Operation enduring tension

[Drone_pilot]

In the US army’s eyes, its allies are mere clients,
supplicants and proxies, says robert fox (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/atoz.php#fox)


You know you're in trouble when allies start falling out publicly. The New York
Times has just reported that a British commander in Afghanistan has asked for
American special forces to be pulled out of Helmand because they've caused
too many civilian deaths there.

US special forces and private military companies like DynCorp, now running
poppy eradication, rely heavily on indiscriminate aerial bombing for back-up
when they get into trouble. The problem is they do not come not under the
main allied command, International Sustaining Assistance Force (ISAF).

The First Post Read More (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=8163)

[PanzerBob]

:eek::confused: What kind of dumda** came up with that idea! That's cutting your nose off to spite your face. No wonder we are having trouble winning hearts and minds, those people only see Western Forces doing the bombing, not which command they are under. Somebody better get a grip on the situation!

[03Fox2/1]

The New York Times is an excellent source, always reliable and beyond political intrigue,...right ?

[PanzerBob]

The New York Times is an excellent source, always reliable and beyond political intrigue,...right ?

Hope you are right. sal;

[Bombardier]

The New York Times is an excellent source, always reliable and beyond political intrigue,...right ?


If so it will be the first Newspaper in the world that is :rolleyes:

[03Fox2/1]

My apologies, to all who took my comments about the New York Times being a reliable source of information for this story seriously. I thought it was obvious that my statement was meant in jest only. Again, my mistake for making assumptions. I don't think the New York Times is a reliable or independent or non-political source of information for the basis of this story, Operation enduring tension. This is only my personal opinion and as such, I don't expect the endorsement or agreement from others in this audience. We all know how un-named sources or protected sources or quoting out of context or using sound bites for effect, can alter the meaning of a comment. I'm sure there is truth somewhere in this story but I have grave reservations about the words used and conclusions drawn as written by Robert Fox for the New york Times and posted on here for discussion.
Semper Fi

[PanzerBob]

I certainly didn't realize it was an "Unnamed Source" that should make one wonder. Of course, if the story is false then it should be called in the carpet for what it is. This kind of "reporting" can cost people read "our soldiers" lives. sal;