8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Battle

By Jeralyn, Section Afghanistan 2009
Posted on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:44:07 AM EST
Tags: Taliban (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the deadliest attack in more than a year, 8 U.S. soldiers and 2 Afghan troops have been killed in a attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed," the Nato statement said.

The attack took place near Nuristan, a mountainous region. The Taliban says it has 35 police chiefs in custody and they will be taken before a council. There are 100,000 Nato and US forces in Afghanistan and their commander, Gen. McChrystal wants 40,000 more. So far, [More...]

President Obama has not agreed to additional troops. He's developing a strategy.

While the U.S. is developing a strategy, more U.S. lives are being lost. We have just swapped one war for another, Iraq for Afghanistan. It's time to stop funding these wars and bring the troops home.

< Sunday Football Open Thread | Sunday Musings >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Battle | 69 comments (69 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

General Westmoreland will never (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:56:24 AM EST

have enough troops.

Did I say Westmoreland? I meant McChrystal. Sorry.

Light? Tunnel? (none / 0) (#2)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:03:56 PM EST

"Deja vu all over again."

Without a strategy and an exit plan, this would just amount to 40,000 more targets...all of them ours.

The Secretary of Defense is doing a good job of walking the tightrope so far...at least I haven't seen any evidence of where he comes down on the current discussion. So far, I'm glad Obama kept him.


I finally read Charlie Wilson's War (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:36:28 PM EST

this week, and it is clear to me that we have to get out.

A lot of these weapons aimed at us were given by us in that era -- and more are being taken every day to be aimed at us, too. And even re equipment being sent in from elsewhere, it was the U.S. that turned tribal warriors into modern technologically trained troops.


If it make you feel one shred better (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:39:49 PM EST

Cream City, they've shot all the really good stuff at us already. They are out of old stinger missiles :) And anyone can rustle up an rpg these days but they are hell to navigate. If an rpg takes something flying down, its mostly luck. On the ground is different though, your accuracy doesn't have to be that great to do some serious damage.


: And everybody makes and sells them (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:35:13 PM EST

they are very easy to come by

The exit plan is to win (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:42:15 PM EST

Yeah. I heard that one in (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:13:52 PM EST

'65, '66, '67, '68, '69, 70, '71, '72, '73 ...

I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. And how are things going in Iraq, by the way?


That we dishonored ourselves then (1.00 / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:42:27 AM EST

by cutting and running while leaving millions to be killed by the communist North means only that the radical Muslims believe that we will do it again.

And by golly you are wanting to prove them right.


: The dishonor was in sending (5.00 / 0) (#72)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:55:59 AM EST

combat forces to Vietnam in the first place.

A stable Afghanistan that (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:50:56 PM EST

is not exporting terrorists would be a start.

A country that is secular would be a win win.

Whether or not we have the will to do what is necessary to get their full attention, re Japan before/after WWII, is questionable.

Whenever I hear "Graveyard of empires" shtik I remember that people though the world to be flat, man would never fly and make it to the moon. Essentially it is used to set the stage for surrender.


Is it possible (3.00 / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:40:12 AM EST

for you to make a comment in less than 5000 words?

:-)

Of course you don't believe in winning. We knew that.


: Well done! n/t (none / 0) (#75)
by oldpro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:46:18 AM EST

Comparisons with Vietnam (none / 0) (#27)
by Politalkix on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:25:22 PM EST

do not help. Never heard of the Vietnamese attacking the WTC or the Pentagon, however the people that we are fighting in Afghanistan did that in 2001 and will do so again if they get an opportunity. Vietnam was a war that the Vietnamese could not afford to lose, Afghanistan is a war that we cannot afford to lose. The Iraq war was a war of choice, the AfPak war is not. We should learn the lessons of history; withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan and lack of real American involvement in that region for a decade enabled the rise of the Taliban, culminating in the attack on the WTC.
Withdrawal is not an option for us in Afghanistan, IMO!


Given the U.S. turned its attention from (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:46:05 PM EST

Afghanistan to Iraq for so many years, who, in your opinion, have there been no follow-up attacks in the U.S.?

Also, from what I've read, the potential attackers have moved into Pakistan and possibly other countries. Agree?


: The oeratives (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by Salo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 04:10:17 PM EST

Are almost all Arabs too. It's possible that the very bloody war in Iraq settled most of the scores that created Saudi hostilty to the US in some weird round about way. All the willing shaheeds in Saudi Arabia drove up to ramadi and either got killed or killed GIs.

: I would say that we have kept them (2.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:46:55 PM EST

otherwise engaged. We also had a foreign policy that discouraged many of their sponsors and reduced "moderate" support.
Obama's apologies, etc., have been read as a sign of weakness. You are seeing the result of being seen as weak by the radicals.

On an ideological level? (none / 0) (#73)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:00:33 PM EST

Of course there were numerous Communist acts of espionage in the US and elsewhere. Part of the fight was about capitalism and communism too.


I probably won't hear from my husband (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:04:01 PM EST

today. They have to shut down phones home so that God forbid no family would find out they lost a loved one through a grapevine. I can't say that no buildup has taken place and is still taking place. They've just found different ways to do it outside of moving regiments and divisions that would be reported by the press. The strategy has already been chosen. Obama is just looking for a way to break to everyone that isn't going to cause a leftwing firestorm. And as many soldiers as you have in Afghanistan now you have that many American contractors and it is predicted that it will climb to times two.

To me, it seems the U.S. military or (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:50:35 PM EST

maybe the money guys, aren't carrying over knowledge gained in Iraq to Afghanistan. First reason I think this is reading an article in NYT about the need for more armored vehicles, due to roadside IEDs in Afghanistan. Second reason is another article in NYT about our military staking out an area with slim no. of forces and being overrun. Why weren't those armored vehicles on the ground before?


From the first family to lose a loved one (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:29:48 PM EST

in this attack, a fine young Guardsman from my state who was the first one killed, we learn this today from my local paper. Do read to the end:

Sgt. Ryan Adams, 26 . . . joined the Guard in 2001 after he graduated from Rhinelander High School because he wanted to serve his country, his uncle, Patrick Adams of West Bend, said Saturday. . . . "He was incredibly proud to be a soldier, and he loved doing what he did," said Patrick Adams, who was with Ryan Adams' parents in Rhinelander on Saturday. . . .
Ryan Adams was deployed with the Guard's 951st Engineer Company (Sapper). About 100 soldiers from the Rhinelander and Tomahawk-based unit were sent to Afghanistan, where they conduct route-clearance operations for the Army's 101st Airborne Division, the Guard said.
It was the second tour of duty for Adams and his unit. It was deployed to Iraq from May 2003 to April 2004 when it was Company C, 724th Engineer Battalion, the Guard said.
At Rhinelander High School, Ryan Adams was a quarterback on the football team and also played baseball, Patrick Adams said.
Ryan Adams also volunteered with Angels on My Shoulder, a nonprofit cancer support group in St. Germain. The group runs camps for children affected by cancer, visits cancer patients at hospitals and clinics, provides weekend retreats for cancer caregivers, and has programs for cancer survivors. "It was an important cause to him," Patrick Adams said.

Quite poignant. Plus, I didn't realize (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:41:00 PM EST

the National Guard is now being deployed to Afghanistan.


: Oh, yes -- for some time now (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:45:04 PM EST

I have been seeing my students -- at an urban, commuter (read underprivileged students) campus, and in one of the states sending more troops than most others -- head over there. I have quite a few Afghanistan (and Iraq) vets in my classes, too, so I'm glad to see how many do come back to college, which is the reason so many sign up.
But many come back with terrible injuries, of course, so more of a challenge to us on campuses. They are great students, though -- and they really get into American history, as you can imagine.
Every one of them, though, reminds me of the many former students of mine who have come back in boxes.

I send moments of peace and clarity (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:46:04 PM EST

to his family however they may come by those in the next days, weeks, months, and years. What an amazing person living in service to others. That is what makes it so hard these days. We are being represented by some hellaciously courageous people these days in the disasters that Bush created and then just walked away from and left for all other Americans to sort out. So many of them are hellaciously courageous, but it really hurts to lose someone so fine.


MT, you are a mensch. (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:49:09 PM EST

It is hard to even imagine how difficult it must be for you to see bad news re Afghanistan.


: Thx friend (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:38:26 PM EST

I really don't know how terrific a person I am though. The last time I saw my husband I told him that as a woman I don't expect myself to be a warrior. I will hurt someone meaning to hurt my family without a lash blink, but when it comes to large scale violence and solutions and sometimes violent solutions when it comes to terrorism...I don't know if I would be as courageous as he is even if I had been born a man. I tend to think that when real a$$e$ needed to show up for hard realities I would hang back, tell myself I was playing it smart, that real courage doesn't involve the risk of dying and that I could leave the dying for those silly enough to go and do it. The people involved in this fight now, after eight years, you cannot believe their resumes when it comes to life lived. It is as if they understand harder things than most of us are willing to understand and they still move out. I suppose their life resumes are so stunning because they have known how to do this and applied it to other things in their lives. Also stunningly, my spouse shows up only to meet two people he has served with previously. He isn't flying over there. It isn't something that should have happened because the Army in general isn't small. Put there they were, certain people willing to volunteer to fight this fight and to go willfully to Afghanistan.

What was learned (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:48:35 PM EST

in Iraq was "boots on the ground."

We await the musings of our President regarding the commanding general's request for same.


Change of administration (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:03:46 PM EST

Bush wasn't putting anything into Afghanistan except what he absolutely had to. All armoured vehicles were in Iraq too, and they didn't even get serious about making them until we began taking large troop casualties. When everyone was screaming for them there were still design flaws too. They are slowly manufactured, huge, weigh tons, so we have to move what we have from another place and that takes at least 90 days to do...or we must buy more and then ship them in (shipping once again takes at least 90 days). Also, IEDs were not a big deal until we began stocking people into the area. Now the fight is on. Now IEDs are an issue. If anyone really wants to know when we began plussing up our real troop numbers, take a look at when IEDs began to become an issue there. When we hit the roads moving larger numbers of troops, that's when you can get a big score by putting your time and energy into some IEDs.


I still think it is pretty short-sighted (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:06:04 PM EST

not to send armored vehicles with the arriving troops.


: It was, but at the time, the exact same (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 01:20:37 PM EST

situation was going down that went down when General McChrystal and Petraeus had to step in and Petraeus had to fight for an Iraq surge and we were about to lose control of Baghdad. We were about to lose Kabul and it was about to have a brand new Taliban takeover. We were very close to being overrun the day Obama was inaugurated. Bush didn't give two sh*ts either.

The armored vehicles made for Iraq, (none / 0) (#14)
by Wile ECoyote on