After two failed attempts at clearing the village resulted in U.S and Afghan casualties, Flynn’s response was to take the village out. He ordered a mine-clearing line charge, using rocket-propelled explosives to create a path into the center of Tarok Kolache.
And that was for starters, Broadwell writes. Airstrikes from A-10s and B-1s combined with powerful ground-launched rockets on Oct. 6 to batter the village with “49,200 lbs. of ordnance” — which she writes, resulted in “NO CIVCAS,” meaning no civilians dead.
It seems difficult to understand how Broadwell or the 1-320th can be so confident they didn’t accidentally kill civilians after subjecting Tarok Kolache to nearly 25 tons worth of bombs and rockets. The rockets alone have a blast radius of about 50 meters [164 feet], so the potential for hitting bystanders is high with every strike.
While civilian casualties are almost a total certainty despite what the military says, I would like to point out a few things about this article that are not readily apparent upon first reading it. Many of these points can be directly related to the US’s own revolution for independence and the 2nd Amendment.
We can see that insurgent warfare is HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. The article reports US troops taking several casualties and being completely terrified of assaulting the village on foot, which is what led to it being wiped off the map.
The conclusion that most people reach is that, since the insurgents got wiped off the map, clearly the US military’s supremacy remains unquestioned – but I beg to differ. The wiping out of villages is 100% guaranteed to incite more villagers to violent action.
Is it winning when your actions kill 100 insurgents but create 200 new ones in the process? We must remember that governments require the consent of the people if they are to remain in a position of power. If the government is viewed as illegitimate, which the Afghan government most certainly is, there is little chance of the violence ending or its rule being acquiesced to.
If the US military had to resort to completely bombing the village into oblivion, we can see that insurgents armed with light weaponry and homemade bombs are MORE THAN CAPABLE of taking on an armored military force in ground combat.
We have 65 million gun owners in this country, many of them ex military veterans. If there was a modern day revolution, US insurgents would be more than capable of taking on a divided federal military. Further, in such a scenario, the military would be loath to use the power of bombers against its own cities. It would almost be forced into a protracted insurgent ground war. The military’s city destroying capabilities would be unusable. Wiping out a US city in such a manner would turn thousands of bystanders into insurgents overnight.
The war in Afghanistan shows with total clarity that an armed insurgent force of civilians can take on the most modern and heavily armed military in the world and grind it financially into the ground in protracted asymmetric warfare.
How much more dangerous and deadly would combat be for those troops if the people they were fighting were US gun owners? To me the answer is obvious. Those who question the ability of the 2nd Amendment as a last and final means of checking government power need look no further than Afghanistan for the answer.
Of course, I’m not saying a civil war would be a good thing, I am simply demonstrating that liberal logic, which questions why we even need a 2nd Amendment since they feel it would be impossible for gun owners to take on the military anyways, is wrong.