Afstan: General observations
A summary of the situation by Bill Roggio, embedded blogger with the Canadian Forces.
- Pakistan's lawless tribal belts are a major source of Taliban support, including indoctrinating, funding, arming and training Pakistani and Afghan Taliban recruits...
- The Taliban is unable to stand up against the Western militaries when they attempt to mass in large formations (100 to 300 fighters, equivalent to company or battalion sized units). Their advantage is they know the local terrain far better than the Coalition forces. The solution is to get the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police trained, equipped and on the front lines in southeastern Afghanistan.
- The levels of effectiveness of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police varies from unit to unit. The Canadian soldiers trust the army units, but are very wary of police units...
- The Taliban's weapons are not as sophisticated as the media reports would lead you to believe. Their primary weapons are AK-47 assault rifles and RPG-7s (the old variant of the RPG). Rarely are mortars brought to bear on the battlefield...
- The strength of the Taliban lies in their ability to blend in with the local population, and intimidate or coerce the local population when they must. There are small pockets of Taliban safe havens in southeastern Afghanistan...
- The poppy fields provide a major source of income for the farmers in southeastern Afghanistan. The Coalition and Afghan government made a serous mistake in its implementation of a poppy crop eradication program without providing an alternate source of income. The destruction of crops turned the local population to seek protection from the Taliban. A senior coalition officer indicated a major shift in the policy dealing with the poppy crops is in the works...
2 Comments:
How can this possibly be described as "news you would never get on CBC . . ."?
Just because something says "The Taliban's weapons are not as sophisticated as the media reports would lead you to believe." in front of it, doesn't actually mean that the media has been reporting the way the sentence suggests.
It just means that the author thinks they are...
it's the equivalent to Bill O'Reilly yelling "Fact..." at the beginning of every distortion that comes out of his mouth.
To further address what the specific CBC comment, I've heard all of this news, to varying degrees of detail, on the CBC.
How do I know that I heard it on the CBC? Because I refuse to watch any of the other crap that passes for journalism on the other channels.
Post a Comment
<< Home