tim Bits time again.

If they try and hold ground they will be handed their asses and them sum.


----------



## Kendrick (1 Nov 2007)

Right in Arghandab...  I should be there with them right now.  Suddenly leave really blows...  everyone better be okay when I get back.


----------



## Haggis (1 Nov 2007)

Kendrick said:
			
		

> Right in Arghandab...  I should be there with them right now.  Suddenly leave really blows...  everyone better be okay when I get back.



The tour's got lots of time left.  I'm sure you'll get another chance to clean house.

Fight safe, fight well.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Nov 2007)

More news.

Taliban 'Arghandab' offensive halted: Canada
Updated Thu. Nov. 1 2007 10:45 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Afghan and Canadian forces say they have halted a Taliban offensive aimed at a key district sitting just north of Kandahar city in Afghanistan.

"The Afghan national security forces and coalition forces are pushing back the insurgents," Maj. Eric Landry told reporters at Kandahar airfield on Thursday.

Canadian forces have said it has been one of the most organized Taliban offensives they've seen, but Landry said the Taliban are now pulling out of Arghandab district.

"We know that they are leaving because they are encountering less and less resistance," he said.

"They will not come back because we know that the Afghan national security forces will hold the ground and secure the Arghandab district for the (betterment) of the local population.

Large numbers of local residents fled south to Kandahar when heavy fighting began on Monday. Landry said they are certain those families will start returning in the coming days.

Coalition officials claimed Wednesday to have killed 50 Taliban and injured 50 more.

"We're hearing from Afghan sources that the Afghan National Army and police in the area are now patting themselves in the back for a job well done," CTV's Paul Workman told CTV Newsnet earlier, adding they felt the had the Taliban surrounded.

"Other Afghan sources tell us that most of the Taliban fighters slipped out of the area overnight, which often happens under the cover of darkness."

The verdant Arghandab valley -- a complex web of fields and orchards -- is a tough area to work in, Workman said.

If the Taliban did slip out, it may show that Afghan police aren't yet ready to control the area, he said.

Arghandab is only 25 kilometres from Kandahar city and can be thought of as a northern gateway to the capital, he said.

Mullah Naqib, a pro-Canadian veteran of the 1980s resistance to the Soviet occupation, had been in charge of the area but died several weeks ago.

"We have always been looking for a chance to take Arghandab," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi, told The Globe and Mail by telephone. "Now we have a chance."

Other battles

Mullah Mansour Dadullah, the Taliban's military commander in southern Afghanistan, promised to keep up the fight.

"Our operations are blazing across the southern provinces, and we shall reach the northern provinces in the same manner," he said in an Internet video.

Afghan and NATO troops battled the Taliban in Gulitsan, located in western Farah province.

However, the Taliban overran Bakwa, another neighboring centre, on Wednesday.

A raid in the Bati Kot district of eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province ended tragically.

"While resisting multiple requests to surrender, the militant barricaded himself in a room. Unbeknownst to Afghan forces, his family was barricaded in the room with him," the U.S. military said in a statement.

"The team began receiving small arms fire after they entered the compound and they returned fire," it said. "It wasn't until after the hostilities had stopped and the team had performed a search of the room that they found two children dead."

The militant also died. A woman and child suffered wounds and were treated at a coalition facility.

Afghan government and NATO officials have accused the Taliban of needlessly putting civilian lives at risk, in part by fighting in homes and built-up areas.

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2007)

> Arghandab is only 25 kilometres from Kandahar city and can be thought of as a northern gateway to the capital, he said.



when you're on foot, 25 km is a good hump... not that close at all
If you have troops in a LAV or a Leo2 on your tail, the 25 Km will probably the end of ya


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2007)

In other places at the same time......

Afghan Forces Kill Senior Enemy Commander, Several Fighters  
American Forces Press Service 
Article Link

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2007 - Afghan security forces killed a top-ranking enemy commander, identified as Malawi Abdul Manan, along with several other enemy fighters in Afghanistan's Khost province Oct. 28, officials announced today. 
Afghan soldiers spotted 12 enemy fighters attempting to infiltrate from Pakistan near a border checkpoint in the Spira district. They set up an ambush, engaged the fighters with small-arms fire, and killed several, including the infamous Abdul Manan. 

In addition to leading a large contingent of militants, Manan also was responsible for the movement of both insurgent fighters and weapons across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. 

Originally from Kandahar province, Abdul Manan later became the senior Haqqani commander of enemy fighters in the Paktia, Paktika and Khost provinces of eastern Afghanistan and was compared to the late Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah Lang, killed by Afghan and coalition forces in May, for his span of control, influence and corruption 

"The death of Abdul Manan is a tremendous blow for the enemy and a great success by the Afghan national security forces here in Afghanistan," said Army Maj. Chris Belcher, a Combined Joint Task Force 82 spokesman. "We are glad to see this important player removed from the picture here in eastern Afghanistan. He was a criminal and an enemy of the Afghan people. His death is huge setback, which will send the enemy into a tailspin. It will slow their ability to conduct attacks and the (Afghan national security forces) and coalition forces will be ready to take full advantage of their confusion." 

In operations today in Afghanistan, national forces supported by a small team of coalition troops raided a compound in Amber Khaneh in the Bati Kot district of Nangarhar province, resulting in the death of a militant. 

While resisting multiple requests to surrender, the militant barricaded himself in a room. Unbeknownst to Afghan forces, his family was barricaded in the room with him. 
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Nov 2007)

Meanwhile back at the ranch......


Taliban leader vows winter war spreading to north
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:24pm EDT  DUBAI (Reuters) - A Taliban leader vowed in a video posted on the Internet on Wednesday that the insurgents would expand their fighting to the north of Afghanistan during the country's hard winter.

*"God willing, ... the war will continue in the winter with the same intensity as now," * Mullah Mansour Dadullah said on the video posted on an Islamist Web site. (good luck with this new strategy  : )

"Our operations are blazing across the southern provinces, and we shall reach the northern provinces in the same manner," said Mullah Mansour in Pashto on the video, which carried Arabic subtitles.

Mullah Mansour took over as commander of Taliban forces in the southern province of Helmand in May from his brother, Mullah Dadullah, who was killed in a raid by British forces.

Mainly British and U.S. forces have been engaged in almost daily battles with Taliban rebels in Helmand.

Mullah Mansour said the Taliban also had contact with insurgents in Iraq.

"We exchange information on planning attacks against the enemy, as well as on weapons that are developed on the battlefronts," the Taliban leader told an off-camera interviewer as he sat in what appeared to be a tent.

The video was produced by al Qaeda's media arm As-Sahab, which said it was made during a visit to the Taliban commander by al Qaeda's leader in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid. The recording carried the date of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, which ended in around mid-October.

Mansour denied the Taliban received aid from Iran.

"This is a claim that the Americans make to justify their defeat to the world," he said.

Taliban have launched a spate of suicide bombings, after claims by Afghan, NATO and U.S.-led coalition forces to have subdued insurgents in an aggressive spring campaign against Taliban strongholds in the south and east.
© Reuters2007All rights reserved


----------



## Armymedic (1 Nov 2007)

This is huge:


> Afghan security forces killed a top-ranking enemy commander, identified as Malawi Abdul Manan,



Well done, boys.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (1 Nov 2007)

> Mansour denied the Taliban received aid from Iran.
> 
> "This is a claim that the Americans make to justify their defeat to the world," he said



I guess he's not exactly sure which side toppled who from power. That, or he's still in denial.   ;D


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> *"There are a lot of wild stories going on here," one local said. *


 Yep. Stories of Taliban routed and leadership killed off....and suddenly the media's _credible_


----------



## WLSC (2 Nov 2007)

> Right in Arghandab...  I should be there with them right now.  Suddenly leave really blows...  everyone better be okay when I get back.



Everybody is ok.  You'v mist it...again...  ;D :blotto:


----------



## yak (2 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> No bias there, eh?  I hate CITY TV.....
> 
> 
> From what I gather over the OTHER news sites is that it is some 25 km to the north of the city.  Close?  Sure, but "just outside" the city limits?  Gimme a break!
> AND the photo they have is of the TALIBAN, not our lads and lasses!  Imagine a news story of D-Day showing a bunch of Wehrmacht soldiers?  Putzes!



I was looking at some other news sites, originally there was mention in some them of Arghandab being 235km north of the city, which is clearly wrong.  As to 25km, that's a tad far too, Arghandab actually starts right on the NW side of the city althought most of the fighting was a (very) few km north.  25km is nearly Shaw Wali Kot, I'd say.  A long hump when one is getting chased by LAVs though.  I'd probably run all the way to Pakistan if that bunch of angry Frenchmen with guns  were chasing me, it seems that this came off pretty well all in all, touch wood.  I suspect there was a lot of dismounted work for the boys, given the terrain, and well done.

As far as 'right outside the city', well, there's plenty going on all way round the city, right up to and inside.  Care to drive on Hwy 4, anyone?  Or Hwy 1 west of the KC?  The news reports sound pretty accurate until you actually see for yourself, which is disappointing but not too surprising I guess.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2007)

Uhhh.... who'se an angry frenchman?

If you're refering to Roto 4's R22R then you are surely refering to some angry Canadians - cause I don't think France has any ground troops in the area.... (capisce?)


----------



## yak (2 Nov 2007)

Ha.  Just being silly about having a bunch of gunned up Vandoos following me north from KC...not my idea of a good time if I were TB.  

I'd have made some other sort of backhanded comment regardless of who was doing the chasing, intended as a compliment of course.  Bad enough driving around the city - I can't imagine doing compound clearing or chasing ins through a grapefield.

From all accounts they did a pretty good job.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Nov 2007)

Thank god I'm still here for a few more days, and got to see the reports of just how much the TB got their a$$es kicked.


----------



## RHFC_piper (2 Nov 2007)

This may sound, well, odd... and I don't mean to pick at wounds, but I'm glad to see the TB are trying the "head on" game again.  You can fight a guy with a gun, not some much IEDs.
I'd rather be shot at than worry about the spineless IED attacks. 

Besides, we've learned that in a head to head battle, they don't stand a ice cubes chance in hell.  But they're so greased up on goofers that they don't care.
Let's hope they don't wise up, then we can keep handing them their asses on a white and yellow Toyota taxi all across Kandahar.

Our troops are giving it to them with both hands... Keep up the good work.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2007)

Nothing wrong at all RHFCpiper.... We LOVE mano y mano "in your face" confrontations.  This we can handle very well.... You would have thought that someone would have wised up to the fact that irregulars will never succeed in open combat against an organised opponent (except with overwhelming force).

C'mon down guys, we'll be a waitin!


----------



## RHFC_piper (2 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong at all RHFCpiper.... We LOVE mano y mano "in your face" confrontations.  This we can handle very well....



I mentioned to someone before that I was more comfortable dismounting for a tick and getting shot at by a guy I could shoot back at, rather than driving down the road, watching the CSAM wondering which car was going to ram us and explode, and they looked at me like I was certifiable.  Didn't want to freak people out or offend anyone, 'cause, of course, I'm more comfortable not being shot at or blown up.... if I had a choice.  ;D




			
				geo said:
			
		

> You would have thought that someone would have wised up to the fact that irregulars will never succeed in open combat against an organised opponent (except with overwhelming force).
> 
> C'mon down guys, we'll be a waitin!




Even with "overwhelming odds" they still suck.  Every time they were engaged in Panjwayi, by any tour, they had relatively superior numbers, and yet they still get thumped.
Goes to show that infantry can't win it all by themselves (not saying they're any kind of good infantry), it takes a combined effort to fight effectively... along with training, the ability to actually aim, etc.  They may have many little red fire ants scurrying around in the sand, but our magnifying glasses are "area of effect" weapons, and that makes all the difference.
In all reality, judging by our support elements and the lack of theirs, we will always have the favourable odds in battle. Even when we get pushed out of a fight (3 Sep 06) we still manages to thump them with air and arty support and win the battle (the remaining battle group). 

I'm not one for assuming, but I'm sure the BG CoC over there has learned from all the previous fights we've been in with the TB and have developed an effective method to combat their shabby-force tactics... otherwise we probably would have heard about more friendly casualties by now.  
But, No... They're kicking a$$ and taking names. 

Keep the good news comin'!


----------



## Kiwi99 (2 Nov 2007)

I would disagree with Piper with regards to the Taliban fighting capabilities.  Yes, they are not the best fighters in the world, but they are by no means the worst.  They have won battles, Aug 3rd and Sept 3rd 2006 as example.  And with regards to their apparently huge losses, I call BS.  No enemy is dead unless you walk up and kick the body.  The TB are effective fighters that use sound tactics on most occasions.  To say that they are useless doped up spray and pray types does nothing except put your soldiers in a poor mindset that does not respect the enemies capabilities.

The enemy researches us just as we research him.  He has adapted to us as we adapt to him.  We are reacting to him more than he reacts to us.  If the enemy is as poorly trained and as useless as Piper suggests, we should have won the war by now.  And if the body  count 'estimates' were in fact true, we have killed every TB 5 times over.

As for BGs learning from the ones before, again, I doubt it.  I recall the current commander stating that everything done prior to this tour was a waste of time and that they were going to fix it.  If I had a dime for every person who told me not to worry, "I've been to Kabul" whenever my fellow NCOs or myself tried to pass on info in Aug 06, I would have like $5


----------



## Dog Walker (2 Nov 2007)

Update

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071102/arghandab_blast_071102/20071102?hub=TopStories

Canadian soldier recovering after Afghan blast
Updated Fri. Nov. 2 2007 4:05 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A Canadian soldier was wounded in southern Afghanistan on Friday when a Leopard tank hit an improvised explosive device in the Arghandab district, where Afghan and coalition troops have been waging in a fierce battle with the Taliban.
The soldier, who has not been named, has been airlifted to a Kandahar military hospital with a leg injury, the Canadian military said Friday. He is said to be in fair condition.
He was able to talk to his family in Canada and is expected to return to active duty after treatment, CTV's South Asia Bureau Chief Paul Workman reported.
The Arghandab area had been the scene of heavy fighting between the Taliban and coalition and Afghan troops.
On Thursday, Canadian and Afghan troops in the main southern city of Kandahar said they had halted a Taliban offensive close to the city.
The insurgents were forced to retreat and pull out of Arghandab, Maj. Eric Landry told reporters.
However, a strong contingent of troops remains in the area.
Afghan officials said 50 Taliban fighters had been killed in the clashes and described the Taliban withdrawal as a major government victory.
Mullah Naqib, a pro-Canadian veteran of the 1980s resistance to the Soviet occupation, had been in charge of the area but died several weeks ago.
The clashes between the Afghan and coalition troops took place about 26 kilometres from the city, making it the closest the Taliban had been to Kandahar since 2001.
Thousands of local residents fled south to Kandahar when heavy fighting began on Monday. Those families are expected to start returning in coming days.
Mullah Naqib, a pro-Canadian veteran of the 1980s resistance to the Soviet occupation, had been in charge of the area but died several weeks ago.
Meanwhile Mullah Mansour Dadullah, the Taliban's military commander in southern Afghanistan, promised to keep up the fight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Nov 2007)

You can find the area using

http://www.flashearth.com/

Select the layer in the upper left corner marked: Microsoft VE (labels)
You will see the town to the NW of Kandahar


----------



## JAWS228 (2 Nov 2007)

To all our soldiers in Kandahar: kick some butt and take some names!! 
and most of all stay safe.   





			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Mullah Mansour Dadullah, the Taliban's military commander in southern Afghanistan, promised to keep up the fight.


In that case, better scratch some 50 or so more fighters off of your list buddy.


Hopefully none of our soldiers will get injured this time though.
Bonne Chance to all of them!


----------



## Journeyman (3 Nov 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> *I would disagree with Piper with regards to the Taliban fighting capabilities....*


Add my name to that list. 

Regardless, in this rare type of head-to-head combat (in Kandahar this season, not so much in Helmand) only reinforces the faulty mindset of those stuck in the Ft Frontenac simulator....you know, where if only we had Leopards with bigger guns, the troops would be home by Christmas. Check the logic of that with the 12eRBC kid in the Role 3 hospital with the broken leg/hip.

Being better at all-arms, conventional warfighting will likely prove completely irrelevant. The centre of gravity isn't in Arghandab. 

To quote from Thomas Barnett's blog "Underdogs Play 'Dirty' ".....





> ....reminds me of the apocryphal conversation years after the Vietnam War where the U.S. officer brags to his Vietnamese counterpart that America never lost a battle in Vietnam and the Vietnamese equivalent agrees, noting that that fact was completely irrelevant to the war's outcome.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2007)

This may seem bizarre but the most hopeful signs I have detected out of the Middle East recently is the lack of signs.  By that I mean that there doesn't seem to be much news on Iraq, or Afghanistan at all.  Presumably "no news is good news".  Does this exercise make Mullah Omar more relevant?  Or does it just make his supporters think he is still relevant?

If Omar, Osama and Al Zawahiri aren't getting air time can they win the only game that counts - the one that the Vietnamese won?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Being better at all-arms, conventional warfighting will likely prove completely irrelevant. The centre of gravity isn't in Arghandab. ...



Amen brother.  Anti-insurgent and countering the insurgent are NOT the same thing.  

Sigh - we are never going to get it, are we?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> You can fight a guy with a gun, not some much IEDs.
> I'd rather be shot at than worry about the spineless IED attacks.



Is calling in an airstrike spineless as well?  I'm having trouble seeing the difference between a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet and one triggered from below.

Is it really a "gun to gun" fight when he brings 4 mags in his AK rig and maybe a larger piece left behind by the Soviets and we have LAV III's, M777's, and coalition airpower and support (especially starlight).

Let's not fool ourselves on the capabilities that either we or our foe bring to the table.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Add my name to that list.





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Amen brother.  Anti-insurgent and countering the insurgent are NOT the same thing.
> 
> Sigh - we are never going to get it, are we?



+1 to these comments - chasing a body count means nothing as the madrassas of Pakistan can easily replace the losses - we must ask ourselves; are we closer or farther from achieving our overall goal after this?  I read to today that Afghan officials are stating that the Taliban forces escaped the cordon, but the the performance of the ANA seems to be promising.


----------



## pbi (3 Nov 2007)

Comment from a REMF sitting behind the levers at the "Fort Frontenac simulator". I have to admit to sharing some uneasiness about the "apparent" emphasis on body counts and kicking *** in conventional fights, if we are actually engaged in a COIN operation. I parenthesize  "apparent" because if you look at the Army as a whole, there are definitely some very mixed messages. 

On the one hand, we are all justifiably proud of the outstanding performance of our troops in combat: no questions asked about that, nor should there be. We don't stand in anybody's shadow. I hear and read comments, reports and analysis (primarily from officers at various rank levels, little or nothing from NCOs and troops) that we have validated many good old lessons such as the value of the combined arms team, the integration of CAS and other fires with manoeuvre, and the importance of a good capable echelon system. All good, especially if we remember that Afghanistan is just one war: there will be others against enemies yet to be identified in places unknown, and these basic skill sets may be even more useful. Roger so far. But are we focusing too much on the "kinetic?", out of a renewed sense of pride in ourselves as reborn warriors? Are we lured by body counts that brief well but mean little in COIN? A question, definitely NOT a judgement. And, anyway, if the enemy threatens to surround K-har or take some other key point, it's clear that he is presenting himself for a whacking and that Canadians will do so.

On the other hand, I regularly hear and read just as many officers saying good and intelligent things about COIN, about the "long fight" and about military force being just one tool in the box and not necessarily the most important tool. I hear about the successes of the PRT, about the SAT, the OMLT, and the slowly growing "whole of government" approach. ("Slowly growing", I said...) Here at Kingston we have introduced COIN into the curriculum (a bit late to need, I'll agree...) and we will be increasing that emphasis, I'm pretty sure. We try very hard to instill these good and intelligent things, to an audience that is about 60% Afghan veterans who can easily wave the BS flag (and they do...) All of the exercises and problems now consider the "complex operating environment" and several have a clear COIN flavour, etc. It takes a while to change an institution, especially when we can't just train officers for "the war": we have to impart the skills for "a war" since we don't have a crystal ball about what's next. So, does this mean that in fact as an Army we do "get it?", and there are just a few individuals who don't? I'm not sure about this either, but I'm more positive about this one than I am the first question.


I think we have two good things going for us in our corporate experience. First, we were once an army that focused on COIN. When I joined as a Militia soldier in 1974, the Regular Army based in Canada (NOT 4 CMBG...) was configured as a light, airportable force to fight what in those days we were calling "brushfire wars". There was heavy emphasis on patrolling, ambushing, etc. The SSF (remember that?...)was conceived as a force for this type of fighting (indeed its first major exercise, GEORGIAN STRIKE, was a COIN-type scenario). We have the ability to configure and train to fight like that, if that is what we need to do. We did it once.

Second, as much as I shudder at some of the wider damage done by the peacekeeping experience, it did teach us as an Army that things can take a long time to achieve, and that by getting down to ground level and dealing with people, eyeball to eyeball, we can make local progress. Unfortunately those ops we participated in were generally characterized by an utter lack of any higher concept of operations approximating a "campaign plan": we sometimes pushed things too hard looking for quick results instead of realizing that there may be certain underlying similarities between COIN and PSO, if you want to achieve significant and lasting results.

I think we can adapt to COIN ops, and adapt very well, and I think that we actually are, but in an uneven way. It takes only one CO of a BG to decide that he will make a big splash during his six months, instead of taking the gradual approach, to wreck a carefully developed COIN campaign. My impression is that we don't have too many of those kind of people, anecdotal evidence aside. I hope not.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is calling in an airstrike spineless as well?  I'm having trouble seeing the difference between a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet and one triggered from below.



Well said.

There isn't much of a difference IMO.


----------



## Jed (3 Nov 2007)

I appreciate your comments pbi. I hope the instatutional Army can continue with the appropriate courses of action.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Nov 2007)

I look for word that Taliban leaders and commander are killed or captured, cannon fodder they can replace (to a point) But good leaders are hard to find. Most of the guys who fought the Soviets are to old for extended combat in the field.

Also was important in my mind is how quick word got out about their actions and that ANA forces were able to respond as well as NATO forces. the Taliban were not able to exploit the death of a leader, they have been quickly pushed out and now have to move quickly to avoid being surrounded again. Not a fun place to be as an insurgent, they will need to go to ground soon as the weather will turn and life in the hills will be no fun. 

As Mao said a guerrilla is a fish in the sea, if the people stop helping the Taliban and continue to increase reporting their movements, the swamp gets shallow pretty quickly.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

From what I have been able to find in the press (yeah I know ) the TB depend extensively on cellular communication to pass on intellignece & orders throughout their cells.  

With NATOs EW experience and the Echelon global eavesdropping network, Virtually no satellite-bounced communication - e-mail, phone or fax - is immune to the US-run Echelon global spying network.  It's only handicap is that the extremely high volume of traffic makes exhaustive, detailed monitoring of all communications impossible in practice.  The globe-girding Echelon system involving the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand -- a quasi alliance dating to World War II -- sucks up airborne data "much like a vacuum cleaner," then it uses search engines that filter for key words relevant to intelligence services.

It is possible to monitor the communications from the TB & AQ leaders in Pakistan to their soldiers in the field.  If we know what they are doing, we can nail down their operations... lonewolf kamikaze bombers on the other hand have no need for phones - and we will never get a complete handle on the problem.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> It is possible to monitor the communications from the TB & AQ leaders in Pakistan to their soldiers in the field.  If we know what they are doing, we can nail down their operations... lonewolf kamikaze bombers on the other hand have no need for phones - and we will never get a complete handle on the problem.



Patrick Bishop, Daily Telegraph, 12/03/2004


> Addressing the Commons in 1932, Baldwin made an astonishingly frank admission. "I think it is as well for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed," he said. "Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through." That observation, as yesterday's attacks in Madrid demonstrate, is equally valid today. Even with every nerve and sinew of the state strained to counter the threat, the bombers still got through.



Although widely applied to the notion of aerial bombing I believe that the line "the bomber will always get through" was intended to be more widely interpreted than the Airpower crew would have it.  It certainly seemed to be amongst Brit Army types of that era judging from conversations.  There was considered no defense against the man in the crowd with the bomb under his coat a la Gavril Princip in 1914 (3 bombs and a gun) or, more convincingly the assassination of Alexander II of Russia  in 1881.  The latter event in particular shook up the establishment - everyone from Liberal reformers to the Pope.

As Infanteer has stated there isn't much difference in the how the bomb is delivered, what the platform, the effect is the same. 

It is an ongoing threat as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair can both attest - and I would argue there is not much difference between a bomb and snub-nosed revolver in the hands of someone like Princip or Sirhan Sirhan who killed Robert Kennedy or Mehmet Ali Acga who tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Nov 2007)

One day we will be able to detect the bomber and teleport them into space before they blow up!  >

Back on Earth, I am sure the Taliban know their signals are tapped, and they send as much misinformation as they can on those means, using coded benign words to indicate real intentions. For really important stuff they have to use personal messangers. Slow but effective.

Once the Afghans can take over more of the burden and build an effective counter-terrorism unit and begin to infiltrate the various groups they can sow mistrust and suspicion amongst the enemy. an effective tactic that did a huge amount of damage to the CT's in Malaysia who executed many of their own people on false charges. 

Once we begin to disrupt their communications and keep them off balance it makes it very difficult for them to maintain good operational security, also by killing off large numbers of BG including low and middle rank commander, it opens up the possibility of inserting/recruiting double agents into the operations. Actually this is what caused the CT's in Malaysia to fail, their top commander for many years was a double agent working for the Brits, amazing the damage it caused them.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Being better at all-arms, conventional warfighting will likely prove completely irrelevant. The centre of gravity isn't in Arghandab.


I would disagree with the first point, but I will clarify.  As for the second point, I whole heartedly agree, and I will clarify my points on that as well.

I believe that being better at all-arms, conventional warfighting will likely prove *completely * relevant.  It is a necessary condition, but *by no means is it sufficient. *  When the "gauntlet is thrown down" by the Taliban, it is an *absolute necessity * that we defeat them in detail with as few losses as possible.  Imagine if you will if they won even just 10% of the battles against us?

In clarifying my second point, I'll expand on my first.  The centre of gravity, the _Schwerpunkt_, is not in one physical place as it would be in a conventional fight.  I would argue that given that this is a COIN op, then our CoG would be establishing certain _conditions _ in the Afghan populace (for one), in the potential opponents for another, and in the citizens of Canada as well.  Part of those conditions would be how both the populace,  potential opponents and Canadians view us (eg: the CF) in terms of success.  Body counts add up to nothing and do nothing for COIN.  Perhaps we are collectively guilty of focussing on that, but so too are the press.  But we DO have to be better at all-arms, conventional warfighting, lest we lose the confidence of Afghans and Canadians, as well as to bolster our opponents, whoever they may be.  Arghandab, Khandahar City or any other piece of ground is, I would argue, irrelevant in terms of "vital ground" "key terrain" or what have you from the old Staff College models in conventional warfighting.  They ARE relevant in terms of the "vital ground" of the Aghans (without whose support we cannot win), and the "key terrain" (key audience?) of Canadians.  (Or, they too may be vital ground, vital persons, or whatever).  

Now, re-reading this post has me a bit confused, but I hesitate to change anything.  COIN is, by its very nature, confusing, so maybe my post is on the mark in terms of complexity?  That or its Monday....


----------



## TheHead (6 Nov 2007)

Infanteer and Kiwi very well said.  

Infanteer there is no difference at all between the two in my opinion and I've been almost blown up by both.  The Taliban have just adapted and are fighting with what they have.  If you call someone who plants IEDs cowards than call the Artillery, someone who calls in Airstrikes, hell call me a LAV gunner a coward.  We all have capabilities that allow us to kill without being seen (Ask Kiwi about that one  )

I'll also agree with KIWI how seldom lessons learned are ever learned.  When we were replaced by 1RCR no one listened to any of us, we were told they would get the job done much better than us and more efficiently. We had NO AAR at my level and most of the troops at my level never even asked us questions or would brush us off when we tried to give advice.  This can go back to even the smallest things like the Tac Vest, we were stern supporters of our own chest rigs, we had proven the Tac Vest inferior to purchased chest rigs in Combat and the 1RCR CO would have NOTHING to do with it.  Even when I was home back in Canada I had friends telling me from 1RCR they still were not allowed to wear the chest rigs. Something small... yes........  but if something like this won't be taking into consideration who knows what else wont.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Nov 2007)

Okay, so now that we have solved modern warfare issues for the next decade, any updates on the actual battle that was going on?


----------



## Infanteer (6 Nov 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, so now that we have solved modern warfare issues for the next decade, any updates on the actual battle that was going on?



Well, the Taliban took off and - as usual, seemed to do a world-class job of policing the battlefield - and the reason for this attack is being debated; take advantage of the dead anti-Taliban dude, steal a weapons cache, disrupt operations in Panjwaii, etc, etc.  So, we've got a few dead guys from Pakistani madrassas and a insurgent force that is still able to launch offensives in the region.  Sounds like last year.

As I said earlier, the performance of the ANSF (ANA, ANP, etc) seemed promising; it appears (and I could be wrong) that we didn't need to hold their hand like this time last year.  That, IMHO, is a real victory.


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2007)

+1 Infanteer


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Nov 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> This may sound, well, odd... and I don't mean to pick at wounds, but I'm glad to see the TB are trying the "head on" game again.  You can fight a guy with a gun, not some much IEDs.
> I'd rather be shot at than worry about the spineless IED attacks.
> 
> Besides, we've learned that in a head to head battle, they don't stand a ice cubes chance in hell.  But they're so greased up on goofers that they don't care.
> ...



You are 100% right there Piper. 

Nothing sucks more than bunches of 15-20 being killed all at once by 1000 pound RCIEDs with no chance of retaliating in a conventional way, as we saw in Northern Ireland too frequently. 

If we do the right thing, and adopt a 'long war' approach, after we drive them out of the field and conventional combat, this may well become a more prevalent, unpleasant reality of future phases of the conflict. And that's going to take alot more discipline to handle well than the slugging matches at the meat grinder we are seeing now.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, the performance of the ANSF (ANA, ANP, etc) seemed promising; it appears (and I could be wrong) that we didn't need to hold their hand like this time last year.  That, IMHO, is a real victory.


Well said, Infanteer.  Sounds like you had AWESOME staff on DP 1.1 rofl  
But, in all seriousness, I think that THIS is one of the benchmarks for Canada's victory conditions in Afghanistan.  Not "destruction of the TB" but rather drawing down our "kinetic" (GOD, how I hate that term, given that kinetics is defined as, "of, relating to, or produced by motion."  So, does this mean that NDHQ is "non-kinetic"?  Oh, how I digress...) forces and go more on the 'non-kinetic' (sic) forces.

So, less on the lethal, more on the non-lethal and that actual nation building.  Keeping that in mind, look at what Infanteer posted and realise that given that the ANSF were at least able to be a hell of a lot more active on this, we are well on our way (Sunil Ram's assessment that "the Karzai Government has no control and situation in Afstan is deteriorating because a whole TWO rockets were launched" be damned)


----------



## geo (7 Nov 2007)

Ummm.... two rockets were fired?... the TB fire rockets all the time & all over the place.
A bit like the Palestinians, the launchers are most usually non existant so, when the rocket fires, it can and does go pert much everywhere.  If the MND hadn,t of been there, it would have been another day in paradise (not!) and the rockets might / might not have come.


----------

