Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  Militarov on Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:58 pm

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:46 am

    Afghanistan gets ScanEagle drones



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1860203.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:18 pm

    Uzbek President Warns Against SCO Involvement in Afghanistan

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160426/1038638428/afghanistan-uzbekistan-sco.html#ixzz4725E52RT


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Fri May 06, 2016 3:09 pm

    Afghan A-29 COIN fighters begin combat operations

    For the first time since the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the AAF has engaged in live combat using modern-day fixed-wing combat aircraft.

    In April, the Afghan Air Force (AAF) reached a major milestone in its development. For the first time since the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the AAF has engaged in live combat using modern-day fixed-wing combat aircraft.

    At the core of its revived fixed-wing fighter fleet is the Embraer / Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucano. The A-29 is a close variant of the Embraer EMB-314, a lightweight turboprop aircraft designed for basic fighter training, close air support (CAS), and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

    As part of the Light Air Support (LAS) program, envisaged to provide the U.S. and a number of its allies with dedicated counterinsurgency (COIN) combat aircraft, the AAF was slotted to receive 20 A-29s. The first four A-29s were delivered in January of this year, with another four joining the AAF in March.

    It is evident that the AAF’s revival is being anchored on COIN and CAS. As far as its leading patron – the U.S. – is concerned, neutralizing armed non-state actors (that threaten Kabul) is the AAF’s mission at this time. In the lead-up to the A-29 Super Tucano, the AAF inducted MD-530 lightweight utility helicopters and Mi-24/35 air assault helicopters.

    With its 1550kg payload (spread across five hard-points), the A-29 Super Tucano is pitched as a COIN and CAS aircraft capable of deploying precision-guided munitions, such as laser-guided missiles as well as laser and INS/GPS-guided bombs. In effect, the A-29 should be capable of engaging moving ground targets as well as fortified fixed positions.

    The ‘payoff’ of using an A-29 over say a multi-role fighter jet such as the F-16 is the A-29’s substantially lower operational cost. By using a less demanding turboprop powerplant, the A-29 is viewed as having a substantially lower per-hour flight cost than the F-16 or another comparable fast jet.

    While one may debate the cost-benefit value of these platforms, it is difficult to deny one of the most glaring truths of today’s COIN environment – the minimal anti-air warfare (AAW) threat posed by most of today’s non-state actors.

    A multi-role fast jet capable of flying at high-altitude would have considerable cushion against low-altitude AAW methods, such as man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS). But we have yet to see dedicated COIN platforms such as the A-29 take on such high-risk environments, especially against MANPADS that could potentially make use of modern imaging infrared (IIR) seekers (which boast considerable protection against electronic countermeasures or ECM).

    On the other hand, this fact does not discard or undermine the potential cost-savings of using an A-29-like platform in a low AAW-threat environment; if one’s reality is of low AAW threats, why not use the cheapest platform capable of fulfilling the task?

    The A-29s are being provided to the AAF on Washington’s dollar, so the move to equip the AAF in this manner (around COIN-specific platforms) could be seen as intentional – to weaken the insurgent drive in Afghanistan. Harmonization (with the platform, CAS tactics, etc.) aside, it will be important to see if the AAF manages to dampen the momentum of non-state actors with the Super Tucano.

    http://defence-blog.com/news/afghan-a-29-coin-fighters-begin-combat-operations.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Wed May 25, 2016 3:25 am

    Security situation in Afghanistan deteriorating — Russian NATO ambassador

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/politics/877745

    i think we will have the same scenario as in 1989 after Soviet Army's withdrawal


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:43 am



    US made Humvies captured by Taliban from Security Forces In Khashrood
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:11 pm

    Taliban Terrorists Capture Eastern Afghan District

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160827/1044686295/taliban-captures-janikhel.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:43 pm

    Russia’s Foreign Ministry says four-party Afghan talks failed

    The ministry stresses the conflict's settlement impossible without Iran's participation

    MOSCOW, September 13. /TASS/. The four-party Afghan talks format (USA, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan) has proved a failure, the Russian President’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Second Asia Department Zamir Kabulov said.

    "We have talked about it (with the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Olson - TASS). The participants in the process are eager to save face so they state: "No, we will revive it", but I think that they are just putting up a smoke screen," Kabulov said. "They understand very well that this process is doomed to failure."

    "To tell the truth, we didn’t see this as promising from the very beginning so everything has turned out as we expected", Russian diplomat added.

    The four-way talks on Afghanistan were aimed at producing a road map for negotiations between Afghan authorities and the Taliban. The format was established at the Heart of Asia conference held in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad in December 2015.

    Settlement impossible without Iran


    According to Kabulov, resolving the conflict in Afghanistan without Iran’s participation in the process is impossible.

    "The US doesn’t seem to succeed in excluding Iran from solving regionals issues, although they very much want to. But the reality is different", Kabulov added.

    "Iran is a very important player as far as Afghanistan is concerned", the Russian diplomat went on to say. "I don’t see any prospects for solving the situation in Afghanistan without Iran."

    US taking threats in Afghanistan more seriously

    Kabulov went on to say that the United States has begun to perceive the situation in Afghanistan more realistically. However, this approach should be transformed into serious actions, he added following meeting with US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Olson in Moscow at the beginning of September.

    "The degradation of the military-political and economic situation in Afghanistan encourages all external players from among the countries that support Afghanistan to consult actively and try to find common approaches to assist Kabul in the process of survival, calling a spade a spade," he said. "My consultations with Olson were dedicated mainly to this issue."

    According to Kabulov, it became clear at this meeting that Washington is taking the situation in Afghanistan more seriously. "While six months ago our US counterparts were more optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan arguing that there are many difficulties, but it is possible to overcome them, this time I was impressed by the fact that the Americans were more realistic, they realize that the situation is at a dangerous point, beyond which there is more chaos," he added.

    The diplomat added that "it would be good if this more serious approach was transformed into real actions."

    No contacts between Taliban and IS

    According to Kabulov, the Taliban do not maintain contacts with the Islamic State terrorist group in Afghanistan.

    "The Taliban have switched to tackling only internal political issues and have given up the global jihad idea", he explained. "They have bitter experience in dealing with Al-Qaeda which led to adverse consequences so now they refrain from that".

    "That is the reason why I think there is no close cooperation between the Taliban and the ultra-hardline international extremists", Kabulov added.

    The Russian diplomat also pointed out the diversity of the Taliban. "There are some radical groups, there is the Haqqani Network, for instance, that may be in contact with both the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda," he noted.

    About 2,500 IS insurgents active in Afghanistan

    Kabulov noted that roughly 2,500 combatants from the Islamic State are active in Afghanistan.

    "They now have about 2,500 active militants", he informed."They continue to recruit people and enhance their combat capabilities."

    "If they are not restrained then chances are that we will have to face an even more powerful force", Kabulov added.

    Earlier in May General Charles Cleveland, a spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan, estimated the number of the Islamic State militants active in Afghanistan at one to three thousand. "We think that the number of the terrorists is closer to 1,000", he stated.


    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/899473


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:30 pm

    Afghanistan Launches Large Scale Offensive to Clear Northern District of Taliban

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/asia/20160930/1045885727/afghanistan-taliban-kunduz.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:34 pm

    The loss of the Afghan security forces in the war against the Taliban grow

    As the French resource «opex360.com» in the article «Hausse sensible des pertes subies par les forces de sécurité afghanes», in 2015, in Afghanistan, in the fighting against the Taliban killed some 5,000 Afghan security forces and soldiers of the national army. For NATO this level of losses is already a serious cause for concern.

    This year, the trend has not changed on the back, as it did not want to believe it, even though the liquidation in May, the head of the movement "Taliban," Mullah Mansour. Rather the contrary: according to the quarterly report of the Bureau of the Inspector General for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the country's security forces (army and police) from 1 January to 19 August 2016 lost 5523 person. The document notes that the injured 9965 people (some of them are not injured by the fighting) during the same time period.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2221295.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:13 am

    The Afghan Air Force killed at least 45 militants of the Taliban terrorist movement (outlawed in Russia) in a series of airstrikes in the country's southern Helmand province, local media reported Wednesday.

    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201703291052066061-afghanistan-taliban-airstrike-terrorism/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:32 am

    Cost of Afghanistan War: Timeline, Economic Impact

    https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-economic-impact-4122493


    The Afghanistan War was a military conflict that lasted 14 years (2001 - 2014) and cost $1.07 trillion. The Bush Administration launched it in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaida. The United States attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan for hiding al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden. It was the kick-off to the War on Terror.

    The war's $1.07 trillion cost had three main components. First is the $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds specifically dedicated to the Afghanistan War.

    Second is the increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget. Third is the increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget. Some of these costs are also attributable to the War in Iraq. But the true cost of the Afghanistan War should include the addition to these departments, even if some of the funds went toward both wars. For more on how to determine the actual cost of defense, see the U.S. Military Budget.
    Timeline of Afghanistan War Costs

    Here's a timeline of what happened each year. A table that summarizes these costs is below.

    FY 2001 - $37.3 billion: Osama bin Laden authorized 9/11 attacks. President Bush demanded that the Afghanistan Taliban deliver bin Laden or risk U.S. attack. Congress appropriated $22.9 billion in emergency funding. On October 7, U.S. jets bombed Taliban forces. On December 7, the Taliban abandon Kabul, the capital. Hamid Karzai became interim administration head.

    That same month, ground troops pursued bin Laden into the Afghan foothills. He escaped to Pakistan on December 16, 2001.

    FY 2002 - $65.1 billion: In March, the U.S. military launched Operation Anaconda against Taliban fighters. Bush promised to reconstruct Afghanistan, but only provided $38 billion between 2001 and 2009.

    Bush turned attention to Iraq War.


    FY 2003
    - $56.7 billion: In May, the Bush Administration announced that major combat ended in Afghanistan. NATO took over control of the peacekeeping mission. NATO added 65,000 troops from 42 countries.

    FY 2004 - $29.6 billion: On January 9, Afghanistan created a new Constitution. On October 9, the U.S. military protected Afghans from Taliban attacks for their first free election. On October 29, bin Laden threatened another terrorist attack.

    FY 2005
    - $47.4 billion: On May 23, Bush and Karzai signed an agreement allowing U.S. military access to Afghan military facilities in return for training and equipment. Six million Afghans voted for national and local councils. Three million voters were women.

    FY 2006 - $29.9 billion: The new Afghanistan government struggled to provide basic services, including police protection. Violence increases. The United States criticized NATO for not providing more soldiers.

    FY 2007 - $57.3 billion: Allies assassinated a Taliban commander, Mullah Dadullah.

    FY 2008
    - $87.7 billion: Violence escalated in Afghanistan after U.S. troops accidentally killed civilians.

    FY 2009
    - $100 billion: President Obama took office. He sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in April.

    He promised to send another 30,000 in December. He named Lt. General McChrystal as the new commander. Obama's strategy focused on attacking resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida forces on the Pakistan border. That added $59.5 billion to Bush's FY 2009 budget. He promised to withdraw all troops by 2011. Voters reelected Karzai amidst accusations of fraud.

    FY 2010 - $112.7 billion: NATO sent surge forces to fight the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. NATO agreed to turn over all defense to Afghan forces by 2014. Obama replaced McChrystal with General Petraeus. Afghanistan held parliamentary elections amidst charges of fraud.

    FY 2011 - $110.4 billion: Special Forces took out Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011. Obama announced he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year and 23,000 by the end of 2012. The United States held preliminary peace talks with Taliban leaders. (Source: Amy Belasco, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A1. Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014.)

    FY 2012 - $105.1 billion: Obama announced the withdrawal of another 23,000 troops from Afghanistan in the summer, leaving 70,000 troops remaining. Both sides agreed to hasten U.S. troop withdrawal to 2013. Their presence had become unwelcome. The Taliban canceled U.S. peace talks.

    FY 2013
    - $53.3 billion: U.S. forces shifted to a training and support role. The Taliban reignited peace negotiations with the United States, causing Karzai to suspend his U.S. negotiations.

    FY 2014
    - $80.2 billion: Obama announced final U.S. troop withdrawal, with only 9,800 remaining at the end of the year. (Source: "Afghanistan War," Council on Foreign Relations. "Major Events in the Afghanistan War," The New York Times.)

    FY 2015
    - $60.9 billion: Troops trained Afghan forces. (Source: DoD 2015 OCO Amendment)

    FY 2016 - $30.8 billion: The DoD requested funds for training efforts in Afghanistan as well as training and equipment for Syrian opposition forces. It also included support for NATO and responses to terrorist threats. (Source: DoD 2016 OCO Amendment)

    FY 2017 - $5.7 billion: The DoD requested $58.8 billion for Operation Freedom Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and the Levant, increased European support and counterterrorism. (Source: DoD 2017 OCO Amendment.)

    [RP1]I agree it’s okay not to spell this out.



    *Boots on Ground is the number of troops in Iraq. From 2001 through 2013, it's as of December of that year. 2014 - 2017 is as of May. (Source: "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A-1. Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014.) Boots on Ground for 2015 is for the fourth quarter and 2016 is from the second quarter. (Source: Heidi M. Peters, "Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2016," Table 3. Congressional Research Service, August 15, 2016. "Historical Tables," OMB.)

    Cost of the Afghanistan War to Veterans

    The real cost of the Afghanistan War is more than the $1.06 trillion added to the debt. First, and most important, is the cost borne by the 2,350 U.S. troops who died, the 20,092 who suffered injuries, and their families. (Source: "Total Deaths KIA," Department of Defense, January 13, 2017.) For details on these casualties, see iCasualties.org.

    Improvements in battlefield medicine meant that more than 90 percent of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan survived. That's better than the Vietnam War's 86.5 percent track record. Unfortunately, that also means these veterans and their families now must live with the effects of permanent and grave damage. More than 320,000 of soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq have Traumatic Brain Injury that causes disorientation and confusion. Of those, 8,237 suffered severe or invasive brain injury. In addition, 1,645 soldiers lost all or part of a limb. More than 138,000 have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They experience flashbacks, hypervigilance and difficulty sleeping.

    On average, 20 veterans commit suicide each day according to a 2016 VA study.​ The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) found that 47 percent of its members knew of someone who had attempted suicide after returning from active duty. The group considers veteran suicide to be its number one issue. (Source: "A Guide to U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom," Congressional Research Service, Hannah Fischer, February 19, 2014. "Veterans Group to Launch Suicide Prevention Campaign," Washington Post, March 24, 2014.)

    The cost of veterans’ medical and disability payments over the next 40 years will be more than $1 trillion. That's according to Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The cost of caring for war veterans typically peaks 30 to 40 years or more after a conflict,” Bilmes said. (Source: "Costs of War," Watson Institute at Brown University, September 2016. "Iraq War Lives on as Second-Costliest U.S. Conflict Fuels U.S. Debt," BusinessWeek, January 3, 2012. "Final U.S. Troops Leave Iraq," Bloomberg, March 19, 2013).

    Cost to Economy


    The Afghanistan War cost more than the $738 billion inflation-adjusted dollars spent on the Vietnam War. It's second only to the $4.1 trillion inflation-adjusted dollars spent during World War II.

    Unlike earlier wars, most American families did not feel impacted by the Afghanistan War. Unlike the Vietnam War and World War II, there was no draft. There was no tax imposed to pay for the war.

    As a result, those who served and their families bore the brunt. It will cost them at least $300 billion over the next several decades to pay for their injured family members. That doesn't include lost income from jobs they quit to care for their relative.

    Future generations will also pay for the addition to the debt. Researcher Ryan Edwards estimated that the United States incurred an extra $453 billion in interest on the debt to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Over the next 40 years, these costs will add $7.9 trillion to the debt. (Source: "Costs of War," Watson Institute, September 2016.)

    Companies, particularly small businesses, were disrupted by National Guard and Reserve call-ups. The economy has also been deprived of the productive contributions of the service members killed, wounded or psychologically traumatized.

    There's also the opportunity cost in terms of job creation. Every $1 billion spent on defense creates 8,555 jobs and adds $565 million to the economy. That same $1 billion in tax cuts stimulate enough demand to create 10,779 jobs and puts $505 million into the economy as retail sales. The same $1 billion in spent on education adds $1.3 billion to the economy and creates 17,687 jobs.

    Causes

    Why did the United States start a war in Afghanistan? The Bush administration wanted to eliminate the terrorist threat of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden. It also wanted to remove the Taliban from power since they provided refuge for bin Laden.

    Al-Qaida had been in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power in 1996. Before that, al-Qaida had operated in Pakistan's mountainous western border. It returned to Pakistan when the United States ousted the Taliban in 2001. (Source: "Al-Qaida Backgrounder," Council on Foreign Relations, June 6, 2012.)

    The Taliban grew out of Muslim opposition to the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They came from the thousands of mujahedeen (holy warriors) that arrived from all over the world to fight the Soviets. Ironically, the United States supplied anti-aircraft missiles to the mujahedeen to stop the spread of communism in the Middle East. (Source: "The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan," PBS Newshour, October 10, 2006.)

    When the war ended, these mujahedeen battled each other for control of the country. An Afghan contingent joined with Pashtun tribesmen to create the Taliban. They practiced a fundamentalist version of Islam called Wahhabism. The Taliban (which means student) had attended schools funded by Saudi Arabia.

    The Taliban promised peace and stability. They controlled 90 percent of the country by 2001. They also imposed strict sharia law, such as requiring women to wear burqas. The United Nations Security Council issued resolutions urging the Taliban to end oppressive treatment of women. (Source: "The Taliban in Afghanistan," Council on Foreign Relations, July 4, 2014.)

    Al-Qaida shared a similar fundamentalist Sunni Muslim ideology. The Sunnis believe that Shiites want to revive Persian rule over the Middle East. This Sunni-Shiite split is the driving force of tensions in the area. It is also an economic battle. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran both want to control the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes.

    The Taliban's support of al-Qaida came at a cost. It caused the UN Security Council to issue sanctions against Afghanistan. These sanctions, along with the Afghanistan War, led to the Taliban's downfall from power.
    avatar
    calm

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-12-19
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  calm on Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:26 pm

    US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat
    https://www.rt.com/usa/384646-pentagon-afghanistan-bomb-drop/




    BREAKING: US drops GBU-43/B, largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan in anti-ISIS (CNN reported they're ISIS-affiliated, not ISIS per se) operation. First for battlefield.

    Breaking: US military has dropped most powerful non-nuclear US bomb, MOAB, targeting ISIS in Nangarhar, Afghanistan -- first ever combat use

    -MOAB - also known as ‘Mother of all bombs" - a 21,600 lbs munition; dropped Thursday & US military currently assessing damage

    -Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on use of the bomb; was developed during the Iraq War but never used

    -Target was ISIS tunnels & personnel in Achin district of Nangarhar; dropped by MC-130 operated by Air Force special operations command
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 924
    Points : 922
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  Isos on Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:53 pm

    calm wrote:US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat
    https://www.rt.com/usa/384646-pentagon-afghanistan-bomb-drop/




    BREAKING: US drops GBU-43/B, largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan in anti-ISIS (CNN reported they're ISIS-affiliated, not ISIS per se) operation. First for battlefield.

    Breaking: US military has dropped most powerful non-nuclear US bomb, MOAB, targeting ISIS in Nangarhar, Afghanistan -- first ever combat use

    -MOAB - also known as ‘Mother of all bombs" - a 21,600 lbs munition; dropped Thursday & US military currently assessing damage

    -Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on use of the bomb; was developed during the Iraq War but never used

    -Target was ISIS tunnels & personnel in Achin district of Nangarhar; dropped by MC-130 operated by Air Force special operations command

    The legend says they destroyed some rocks on the ground lol! lol!
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5603
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:22 pm


    No video?

    C'mon Pentagon what's the holdup?
    avatar
    calm

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-12-19
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  calm on Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:44 pm

    *tries to deflect -> fails -> accuses original poster of deflecting*
    https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/852604807240196099
    avatar
    calm

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-12-19
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  calm on Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:54 pm

    VIDEO: US military shares footage of 'mother of all bombs' strike in Afghanistan

    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5161
    Points : 5224
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:20 pm

    A, probably retired, US Marine's take on the bombing

    http://ijr.com/2017/04/848710-force-recon-marine-who-helped-hunt/
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  max steel on Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:16 am

    The MOAB — the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal dropped on Afghanistan last week — uses grid fin guidance technology that the U.S. stole from the Soviets. Cool
    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5161
    Points : 5224
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:10 pm

    Looks like those suicide bombers who attacked the 209 Shaheen Corps HQ in Mazar-e-Sharif yesterday did serious damage

    BILAL SARWARY‏ @bsarwary 3h3 hours ago

    #AFG Among at least 170 killed and more than a 100 injured : some of our best soldiers&officers with years of CT experience.
    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5161
    Points : 5224
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:21 am

    Jeremy Binnie‏ @JeremyBinnie

    Airbus DS satellite imagery showing aftermath of MOAB strike. Props to @obretix for getting the location right.





    https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/855080690081288192

    MonkeymodelBananaRepublic

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-13

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  MonkeymodelBananaRepublic on Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:38 am

    Reports in media that pakistan, iran, china and russia are throwing their support behind taliban to stop permanant us bases, bleed nato, reduce drug trade and stabilise country. Prompted by presence of isis. Nato blaming all problems in afghanistan on russia.

    In another story it seems moab had no psychological affact as was intended 
    [size=33]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39705128  [/size]


    Voice of America puts official death toll from army base attack as 255
    https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-army-base-attack-taliban-death-toll/3825261.html
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10656
    Points : 11135
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  George1 on Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:23 pm

    Lol.. what about USA's support to Islamic fundamentalists in 80s???


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    MonkeymodelBananaRepublic

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-13

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  MonkeymodelBananaRepublic on Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:14 am

    I agree with you, its same as usa support of khmer rouge. Doesnt matter if communist or islamic fundamentalist - they are all just tools to be wielded when convenient

    No permanant friends, only permanant interests
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:09 pm

    If the US is going to put military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria then why would the Russians not support those that want to remove them like the Taleban and Syrian government forces.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan - Afghan Army

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:04 am