Look up the McNamara line. It wasn't even a fraction the size that you propose this project to be....turned out to be a huge waste of time and money. Not to mention the lives that were cost trying to build it.
I did look it up. Like I said, not all defensive lines are the same.
BTW, How much do you think it costs to train, equip, pay, and sustain an individual soldier? Currently, my infantry companies property book is worth somewhere in the realm of a quarter billion dollars. Granted, We're a mechanized infantry company with state of the art Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Still, take away 90% of that expenditure and that's 25 million dollars to equip 130-150 soldiers...
Again, I would point out that the US is already funding Karzai's "Afghan national army" police etc and it is money, weapons and manpower from that which would form the backbone of the secure supply route protection force. The big difference is that the money does not go to Karzai to spend foolishly but to our generals to spend wisely.
Where my plan calls for the use of US, NATO and Western troops would be for the perimeter defences of our main bases, where yes the cost is more for each guard post because they'd be built to a higher specification, more weaponry and be manned by our soldiers but there's less of a length of perimeter to defend for the bases compared to the supply route, perhaps only 40-50km of perimeter to defend per base.
This 8 hours shift stuff is for the birds, that means you need 3 times the number of troops that are necessary.
A mobile defense means you can use less soldiers and deal with threats as they present themselves.
I'll answer those two points at the same time. The 2/3rds of the troops who are nominally "off duty" in terms of no longer being on duty in the guard posts, are still on call for emergency duty to react to sustained attacks anywhere along the supply route.
So the 2/3rds who are not guarding form the mobile defence.
The 8-hour shifts are the nominal length of each shift when all is quiet. The shifts could be varied to suit when the replacement shift is off somewhere responding to a large attack as part of the mobile defence.
Not trying to defend everywhere at one time.
Everywhere on the supply route gets defended but the plan is flexible enough to have 2/3rds of the force available to go to any single point on the supply route to meet a concentrated attack.
The guard posts are armed lookout posts which represent the minimal amount of defence that any part of the supply route should always have on station.
The guard posts report to their commanders when their part of the supply route needs more defending because it is getting attacked more than other parts of the route.
And all this just to protect soldiers from hitting IEDs?
It's not "just" if it kills you. Also the plan defends against ambushes against traffic on the route. It also provides a larger safe area for items such as water supply pipes, electricity supply, and an safe area to develop on.
One might say that the plan establishes a giant military base all along the length of the supply route and you could do anything there that you can do in any military base.
Really? What is the task and purpose of it all.
The purpose is to keep our forces safe while operating in Afghanistan and to provide secure forward bases for air operations into the rest of Afghanistan, Pakistan and perhaps Iran as well if it comes to that.
How do you win without venturing off the roads?
The war against the Taliban can be won by defeating the Taliban's masters - the Pakistani ISI - which Karzai will never do because he doesn't have the air and missile power to defeat the ISI in Pakistan. NATO does.
Once the ISI is taken out and Iran is likewise prevented from supplying the Taliban, the Taliban will run out of supplies, be unable to hit anything of ours and they can sit in a cave somewhere out of sight or surrender - I don't mind which so long as we win.
You need to kill the enemy to defeat them...not just sit in a dug out and wait for them to hit you. That's reactionary...being reactionary is bad in combat.
Exactly, which is why my plan includes a stronger offence against the Taliban's masters in Pakistan.
You can't blame my plan for being reactionary with the Pakistani ISI. Consider the status quo our leaders have decided upon in dealing with Pakistan so far. Our leaders are not even reactionary as yet. Our leaders are taking the deaths of our soldiers at the hands of the Pakistani ISI lying down. They are not even reacting. If they reacted by cutting off funding from Pakistan that would be something - but no, it's business as usual, with the Pakistani state which is at war with us!
I could shut down an entire portion of your plan easily with a few dedicated individuals without even having to hit your big, herculean, bases. It actually wouldn't take that much to do. I could do it with weapons and equipment I could get for pennies on the dollar at a bazaar anywhere in the Middle East.
Well I'd appreciate any insights you can offer as regards possible weak points of the plan which I have not spotted but would like to know about if they exist so that I can improve the plan, fine tune it as necessary.
Hell, a few guys with sniper rifles could really make it difficult for your shift changes.
The guard posts would be sited so as to make the approaches from the road side safe from snipers on the dangerous ground side, perhaps adding additional features as necessary such as an approach trench or a wall to provide the required cover.
I'd be killing a bunker operator every day since I know exactly where they're at and they don't know where I am.
That's what every enemy sniper will be hoping perhaps but the guards have good eyesight, binoculars, night-vision, CCTV camera systems to keep watch for snipers.
Also if and when your enemy snipers get spotted they will be much more vulnerable than the guards who are behind fortifications.
I'd be so terrible and stupidly dangerous that the soldiers would likely refuse to go pull their shift until "me the sniper" is dealt with.
I could do this along a stretch of road 1, 2 even 10 miles long with just a dozen or so people and it would cause all kinds of problems for you and your super road.
The plan allows for reinforcements to arrive if necessary to deal with particularly deadly attacks and attackers would soon find themselves with even more problems than they were causing in the first place.
Any one of those guard posts that is unattended for more than 5-10 minutes for any reason is vulnerable
The post is never unattended. The guards don't go off duty until they are relieved. That's why it is only an 8 hour shift. So they can spend 16 hours a day walking, eating, sleeping and doing all the things you need to do but can't when you are watching out for enemy attackers.
to dedicated attack (larger force of 100 or more personnel.
The reinforcements can arrive quicker and in greater numbers than the attacking force. Very quickly any attacking force would be overwhelmed by defenders.
Once the line is breeched then you're fvcked.
Any breeches are quickly patched up.
Since all your soldiers do is sit around all day in a bunker
Only 8 hours a day are they sitting around. The other 16 hours they can be doing other things.
they're probably not well versed in fire and maneuver
They can learn when they are not on guard duty.
which means they will pay dearly to take back that portion of the road.
Oh, even if the enemy knocks out 1 guard post they are still 6 miles away from the road. By the time they get nearer the road, a "welcoming" force will have mustered. I doubt they will ever "take" any part of the road.
I wouldn't even have to hold it that long to inflict numerous casualties on your soldiers. But, the longer I hold it the longer the road is shut down. The longer the road is shut down the longer everyone who depends on that road for supply suffers. How much money do you think it would cost for you to respond to my attack and how much do you think it would cost for me to conduct it. I guarantee I could sustain these attacks indefinitely gradually knicking away at your forces and forcing you to throw huge gobs money at the problem to fix it and since you're not going to come after me I could do it with impunity.
The defence costs are pretty much fixed. Small nuisance probing attacks such as lone snipers can be seen off by the guards on duty. Larger attacking forces can be seen off with proportionate reaction forces from the depots. It costs to attack and attackers will sustain more casualties than defenders.
In some ways it is most efficient if enemies come to our fortified positions where it easier for us to kill them than if we go hunting every mountain track of the Afghanistan mountains. It will certainly be easier if we properly prepare our defences as I have outlined.
Leave soldiering for the big boys tiger. You're not suited to it. All I hear from you is a rhetorical ego that has no basis in reality and simply likes to see himself speak. You're plan is stupid and expensive. You've no idea what you speak of and the more you speak the more obvious it becomes.
Well a lot of our "big boys" have come home from Afghanistan in big coffins and that upsets me, so I think I'll help as much as I can if that's all the same to you.
They both have a similar if not the same mentality.
