Taliban chief's death a big U.S. victory as war support in Afghanistan wanes

[Richard Tafoya]

AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_re_as/afghan_commander_killed

The killing of the top Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah, a one-legged fighter who orchestrated suicide attacks, beheadings and an ethnic massacre, marks a major victory for the U.S. campaign at a time of flagging Afghan support over civilian killings.

As victims of Dadullah's brutality celebrated his death Sunday, analysts called the killing the most significant Taliban loss since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. But even NATO acknowledged that Dadullah, who directed some of the Taliban's most notorious violence, would soon be replaced.
Dadullah, a top lieutenant of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, was killed in the southern province of Helmand during a U.S.-led operation that also involved NATO and Afghan troops, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.

Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid, who called Dadullah a "brutal and cruel commander" showed the body to reporters in Kandahar who saw a one-legged corpse with bullet wounds to the head, chest and stomach.

Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a purported Taliban spokesman, denied that the Taliban commander had been killed, but there appeared little doubt Dadullah was dead.

Dadullah is the second top-tier Taliban field commander to be killed in the last six months, after a U.S. airstrike killed Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani in December. Dadullah, Osmani and policy-maker Mullah Obaidullah had been considered to be Omar's top three leaders.


Rahimullah Yusufzai, a Peshawar-based editor for the Pakistani newspaper The News and an expert on the Taliban, said Dadullah's death was "the biggest loss for the Taliban in the last six years." But he noted that even though the Taliban were demoralized after Osmani's death in December, they quickly resumed attacks.

[Regis Philbin]

We've been in Afghanistan for 5½ years now...that's longer than World War II.

It's time to surrender and come home.

[ConnieB]

You can't put a timeline to any war because each one is different and unpredictable. If we surrender now then we have played into the enemy's hands. This has been their strategy from the beginning, fight hard and don't back down. I thought the USA had this same strategy, but I haven't seen it. When to going gets tough, the liberals want to run and be known as the weak ones. Well, the enemy has seen this and heard it, and they know the more they fight, the more we back down. This war could still be won by us as long as we are willing to make adjustments according to what is going on and stay out of the military's way so they can do their job. Our military can do it if congress and the media would allow them to. They needs every source available to them, including the ability to call for more troops when needed, even if it's for only a month or two so they can take control of a problem area. Because of congress constantly discussing withdrawing and playing politics with the budget, our ability is being hindered over there. Remember, congress has NO control over the troops, meaning they should not be deciding when to withdraw them. They need to focus on making sure our troops have the money they need until it's over, no matter how long that is and leave the withdraw/war decisions to the Generals and the President. Maybe with congress out of the war debate, they could actually do their job and get our nation on track again while our military would be able to do their job without fearing a huge debate over every move that is made.

If we didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq, all the leaders who we captured or killed would still be alive and able to continue mass murders and plan more attacks around the world. We are making progress even if it is slow, but one thing we can't do is withdraw. If we do, the world will know the USA can be bullied and attacked until we back down. Is this what every one wants? Remember what set this all off....9/11!!!!!!!

[ConnieB]

Trying to get rid of terrorist in the middle east is like trying to get rid of the gangs here in the USA.

Gangs are widespread in the USA and they are recruiting more members every day, just like the terrorist groups/insurgents are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though gangs are widespread, we could get rid of them. It would take quite a bit of time, huge manpower, and alot of blood to do so, but every gang member captured or killed is progress just like every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is progress. Each one leads us to new information, clues to locating more members and their weapons, and how the group works. Terrorist groups in the middle east are numerous and they want to do away with thousands of people including Americans, and we did take on a huge challenge but in my opinion, it's one worth fighting no matter how long it takes.

[LesterX]

Trying to get rid of terrorist in the middle east is like trying to get rid of the gangs here in the USA.

Even though gangs are widespread, we could get rid of them. It would take quite a bit of time, huge manpower, and alot of blood to do so, but every gang member captured or killed is progress just like every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is progress.

"A lot of blood?" What exactly are you suggesting be done about gangs?

[db44]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting a timeline on Afghanistan. There is at least, and from the start has been, a reason to be there... Unlike other porkbelly vendetta campaigns we are currently involved in.

[pinky]

Connie, you say that Congress and the media are in the way of the military. I would suggest to you that it's actually BUSH who's in the way of the military, because he routinely ignores the advice of his military leaders.

Congress and the media are actually opposing Bush, not the military.

[invincible]

Connie, you say that Congress and the media are in the way of the military. I would suggest to you that it's actually BUSH who's in the way of the military, because he routinely ignores the advice of his military leaders.

Congress and the media are actually opposing Bush, not the military.

Bush is stepping up to the plate and doing what's right, rather than caring about his reputation and just surrenduring like most would in his situation. the media is made up of pretty much all liberals and is why so many people are getting loads of bull**** and have NO clue.

[invincible]

You can't put a timeline to any war because each one is different and unpredictable. If we surrender now then we have played into the enemy's hands. This has been their strategy from the beginning, fight hard and don't back down. I thought the USA had this same strategy, but I haven't seen it. When to going gets tough, the liberals want to run and be known as the weak ones. Well, the enemy has seen this and heard it, and they know the more they fight, the more we back down. This war could still be won by us as long as we are willing to make adjustments according to what is going on and stay out of the military's way so they can do their job. Our military can do it if congress and the media would allow them to. They needs every source available to them, including the ability to call for more troops when needed, even if it's for only a month or two so they can take control of a problem area. Because of congress constantly discussing withdrawing and playing politics with the budget, our ability is being hindered over there. Remember, congress has NO control over the troops, meaning they should not be deciding when to withdraw them. They need to focus on making sure our troops have the money they need until it's over, no matter how long that is and leave the withdraw/war decisions to the Generals and the President. Maybe with congress out of the war debate, they could actually do their job and get our nation on track again while our military would be able to do their job without fearing a huge debate over every move that is made.

If we didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq, all the leaders who we captured or killed would still be alive and able to continue mass murders and plan more attacks around the world. We are making progress even if it is slow, but one thing we can't do is withdraw. If we do, the world will know the USA can be bullied and attacked until we back down. Is this what every one wants? Remember what set this all off....9/11!!!!!!!


Amen.

[pinky]

Bush is stepping up to the plate and doing what's right, rather than caring about his reputation and just surrenduring like most would in his situation. the media is made up of pretty much all liberals and is why so many people are getting loads of bull**** and have NO clue.
Then why has he consistently ignored the advice of his military leaders? Why did he invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, instead of putting ALL our military into the search for bin Laden? Why has he persisted in a directionless "strategy" in Iraq?

He isn't doing anything that's right. But keep on drinking your Kool-Aid if it makes you feel safer.

[Richard Tafoya]

Worth adding this to this thread.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/13/generals-revolt/

Appearing on NBC’s Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of “a revolt from active-duty generals (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/tell_me_something_i_dont_know_58897.asp) if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into ‘08.”

Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Batiste (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/cbs-fires-batiste/) have already begun voicing their discontent with the president’s strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals “don’t want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost.”

When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that “the measure would ‘impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat’ by forcing them to ‘take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/02/news/web0502policy.php).’”


But despite past claims that “the right force level” will be determined by “the sober judgement of our military leaders (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/bush-judgment-troops/),” the Bush administration has a proven track record (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/16/diritas-deceitful-reponse-to-american-progress/) of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored “the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html).”

It appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of “taking fighting directions” from a politician “6,000 miles away” in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.

[Sunflowergirl]

....If we didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq, all the leaders who we captured or killed would still be alive and able to continue mass murders and plan more attacks around the world. We are making progress even if it is slow, but one thing we can't do is withdraw. If we do, the world will know the USA can be bullied and attacked until we back down. Is this what every one wants? Remember what set this all off....9/11!!!!!!!
...And you think they're not doing that now? Not two weeks ago there was an article posted about a government report detailing a rising number of terrorist attacks: http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=578029 Just because the United States hasn't been attacked again doesn't mean it's not happening. That is not progress, no matter how you try to spin it. I'm won't even try to dispute the nonexistent 9/11 connection...