Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

French soldiers unprepared for Taliban ambush: report

GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 3:10 AM EST 20/09/08

A secret NATO review obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the French did not have enough bullets, radios and other equipment. By contrast, the insurgents were dangerously well prepared ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Misery No one from Angus, Canada writes: and the latest troubling sign that the insurgents are mastering the art of guerrilla war.
    ---------------------------------------
    No wonder the freedom fighters are making fools of the occupiers with statements like that.

    These are hardened fighters over decades of being in war mode.

    After reading this article it's the equivalent to saying the afghans are stupid, Well no wonder the 'mission' had failed. What ever the mission was to begin with.
  2. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: Sobering reading, but not especially surprising. The Aghans are a quick study in war, and given our current strategies and methods, it stands to reason that they would start to work out ways of coping with the superior firepower of the foreign forces. Without better intelligence and closer contact with the local people, we should be wondering whether this is worth it.

    Thank you Graeme for some good reporting.
  3. I. Antonescu from Canada writes: i pray for grame smith's sake, and for the sake of all NATO soldiers in afghanistan that he and his 'sources' never reveal any classified information that ultimately leads to the deaths of some of our soldiers. while this article may make interesting and thought provoking reading, there are reasons these reports are labelled 'SECRET.' the taliban scored a rare victory on the battlefield against the French that day, and they just scored another not so rare one here in the propaganda department.
  4. Mister G. from Halifax, Canada writes: Let me get this straight. The G&M is publishing secret NATO information? Are there laws against this type of criminal behavior?
  5. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Is it likely that they felt that they were on some sort of a vacation, away from their barracks at home?
  6. Jo Blo from as far from Toronto as possible, Canada writes: D. Wiltshire from Canada writes: 'Why is it news that France is unprepared for combat. That has been the central theme of the country for at least the last century. The Great War, World War II, Dien Bien Phu , 1954, in Vietnam. Now Afghanistan.
    Is it coincidental that they did not want to be in an area that was hostile. Ah yes, the French are lovers, not fighters. I almost forgot. '

    So what's your point? Should they just pack up and leave and let us Canadians do all the work?
  7. Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Mister G. from Halifax, Canada writes: Let me get this straight. The G&M is publishing secret NATO information? Are there laws against this type of criminal behavior?

    ___

    Setting aside the non-sequitor contained in your question, yes: In countries where freedom of the press doesn't exist.

    By the way, what is contained in the article that you think the enemy wouldn't already know about NATO/French preparedness at the time of events, having been on the same battlefield?
  8. A Real Conservative from Hamilton, Canada writes: Let me tell You How It Is from United States writes:
    'MMmmm.....Mullah Rahmatullah......Mullah Rahmatullah...that is a real Canadian sounding name... he's got to be another Canadian citizen like those other nice Canadians Omar Khadr or Canadian Ressam the millenium bomber. Likely was born and raised near Toronto, attended York University and spent weekends target shooting in cottage country. A true product of Canada's education system where loyalty to Canada's institutions and government are disdained and discouraged. '
    *************************************************
    Your post is insulting and I've reported. Frankly your post shows only ignorance of Canada and it's tradition of justice and respect. So please, Go Find Yourself a new bulletin board.
  9. Boreal Moose from Canada writes:
    There wukk be a lot of the surrender-monkey anti-french drivel. Let's put an end to that right now:

    1) The soldiers who die in the largest number per thousand at the hands of the Taliban are Canadians.

    2) Canadian soldiers have been so terrible at defending Kandahar province that the jail was blown to hell right under our noses.

    3) The Yanks have had to come clean up our mess.

    Now, I don't believe the last two statements.....but hey, if we are going to cruelly lie about other nations' forces, we might as well start with lies about our own.
  10. Sam Barns from moncton, Canada writes: This terrible article can be summarized as follows: dangerous scary guerrillas poor French soldiers good ol'NATO to the rescue Afghans aren't smart enough to be good marksmen.

    Absolute garbage.

    Good riddance to the failed and violent occupation. No sympathy for occupiers at all.

    NATO has always been an instrument of Euro-American imperialism and Canada should have nothing to do with it.
  11. G E from Toronto, Canada writes: The report underlines the inherent weakness of the UN mandated mission in Afghanistan which NATO has undertaken. There is neither the political will or the military capacity to do the fighting that is necessary to win this conflict. NATO has been shown ever since the fighting in Kosovo to be a weak military organization that is undermanned and under equipped for mission that has been assigned to it.

    Western leaders of the NATO countries have failed to explain to their citizens why their troops need to be there and what the mission is. Personally, I doubt the war can be won at this point. There have been too many missed opportunities. Of course a defeat of NATO in Afghanistan would resound beyond that conflict. It would certainly embolden other countries such as Russia to re-examine the possibility of re-exerting its influence in it's 'near abroad'.

    A defeat in Afghanistan will also ensure that there is no involvement by NATO in any other areas of conflict such as Darfur and Somalia. In the worse case scenario the military alliance may simply disintegrate or disappear in the political fallout from a defeat in Afghanistan.

    I am proud of the role that NATO and Canada as a member historically provided in checking Soviet expansionism. The triumphalist comments by some of the writers of the deaths of Canadian and our Allies' troops leaves me cold. They are serving at the the behest of their various democratically elected governments in what the United Nations believes is an important humanitarian mission.

    If the military component of the mission ends let there be no doubt there will be no reconstruction in Afghanistan. We must be prepared to acknowledge that we are not prepared to sacrifice our troops to help the Afghani people. Their cause is not 'Just'. We are in effect prepared to leave them to their fate at the the hands of the Taliban.

  12. John Hynde from Montreal, Canada writes: D. Wiltshire,

    Your comments about the French are despicable. The French have supposedly been 'cowards' since they refused to co-invade Iraq as spun by the neocon Anglo press.
    You are either a neocon armchair warrior or simply too stupid to get it.
    Do us all a favor and get back into your 10miles/gallon truck and go shoot some bears from a safe distance.
  13. Bruce Banner from Toronto, Canada writes: I. Antonescu from Canada - good post.

    As for Graeme's article, who is he trying to jerk around with statements like (the Taliban) 'who seem increasingly skilled at guerrilla warfare..' Guess what Graeme? If the Taliban had not mastered the skills of ambush and guerrilla tactics they would have been vanquished long ago.

    What about the fact that outnumbered, outgunned and under-supplied French troops still managed to kill 15 Taliban who had the high ground, had the element of surprise, and were 'dangerously well prepared'?

    The simple fact is that the Taliban still exist today because they have safe haven in Pakistan (supplies, staging grounds, and command centres) and NATO has made a token, piss poor effort in Afghanistan. Graeme Smith's fearful reporting just feeds another victory into the Taliban's propaganda machine.
  14. Bruce Banner from Toronto, Canada writes: G E from Toronto - quite simply and excellent post.
  15. Boreal Moose from Canada writes:
    G E from Toronto writes: 'In the worse case scenario the military alliance [NATO] may simply disintegrate or disappear in the political fallout from a defeat in Afghanistan'.

    A defeat in Afghanistan would have nothing to do with it.

    The end of the Cold War, the rise of the Oligarchs, and the new petro-power enjoyed by Russia in Europe already ensures NATO's twisting in the historical winds. In effect, NATO is the historical aberration. Europe is now simply getting back to historical normal.
  16. Sam Barns from moncton, Canada writes: The war was illegal from the start, as York University law professor Michael Mandel has demonstrated in many publications. Furthermore, even though the UN legitimized the post-war occupation, the actions of the US and NATO consistently violate the rules of international law (torture, civilian casualties, etc.) and Canadian law.

    There is nothing to be proud about in the occupation. Canada and NATO have installed warlords and drug dealers in the Afghan parliament. There is no substantive democratic process being created. Civil liberties are virtually non-existent. The police forces we created are corrupt beyond belief. Aid and reconstruction have failed systematically, mainly because half the funds have gone into western NGO salaries and because NATO doesn't really care about Afghans. NATO has committed a rolling wave of massacres against Afghan civilians. Torture has been systematic. Canadian diplomats are directing the government like old colonial administrators behind the scenes. Canada's military is writing Karzai's speeches when he comes to Canada. We are stuck fighting a national liberation movement of the Pashtun, who have been excluded by the occupation and attacked violently by NATO.

    For these reasons, the mission has already failed, and was bound to fail from the start.

    This failure has nothing to do with Pakistan. It has nothing to do with a lack of weapons and a lack of will. And nothing to do with weak and unreliable Europeans.

    Instead, it has everything to do with the occupation itself and the violence of NATO troops.

    Unfortunately, the debate in Canada has been so clouded by the knee jerk and simpleminded pro-military crowd, that only a few Canadians (like myself) saw the failure looming from the very start.

    End the occupation. Canada out of NATO.
  17. Censured Comments from Canada writes: When I served in Afghanistan, the French were doing probably the best job of any NATO forces at finding weapons stashes and explosives.

    This incident is horribly tragic. I doubt very much the soldiers were as unprepared as this trashy tabloid made them out to be, just as the Taliban are not know for their 'poor marksmanship.'

    Whoever would mock the French, and think they are cowards for dying, please, prove your mettle and enlist.
  18. Mickey Hickey from Toronto, Canada writes: Articles like this are quite misleading. The French received a long, bloody and expensive education in counterinsurgency all around the world but most notably in Vietnam and Algeria. Playing to stereotypes is an American trait that is now quite well entrenched in Canada, we should know better. The Afghans are bad shots, what balderdash, the British and Russians left their corpses on Afghan plains as testimony to Afghan military skills. All the problems are caused by foreigners from Pak. and elsewhere, reminds me of Irish luck, they must be lucky because they are not good. Wake up Canada any fantasies you have about Afghanistan will turn into nightmares. Get our troops out now.
  19. P S from Oromocto NB, Canada writes: A lot of people seem to think the French have historically demonstrated some sort of inability to wage war, while the facts bear that they have born the brunt of several major conflicts. Today, they are a world leader in weapons development and exportation, they have a large, professional army, with serious capabilities.

    Perhaps the memory of places like Verdun still haunts their policy decisions?

    Accusing them of not being ready for both world wars is ridiculus, what state of readines were Britain, Canada and the USA in?
    Our boys were issued cardboard boots and Ross rifles, gimme a break. In 39' when the Nazis went on the move, nobody was 'ready'.

    Thank providence that we still have people able and willing to defend our freedoms, rights and lives, regardless of what flag is on their shoulder.

    Vive la Liberte, Allons Ye
  20. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Western troops are not supermen and the Taliban are not bumbling idiots. Nato has superior firepower but the situation here negated that. All this stuff about foreign fighters being responsible is propaganda. The foreign fighters are not supermen either.

    I read an interview with a Taliban commander who claimed to have been in charge of the attack. He said they just happened to be passing and were told where the French position was so they took advantage of the opportunity.... Evildoers lurking in the shadows were unnecessary.
  21. Amguada Kickboote from The Sewage Treatment Plant, Canada writes: 'They were in a vulnerable position, looking up at rocky ridges to the north, south, and east, and that's where the insurgents struck most fiercely.'

    Duh! They were trapped in a bottle, a closed canyon. That's all the article had to say. The British and Russians found themselves in the exact same position a few times in their earlier experiences with Afghan terrain/fighters too.

    I seriously doubt that the French train and equip their troops much different than we do.

    The conclusion I draw is that if you are going to blindly enter a closed canyon with only one radio, you need to bring more ammunition.

    What crappy reporting though, talking about bogus female captives and poor marksmanship on the part of insurgents dedicated and trained in fighting. Did a secret NATO report really say that? The point saying the troops were doomed were it not for a speedy NATO rescue but in a later paragraph, the author says that reinforcements did not arrive for four hours. Which is it?

    The G&M editors were clearly asleep at the switch here and this article is a train wreck of innuendo, stereotypes, regurgitated enemy propaganda and illogical misinformation.
  22. Between a Rock and a Hard bit from Pattaya, Thailand writes: More negative propaganda from the G & M. I find it hard to fathom whose side this rag is really on.
  23. I. Antonescu from Canada writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Mister G. from Halifax, Canada writes: Let me get this straight. The G&M is publishing secret NATO information? Are there laws against this type of criminal behavior? ___ Setting aside the non-sequitor contained in your question, yes: In countries where freedom of the press doesn't exist. By the way, what is contained in the article that you think the enemy wouldn't already know about NATO/French preparedness at the time of events, having been on the same battlefield? _____ the point is this: the Taliban may have succeeded on that day, but they may not necessarily know why they succeeded, other than having luck on their side. the 'SECRET' report that smith uses to produce this article gives details as to why the French soldiers failed that day. This type of information can be exploited by the enemy in future engagements. Even if it isnt, its release only feeds into more negative public opinion (and not only in France) which emboldens the Taliban. btw rebel prince, freedom of the press doesnt entitle you or the media to know everything.
  24. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: The French troops should have used a good old-fashioned taunting:

    I fart in your general direction, you silly peasants! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
  25. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sam Barns - I'm grateful to live in a country where you can express your opinion. I'm even more grateful that you only get one vote, so I can live in a country run and dominated by your brutal, ignorant, oppressors, and not in the wonderful, idealistic society you would create for us if you were the elder of the Hunter-Gatherer Anarchist Republic of Canada.

    I'm glad you know half the truth...now fess up to the other half: a) That's life. b) Your lifestyle is dependent on it, no matter how ethical and self-sustaining you feel yourself to be, c) you haven't the slightest clue what not being part of NATO would be like, and you aren't thinking much about the effects to your fellow Canadians if you think we should pull out to make your half-educated conscience feel better about itself.

    You are part of the machine, sweetheart. Taking a 'principled stance' and casting stones at the rest of us only increases the annoyance-entropy of the world.
  26. Norm Albert from Canada writes: Not much conversation on the ANA's efforts in this attack. It is one thing to cut and run but quite another to leave behind the reported articles. If they are unwilling to make a stand than why are we there.
    They should be facing a firing squad.
    The French answered the call when others did not and I solute their gallantry and offer my condolences for their lose.
  27. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Given how thoroughly the French troops got their butts kicked - I would say it was a given that they were 'unprepared'.....is there actually useful analysis in this story?
  28. The Lakeman from Nova Scotia, Canada writes: Our guys from Quebec were there at the time this terrible event took place. I am sure they would have loved a chance to team up with some French troops and show them what you can do or what you cannot do and if you want to survive over there. So not only did the French troopers go into harms way without proper equipment they also missed out on a golden opportunity to learn the tricks of the trade with no language barriers. Not very smart if you ask me!!
  29. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: The unfortunate truth is that the 'Taliban' are slowly improving. Still not real good but much better than 2005-2007. Luckily they have very limited access to guided missiles and many sophisticated IEDs such as are common in Iraq. If they get a regular supply of anti-tank missiles etc. and the training to use them effectively the game will completely change.

    We may also be seeing the typical Darwinian Ratchet that occurs in most guerrilla wars. The old stupid and slow leadership is replaced gradually by younger smarter and faster. This process has been applied to the Taliban much more quickly than NATO as they have all of their forces deployed not a small percentage, have taken much higher senior leadership casualties and have no entrenched military bureaucracy to perpetuate.
  30. Ed Long from Canada writes: So much for the Taliban being simple folk trying to rid their meagre land from foreign oppressors.

    And nobody has commented on the Afghan Army members ducking, dropping their gear and running.

    That Afghanistan protected by NATO trained Afghans policy is in the dustbin.

    It is straight ahead war:Taliban supported by foreign interests vs. NATO foreign interests.
  31. Mark Bossi from rrrolling up the rrrim ..., Canada writes: Wow, Sparky ... careful ya don't spill anything on those comfortable armchairs (from whence you spout off on something ya didn't see ...)
  32. Fred Smith from Canada writes: 10 French soldiers killed 15 Taliban killed sounds like the French won ..

    New French soldiers who weren't ready and died because of it .. Next time in combat the French soldiers will be so much better .. Survival of the fittest .. Or your dead ... Very motivational for new soldiers ..
  33. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    LEAVE OUR TROOPS IN THIS AMERICAN MEAT GRINDER FOR 38 MONTHS OR MORE?

    Man, you must be willing to see lots of dead and maimed men if you say Yes.

    Leave Afghans to themselves. They will ally with Pakistan and China and the other Stans will help if the area is free of Western occupiers.

    The Americans have enraged 205 million plus Muslims of Pak and Afghanistan and hundreds of millions of the Ummah.

    Bring our troops home NOW and let the Americans go bankrupt fighting Muslims with their own citizens. [Of course they will use mostly aliens hoping for a 'Green' Card].

    Be well. Bye.
  34. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    'WINNING' FORMULA FOR CANADIAN MEN?

    >>>Fred Smith from Canada writes: 10 French soldiers killed 15 Taliban killed sounds like the French won ..>>>
    <
  35. Jo Blo from Far enough from Toronto, Canada writes: Mickey Hickey from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Articles like this are quite misleading. The French received a long, bloody and expensive education in counterinsurgency all around the world but most notably in Vietnam and Algeria.'_________________________

    Actually, the French used many foreign troops in Viet-Nam and Algeria. German Army and Waffen SS veterans formed the bulk of the French Foreign Legion during that time (so much so that a few German Army traditions seeped into the French Army through the Legion), and they suffered staggering losses. Many units were African colonials like Moroccans. At the siege of Dien Bien Phu, the French had a majority of foreign soldiers (except for the paras). The French government is now paying pensions to Moroccan veterans of those wars.
  36. Jo Blo from Far enough from Toronto, Canada writes: Sam Barns from moncton, Canada writes: 'The war was illegal from the start, as York University law professor Michael Mandel has demonstrated in many publications. Furthermore, even though the UN legitimized the post-war occupation, the actions of the US and NATO consistently violate the rules of international law (torture, civilian casualties, etc.) and Canadian law.

    There is nothing to be proud about in the occupation. Canada and NATO have installed warlords and drug dealers in the Afghan parliament......................'______________________________

    All true. The problem is, try explaining all that to half the population that has the attention span of a flea, and for the most part has already been brainwashed by Faux News (Fox for the less enlightened), if they watch any news at all. Unfortunately, many politicians have the same issues, especially our illustrious defense minister.

    (but hey, I'm still voting Conservative, because of other issues)
  37. Andrew Burke from Canada writes: Let's cut the whole French are cowards crap, OK? France suffered over one million military deaths in WW1, hardly cowardly. Yes, they were beaten in WW2, but if you're not completely ignorant you'll also remember the British were beaten in France, and a little place called Dunkirk. If it weren't for the English channel they would've suffered the same defeat as the French. Militarily, they won the war in Algeria, they lost it politically -- I'm not going to cry over a colonial power losing though. Something tells me the Americans didn't fare well in Vietnam either.
  38. david ferguson from halifax, Canada writes: armchair generals all have an opinion and so do i. having served in the past, and having family deployed now the tactic employed is all wrong. it's a shooting war and you can't do that by television, the UN, or do no harm rules...

    Canada and nato have sniper teams, use them. it may not be kosher, it may not be pretty, but it provides the combat effectives to get on with their job. if it is publicly unacceptable, then we need to reconsider the value of defending Canada from half way around the planet.

    go to win, or get the guys and girls out of harm's way.
  39. Ian B from Canada writes: We all know who supplies Taliban. Why is it not politically correct to state this?
  40. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: It would appear that the French troops could have done with better training before being deployed to Afghanistan. Even those Canadian soldiers who have done one or more tours in Afghanistan participate in major training exercises prior to deployment to Afghanistan. The French troops also appeared to be seriously underequipped - only one radio? not enough ammunition? This was a rough way to learn how to operate in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, many of the ANA have not yet received adequate training and are not seasoned/disciplined fighters and were certainly not a good source of reliable backup in this situation.

    As for the Taliban, they have been receiving training from fighters from Iraq and their numbers have been bolstered with hardened fighters from other countries recruited through Al'Qaeda. This has resulted in larger IEDs and improved tactics in the field. Previously some Afghans have indicated they fear the 'Arab' fighters the most.
  41. Mo Friendly from Edmonton, Canada writes: Not enough bullets? I thought those were kinda important.
  42. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Despite constant worry about 'foreign fighters' in eastern Afghanistan the 'foreigners' who are caught are invariably Pakistanis whose first language is Pashtu. After a successful enemy attack or ambush the usual NATO line is that it was executed by 'foreigners' in the delusion that this somehow hides the growing Pashtun rebellion
  43. Rick Vid from Seattle, United States writes: Kinder, gentler wars result only in more casualties. Grant showed this in the American Civil War, as did Patton and, before Market Garden, Montgomery in WWII. Mechanized units in Afghanistan - the Russians learned that lesson 20 years ago. These French should have been better prepared, but who knows what thier commanders told them - 'You have plenty of ammunition! We do not expect any significant contact!' Never a good thing to hear. If you have to go to war, do so. War is hell, do not try to make it any less so.
  44. Jo Blo from Canada writes: Ian B from Canada writes: 'We all know who supplies Taliban. Why is it not politically correct to state this? ' I give up. Who is supplying the Taliban?
  45. HENRI LE BIHAN from BENODET, France writes: Je tiens tout d'abord a féliciter le Globeandmail pour cet article, article qui aurait eu quelque mal a être diffusé en France. Je remarque dans certains journeaux Anglo-saxons, nous les français, sommes pris à partis pour notre sois disante couhardise face à l'ennemi. Mais bon, passons... Concernant l'Iraq, notre ministre de l'époque, Dominique de Villepin à fait un discours remarquable en prévenant qu'une intervention serait l'ouverture de la boite de Pandore. Qui plus est cette guerre n'avait pas l'aval de l'ONU. Il n'avait pas tort et la situation actuelle le prouve. Effectivement, aux niveaux des statistiques officielles, le nombre de morts et de bléssés dans les forces alliées tendent à diminuer. En fait, en y regardant de plus prêt, nous constatons une chose: la stratégie mise en oeuvre a changé depuis quelques semaines. Force est de constater que les forces occidentales ne sortent plus autant de leurs bases. Malheureusement, les attentats se multiplient et les civils meurent de plus en plus. Quant à cette ambuscade, c'est vrai qu'il y a matière à critiques sur l'opération en elle-même. Manque de munitions, de radio... Nous souffrons aussi d'un manque évident de matériel adapté. Sous-blindage de nos Véhicules Blindés de l'Avant (VAB), mauvaise protection du tireur 12,7mm. Notre politique de défense est mal en point au niveau budgétaire. Priorité aux sous marins nucléaires, aux avions Rafales et pour ce qui est des fantassins, comme toujours les plus mal lotis. Je sais que nos hommes sont de bons combattants mais il faut leur en donner les moyens. Nous avons de bons hélicoptères de combat Tigre mais ils ne sont pas utilisés en Afghanistan. Je me demande bien pourquoi. Et 6 avions de combat, cela fait un peu pingre! Nous avons également oublié les techniques de contre-guérilla, issues de nos expériences en Indochine et Algérie. Dommage. Je n'oublie pas les Canadiens de Dieppe et ceux de nos plages.
  46. D M from Canada writes: 1.) The enemy are very good. They prove this on occasion by killing the best troops in the World. 2.) Getting a unified effort in NATO is like pushing spaghetti up-hill. 3.) The French Airborne... had 10 KIAs and what was it 18 WIAs...? Big mistakes were made and the enemy capitalized and exploited. This is not a common occurence, but when it does happen it certainly will make the press. 4.) The enemy are experts at information operations as this article proves. 5.) Someone mentioned that four hours was a long time for re-inforcements to show up. What do you know? In Afghanistan that is like lightning. 6.) The ANA... Some are very, very, very highly skilled and courageous. Some are very, very, very poorly skilled. There are a multitude of factors that determine this. 7.) Finally... pull out!!! Then what????? One of you genius' answer that question with an answer that demonstrates you have actually considered the question. Have a great day.
  47. LE PAHUN JOEL from MONTEVRAIN, France writes: My name is Joel LE PAHUN and my son Julien was killed by taliban on august 18th. Of course I'm very interested by this NATO report and I hope someone will be able providing me all information about it, and why not a copy.
    It's incredible to have to read the 'world' newspapers in order to obtain information !!!!

    Thanks to help me to obtain the true and who are the culprints both side (talibans and american commandment, french forces ???)
  48. Romain Poustis from Bayonne, France, Metropolitan writes: Thank you so much for this invaluable piece of information. I can see from there that air support was much more intensive than said in France, thus avoiding a greater disaster.
    Your article is making a great impression in the French press, I believe it will accelate corrective measures already underway, and put more pressure on commander in chief, in the good sense.
    Merci beaucoup
  49. C. Neff from Germany writes: Bonjour Monsieur Le Pahun

    Condoléances et grands respects pour votre fils et ses camarades !

    Christophe Neff
    http://www.ifgg.uni-karlsruhe.de/index.php.cgi/ger/personen/akadmitarbeiterinnen/drchristopheneff
  50. Romain Poustis from Bayonne, France, Metropolitan writes: Je voudrais aussi exprimer mes sincères condoléances à Monsieur Joêl Le Pahun .
  51. guillot christian from paris, France, Metropolitan writes: Sans même avoir vérifié ces informations (c'est trop fatiguant), les journaleux sont toujours attirés par le parfum et le goût de chiotte.

    Ce document confidentiel aurait été remis aux journalistes par la dame pipi de l'Etat Major de l'OTAN.
  52. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: HENRI LE BIHAN from BENODET, my deepest and profound sympathy for your national loss. I appears to me that many born and raised in a free democratic society over the last 63 years have come to believe all the harm is past and that any occurrence of anti-democratic intention can be resolved by just showing up. France is not the only nation to arrive in Afghanistan ill prepared to combat terrorism and a militant organization that uses the civilian population as both weapon and shield. Canada has been working closely with the ANA and ANP for a couple of years now and our forces still make mistakes. In a perfect world the Taleban would be driven into Pakistan and contained there, leaving the Afghans to get on with reconstruction, and for the Pakistani to either embrace the Taleban for their efforts in the name of the government of Pakistan, or defend themselves from their own creation. Either way it is Pakistan who should bare the brunt and compensate Afghanistan for the terror and loss of life and material. Liberte, Eqalite, Fraternite, didn't come with a box of breakfast cereal. It's all the Afghans are asking for. To join that fraternity of free peoples.
  53. chanavat jean claude from st etienne, France writes: Having read this article, and previously been informed through various french medias ( tv newspapers) it cleared one question naggering me. How could our men been killed with equipement such as bullet proof jacket of the last generation. Answer incendiary bullets. HIgh tech equipment on both sides. that dismantles the propaganda on poorly equipped talibans. Interesting because you don't manufacture high tech equipments in back yards and you can't have these piece of equipment moving around the world whitout notice. As for the rest of the comments: lack of ammunitions? it can be a choice (ammunitions have to be carried) it is a tactical choice if you think that you are engaged in skirmmishes you need mobility for pursuit and you know that you have quick back firing from ground or air . If hou know that you have to disloge an ennemi that outnumbers you, you prepare for heavy firing. Our troops where probably engaged in a scouting operation to ensure that the column could go through. All these points show one thing, it's not the soldiers who were unpreared it's the organisation or intelligence in and out of the battlefield. As for the debate about that war. I suggest to those who think that we should be out, to think a minute about the consequences of afghanistan back in the hands of the talibans.( they already gave us a good idea of what it's like) and what of pakistan falling into the hands of muslim fanatics. If you don't know how your enemy thinks , don't think according to your own view.
  54. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: McRae; Quick name me a senior Taliban leader who isn't a Pashtun. And if the Taliban aren't a Pashtun rebellion why do you think they're cleansing non-Pashtun tribes (they aren't cleansing anyone- perhaps you've got Afghanistan mixed up with Iraq). By the way I'm all for fighting the Taliban but we need to fight smart.
  55. Cyril Rufus from Canada writes: Sam Barns from moncton, comment s on Afghanistan as explained by Michael Mandel of York University. He has not to picked up enough background to present a useful commentary. .1 There is no substantive democratic process being created. There is no approval of ‘democracy’ in traditional Muslim cultures including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which has installed and pays for the Salifist puppet Taliban. .2 Civil liberties are virtually non-existent. There are no civil liberties in Salafist Saudi Arabia as we understand them. Muslim law is based on tribal law. .3 NATO has committed a rolling wave of massacres against Afghan civilians. The pattern of civilian deaths certainly involves NATO troops, but as always in Muslim conflicts the real battles are between Muslims based on religion. It is as clear in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq. ,4 We are stuck fighting a national liberation movement of the Pashtun We are stuck fighting an invasion of Saudi style Salafist Islam financed by Saudi’s. The Pashtun are confined to southern Afghanistan and predominate in Pakistan. Historically Afghanistan survived as a state by a balancing of various interests including the Pashtun. Following the Soviet invasion the response was traditional and following the puppet Saudi invasion one group took over the entire country in the name of salafism .5 Only a few Canadians (like myself) saw the failure looming from the very start. Only a few Canadians know anything about Afghanistan, not including you as you are beholden to a source of information entirely outside of yourself. Radical Muslims tell us we should learn about Islam. I agree. But not entirely from radicals and socialists.
  56. Bob Cajun from from the Glorious Nation of Coboconk, Canada writes: You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

    So here is what it takes to win. Either NATO ramps up the number of troops on the ground, show to the Afghan people they are staying and fights the traditional way to beat the insurgents (i.e. the surge in Iraq)

    Or

    Electorates in the West give only the support for the current deployment. The Generals quickly figure out they cannot win the tradional way. The Generals then authorize special forces operations wherein you figure out who the insurgents are, figure out who their families are, and you send assasination teams over the Durand line to kill insurgents' families till the insurgents plead for mercy. In other words, NATO becomes no better than the Taliban

    The choice is really up to the electorate of the West
  57. John Peterson from Canada writes: You want to know how to win: 'Overwhelming force'. Launch a blitzkrieg and install in every montain pass anti-personnel mines and anti-truck mines. Restrict the enemy's movements and ambush them. Control the roof tops. Have spies go into deep cover and infiltrate the Taleban network.
  58. Gérain Sébastien from Matane, Canada writes: D. Wiltshire from Canada writes: 'Why is it news that France is unprepared for combat. That has been the central theme of the country for at least the last century. The Great War, World War II, Dien Bien Phu , 1954, in Vietnam. Now Afghanistan.
    Is it coincidental that they did not want to be in an area that was hostile. Ah yes, the French are lovers, not fighters. I almost forgot. '

    Je pense Monsieur, que vous devriez faire preuve de plus de clairvoyance dans vos propos. Si votre objectif est de déverser votre haine anti française ou anti francophone sur ce site, je vous prierai de bien vouloir le quitter.
    Il me semble que personne lors de certaines attaques tragiques subies en Afganistan personne ne s'est permis de se moquer d'eux en disant que les canadien sont des bucherons et qu'il ne sont pas capable de se battre, car équipés de véhicules récréatifs pour se battre. Les sous marins de la marine française ne coulent pas et les hélicoptères de l'aviation légère de l'armée de terre ne perdent pas leur pales en plein vole.
    Il me semble que l'on peu critiquer un état de fait, mais pas des supposition basées sur de vastes stérotypes entretenus par la xénophobie.
    Je vous prierai de faire vos excuses, Monsieur.
    Au passage, si la présence des forces françaises ne vous sied point, à votre aise, ils peuvent se retirer et laisser les canadien dans un bourbier pire encore.
    Sébastien Gérain
  59. John Peterson from Canada writes: War with all it's complexity boils down to logistics. Fighters need equipment, munitions, foods, and training. There has to be recruitment to replace the dead. In Vietnam, money and munitions for Charlie were being supplied in proxy by the Soviet Union. In Afghanistan in the 1980s, the same was supplied by the USA to fight the Soviets. Today, the Taleban are being funded by Saudi money, some drug money, and 'good will' donations from enemy nations like Iran. NATO does not have enough troops in Afghanistan and relies primarily on air power to mitigate combat deaths. Air power is great for hitting buildings, but is terrible at hitting people. It is very expensive to fight in Afghanistan because it is a land locked country surrounded by neighbours hostile to the West, supplies have to be flown in. Shortage of munitions and bullets is chronic in Afghanistan. NATO should start by building munitions factories in Afghanistan and reducing the number of supplies that have to be flown in and increasing the supplies that are locally manufactured. NATO should use land mines extensively and our own versions of IEDs and road side bombs. The bombs should be triggered by remote operatives that are watching IR camera feeds. When the enemy is idenfied as taleban, the remote operative can trigger the mine or IED. The Taleban have built up weapons caches in the mountains of Afghanistan. They go to the secret caches and that is how they could outgun the NATO forces. They were literally sitting on a pile of ammunition. In such a scenario, the forces should retreat and call in an air strike that spray cluster bombs over that area. The cluster bombs will also blow up the ammunition cache. The taleban will cry more over their ammunition then the lost fighters. The french troops did the wrong thing - they tried to engage the Taleban. The good idea is retreat and blow them up from above.
  60. Skysoldier AirAssault from Hopkinsville KY, United States writes: NATO is proving itself to be a paper tiger. Iam talking mainly about GERMANY, with the strongest economy in Europe, and who enjoyed the protection of US forces for over 50 yrs. Thier politicians renege on thier NATO commitments, refuse to send troops to hostile AO's, and even tried to worm thier way out of the 350 strong QRF. Italy and Spain are just as guilty. The French have been here from the start, always had Mirage 2000's in theatre for CAS, and thier SF have been here for a long while. If you want to really hurt the T-ban/AQ, thier safe havens in P-stan MUST be obliterated. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, but I like our chances when it means taking the fight to where THEY live. They can't be 2 places at once. P-stan ceded those border areas a while ago, the T-ban is the gov. there. Last time I heard, we were at war with T-ban/AQ. Canada, thank you for ur help, ur boys are some tough s.o.b.'s!!! Be proud of them, as Iam whenever we get the chance to fight alongside them. This is about islamic fundamentalists trying to create an islamic caliphate stretching from Bali to Barcelona. This is NOT Iraq. This is a war of civilizations, of religion, the right to be free to worship who and wat they want. Its a worthy cause, and if a guy like Barack Obama says that we must strike the camps across the border, eliminate these barbaric cretins, that is saying alot. It is a more dangerous ideaology than WW2 NAZISM. Same face, but deadlier weapons. O Canada, please hang in there, we need you. R. 1st BCT, LRS-101st Air-Assault
  61. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: F.T. Ward, I gave you a yesterdays answer to yesterdays news. Your six years behind the curve. Afghan Pashtun involvement in the Taleban has been minimal since the Karzai Government. The Pashtun of the south want the reconstruction and stability BUT don't want to be convicted as apostates and hung by the Taleban nor do they want to fight their Pakistani cousins. The greatest Afghan death toll by acts of the Taleban has fallen on the Afghan Pashtun. That is fact. It is also a fact that NATO forces have the highest, dare I say collateral damage, among the Afghan Pashtun. The area of contention is the south and south west Afghanistan which borders Pakistan. The same area that suffered the most under the Taleban when they controled the area pre-Northern Alliance. It's not the Afghan Pashtun who are being recruited and trained by Arabs and Chechen Muslims. It's the Pak Pashtun from the NW Terrortory[;-)] That stretch of land that the Pak government has ignored since 1947 and where the Taleban have set up Sharia courts to dictate to the local Pashtun.
  62. steve allan from Canada writes: This report is bogus. The surviving soldiers said they were killed by US air force jets pounding their positions. It's a whitewash!
  63. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: Gérain Sébastien from Matane, S'il vous plaît ne laissez pas la remise quelques singes détruire la vraie grandeur réalisé par le grand nombre, les forces combinées en Afghanistan, pour apporter la liberté et les droits individuels. Les imbéciles toujours mieux prospérer dans un environnement protégé par les efforts de leurs militaires. J'espère que mon pauvre français réussi. Bon Chance.
  64. Bart Benoît from Thiennes, France, Metropolitan writes: Vive la France !
    Honneurs à nos Paras !
  65. James Miller from Brookfield, United States writes: Mr. Ishmael,

    To make a comment like your "green card" anlysis of American soldier's and Marines motivation shows ignorance of facts and lack of class. American armed forces die in defense of our country.

    James L. Miller
    USA
  66. Toxic Planet from dead zone USA, Canada writes:
    'French soldiers unprepared for Taliban ambush: report "

    Soldiers fighting a war in another country and they were not prepared to be attacked and killed while likewise preparing to attack and kill? What did they expect, the taliban to run out in the open and welcome them with open arms, hugs and kisses? Afghanistan is a war zone and has been for decades, did someone forget that killing each other is what men do in war zones?
  67. Jacques de Vasselot from France writes: It is quite interesting to notice that the timing of the discovery of this report coincides strangely with the date of the political debate that is going to take place within the French National Assembly.
    This looks very much like a well organized Information (or influence) operation. Who could be at the origin of that manipulation: those who would benefit from it, i.e. the Talibans.
    This information about an alleged lack of preparation and lack of equipment of the French forces does come timely on the top of other rumors that came out in France during these last few weeks.
    The French National Assembly could be influenced by those rumors and vote a unilateral withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan.
    Let’s hope our Representatives (I am French) will not fall into that trap and will respect our engagement to participate in the defense of the free world against terrorism.
  68. Lucien BOURDAIS from Saint-Cast, France writes: Ce n'est pas notre guerre, faites rentrer nos soldats.
  69. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: F.T. Ward - the fact of the matter is that it is not just Taliban - fighters recruited by Al'Qaeda are also involved - Zawahiri is the brain behind Al'Qaeda along with other Egyptians as well as fighters who learned from their experience in Iraq. The key here is not the Pashtuns so much as the Salafists who follow the Wahhabi version of Islam - as in Saudi Arabia. Resources for this are being provided by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other wealthy individuals from the Gulf states. The OIC managed to have the UN Human Rights Council ban criticism of Sharia law and human rights in Islamic countries earlier this year. What they are fighting is democracy and the concept of global human rights which would undermine their power and control. They considered these western values to be the root of all evil. They do not want democracy or theocracy at home but it is to their advantage to support the terrorists fighting for theocratic rule abd against democracy elsewhere.
  70. Frank The Tank from Argentina writes: What do you mean they were not prepared. Didn't they have their standard issue diapers and drop resistant rifles with them?
  71. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: The vast majority of the enemy are Pahtun speaking Afghans and Pakistanis. Concentrating on Arabs etc. deflects attention from the corruption of the Afghan government and the part dislike of NATO plays.
  72. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: We are duly impressed, Philip McRae, that you can spout the same jingoistic nonsense in 2 languages.
  73. guillot christian from paris, France, Metropolitan writes: Il faut savoir que certains états du Canada anglophone s'apprêtent à introduire la charia dans leur législation locale pour "donner satisfaction aux communautés musulmanes". Rien d'étonnant alors à ce que des journalistes se prêtent à une propagande en faveur d'Al Quaida. Peut-être en tirent-ils des bénéfices de la même façon que certaines
    sectes bien pensantes en France.
  74. philippe aubert from pau, France writes: mr bourdais, vous etes un lache, vous me faites honte
    comme nombre de mes compatriotes qui preferent dans le rer ou metro, dans le 93 ou à lille, baisser la tete et accepter les quolibets de cette engeance qui nous envahit jour apres jour...
    tout ce que vous meritez, c'est qu'un jour cette pourriture vous oblige à pratiquer la charia
    je ne vous salue pas
    un ex para du 3
  75. Danger Girl from Los Angeles, United States writes: Michael Yon, highly praised blogger/journalist/author also wrote a story on this NATO Report which he has seen. He is a former Green Beret who has embedded in both Iraq and Afghanistan with American & British Forces.

    He has even responded to accusations that this NATO report doesn't exist by publishing photos FROM The report.

    Please see: www.michaelyon-online.com

    It would seem to me the French are embarrassed by what happened, rather than be truthful and learn from their mistake, they are choosing to save face, which is unnecessary. All troops, British, US, Canadian make mistakes, but learn from them. We respect the French troops, and appreciate Pres. Sarkozy's continued commitment to defeating the Taliban and Al Q in Afghanistan.

    God Bless ALL our NATO Forces!
  76. Danger Girl from Los Angeles, United States writes: I stand corrected the photos were not taken from the secret NATO report but per Michael:

    "The photos I published on 21 September of the damaged Afghan Police vehicle were not from the secret report. Those photos were from a separate, non-classified source.

    Denials like the ones recently made by NATO and the French military only undermine credibility and create an atmosphere of cynicism and distrust. If both the Taliban and NATO are propaganda machines, the Taliban wins. Also, these denials put the burden of proof on those journalists who have written about the report. The Globe and Mail and I now must prove that the document exists, otherwise our own credibility is undermined."

    Please read his THREE dispatches on this secret NATO report filed after the incident here at: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

    ( His 3 stories on this NATO report appear below his latest dispatch titled "Death in the Corn, Part III)
  77. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: F.T. Ward writes: "Catherine: The vast majority of the enemy are Pashtun speaking Afghans and Pakistanis. Concentrating on Arabs etc. deflects attention from the corruption of the Afghan government and the part NATO plays."

    Catherine is unable to see beyond her belief that all the trouble in Afghanistan is caused by foreign jihadis from the Middle East and elsewhere. There's a simple reason for that.

    Catherine and many others cannot abide the thought that it's primarily people native to the area that fight back against NATO. Why would she be so reluctant to accept this obvious fact? Because then the conflict becomes a war of resistance, rather than just foreign jihadis making mayhem for ideological reasons.

    Listen to the interviews with the Taliban fighters here in the G&M. The fighters are asked what they're fighting for. To a man they reply, "To get foreign troops out of Afghanistan." There's no vendetta against the West. There's no global jihad. They're fighting for the same thing that every resistance fighter has fought for since the beginning of time.

    It would be so convenient if those fighting NATO were all foreign jihadis: then Catherine and NATO could more easily get away with erroneously calling them terrorists. But they're not. They're national resistance fighters, with similar goals, methods and tactics that groups like that have always had. And as the war drags on, NATO will more and more look like nothing more than the occupying military power... which it is.
  78. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Richard Roskell- Yes Richard, I am familiar with your views - however, you are so ill informed that I don't take your biased opinions seriously. There are many sources which do not agree with your stand - but like many others you are either incapable or unwilling to read anything other than on a computer screen.
  79. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach, I've never seen a single source suggesting anything other than that the majority of Taliban fighters are local. Anything else would be ridiculously unlikely.
  80. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: The computer screen you so readily dismiss is what provides you with a forum to state your views- as silly as they are, Catherine.

    I read widely, print and screen. Having read a lot of books I've learned to take them with a grain of salt, just as I do the info I see on the WWW. It's only by cross-referencing information through independent sources that one has a hope of seeing the truth.

    There's nothing about having your views published in a book that makes them true. Even the most learned scholars must have their published works vetted by their peers in order for them to be considered reliable. And the authors you continually cite are not in the "most learned scholar" category. They're writers making a living off selling their viewpoint; I prefer sources with less mercenary motivations.
  81. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: And speaking of a grain of salt...

    There's about 40 million Pashtun; the people who live in the area where NATO fights its war. These are the same people who, with outside help, fought the Russian Army to a standstill for eight long years. Without too great an exaggeration it's fair to say the Pashtun are armed to the teeth with light weapons left over from decades of armed conflict.

    It's Catherine's assertion that today it's not these Pashtuns who fight NATO, but rather that it's "foreign jihadis" from Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere who make all the trouble. The Pashtun themselves just want peace, says Catherine, but these foreign jihadis are bent on mayhem, and through violent intimidation they've cowed the poor Pashtuns into reluctantly supporting their fight.

    So Catherine's thesis is this: 40 million Pastuns with an ancient warrior tradition; who are armed to the teeth; after fighting off the Russian Army for eight years and controlling 95% of Afghanistan in the 1990's; are now just pawns to the will of foreign jihadis. These same tribal Pashtuns would happily let NATO and the US run the show, if only those jihadis would leave them alone.

    Would you like a grain of salt, or would you prefer the whole box?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.