Why did eight American soldiers die defending an area the U.S. military no longer wanted to hold?

[bigtree]

'Cynics within the U.S. military leadership in eastern Afghanistan . . . believe the Afghan government used the military (which brought in the ballots by helicopter) to provide cover for vote rigging'


from Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/08/2197043.aspx

KABUL - It was six in the morning on Oct. 3, 2009, when insurgents began their assault on Combat Outpost Keating, a remote area in Nuristan in eastern Afghanistan. The attack started with small-arms fire, but soon escalated as up to 300 militants -- it’s unclear exactly how many -- started to rush the outpost where two American platoons and a command element were positioned. Base commanders at Keating called for urgent air support. Insurgents were inside the wire. Parts of the outpost were on fire. If help didn’t come soon, the commanders said, COP Keating would be overrun.

Air support eventually did arrive at Keating and the attack was repelled, but eight American soldiers were killed.

A military investigation last week into the deaths offered harsh criticism. The investigation said commanders on the ground had become “complacent” with base security at COP Keating once they learned that the outpost scheduled to be closed. Military commanders in eastern Afghanistan had determined that COP Keating was of no real strategic or tactical value. In effect, the investigation blamed commanders for not continuing to adequately secure Keating once they knew U.S. troops would be leaving it.

“There were inadequate measures taken by the chain of command, resulting in an attractive target for enemy fighters,” the investigation said.

But why were U.S. troops still at COP Keating in October 2009, months after commanders decided to evacuate to outpost? Was it complacency that killed the soldiers, or delays in leaving the outpost in the first place?

Clearly something went wrong. Why did eight American soldiers die defending an area the U.S. military no longer wanted to hold?


read more: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/08/2197043.aspx

[Winterblues]

1. SOP for the military

Can you imagine if we still held every hill we fought for in Korea and Vietnam and WW II

[bigtree]

2. I don't think this can be dismissed or explained as sop

This is a symptom or consequence of a scattershot mission which has so many impossible pipe dreams as goals. When the ultimate aim of these offensives and occupations is a macabre theater or 'winning hearts and minds', it begs the question of the efficacy or wisdom of any of these ephemeral territorial conquests by our military forces in Afghanistan

[bigtree]

3. How would he characterize the previous eight years of operations in the country, then?

from Joshua Foust: http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/02/08/richard-engel-falselyraises-troubling-questions/


So NBC’s chief foreign correspondent is outraged that the military might have killed off its own people to satisfy a corrupt government in Kabul. How would he characterize the previous eight years of operations in the country, then?

I ask this question seriously: one of the primary functions of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan is to support the government in Kabul. We have been knowingly complicit in government corruption for years—it was one of the few favors Seth Jones did us the favor of cataloging in his grotesque of a book. Even assuming Engels’ portrayal of events is correct—which we cannot do, since buried at the end of his piece is his admission that he relied on bitter and cynical anonymous sources for his story—how is this any different from other soldiers getting killed on bad operations throughout the country?