C'mon, CY!

Once you understand the coding of the stories, it's much easier.

If the Taliban attack, it's a complex attack (b/c that means that they're able to attack, which means George W. Bush failed us).

If it succeeds, it's an offensive, and we're about to lose.

If it fails, then the evil Americans shot them in the back as they fled, and that's just not sporting. Haditha and Abu Ghraib all over again!

Of course, the code would be different if a Dem were in power.

The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit

Yes... this one.

Very clever, Lurking Observer :)

Since the media is actively rooting for the enemy they have to do something

What happened to all the doomsday Iraq coverage in the MSM?

It all depends on the meaning of
"complex". 15 suicide bombers? Complex stupidity.

What really grinds my gears is to hear His Lord High Hopechangeyness, the Obamamessiah (PBUH) spouting how the surge failed and yadda yadda yadda.... It's wearing on me that he keeps saying how there's been no 'reconcilliation' and all the other shytte he's been pushing... I'd really love to see General Patreaus come out and say something publicly like "Oh so sorry Senator 143... It's only been what? Not even 9 months? Aaaaannnnd just what have YOU accomplished in the senate in the same timeframe? Besides becoming the most egocentric, presumptuous and fatuous candidate this side of Caligula? Siddown and Shuddup and let us work."

Well, a bungled attack by muddled suicide bombers and "insurgents" probably looks like Omaha Beach to most members of the MSM. Their experience with military strategy amounts to playing "Battleship" when they were kids.

You seem unwilling to refer to the entire statement made in the article: "one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan."

Why?

Are you familiar enough with all the Taliban attacks made over the past few years that you can say with certainty that this is not accurate?

If so, please provide the context.

PS, you might try finding "military contacts" (I believe that's your term) who can pass along military terminology that doesn't make you look silly repeating it.

The term "complex attack" is used by both the UNDSS and ANSO in their daily incident reports here in Afghanistan. It means an attack using more than one weapon system (small arms, RPG's, mortars etc..) Under that definition virtually every attack here is a complex attack because of the use of RPG's.
I am familiar enough with Taliban attacks over the past four years (I'm also a retired Marine infantry officer) to say without reservation that this was not one of the most complex attacks by the Taliban - about 3 dozen better examples come immediately to mind. If the NY Times had a reporter here worthy of the name they would know that. But it is hard to report on Khost when your hanging at the Gandymack in Kabul enjoying sundowners and hash every evening. Can't expect the poor babies to actually get around and see something for themselves now can we? Nor is it fair to expect that they know anything about the fundamentals or dynamics of military operations...I mean it has been only four years since the first journalist embeds - the "profession" needs time to catch up (I guess?)

skylark - You are just another lib who doesn't know enough about military matters to comment intelligently about the post. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to remain silent until you learn enough to frame and intelligent question instead of making yourself look stupid?

Baba Tim:

Thanks very much for the helpful info.

However, do you see anything in the article that suggests the NYT meant the term in the more technical way that the UNDDS and ANSO use it? Especially in the sense that if an action is either a "complex attack" or isn't, there could be no such thing as "one of the most complex attacks."

For example, here is the way I see the incident discussed in the article:

"Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers."

....

"As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far , as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons , NATO officials say."

From the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem like you're relying on the technical definition either, but in your opinion it is not one of the more complex - in the sense of sophisticated - attacks over the past several years. I suppose that's arguable. However, the blogger didn't even bother to put it in that much context, did he?

By the way, it seems the NYT is not alone in reporting that Taliban fighters are using more "complex" tactics:

DoD: Armed Forces Press Release
(The Pentagon seems to think the attack on the French qualifies as a "complex attack" in the technical sense.)

Stars and Stripes

As to whether the NYT reporter is "worthy of the name" or not, I won't judge, but a quick search shows that Ms. Gall's byline appears on over 1300 NYT articles, with nearly 1,000 of them on the war in Afghanistan, dating from November 2001. Before that she was based in the Balkins and wrote for the NYT on the conflicts in that region.

(For some reason the system would not let me post a link to the article archives, but if you click on her hypertext byline, you will be taken there.)

PS to Baba Tim - You didn't go to Servite, did you?

I doubt that if we lost a battle that handedly,without killing a single enemy combatant, the newspapers would describe it as "bold", "complex", "sophisticated", or "coordinated".

ABC called it a "daring attack on a major American installation"

It's odd that they use such a positive adjective for such buffoonery. Daring? I suppose it was. But not in the way they mean it.

I wonder if the writers even believe the narrative.

-Militants launched a bold, highly complex, sophisticated, coordinated, daring attack on a major American installation, in which they totally failed and got gunned down like fools, without killing a single American. But it was bold, darn it.

PS on Carlotta Gall:

Looks like she gets around a fair amount.

PBS interview

skylark - Nice try. An appeal to authority? She's written a lot of articles so she must know something? The attack on the french base was complex at least?

Try reading for comprehension instead of scorecard keeping and you might do better. CY explicitly differentiates between the two attacks. You still haven't said why you believe the attack with the 10 suicide bombers and 15 people standing around with their thumbs up their butts was complex.

Have you ever tried herding suicide bombers? Its like trying to herd cats. That's complicated stuff.

The complexity of an attack is not really the issue, the fact that the attack utterly failed in it's apparent objective is what should really matter. This is just one more example of the MSM's disgust with the US military. The terms they use tell it all as they give all credit to the Taliban and never mention the US Military in a positive light. It does not show any insight or intelligence on the reporters part, just her bias.

In ref to AlpacaRob's post, I'd say we could go a step further: it was their best effort yet, and still failed miserably. I absolutely love it when the Taliban gather in a nice, neat mob so we can gun more of them down before they can do any damage. Thanks for making such an attractive target, boys - keep up the good work.

If only they could understand the complex nature of the 4000 American soldiers who have given their lives for freedom, thankyou.

I see that multiculturalism has made its way into war reportage.

The spread was four suicide bombers, no closer than 2,000 yards, and three self inflicted bloody crotches from trigger happy Taleban. The Taleban took the money.

For the next clash replace the three bloody crotches with six unplanned defecations and two martyrs from RPGs loaded backwards.

daleyrocks-

My comment about the reporter was in response to a commenter who made certain observations about NY Times reporters. He is welcome to make up his mind about her qualifications and so are you. I am certain you will take the time to read a few of her articles before you do, dilligent researcher that you are.

By the way, you have your facts wrong about the incident and about the fighters. It appears that Bob does too.

Long War Journal

But that's not so much the point. Bob took a single qualified sentence in the article - that it was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan - and parsed and twisted it so he could lecture us on a false issue. At the same time he had some conventional warfare terms he wanted to throw around, no matter how inapplicable they might be to the question. Plus, hey, they got killed! Another irrelevancy.

The question is whether this particular attack qualifies as "one of the most complex seen so far." According to Baba Tim it's debateable. Fair enough, then debate it in the context of what you actually know or are willing to research about the history of the conflict. It seems to me to at least fit within the NATO official's description of attacks that use multiple attackers with different types of weapons (the latter of which, according to Baba Tim, would seem to make it qualify as a "complex attack" in the technical use of the term).

Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article - that Taliban attacks are escalating, and getting more sophisticated and more deadly overall. An assessment which the Pentagon and NATO, among others, share.

They must be making excuses for the other side.

"Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article"

skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously.

"skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously."

Well, aren't you the clever one. Am I supposed to come up with an equally juvenile nickname for you?

I suggest you go back and read what I posted in the Obama thread again.

Cherry picking BO's sentences and words? Hello, it was an entire post, premised on his own private interpretation of a single sentence from an article, so he could trash the NYT.

The substance of his post was that, notwithstanding the article's clear statement that the attack was ONE of the most complex seen yet in Afghanistan, the NYT was inflating a "laughably incompetent Taliban rout as a 'complex attack.'"

Aside from the fact that it actually probably did qualify as a "compelx attack" in the technical sense of the term, the rest of the post is almost entirely factually incorrect.

Evidently he thinks all guerrilla maneuvers should fall into the conventional warfare mode to be considered the least bit "competent." Thus, using a few inapplicable terms he's cut and pasted from Wars R Us, he can pronounce the entire incident "laughably incompetent."

This was an incident where SEVEN suicide bombers got to within just over half a mile of a fortified American base. They were discovered "shortly" before they were to make their assault.

They were coordinated enough to use a diversionary tactic like mortar and rocket fire while the bombers made their way to the target.

Their plan was not dependent on heavy armed support or large numbers, and it was not a full on frontal assault. Any stealth mission like that can be taken out by an overwhelming show of force. So what?

But these facts do show us how clueless your favorite blogger is. For instance, he insists they should have tried "flanking attacks" because...well, yeah, they could have surrounded the base. He's incredulous bombers on a stealth mission didn't "manage a straight ahead, mindless assault." Oh and maybe best of all, he sniffs: "No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex." Uhm, does the concept of stealth under cover of darkness escape him completely?

There, I'm pretty sure I've focused on the substance of his post.

skidmark - You seem to have a learning disability of some sort.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been employing more complex attacks in Afghanistan this year. That is a fact. The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description.

The Scotsman described the attack as brazen. There is no mention of complexity in describing the attack at Long War Journal or in the ISAF press release describing how all the attackers got chewed up before they dot within 1000 meters of the base. Complex is a fiction created by the NY Times to describe the attack.

If you find another story describing it that way please feel free to cite it here.

Temember, reading is fundamental, especially for comprehension. You continue to be just a skidmark on this site.

And so you are reduced not just to calling other commenters puerile names, but to repeating "Is not!" Is NOT !!!"

I'm not sure "reduced" is the right word, though. I don't see where your posts have ever really surpassed that level.

You take care now.

Left out of prior:

"The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description."

He just doesn't seem to be able to do it in any accurate way.

But once again...you take care, little buddy.

skidmark - I believe you are the only commenter I renamed on this thread.

You are also the only commenter on the thread who had difficulty understanding the concept of the post.

Explain to me who has issues again please.

Just a coincidence that I am the only one who disagrees with the post.