Might this same objective been accomplished, without loss of precious life, by opening a dialog with the Taliban, learning from them and discussing ways that we can better understand them and their wants and needs? Nah! Force is what they understand!

That's great news!!! Hope it continues.

This is where we should have been putting 100% of our military might instead of that expensive detour called Iraq. This is where Al Quida is at.

Although Mr. Grey didn't speculate in this article how long this "victory" will last, I'm sure he and many other realistic Afghan experts are not optimistic about achieving any kind of lasting peace with the Taliban. Maybe it's simply because these people have nothing better to do? If you have a large group of people with no land, no money, no education or job, whose only reason for getting up in the morning is to fight infidels, that's not a good mix for a quiet and productive neighborhood!

Should be front page news, more proof on the media's contempt on current foreign policy, hatred of the US and the President. Mr. JJ, yes, you go on over there and have some dialog. And then stay there with your peeps.

How can this be, John Edwards said the war on terror is just a bumper sticker. By the way, Dana Priest of the Washington Post plagiarized Mr. Grey's work to earn her Pulitzer Prize. Way to go Dana.

I agree, when you live in a state of medieval squalor, illiterate and poor, the allure of joining your life to a grand religious cause is very seductive. Death? They don't care, their lives are barely livable anyway. Without the Jihad what have they got? Thirty or so years of subsistence farming and an early grave.

But, in the long run, the Taliban will be defeated by it's own savagery and ignorance, they just don't make themselves popular with the populations they rule. The way the entire country turned on them when America invaded demonstrates this.

The Taleban still control huge swathes of Helmand province. They dominate major districts such as Greshk, Sangin, and Garmseer, aside from islands of government control in the district centres.Losing Musa Qala is not likely to be a death blow to the insurgents. The renewed fighting, with the attendant displacement of families and damage to property, may in fact further inflame local passions against the Afghan government and its foreign allies.

Sorry, but I am pretty skeptical about this whole account. If we had killed "hundreds" as this article states, I would expect more reports from credible sources. This sounds too much like the reporting that we received during Vietnam, where the press was eager to play up the body counnt. Again, put this whole thing to rest by putting another 75,000 boots on the ground. More proof is needed to concure that this was a "major" victory. Remember, the Viet Cong lived in caves too.

I hope the honeytrap strategy continues.

Good report. After reading this post I expected ABC would cover the story in the evening news. No such luck yet, but I do hope they will. Although coverage on both wars has largely disappeared since the situation in each so precariously improved, ABC still finds the space to cover major bombings in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The defeat at the hands of the 82nd of the only major Taliban safe haven would seem to merit coverage. So let's see it.

There is but one solution to the Taliban problem and that is to wipe them off the face of the earth, to the last man. Not easy to do, but very necessary.

This sounds like good news for the Afghanis that live in the area, and I hope that the situation on the ground will continue to improve for them, but I have to wonder about how last week the story seemed to be that the Taliban was entrenched in Musa Qala and were going to fight to the death, then two Taliban/AQ bigwigs were captured, then the Afghani army took Musa Qala with few casualties on either side, and the papers reported that the earlier reports of the capture of Taliban/AQ leaders were a case of mistaken identity.

While hundreds of Taliban are believed to have been killed, two British soldiers and one American soldier lost their lives. All the deaths, however, resulted from vehicles striking mines
All hundreds and 3 of them?

I like the part about the Afghan Army.
They were in this fight right along with Nato and the US. This feels like one more step toward a good future for Afghanistan.

Count the bodies yourself, or divide the reports by 3. I'm not on the ground, obviously, but this has the earmarks of an empty sack. Doesn't make me happy, but bodies generally leave, well, bodies.

To: JJ
You're the one who doesn't understand. What they want is to kill anyone who doesn't adhere to their brand of religion, which includes Muslims who might want to educate their daughters, have a beer now and then, read a book that might not be islamic, or just just appreciate some ancient art. What they need are more weapons with which to carry out their desire. Understand better, now?

Attacking lightly armed Taleban rebels mixed in with civilians in an urban setting with B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships seems cruel and inhumane to me. Were there any reports of civilian casualities?

Lack of bodies can be explained by the airstrikes. The bodies are blown to bits or entombed in a collapsed house, etc.

I doubt we dig through the rubble just to make sure we have the right numbers for the news reporters.

I do agree with the "divide by three" approach.

Thank you for your excellent reporting. Funny how no one else is reporting this job well done by our fine men and women and our friends the Brits. If it went bad, surely it would lead every newspaper and news show around.

wayne geddes:
"If we had killed "hundreds" as this article states, I would expect more reports from credible sources."

You are expecting actual reports on American victories? You been living in a cave too?

It drives me nutz when
someone spouts off without
knowing the facts.
Afghan ahs been trying to talk ot the Taliban, time and time again.

The Government can't field enough troops to protect EVERY village.

alternative is the Running Hammer, track them, follow them and hit the Taliban at every opportunity, 24/7.
When they land in a town bring in a fast strike force, rout them, and start 24/7 again with the running hammer.

We aren't fighting an army but closer to a group of very religious farmers.
If we kill then all then the Pashtoons will wnat to fight USA, almost all of the Taliban are Pashtoon.

They have to be hurt enough to want to deal, be converted, the Afghab gov has ev en offered them positions in the government.

sorry for the out burst.
Gerald

"Might this same objective been accomplished, without loss of precious life, by opening a dialog..?" JJ, you're right, we must learn from the Taliban and their culture.

These Taliban are sick and backward men, deeply repressed and misogynistic. They "want and need" you to follow their primitive dictates.

Sorry, but I am pretty skeptical about this whole account. If we had killed "hundreds" as this article states, I would expect more reports from credible sources
**************************************

What credible sources would that be? The liberal media has run away from the WOT ever since the amazing successes in Iraq. They will NEVER report with any frequency good news. But just let some crazed blow himself up and it is on all the networks and in every major newspaper. Along with the Democrats the media is 100% invested, in fact desperate for us to lose this WOT.

Awesome. Just awesome. So now we have some better news from Afghanistan and Iraq; no wonder that left-leaning moderator told the GOP candidates (on Wed.) that "there would be no questions on Iraq". Of course not. Bad news ... yeah ... let's talk. Good news ... nah. I have a great dislike for left-leaning, so-called objective "journalists" and reporters. Very few know the meaning of objective. This report here was just that. A fine example.

"This sounds too much like the reporting that we received during Vietnam, where the press..." John, are you out of your frickin' mind? It's nothing like Vietnam!!! There are far closer parallels from the Boer War and that reprehensible distorter and parroter of the admin line Churchill. And are you forgetting the Crimean War?!? "Into the jaws of death, rode the 600!" If you're gonna make historical parallels, I'd suggest you actually read some history. Amateurs!

"hundreds of Taliban are believed to have been killed"

This is eyewitness reporting? Who exactly believes hundreds to have been killed? Did the reporter see the bodies or just rely on military estimates?

Good God, Alexander the Great had to conduct a ruthless pacification campaign in Bactria (as Afghanistan was then called) when a "hearts and minds" approach didn't work.

He won his war. Married Roxanne in the bargain.

Hey Neal,
You're right. It's not fair that we have air power and they don't. It's inhumane. I think we should send in CIA operatives to count the enemy and then only send in a comparative group of soldiers, armed appropriately with equal weapons, to fight them and take back the towns they've occupied. I think the Taliban only have horses, so no hummers or armor for our guys either. It would be inhumane.

What part of us losing even more soldiers in battle makes it more humane?

The only real way to reduce the death toll and the length of the war is to attack and destroy your enemy with overwhelming force (Powell Doctrine) and eliminate the enemy's will to fight. Keeping things fair and "humane" only prolongs the bloodshed on both sides.

Think about it.

Hey Neal,
You're right. It's not fair that we have air power and they don't. It's inhumane. I think we should send in CIA operatives to count the enemy and then only send in a comparative group of soldiers, armed appropriately with equal weapons, to fight them and take back the towns they've occupied. I think the Taliban only have horses, so no hummers or armor for our guys either. It would be inhumane.

What part of us losing even more soldiers in battle makes it more humane?

The only real way to reduce the death toll and the length of the war is to attack and destroy your enemy with overwhelming force (Powell Doctrine) and eliminate the enemy's will to fight. Keeping things fair and "humane" only prolongs the bloodshed on both sides.

Think about it.

How the hell could the Taliban flee the town? Didn't we surrround it or cut them to pieces on the road with airpower and artillery?

Phil, there were no civilian casualties reported, but several fluffy bunnies and a puppy were killed. Oh, the humanities.

Many of these bloodthirsty posters here appear to believe that the Taliban all walk around with a large "T" stenciled on their robes, and all our military has to do is go around the villages and shoot everybody with this mark. Or, from the sound of some of them, one giant bomb crater the size of Texas would roughly solve the problem.

According to the Geneva Conventions, when an legal combatant who is forbidden to hide behind civilians becomes an illegal combatant (without uniform, etc.) and hides behind civilians, hospitals, schools, religious buildings, he does not thereby gain protected status, rather, he removes the protected status from the civilians, schools, hospitals, religious structures. The reason why the convention was written that way is to remove any incentive from so violating the laws of war.

Of course the diplomats who wrote the Geneva convention didn't imagine the depths of incompetence to which our "professional journalists" sink.

Many tears here for the Taliban. Mostly I suspect from Europe, where despite excellent support from militaries in countries like Denmark and Netherlands, the populations of Europe bailed on the Afghan war back in 2001. It is a great great day when so many Taliban are killed.

One wins a war by killing the enemy in large enough numbers that they no longer have the will to fight. 1.e Germany $ Japan WW2. This is a good start, we should continue to kill Taliban in large not flap our gums at them - Been There, Done That

This is the best part:

"vapor trails circled in the clear blue sky over the Helmand desert as B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships were used to kill hundreds of Taliban fighters."

Warms the cockles of my Heart it does, to see so many Mid-evil types eat hot steel and DU!!

*Sweet*

~:)

you might want to ask vietnamese general what happens when a full payload of b-52 bombs lands on unprotected troops. if you are extremely lucky, you will either vaporize immediately or your shelter will collapse on you, killing you instantly. if you are fairly lucky, the resulting concussion will blow your eardrums out and you might mercifully bleed to death. if you are halfway lucky, you might be using a hearing aid the rest of your life. you dont want to be anywhere around one when a b-52 comes waltzing by.

I think we SHOULD discuss more w/ the taliban and Alibabaquieda. More discussions w/ F16s,F15s,B1s,B52s,F18s,and anything in the American arsenal that projects hot steel and lead. And only when we have had enough discussion and enough of our enemies get the point will they understand. I just love how this small victory made the tough standards for news we see on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

From September 27, 2004.

President's Remarks in "Focus on Education with President Bush" Event
Midwest Livestock and Expo Center
Springfield, Ohio

"...And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said. (Applause.)"

If by "meaning what you say" equates to baldfaced lying to the rubes in order to win an election, then yeah, he meant what he said, all right.

Three years ago, the president declared the Taliban out of existence. But now they're back, because Bush didn't get the job done the first time before launching another war. I'm sure you deluded, Bush-worshipping wingnuts will turn cartwheels trying to blame their resurgence on the MSM and the "Democrat" party.

Good luck with that.

Phil,
I believe in other reports there were up to 14 civilian casualties. This could not, however, be verified by newspeople. The completely unbiased reason is because the local people who reported the casualties cannot count. I'm serious...my husband is over there. So, whenever you see articles in the future of a local villager claiming 100 people died - take it with a grain of salt.

I think John Edwards has it right - there is no war on terror. We are just wasting our time fighting the Taliban when we could be doing other things. The Taliban mean us now harm, and they were not behind 9/11 as had been proven. Now let's pull our troops out and bring them home now!

Once again the military has decided to conduct an operation without consulting the bloggers. When are they going to learn.

On coverage: If it's not bleeding it is not leading.

How can anyone attribute any credibility to the MSM anymore?

I just want to say that my son was actually in the battle at Musa Quala and is still there....his group has fought hard and they are still fighting...he has been at Musa Quala since Dec 5. He was able to come back to base for 3 days and we were able to find out he was safe...he has since returned to Musa Quala and we have not heard from him in over 3 weeks. I pray to God every day and night that he keeps him and all of our troops safe!!!!

My son is currently in Musa Quala, we have limited contact and therefore are not sure how many contacts they are currently having. He is due home in just under 3 weeks and I hope he stays safe and look forward to having him back here with his family. We love and miss you Shaun and all your colleagues - stay safe!!!