Newshoggers Comments
This is the fourth time since the invasion of Afghanistan that a division-sized operation has had to kick the Taliban out of this particular town. Ace is on laughing gas.
Regards, C
Based on the logic of this post, I suppose the Battle of the Bulge during WWII was also a strategic defeat for the Allies, wasn't it, thus making it a strategic victory for the Nazis? Channeling one's inner Walter Cronkite (Cronkite's reporting on Tet) does not make for a valid analysis.
Steve, if the Battle of the Bulge had been the fourth Battle of the Bulge, then yes it would have been a strategic defeat for the allies. Whack-a-mole is never a strategic success.
Regards, C
Steve -- Poor analogy as the Battle of the Bulge took place between nation states with conventional armies fighting within a 3rd Generation/maneuver warfare context where the expectation is that both of the opponents have significant industrial, technical and organizational capacity to overtly organize massive units up to and including army groups with full combined arms capacity with the goal of taking territory and gaining control of the state machinery of other similiarly structured organizations.
So, it's the fourth time to take Musa Quala. They (the U.S., NATO, and the Afghani government) may need to do it again.
Going back to the Bulge, the Allies ended up having to retake every town they lost, just as they did with the towns they lost after Market-Garden. Fortunately for the Allies, they were dealing with an enemy fighting a conventional war, and the Nazis ended up denuding their forces protecting the Eastern Front in order to initiate their last offensive. The Red Army began their last offensive just as the Nazis were reeling under the blows of the Western Allies. The Taliban and Al Qaeda choose to fight like cowards using terrorism (remember that word?) and other illegal acts of war to wage their campaigns. You don't like, blame the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And if they do hold Musa Quala this time, it will then truly be a strategic victory.
I don't think so, fester. Don't give me any of that "3rd generation/4th generation warfare" crap; that's for the generals to figure out. Victory in battle is still a victory in battle, whether you like it or not.
I bet you say that every time you zap a Space Invader, Steve.
Steve --- there is tactical victory which this is for US/UK/Afgan forces, and then there is strategic analysis, and a Taliban force that is able to break contact under fire and retreat to better positions is an excellent indicator that the Taliban forces are well organized and reasonably competent and has the infrastructure to undertake complex operations.
"Victory in battle is still a victory in battle, whether you like it or not."
Sincerely,
Pyhrrus
LOL Doug!
Victory, strategic or tactical, is in the eye of the beholder. Tell me, the Battle of Jutland was undoubtedly a strategic victory for the British. Why? And, how would one rate it tactically?
By the way, that assault on Fallujah was a strategic victory for the U.S. since the Sunni Arab insurgency, or for those of us in the real world, the terrorists, never regained a foothold in that town after the 2004 assault. Someone spinning it like Cronkite doesn't make that someone correct; in fact, it is completely misleading.
"Victory in battle is still a victory in battle, whether you like it or not."
"Victory, strategic or tactical, is in the eye of the beholder."
Those two statements are surely mutually contradictory and an outrageous shifting of the goalposts - unless you're arguing for the most solipsistic version of "victory" I've ever seen: "I say it's a victory so it is, so there."
Regards, C
Commenting by HaloScan
