How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

You'd be better telling our incompetent generals and those who appointed them that we can't win this war quickly with a poor military strategy and they ought to read what Peter Dow has published to learn about strategy.

I can win this war fairly quickly if put in charge of running it but then, I have a strategy to do so, and that's the difference.

Like the Roman Superpower? (defeated by unarmed Christians?).
That was the same war. A war against a belief. The war on terror is also a war against a belief.

This war is not to scare extremists with books and pens but to crush Taliban extremists and their Pakistani military sponsors of Taliban extremists, arresting all their political leaders and media spokespersons and to capture and kill all of their fighters.

That's impossible. As long as they teach Jihad you'll have to fight. You must stop the teaching, and for that you do not need an army.

The danger of not following my strategy is that what happens is what did happen that the UK media, and maybe other western media, then gave prominence to the Taliban's reply to Malala. The BBC evening news led with the Taliban's views. It was like a party political propaganda broadcast by the Taliban.

True, its seems that the BBC (and the Guardian) prefer to stand with the Arabs.

For the purposes of winning this war, we do not want to know what the Taliban have to say in reply to Malala nor about anything, we want the Taliban dead or imprisoned and kept well away from the media.

If the media would tell the truth then it would be a good asset aginst terrorism. Unfortunately most of the media likes drama, not the truth.

Malala offered no appropriate action against the Taliban for the UN to take in her speech. It is not to be expected that Malala would have a carefully worked out strategy to protect other Pakistani girls from being shot in the head when she didn't have a strategy to protect herself from being shot in the head in the first place.

Her strategy is very simple and powerful. Replace the Jihadist teachings.

Right and again the question is how do we get all those books burned and replaced by books which are up to UN standards and I've answered that question - war.

The Nazi's too destroyed all the books they didn't like. They had one of the strongest army in the world. They also lost the war.

Pakistan has had billions of dollars in carrots and no sticks. They've had far too many carrots and don't need any more carrots.

The US didn't know where the carrots went to.

Sanctions can and should play a part but military intervention can and should play a part too. Our drone strikes in Pakistan are military intervention in Pakistan, as was the raid to get Bin Laden. We've already begun a war in Pakistan though at a very low level of intensity. We need to up the intensity of our war inside Pakistan somewhat without going over the top.

I've not forgotten that Pakistan has nuclear weapons but it is much more important that the people and military of Pakistan do not forget for one waking moment of their lives that we have more and bigger nuclear weapons with a longer range and more accuracy and exactly what our nuclear weapons could do to the military and infrastructure of Pakistan if we were obliged to use our nuclear weapons in anger.

To make the nuclear truth extremely clear to Pakistan, we must seize control over satellite broadcasting into Pakistan so we can scare the living daylights out of Pakistanis, especially the military, with the cold hard truth about nuclear weapons.

If Pakistan is appropriately forewarned about how their use of nuclear weapons would very badly back-fire for them then they won't use their nukes and so we can take appropriate military action and intervention to win the war.

You don't know the Pakistanis. Ask the Indians who wanted to retaliate. They would have been met with nuclear weapons. Do not underestimate the Pakistanis.

In Germany my wife went into the clothing business. The Germans told here she could do good business with the Indians if she was carefull. Pakistanis? Stay away!
 
As i said in my earlier post Pakis live in a dream world and they are not ready to accept the reality.Only education(not islamic,not even moderate) can open their mind about the reality they face.
I am not expert on these issues like you guys but being a neighbor i can certainly assert some points.
 
How to beat the Taliban and islamist terrorism? Close the islamic religious schools and give the children a western styled education. Islamic terrorism will dry up.

I totally agree but first need to change their history books.:D
 
Condi: No good & bad Taliban, sceptical of peace talks

Live Mint: There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice
by Elizabeth Roche

There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice

Pakistan is complicated, Iran is still a problem internationally, opines former US secretary of state

condoleezza_rice--621x414.jpg


Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of Taliban to join a reconciliation process.
Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint


As the US and the international community prepare to scale down their military involvement in Afghanistan in 2014 and the Obama administration seeks talks with the Taliban to stabilize the war-torn country, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of the group to join a reconciliation process. In an interview, Rice said she was "sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process". Rice, currently a professor of political science at Stanford University, was in New Delhi last week for the 11th Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. Edited excerpts:

This is a critical time for the US in Afghanistan in the context of the transition in 2014. How do you see US-Afghanistan and US-Pakistan relations against the backdrop of this?

The US-Afghan relations is difficult because it is a difficult set of circumstances. It's a relationship of partnership first of all. We have had to do a whole lot of hard things in Afghanistan. We had an apology from our military for innocent civilian deaths in Afghanistan. It's not like the American military would have it that way, but unfortunately it happens. We have pressed the Afghans on the drug trade, we have pressed them on corruption, sometimes the relationship can be difficult, but I think it's a long-term relationship and we will remain engaged there. I hope we will keep a military presence there. I think that would help. But we are in this relationship for the long term. We are not going to leave like we did after the Soviet Union was defeated there (in 1989), leaving then the kind of chaos that led to the Taliban and ultimately the Al Qaeda setting up home base there. With Pakistan again, it's not easy. It takes patience on our part just as it takes patience on the part of India.

If you were secretary of state, would you have thought of opening a line of communication with the Taliban given what happened on 9/11?

I guess you have to think about it and I am not on the inside, and I am always careful because I know that you don't always know all of the factors (involved). I think you have to be extremely careful. I don't think there are good Taliban and bad Taliban. I don't think there are Taliban who are in favour of the stability of Afghanistan. And so I am sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process. Eventually there will have to be reconciliation of the Afghan people and I don't doubt there are some who were Afghan people who fought on the wrong side. Everybody has to have reconciliation at some point. But people have to be ready for reconciliation and I don't know the degree to which the Taliban is ready for reconciliation.

There was this recent agreement between the international community and Iran on its controversial nuclear programme. What are the opportunities that this deal throws up for the US in Afghanistan for example?

Well I don't know if it would open up opportunities in the geo-strategic issues. It seems sometimes to me that the Iranian government is in two minds - it wants to have a nuclear deal and it wants to have better relations with the United States, and it wants to reshape the Middle East in ways that are antithetical to our interests and I don't see that changing, frankly, in the short term. Now it may be on Afghanistan because to a certain extent terrorism in Afghanistan is a problem for the Iranians; there would be some small opening there. But I would not generalize from what happens in the nuclear deal to a stronger, better relationship with the Iranians. I think that takes work on other kinds of issues like Iran's interference in the Persian Gulf.

So Pakistan will still have primacy in any Afghan calculations?

Pakistan has to be part of the calculations. Instability in Pakistan is a problem for Afghanistan and instability in Afghanistan is a problem for Pakistan. So those two are forever linked in that way. And I do hope that the Pakistanis will recognize that the Taliban in Pakistan is a real problem for Pakistan, not just for Afghanistan. As long as you have extremism in Pakistan, Pakistan will be a large part of the equation. You will have to pay a lot of attention to it.

Read more in Rice for President Yahoo Group, message 2278

Thank you Condi once again for trying to save those who will listen from the hell on earth, the sacrifice of our cherished values, the dishonour to all that we hold dear, that would be surrendered in any peace deal with the Taliban.

The AfPak Mission

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eH8eJAuhVw]The AfPak Mission[/ame]

The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.
  • There should be no peace with the Taliban.
  • The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
  • Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
  • Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.
The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.

Two more new videos uploaded to my AfPak Mission channel.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCPMO_viz7k]Susan Rice loves US Forces in Afghanistan![/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaRIcJtLGww]Global War On Terror - Final Duel (Video allegory)[/ame]

Soon ... :cool:
 
The problem with pakistan is that they are in total denial and they are pathological liars.
They can't see the world like it want to be seen.They make up their own versions of the stories and believes that ****.
Their inferiority complex w r t India can be seen in many forums or news shows for example: this recent news when the mars orbiter was launched by India,they started comparing their 60 km range missile test with the technological advancement of mars orbiter.
Many in pakistan follows the so called strategic/defense experts who are utter nonsense and jokers.One very famous Pakistani "Expert" zaid hamid claimed in 2009 that the pakistani will reach moon in 5 yrs.He even claimed that the army of Islamic fighters sent by Muhammad on white horse and swords fought alongside Pakistani army against India in 1965 war and they still lost.
They blame India,USA and Israel for everything for what's been happening there.
Even if some sane voice rises up and try to wake them he is thrown out as traitor.
They even kicked out their lone nobel winner outta country.
The problem is pakistan is not the country but an unorganized crowd with nukes.
It is a disorganized lot of sorry a$$ who doesn't know their history, present and future.

I have skimmed through his site. I have read a lot of the replies here. I think this conversation has turned into more BS than substance.

I have fought Muslims in 11 countries, on 4 continents. Until we all pull are heads out of our collective arses, we will be burying are dead for another 100 years. The locations and the enemies are all tied together by one thing. If you refer to Saudi, or Pak, or Iran. Hezbollah, Assad, Taliban, regardless, there is one uniting aspect NOBODY seems to address.

In Germany, the Nazi party kept people in check. Hitler motivated the masses with speeches of a great 1000 year "Reich". The PEOPLE were the thing that kept Hitler and the Nazi in power. They did not lose this power until the PEOPLE felt the wrath of the Allies. When we broke their spirit to support what they believed in, Germany collapsed.

The people in these aforementioned countries are the support of these regimes. Period. We can cause uprisings. Look at the Arab Spring. But we are paying for that now. Take away a dictator and replace him with Extremists? That didn't work out so well. Did it?

What is the common denominator here? All of these countries have a citizen base that keeps them in power. They all are??????? Then what is it we must accept. The basis for their motivation is one and the same.

Islam is the sticking point. I've studied it, so I am not making anybody accept the conclusion that I have. Nor do I want to have some stupid debate on the peacefulness of their beliefs. If any of it were true, the people wouldn't abide by the rhetoric of the "EXTREME".

With that said, we need to, as a whole understand the forgone conclusion. If the powers that be are to continue, they MUST continue to draw on the support of the people. By force, or by democratic means, it is still the same.

If we continue to look at the individual nations as separate problems, we will continue the current course. The powers that be need to unify as we did in WWII. The Brits, U.S., Russia, Europe, Aus, need to stand together at the root cause.

The root "CAUSE" of any group needs to be the focal point of any conflict. The root cause of Germany, was the "WILL" of the German people. Hitler was their leader, but the people were the backbone. We destroyed their "WILL".

In the U.S. Civil War, the North only started to win after Gen. Sherman wiped out everything in his path. Ask a German survivor of Dresden why they would no longer support a powerful Germany. With that being said, where does that leave us?

Main concept of the Islamic faith is ruling the world. So why would any Muslim turn off his pride, his will to support the "CAUSE"? If he lives under a tyrant he still has one root that keeps him in the fight. That is his faith in the Muslim faith.

Until WE understand that, and are willing to take action, we will continue to fill body bags. We will continue to have to listen to the blather of the people who do not understand the reality of life.

I am not promoting death and destruction to Muslims around the world. I am referring to the targeting of their core motivations. I am also referring to the fact, unless we are willing to step up and take the proper steps, this SOP will not change.

My biggest irritant while serving in Afghanistan and Iraq both was the fact that they could attack us from a mosque with no fear of reprise. We were afraid to upset people. WTF? If we are to deal with this problem, then we MUST be willing to do it.

And FOREMOST, we have to stop looking at this is multiple conflicts. They are one and the same. I do not care if they are on different continents, it has the same root cause and effect. The German people were given aid and hugs AFTER we destroyed the enemy. Same with Japan. These individual conflicts, BATTLEFIELDS in THE BIGGER SCHEME of THINGS, must be coerced into the understanding that being on the wrong side is painful. If and only then will this mess have any kind of resolution.

My operational understanding of reality comes from the fact I managed to live through 24 years of service as a soldier and contractor. I am not going to address this post with debate. I have spoke my piece, and leave it up to you all to decide.

To all who believe, Merry Christmas. To the rest G'day.

Both these problems - Pakistanis believing the lies told about Pakistan and its treacherous military by Pakistani state controlled TV - and the lies told about Islam suggesting that Muslims ought to wage jihad and holy war against the West by all the Muslim countries' states-controlled TV - are both problems of state TV.

So long as state sponsors of terrorism control state TV uncontested, then those states will get the people to believe anything, anything at all. "The moon is made of green cheese" - they would believe that if it was on TV and no-one told them differently. It doesn't matter what is true. All that matters is what is seen on TV.

So to change that, solve that problem we must seize control over state TV in those countries, or at least control over satellite TV broadcasting, which is easy enough to do from outside the country. We shut out the state sponsored terrorism satellite TV channels and instead broadcast TV channels which all tell people, especially the ordinary military people, to rise against the traitors running their own country - like the ISI and the Taliban in Pakistan and the royals in terror funding countries like Saudi Arabia.

That's why any good, winning war-on-terror strategy has to start with taking control over the TV broadcasting satellites, which we the enlightened, civilised world, designed, built, launched and in the case of Egyptian and Pakistani satellite TV - PAID FOR - then handed over to our enemies to wage propaganda war against us.

And yes, Merry Christmas to you all! :stupid:
 
Last edited:
You seem to have a far winged idea that does not have solid merit and is based off your personal interpretations of statistical facts. Nor is even proven effective, also your mindset seems to be stuck in a particular point in time and are you are unable to adapt your ideology to an ever changing environment, and no matter how illogical your approach maybe. You are unwilling to ever back down or change your cut and dry application of your ideas...

You know who else has that same concept? And fits that description?

Taliban-guerrilla-fighter-001.jpg


I rest my case....
 
Return of the Taliban now patrolling with the ANA. Mission failing.

Daily Mirror said:
Return of the Taliban - gunmen take part in joint patrols with Afghanistan forces ahead of 2015 withdrawal
Daily Mirror, Dec 21, 2013. By Chris Hughes

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan

I131220_143926_326842oTextCS_53483230-2946896.jpg

Not over yet: Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers and Taliban jointly patrol areas in the Sangin district of southern Helmand province

Swaggering Taliban gunmen have been taking part in joint patrols with Afghan government forces in Helmand’s deadliest town.

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission *accomplished” in Afghanistan.

And it raised fears the Taliban will take over the country again as international troops prepare to withdraw by 2015.

Last night an Afghan Taliban source in Pakistan confirmed to the Daily Mirror: “Already it is true that our mujahideen have retaken some security posts in Afghanistan and this will continue to happen.”

Agreements between the Afghan National Army and the Taliban are a huge betrayal of brave British soldiers who trained local security forces to secure Afghanistan by themselves.

British troops handed over the policing of Sangin – once dubbed “bomb alley” – to US forces in 2010 after fighting daily battles from 2006 to drive the insurgents out of the town notorious for its opium trade. It was handed over to Afghan security control earlier this year.

A senior military source told the Daily Mirror last night: “Such a public display of co-operation between the Taliban and the ANA is a disgace to the memory of brave British troops who have fought to vanquish the Taliban from communities they treated with brutalism for so many years. There is very little doubt that the Taliban are already making a comeback in various locations throughout Afghanistan, and it is a huge worrry.”

Two members of the town’s community council told local media they had seen Afghan National Army soldiers and Taliban carrying out joint patrols. Taliban men toting weapons and radios were seen parading through a Sangin market place. And tribal elder Ali Shah Khan said: “I saw an ANA car following a Taliban vehicle.”

Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp said: “If these reports are true, this is a foretaste of what will happen when Nato forces fully withdraw. The Taliban will seize control of huge swathes of the countryside and many towns such as Sangin.

“Government forces and the Taliban will come to accommodations based on money, power or political convenience.”

But he insisted the 446 British troops killed in Afghanistan have not died in vain. He said: “They killed many extremists who would have threatened our country.”

Colonel Kemp said Afghan forces will still need help after the withdrawal of troops, adding: “I would expect US Special Forces and air power to continue to hit terrorist networks.”

Fears of a resurgence emerged in October when senior Taliban commander Qari Nasrullah told the Daily Mirror his *insurgents will make a comeback. Most British troops in Afghanistan have withdrawn to Camp Bastion in Helmand.

With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.
 
Last edited:
With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.

blah blah blah...rabble rabble rabble...blah blah blah.

Am I the only one who is seeing it that way from this guy?
 
blah blah blah...rabble rabble rabble...blah blah blah.

Am I the only one who is seeing it that way from this guy?
No! definitely not.

So long as people go on answering him he will remain, as without an audience he will move on somewhere else to bore the tits off some other poor group. He's an attention seeker.
 
Damn this is one long thread it went unnoticed by me for a while so I decided to add my two cents.

The taliban are an entirely different force than the USSR who our military spent decades preparing to fight. The taliban and other islamic extremists do not use uniforms, big weapons like tanks, artillery and aircraft or conventional military doctrine. they use IEDs, suicide bombers and AKs. They have very decentralized leadership. The US military is presented with the following problems:

1. How do you win popular support of the local population?
2. How do you find out who the enemy is if he doesn't have a uniform?
3. How do you kill enough of them to the point he stops fighting?
4. How do you find a way to be certain its an insurgent and not a civilian until its too late?

If you ask me nation building doesn't work with the muslim world. It is not like Europe or Asia after WWII. It has a different religion and culture that is completely different from ours or Europe and Asia's. Trying to get them to accept secularism is impossible. Separation of church and state will not happen there not ever.

For this reason I suggest to the pentagon they go in destroy the HVTs, destroy all terrorist camps and then pull out and not rebuild and repeat as many times as needed.
 
Damn this is one long thread it went unnoticed by me for a while so I decided to add my two cents.

The taliban are an entirely different force than the USSR who our military spent decades preparing to fight. The taliban and other islamic extremists do not use uniforms, big weapons like tanks, artillery and aircraft or conventional military doctrine. they use IEDs, suicide bombers and AKs. They have very decentralized leadership. The US military is presented with the following problems:

1. How do you win popular support of the local population?
2. How do you find out who the enemy is if he doesn't have a uniform?
3. How do you kill enough of them to the point he stops fighting?
4. How do you find a way to be certain its an insurgent and not a civilian until its too late?

If you ask me nation building doesn't work with the muslim world. It is not like Europe or Asia after WWII. It has a different religion and culture that is completely different from ours or Europe and Asia's. Trying to get them to accept secularism is impossible. Separation of church and state will not happen there not ever.

For this reason I suggest to the pentagon they go in destroy the HVTs, destroy all terrorist camps and then pull out and not rebuild and repeat as many times as needed.

The problem is when you destroy some part of them they will rebuild it somewhere else.

Het boek al-Ansar al-Arab fi Afganistan by Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee tells how they started their battle. How Bin Laden organised it. How they felt they could take the whole world after defeating the superpower USSR. How Bin Laden hated the US even while getting financial and material support from them.
How do you think they will feel after NATO and the US depart from Afganistan? a defeat of another superpower.
This is already a worldwide problem that will only increase. The Taliban are the part in Afghanistan and they will regain power. All western casualties in vain. As in Iraq. The muslims who rose up against dictatorships are abandonend in their struggle against the islamists. The US has the worst president at the worst time.
 
Damn this is one long thread it went unnoticed by me for a while so I decided to add my two cents.

The taliban are an entirely different force than the USSR who our military spent decades preparing to fight. The taliban and other islamic extremists do not use uniforms, big weapons like tanks, artillery and aircraft or conventional military doctrine. they use IEDs, suicide bombers and AKs. They have very decentralized leadership.
The decentralization of the leadership of the Taliban is a requirement to hide who the high command of the Taliban are - the Pakistani military.

Watch the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]


Nevertheless, the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc are only able to thrive with the sponsorship of states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

As proxy irregular forces of those states, they don't wear the uniforms of the states which sponsor them, as do regular forces, because that would give the secret of who runs them away even to our very easily fooled politicians and generals.

But yes, proxy irregular forces or sponsored terrorist groups are potentially much more difficult to control from the center and disciplining them can in some cases require limited war by the regular forces of the sponsoring state against the sponsored terrorists, including assassinating rogue terrorist leaders who have taken their scope of independence too far for the comfort and tolerance of the sponsoring state to bring them into line.

What we may see sometimes too is terrorist groups used by one faction of the state which sponsors them to wage a civil war by proxy against another faction of the state which opposes the use of such terrorist groups.

To maintain plausible deniability of the sponsoring state, so that it will be believed in its false claims that it is not sponsoring the terrorist groups, the sponsoring states may even order the terrorists to attack its own regular forces as acts of military deception to confuse the enemy against which the terrorists are sponsored to attack.

In addition, third parties, such as our intelligence services with CIA drone attacks, can sour the relationship between the terrorist group and its state sponsor serving to create genuine hostilities between the terrorists and the state which sponsors them.

So by design it is intended by those who sponsor terrorism to be a very confusing picture to understand to the casual observer.

Needless to say, this use of proxy terrorists is an extremely inefficient way for a state to fight a war because so much effort has to be diverted into obscuring the hidden high command which is ultimately controlling the terrorist groups.

It's done because the sponsoring state for obvious reasons does not want to declare and prosecute an open and honest war against a much more powerful enemy.

Since NATO is a military power with no equal in history we must expect that most of the attacks against us in future by weaker states will be done using proxy irregular forces, by sponsoring terrorists to attack us.

It may not have been the way of war in the past but it is likely to be the way of war in the future, so long as the most powerful NATO alliance holds together.

No weaker state or even axis of weaker states can wage open war against NATO and our allies and hope to achieve anything but a humiliating defeat - as was taken by Saddam Hussein in Gulf War 1 to kick his Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.


The US military is presented with the following problems:

1. How do you win popular support of the local population?
Do things for the local population - don't give billions of dollars to Karzai and his Warlord cronies to steal for their own corrupt purposes.

2. How do you find out who the enemy is if he doesn't have a uniform?
You find out who the state sponsors of the Taliban are - Pakistan, mostly but Saudi Arabia, Iran and others also give money - and you wage war on those state sponsors until they decide to eliminate the Taliban.

Other than that you simply keep a low profile and don't drive about like fools on unsecured roads begging to be ambushed or killed by a road-side bomb.

3. How do you kill enough of them to the point he stops fighting?
It's the sponsoring states you have to pressure. They have a lot to lose so just arrest / kill their military leaders - former generals gone into politics / serving generals / kings (or presidents if unelected or if the election has been rigged) or bomb the parts of the state which they use to control the terrorists - such as the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Islamabad.

It never matters how many terrorists you kill since they are disposable as far as the sponsoring states are concerned. Kill them all and the states will just train up some more.

4. How do you find a way to be certain its an insurgent and not a civilian until its too late?
We stay in well defended places - bases (and secure supply roads if we have secured any yet which I am doubtful of) with secure perimeters and when they attack us then we'll know it's an enemy who is attacking us.

Other than that we await until our own intelligence services get actionable intelligence - we don't send our ordinary soldiers out on patrol looking for terrorists because that is just offering the terrorists easy targets.


If you ask me nation building doesn't work with the muslim world. It is not like Europe or Asia after WWII. It has a different religion and culture that is completely different from ours or Europe and Asia's. Trying to get them to accept secularism is impossible. Separation of church and state will not happen there not ever.
Nations build themselves but we've prevented the Afghans from taking ownership of the Karzai / Warlord state we've set up because we gave Karzai & the Warlords all the cash to rig elections, bribe and generally isolate themselves from the democratic power of the Afghans.

The way to make the Afghan state accountable to Afghans and something they support is not to give the Afghan state any cash, requiring the Afghan state to raise all its cash from taxing Afghans. Then it will be dirt poor but loved by Afghans because it will listen to them and follow their wishes not focus on fiddling more cash out of us and treating Afghans with contempt as it does now.

IFor this reason I suggest to the pentagon they go in destroy the HVTs, destroy all terrorist camps and then pull out and not rebuild and repeat as many times as needed.
Well we need a smaller footprint and that's on the way with the drawdown - the only question is will it be a well configured robust easily defended smaller footprint or will it be incompetently done leaving our forces as easy targets - that's down to the quality of our military leadership but I have done my bit by describing how to build a secure military base's perimeter defences and a secure supply route's perimeter defences.


AfPak Mission Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:
The decentralization of the leadership of the Taliban is a requirement to hide who the high command of the Taliban are - the Pakistani military.

Watch the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos.

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube


Nevertheless, the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc are only able to thrive with the sponsorship of states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

As proxy irregular forces of those states, they don't wear the uniforms of the states which sponsor them, as do regular forces, because that would give the secret of who runs them away even to our very easily fooled politicians and generals.

But yes, proxy irregular forces or sponsored terrorist groups are potentially much more difficult to control from the center and disciplining them can in some cases require limited war by the regular forces of the sponsoring state against the sponsored terrorists, including assassinating rogue terrorist leaders who have taken their scope of independence too far for the comfort and tolerance of the sponsoring state to bring them into line.

What we may see sometimes too is terrorist groups used by one faction of the state which sponsors them to wage a civil war by proxy against another faction of the state which opposes the use of such terrorist groups.

To maintain plausible deniability of the sponsoring state, so that it will be believed in its false claims that it is not sponsoring the terrorist groups, the sponsoring states may even order the terrorists to attack its own regular forces as acts of military deception to confuse the enemy against which the terrorists are sponsored to attack.

In addition, third parties, such as our intelligence services with CIA drone attacks, can sour the relationship between the terrorist group and its state sponsor serving to create genuine hostilities between the terrorists and the state which sponsors them.

So by design it is intended by those who sponsor terrorism to be a very confusing picture to understand to the casual observer.

Needless to say, this use of proxy terrorists is an extremely inefficient way for a state to fight a war because so much effort has to be diverted into obscuring the hidden high command which is ultimately controlling the terrorist groups.

It's done because the sponsoring state for obvious reasons does not want to declare and prosecute an open and honest war against a much more powerful enemy.

Since NATO is a military power with no equal in history we must expect that most of the attacks against us in future by weaker states will be done using proxy irregular forces, by sponsoring terrorists to attack us.

It may not have been the way of war in the past but it is likely to be the way of war in the future, so long as the most powerful NATO alliance holds together.

No weaker state or even axis of weaker states can wage open war against NATO and our allies and hope to achieve anything but a humiliating defeat - as was taken by Saddam Hussein in Gulf War 1 to kick his Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.



Do things for the local population - don't give billions of dollars to Karzai and his Warlord cronies to steal for their own corrupt purposes.


You find out who the state sponsors of the Taliban are - Pakistan, mostly but Saudi Arabia, Iran and others also give money - and you wage war on those state sponsors until they decide to eliminate the Taliban.

Other than that you simply keep a low profile and don't drive about like fools on unsecured roads begging to be ambushed or killed by a road-side bomb.


It's the sponsoring states you have to pressure. They have a lot to lose so just arrest / kill their military leaders - former generals gone into politics / serving generals / kings (or presidents if unelected or if the election has been rigged) or bomb the parts of the state which they use to control the terrorists - such as the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Islamabad.

It never matters how many terrorists you kill since they are disposable as far as the sponsoring states are concerned. Kill them all and the states will just train up some more.


We stay in well defended places - bases (and secure supply roads if we have secured any yet which I am doubtful of) with secure perimeters and when they attack us then we'll know it's an enemy who is attacking us.

Other than that we await until our own intelligence services get actionable intelligence - we don't send our ordinary soldiers out on patrol looking for terrorists because that is just offering the terrorists easy targets.



Nations build themselves but we've prevented the Afghans from taking ownership of the Karzai / Warlord state we've set up because we gave Karzai & the Warlords all the cash to rig elections, bribe and generally isolate themselves from the democratic power of the Afghans.

The way to make the Afghan state accountable to Afghans and something they support is not to give the Afghan state any cash, requiring the Afghan state to raise all its cash from taxing Afghans. Then it will be dirt poor but loved by Afghans because it will listen to them and follow their wishes not focus on fiddling more cash out of us and treating Afghans with contempt as it does now.


Well we need a smaller footprint and that's on the way with the drawdown - the only question is will it be a well configured robust easily defended smaller footprint or will it be incompetently done leaving our forces as easy targets - that's down to the quality of our military leadership but I have done my bit by describing how to build a secure military base's perimeter defences and a secure supply route's perimeter defences.


AfPak Mission Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/

BOOOORRRRIIING!


blah blah blah, rabble rabble rabble...regurgitate and repeat...
 
Pentagon's proposal for a 10,000 minimum force

Wall Street Journal said:
Wall Street Journal: U.S. Military Proposal Seeks Shorter Afghan Stay

U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014

WASHINGTON—U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but then start drawing the force down to nearly zero by the end of President Barack Obama's term, according to senior officials.

The request reflects a far shorter time frame for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan than commanders had previously envisaged after the current international mission ends this year. The new approach is intended to buy the U.S. military time to advise and train the Afghan army but still allow Mr. Obama to leave office saying he ended America's longest war, the officials said.

Military leaders told Mr. Obama that if he rejects the 10,000-troop option, then it would be best to withdraw nearly all military personnel at the end of this year because a smaller troop presence wouldn't offer adequate protection to U.S. personnel, said officials involved in the discussions.

The Pentagon's approach, discussed in White House National Security Council meetings last week, encountered pointed questions from some NSC officials who asked what difference 10,000 U.S. troops would make on such a temporary basis, U.S. officials said.

Vice President Joe Biden has been a leading skeptic within the administration about keeping troops in Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan forces after 2014, officials said.

A senior administration official declined to characterize Mr. Biden's position on the new Pentagon proposal, saying only that he "has asked questions and listened carefully to presentations" about possible troop levels. The official said Mr. Biden will make his recommendation to Mr. Obama "at the appropriate time."

Mr. Biden has advocated deploying special operations forces to Afghanistan for counterterrorism missions, officials said.

Afghan officials in Washington didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the new Pentagon proposal.

As an important boost to the request, the 10,000-troop proposal has the backing of intelligence agencies and the State Department. They have told the White House that their activities on the ground inside Afghanistan will depend on whether the Pentagon gets the troops it says it needs to secure bases where military advisers, spies and diplomats would do their work.

Senior U.S. officials called it a "binary" proposal, meaning the Pentagon wants one troop level or the other, not a midpoint that they said will be too small to protect deployments and support the goals of the mission.

Defense and intelligence officials who disagree with Mr. Biden's approach said any future special operations force in Afghanistan will be of limited utility without a robust intelligence network to track militants and guide "kill teams" to their targets.

"To have an intelligence network, you have to have a footprint, and to have a footprint, you have to have force protection," said one senior U.S. official involved in the discussions.

Currently, there are about 37,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 19,000 international forces. The U.S. is scheduled to draw down to 32,000 forces by the end of February.

Regarding the Pentagon's proposal for a MINIMUM of 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

One does require more troops to keep an airbridge (that is to say a military base supplied only by air, with airfields, runways etc) open vs all foes.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.


Wikipedia: Battle of Dien Bien Phu

If you have only one large base then fewer troops are required. You need to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.

One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.

For Afghanistan, if I only had 10,000 troops to deploy then I wouldn't have enough for the proposed 9 bases.

Since each base would require 1000 guards in routine circumstances then 9 bases would require 9 x 1000 = 9000 troops just to guard the 9 bases, which would only leave me 1000 troops for operations outside the bases.

With only 10,000 troops I'd establish no more than 5 bases which would need 5 x 1000 = 5000 troops to guard the bases and leave 5000 troops for operations outside the bases, an average of 2000 troops per base.

In the event of a sustained assault as per Dien Bein Phu, if I could fly in reinforcement troops from reserves outside Afghanistan to the base under attack, I would fly in an additional 8000 troops to each base that came under a sustained attack.

If there were no troops available to fly in to reinforce the attacked bases then I would abandon some of the 5 bases, if necessary all but one, redeploying the troops from abandoned bases so that I had enough troops to defend the fewer remaining bases.
 
NATO tribute video to Pakistan Air Force: Don't Stop Me Now!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_OIf7Ckx5o]BBC: Pakistan jets bomb Taliban positions in North Waziristan (YouTube)[/ame]

Washington Post:
Deadly Pakistani airstrikes target militants believed responsible for recent attacks

By Haq Nawaz Khan and Tim Craig, Published: January 21

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s military launched airstrikes in its restive tribal areas on Tuesday, killing 40 suspected militants, in an attempt to combat terrorist attacks that are escalating across the country.

Tribal elders, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared reprisal from militants, said the strikes appeared more accurate than previous such efforts.

The local elders said that the home of Adnan Rashid, a senior Taliban commander, was hit and his family members were injured, but that he escaped unhurt. Another strike, on al-Noor Mosque in the village of Essorhi, killed 15 people — all reportedly militants, according to the elders.

“So this time the army gunships and jet fighters are accurately targeting the militants,” one elder from the town of Mir Ali said in a phone interview.

The strikes, among the heaviest bombardments of the tribal areas in several years, were conducted in the aftermath of a suicide bombing Sunday that killed 20 Pakistani soldiers. On Monday, 13 people were killed in a blast at a market near army headquarters in Rawalpindi. And Tuesday, three people administering polio vaccinations were fatally shot in Karachi, and at least 20 Shiite pilgrims were killed when an explosion tore through their bus in the country’s southwest.

The military airstrikes began late Monday over a troubled area of North Waziristan, a hotbed for Pakistani and foreign militants near the Afghan border. According to local officials and the Reuters news service, it was the first time the military had carried out airstrikes in North Waziristan since a cease-fire deal with local Taliban leaders in 2007.

Military officials said those killed in the strikes included militants suspected of carrying out a bombing in September that killed 85 people at a church in the northwestern city of Peshawar.

Although some of the elders interviewed said that many of those killed were Taliban militants, area residents said there also were numerous civilian casualties. They said they and their families were fleeing the area because they feared for their safety.

“Can you hear the noise of the gunships? They are just over our heads,” Haji Jamaluddin, a resident, told Reuters by phone. “Everyone in the village is running around with children and women, looking for a safe place to hide.”

The strikes, which followed smaller military operations in tribal areas in recent weeks, could be a sign that Pakistan’s new army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, plans to take a harder line against militants. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appointed him in late November to head the country’s nuclear-armed, 550,000-member military. The two men share a last name but are not related.

The prime minister has been pushing to hold peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban, which has waged a decade-long insurgency that has claimed thousands of lives. But those talks have yet to materialize. In the meantime, former military officials say, the country’s top generals — faced with rising violence — have been pushing for more decisive action.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq1cZEFZYLY]NATO tribute to Pakistan Air Force: "Don't Stop Me Now!" (YouTube)[/ame]

A friend of NATO, the AfPak Mission presents a tribute to the Pakistan Air Force in recognition of air strikes against the Taliban, enemy of mankind, from January 2014 - "Don't stop me now!"

No peace with the Taliban.
The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.

Way to go Pakistan! :D
 
Nevertheless, the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc are only able to thrive with the sponsorship of states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

And hundreds of "charity" organiszations, many of them residing in the USA, plus companies to smuggle weapons consealed by their legal products (honey AO or batteries for satellite phones transported via news agencies traveling there for interviews - that's how Bin Laden got his batteries although CBS didn't know about the batteries)

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.

You can't compare the Taliban with the Viet Minh. It is impossible for the Taliban to get a force of 40.000 troops to the target unseen. Afghanistan is not a jungle. Also the Taliban does not possess heavy artillery let alone in such numbers as the Viet Minh had in Dien Bien Phu.
 
Last edited:
And hundreds of "charity" organiszations, many of them residing in the USA,
The biggest "charity" to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been the US government which has paid the Pakistani military $10 billion in military aid since 2001. No doubt Pakistan gives some of that cash to pay for its costs in sponsoring Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Also, the US buys a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia and again some of the profits are being used by the Saudis to fund Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Of course "charity" organisation are used as a front to sponsor terrorism - I've read about that happening in Saudi Arabia mostly and also examples in the UK. I don't know about the US but it wouldn't surprise me entirely if it was happening there too.

plus companies to smuggle weapons consealed by their legal products (honey AO or batteries for satellite phones transported via news agencies traveling there for interviews - that's how Bin Laden got his batteries although CBS didn't know about the batteries)
It really is absurd to be concerned about Al-Qaeda or the Taliban getting batteries when Bin Laden was living in a Pakistani ISI safe house close to the Pakistani military academy! He had everything he wanted there including his own broadcasting studio for making propaganda videos for broadcast via sympathetic satellite TV channels.

It is absolutely correct strategy to wish to deny the enemy the means of communication from its high command to its forces but the best way to do that with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is to seize control over TV satellites which are used to broadcast enemy propaganda.


You can't compare the Taliban with the Viet Minh. It is impossible for the Taliban to get a force of 40.000 troops to the target unseen. Afghanistan is not a jungle. Also the Taliban does not possess heavy artillery let alone in such numbers as the Viet Minh had in Dien Bien Phu.
There are multiple lessons in "how not to defend an airbridge" to be learned from Dien Bien Phu.

Considering the number of deadly enemy attacks on our bases in Afghanistan, our generals do not appear to know the first thing about defending bases. Indeed 2 US Marine generals have already been dismissed for incompetence in their mismanagement of defending one base.


Washington Post: Two Marine generals fired for security lapses in Afghanistan

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Published: September 30 2013

The commandant of the Marine Corps on Monday took the extraordinary step of firing two generals for not adequately protecting a giant base in southern Afghanistan that Taliban fighters stormed last year, resulting in the deaths of two Marines and the destruction of half a dozen U.S. fighter jets.

It is the first time since the Vietnam War that a general, let alone two, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. But the assault also was unprecedented:

Fifteen insurgents entered a NATO airfield and destroyed almost an entire squadron of Marine AV-8B Harrier jets, the largest single loss of allied materiel in the almost 12-year Afghan war.

The commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, said the two generals did not deploy enough troops to guard the base and take other measures to prepare for a ground attack by the Taliban. The two, Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, the top Marine commander in southern Afghanistan at the time, and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the senior Marine aviation officer in the area, “failed to exercise the level of judgment expected of commanders of their rank,” Amos said.

“It was unrealistic to think that a determined enemy would not be able to penetrate the perimeter fence,” Amos said.

The incident brings into stark relief the unique challenges of waging war in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of thousands of U.S. troops over the past two years has forced commanders to triage, sometimes leading them to thin out defenses. The U.S. military also has been forced to rely on other nations’ troops, who often are not as well trained or equipped, to safeguard American personnel and supplies.

The attack occurred at Camp Bastion, a British-run NATO air base in Helmand province that adjoins Camp Leatherneck, a vast U.S. facility that serves as the NATO headquarters for southwestern Afghanistan. Because Leatherneck does not have a runway, the Marines use Bastion as their principal air hub in the country. Several hundred Marines live and work on the British side, and dozens of U.S. helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are parked there.

The British are responsible for guarding Bastion, which is ringed by a chain-link fence, triple coils of razor wire and watchtowers from which sentries can scan the horizon for any potential attackers. British commanders had assigned the task of manning the towers to troops from Tonga, which has sent 55 soldiers to Afghanistan.

On the night of the attack, the Tongans left unmanned the watchtower nearest to the Taliban breach, according to an investigation by the U.S. Central Command.

Other aspects of the U.S.-British security plan were “sub-optimal,” the investigation found, with no single officer in charge of security for both Bastion and Leatherneck. The security arrangement created command-and-control relationships “contrary to the war-fighting principles of simplicity,” Amos wrote in a memo accepting the investigation.

Troop reductions also affected security measures. When Gurganus took command in 2011, about 17,000 U.S. troops were in his area of operations. By the time of the attack, in September 2012, the American contingent had dropped to 7,400 because of troop-withdrawal requirements imposed by President Obama.

In December 2011, 325 Marines were assigned to patrol the area around Bastion and Leatherneck. In the month before the attack, that number was cut to about 110.

Gurganus did seek permission in the summer of 2012 to add 160 troops to protect Bastion and Leatherneck, but his superiors in Kabul rejected the request because the military had reached a limit on forces set by the White House.

Even so, Amos said Gurganus should have reallocated troops from elsewhere to protect the encampments. “The commander still has the inherent responsibility to provide protection for his forces,” Amos said. “Regardless of where you are in a [troop] drawdown, you’re required to balance force projection with force protection.”

Despite the overall troop reduction, several officers stationed at Leatherneck at the time said that many Marines with idle time could have been assigned to guard duty. Instead, some of them took online college classes and others worked out in the gym twice a day.

In an interview with The Washington Post this year, Gurganus characterized the attack as “a lucky break” for the Taliban. “When you’re fighting a war, the enemy gets a vote,” he said.

Amos said that when he informed Gurganus that he was being relieved, Gurganus told him, “As the most senior commander on the ground, I am accountable.”

Two Marines, Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell, were killed trying to fend off the attack. Raible, a Harrier squadron commander, charged into the combat zone armed with only a handgun. Eight other Marines were wounded in the fighting. The cost of the destroyed and damaged aircraft has been estimated at $200 million.

Although Gurganus ordered a review of security on the bases after the attack and a British general conducted a brief investigation for the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the Marine Corps waited eight months to ask the Central Command to initiate a formal U.S. investigation. Amos’s decision followed inquiries from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, congressional staff members and a front-page article in The Post that detailed the unmanned watchtower and the reduction in troops patrolling the perimeter.


Amos said Monday that he wanted to wait for reports from NATO and the Central Command before requesting a formal investigation.

Before seeking the investigation, Amos had nominated Gurganus to receive a third star and serve as the Marine Corps staff director, the service’s third-ranking job. His nomination was placed on hold once the inquiry began.

Since his return from Afghanistan, Sturdevant has been serving as the director of plans and policy for the U.S. Pacific Command.

Amos said the decision to fire the generals was the most agonizing choice he has had to make as Marine commandant. Gurganus and Sturdevant are friends of his, he said, and their collective time in uniform totals almost seven decades.

In a statement Monday evening, Gurganus said, “I have complete trust and confidence in the leadership of our Corps and fully respect the decision of our Commandant.”

Gurganus and Sturdevant will be allowed to retire, but Amos said it will be up to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to determine their final rank. If allowed to retire as major generals, they would be eligible to receive an inflation-adjusted annual pension of about $145,000.

The last two-star general to be fired for combat incompetence was Army Maj. Gen. James Baldwin, who was relieved of command in 1971 following a North Vietnamese attack that killed 30 soldiers at a U.S. outpost, said military historian Thomas E. Ricks.
 
Last edited:
No doubt some UK generals should have been fired as well. They are not Britain's finest. The are the Queen's finest and that's nowhere nearly the best of British.

The perimeter defences sound inadequate in the extreme. No minefields and I bet those watch towers are flimsy constructions that could not even withstand machine gun fire, never mind a direct mortar or artillery round hit.

Also I bet the perimeter defences are too close to the base, allowing enemy to get close enough to easily spot and direct mortar fire on target.

Our military intervention has been a completely amateur operation from start in 2001 to finish in 2014.

Also when designing the defence of an airbase, one ought to consider worst-case scenarios - like a full armoured assault - requiring anti-tank defences - or a nuclear missile attack - requiring accommodation to be situated in underground bunkers - by the Pakistan military whose irregular forces the Taliban are.

"Be prepared" is the appropriate motto and frankly, we've not been in the least prepared and that's why we've taken thousands of casualties against the Taliban.

As you can see in my design for the perimeter defences of a military base for the Global War On Terror (diagram in my next post) I have designed 3000 meters / yards, 3 kilometres, nearly 2 miles thickness of minefields and barrier defences - that'll be 1000 times harder for the enemy to get past than the pathetic "triple coils of razor wire" used when Bastion air base was stormed by the enemy.

Also there's nothing flimsy in the design of my watch towers! (photoshopped image in next post)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top