Afghanistan - BBC: Taleban troops will "fare better"

This BBC report is a clear example of the BBC deceiving the public over what's happening in Afghanistan.

International forces in Afghanistan are facing mounting security problems. The Taleban - ousted from Kabul in the 2001 US-led invasion - have regrouped over the last couple of years, and are now a resurgent force in the south and east of the country.

What does the BBC offer as proof of their calim? Absolutely nothing and they even tell you so.

Although there are no reliable estimates of their current manpower, Taleban tactics are nothing new.

This BBC report is absolute nonsense. The "upsurge in violence", as the BBC continually drones on about, is actually a response to the coalitions new campaign to extend Karzai's control over the rest of Afghanistan. That's the stated purpose of the mission. As coalition forces mover ever deeper into the areas that have until now been left to the Taleban, the Taleban are reacting and fighting back.

And get this. The BBC go further and say the Taleban will "fare better" than our troops.

Speed, surprise, mobility and flexibility are integral factors in such cases of 'assymetric warfare'; where a smaller, irregular force faces a far larger, better-armed one. The history of such encounters often shows that the smaller, local force will fare better.

The BBC's proof of their claim?

Their fighters follow exactly the same principles of low-level guerrilla warfare as the mujahedin fighters who inflicted heavy losses on the Soviet army which occupied Afghanistan from 1979-89.

Ah, yes. If my history serves me correctly, I think the Soviets were there for 10 years and lost something like 10,000 troops.

But isn't the BBC leaving out more recent history? The US and British led coalition ousted the Taleban in a few months, killing and capturing thousands while coalition casualties were a fraction of that. I don't think the Taleban would agree with the BBC assesment that they "fared better"

Even more recent history proves the BBC doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Search my blog using Afghanistan and you'll find several recent postings detaling encounters between coalition forces and the Taleban. In every case, the Taleban suffer 25-65 casualites while coalition forces suffer one and sometimes none.

You don't have to take my word for it. The BBC themselves contradict what they're saying.

On Friday, the US military said coalition and Afghan troops had killed 40 insurgents during air and ground strikes in the eastern Paktika province in an operation on Wednesday and Thursday.

One coalition member had been killed in the fighting, a military statement said.

Likewise from the Telegraph.

Led by troops from 3 Bn the Parachute Regiment, the operation has pushed into villages up to 75 miles north of the British base at Camp Bastion and has killed up to 40 Taliban fighters.

The British suffered one casulty.

In fact, in the last six weeks, 6 British troops have been killed while the Taleban suffered over 700 casulties. While that gives little comfort to the relatives of the brave troops who were killed, it serves to remind that we are winning.

It also serves as a reminder as how low the BBC has sunk. Once the symbol of Britain herself, the BBC has transformed into a propaganda machine for the enemy.

And the goverment foces us to pay for this propaganda.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------