KevinTheCynic
Active member
You look but you don't see.
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)
Peter Dow
Active member
What will you do with that freedom, will you fire a scoped-M2?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6tLG-XFT4"]Firing the Browning 50 Cal! - YouTube[/ame]
Oh but I do see these Britons also using the M2 with a scope, here firing in semi-automatic mode as well. One of them is a Scot! :brave:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6tLG-XFT4"]Firing the Browning 50 Cal! - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
senojekips
Active member
There is no point. There never has been, except that after having been ignored and ridiculed on every other site on the internet, this idiot has finally found a willing audience that will actually talk to him allowing him to keep expounding his wild theories further convincing himself that he is a military expert.
Peter Dow
Active member
I don't have a point in reply to your point about your pickup, unless it has a scoped-M2 mounted on it, in which case maybe you'd like to tell us if you can snipe with it because everyone else with a scoped-M2 looks like they can snipe with it but some people who have posted in this thread claim never to have seen it done and you know, I believe them, they haven't see it but seeing is believing so that's why I've posted a couple of videos showing scoped-M2s being fired and in one of them a US Marine saying said scoped-M2s would be good for an OP, Observation Post, and here's a fortified OP
which is pretty much the size of fortification if not the exact style, of what I have in mind for my fortified machine gun posts for my plan.
So you know, it is a small point in the great scheme of my plan, but the Afghans have got thousands of these M2s and if they have scopes put on them they are brilliant for the perimeter defence role and we ought to set them up with perimeter defences for their bases and supply lines before we pull out otherwise the Taliban will road side bomb them or ambush them like they have been doing to our forces.
Or the other "plan" on the table is "peace talks with the Taliban" - if you call that a "plan"?
Last edited:
brinktk
Active member
He doesn't know what sniping means.
He doesn't know the differene between an OP and a bunker.
He doesn't know that optics don't magically make a marksman.
He has no idea about what's going on in the country he's talking about.
He doesn't care about actual experience on the ground.
He's probably never heard of things like plunging fire, dead space, fire and maneuver, warlordism, pashtunwali, wasta, the difference between high and low angle fires, "secret noforn fvey". You know, things that would give insight on things he's trying to fix. He's a damned fool. He's got no basis in reality both for this plan but also in his life. I seriously think he has some sort of mental instability where he embellishes these fantansies and his ego allows him to believe that he's all knowing about them.
All I have to say is to politely fvck off.
He doesn't know the differene between an OP and a bunker.
He doesn't know that optics don't magically make a marksman.
He has no idea about what's going on in the country he's talking about.
He doesn't care about actual experience on the ground.
He's probably never heard of things like plunging fire, dead space, fire and maneuver, warlordism, pashtunwali, wasta, the difference between high and low angle fires, "secret noforn fvey". You know, things that would give insight on things he's trying to fix. He's a damned fool. He's got no basis in reality both for this plan but also in his life. I seriously think he has some sort of mental instability where he embellishes these fantansies and his ego allows him to believe that he's all knowing about them.
All I have to say is to politely fvck off.
Peter Dow
Active member
Travellers will be warned off from going anywhere near those guard posts which are not on their routes but some miles distant.
As you can see in this image, the guard posts are on top of a ridge running approximately parallel to the road.
What's closer to the road and the travellers on it, are the mobile reaction depots every 2km along the road but their purpose is not to interact with travellers on the road either.
Once the secure supply route protection force has authorised a traveller to join the road then the travellers ought to be free to drive along it from one end to another.
If the secure supply route protection force is properly managed then the troops will have their salaries for doing their job loyally and much more to lose if they dared to disobey orders by holding up traffic to extort bribes etc.
The place where travellers are stopped, searched and authorised or not to proceed is at Police STOP points when they first take the road by joining it via an access road which you should be able to see drawn clearly in this bigger image of the plan.
There will be special police units as part of the secure supply route protection force to man the STOP points.
The point to note is that now the routes have been plagued by bandits, warlords, highwaymen, Taliban etc. extorting bribes for passage with the threat of hijacking the loads or killing the travellers as has been reported.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbqAampl5pA"]U.S. funds our enemy Taliban's Afghan war - YouTube[/ame]
The supply route protection force opens up the highways to international control. So long as the US and allies pay for this force then we pay it to keep the roads open to traffic. We pay once for the salaries of the force. No traveller should have to pay bribes to that same force.
Now of course, if we stupidly allow that force to be run by Karzai or local Afghan authorities along each stretch of the road then no doubt these corrupt officials would turn a blind eye to bribes being extorted.
So be smart, don't hand over control over the force to corrupt officials to run. If we pay for this force, keep control, insist on keeping it honest.
That's not been done with the Afghan forces. We pay but we hand over control to Karzai or local authorities and nobody keeps them honest.
Last edited:
Get the hell out of there now!
If you Google "Afghanistan," you get your choice of occupiers. There's "Occupation of Afghanistan by British," "Occupation of Afghanistan by Russians" and "Occupation of Afghanistan by United States."
The British occupation began in arrogance in 1878 and ended in 1880 in massacre. The occupation by the Soviet Union ended in defeat and humiliation. The American occupation, officially an operation of NATO, goes on and on toward another bad ending. Or perhaps we should have read Rudyard Kipling, the poet of the British Empire, who lived in that unforgiving region, and wrote:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
"And the women come out to cut up what remains,
"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
"An' go to your gawd like a soldier."
The lesson of all this, which was obvious even before we came, is that superior weapons and forces can occupy a country, but occupiers never really win. For us, this was a war against al-Qaeda, which, we have largely won; but for the Afghans this is a war against their own demons, religious and secular—against theocracy and kleptocracy; and it is war against their historical refusal to embrace the unifying force of a national definition, their preference for tribe over nation. We have been undone by our strategy: since it is a campaign for hearts and minds, counterinsurgency’s success depends upon the sentiments of the hearts and the convictions of the minds, and those cannot be determined by military means. In such a war, the weak Afghans have a strong hand; and they have played it. We will not have been defeated in Afghanistan—from the standpoint of our security, we got what we came for. But the dream of a new Afghanistan will remain a dream.
If you Google "Afghanistan," you get your choice of occupiers. There's "Occupation of Afghanistan by British," "Occupation of Afghanistan by Russians" and "Occupation of Afghanistan by United States."
The British occupation began in arrogance in 1878 and ended in 1880 in massacre. The occupation by the Soviet Union ended in defeat and humiliation. The American occupation, officially an operation of NATO, goes on and on toward another bad ending. Or perhaps we should have read Rudyard Kipling, the poet of the British Empire, who lived in that unforgiving region, and wrote:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
"And the women come out to cut up what remains,
"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
"An' go to your gawd like a soldier."
The lesson of all this, which was obvious even before we came, is that superior weapons and forces can occupy a country, but occupiers never really win. For us, this was a war against al-Qaeda, which, we have largely won; but for the Afghans this is a war against their own demons, religious and secular—against theocracy and kleptocracy; and it is war against their historical refusal to embrace the unifying force of a national definition, their preference for tribe over nation. We have been undone by our strategy: since it is a campaign for hearts and minds, counterinsurgency’s success depends upon the sentiments of the hearts and the convictions of the minds, and those cannot be determined by military means. In such a war, the weak Afghans have a strong hand; and they have played it. We will not have been defeated in Afghanistan—from the standpoint of our security, we got what we came for. But the dream of a new Afghanistan will remain a dream.
Peter Dow
Active member
Supply Line Warfare
The requirement to defend military supply lines in war, to expect the enemy to attack and to attempt to cut any long supply lines is a basic part of classical military strategy.
If there was ever to be a sustained resistance to our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then any competent military strategist could have predicted that the enemy would wish to attack our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we didn't do the correct thing according to classical military strategy and defend those supply lines then it was inevitable that the enemy would mine and ambush our undefended, or poorly defended, supply lines.
Now the US does indeed have academic military experts who do indeed know the importance of this requirement in war and have published relevant articles on the internet, such as this fine example -
but that ancient yet essential military knowledge, that ought to be taught to every officer at every military academy, doesn't seem to be in the brains of the US, British or other NATO generals, who seem to think "patrolling" or "ever bigger MRAPs" is a better plan to try to keep our soldiers safe on otherwise undefended supply routes.
Actually, the better plan is simply establishing a secure perimeter around your supply route which is watched 24/7 from static guard posts all along the route, either side of the route, and a mobile reaction force to reinforce wherever and whenever the enemy concentrates to attack the supply route.
I've suggested in this thread a detailed plan to defend supply routes in Afghanistan but no doubt there are many variations on that theme.
Don't get me wrong, big MRAPs have their uses as a back-up if and when the enemy makes it through the defended perimeter of a supply line but there does clearly need to be a secure perimeter established in the first place otherwise your supply routes remain effectively uncleared territory and anything on the route not protected by tons of armour is simply easy meat for the enemy.
Certain items in my plan, about seizing satellites and what to bomb in Pakistan is new, specific intelligence for the war on terror and is maybe a bit much to expect on day one from our military.
But for military leaders not to know the requirement to defend supply routes, and therefore foolishly to lead our soldiers to die from enemy road side bombs and ambushes - this is unforgivable ignorance on the part of our generals, defense secretaries and Pentagon, NATO and UK MOD civilian support military "experts".
Those in charge don't seem to know the military basics. It's like the donkey-generals who led brave lion-soldiers to their deaths advancing on foot against machine gun nests as in world war 1 - all over again.
It's another famous military disaster and it is no way to win a war (even though we will likely win this war on terror eventually but at a very high cost in blood and treasure.)
:-(
The requirement to defend military supply lines in war, to expect the enemy to attack and to attempt to cut any long supply lines is a basic part of classical military strategy.
If there was ever to be a sustained resistance to our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then any competent military strategist could have predicted that the enemy would wish to attack our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we didn't do the correct thing according to classical military strategy and defend those supply lines then it was inevitable that the enemy would mine and ambush our undefended, or poorly defended, supply lines.
Now the US does indeed have academic military experts who do indeed know the importance of this requirement in war and have published relevant articles on the internet, such as this fine example -
Army Logistician
Supply Line Warfare by Dr. Cliff Welborn :read:
The U.S. military has also disrupted the enemy’s supply chain to weaken its fighting capabilities. When we think of a military supply line, we often think of the logistics considerations necessary to keep our own supply chain flowing. However, just as important to military success are tactics for disrupting the enemy supply line. A defensive strategy is to protect our own supply chain; an offensive strategy is to inhibit the supply chain of our enemy. The United States has used both offensive and defensive strategies in many wars, including the Revolutionary War in the 1770s and 1780s, the Civil War in the 1860s, the Plains Indian Wars in the late 19th century, World War II in the 1940s, and the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s.
but that ancient yet essential military knowledge, that ought to be taught to every officer at every military academy, doesn't seem to be in the brains of the US, British or other NATO generals, who seem to think "patrolling" or "ever bigger MRAPs" is a better plan to try to keep our soldiers safe on otherwise undefended supply routes.
Actually, the better plan is simply establishing a secure perimeter around your supply route which is watched 24/7 from static guard posts all along the route, either side of the route, and a mobile reaction force to reinforce wherever and whenever the enemy concentrates to attack the supply route.
I've suggested in this thread a detailed plan to defend supply routes in Afghanistan but no doubt there are many variations on that theme.
Don't get me wrong, big MRAPs have their uses as a back-up if and when the enemy makes it through the defended perimeter of a supply line but there does clearly need to be a secure perimeter established in the first place otherwise your supply routes remain effectively uncleared territory and anything on the route not protected by tons of armour is simply easy meat for the enemy.
Certain items in my plan, about seizing satellites and what to bomb in Pakistan is new, specific intelligence for the war on terror and is maybe a bit much to expect on day one from our military.
But for military leaders not to know the requirement to defend supply routes, and therefore foolishly to lead our soldiers to die from enemy road side bombs and ambushes - this is unforgivable ignorance on the part of our generals, defense secretaries and Pentagon, NATO and UK MOD civilian support military "experts".
Those in charge don't seem to know the military basics. It's like the donkey-generals who led brave lion-soldiers to their deaths advancing on foot against machine gun nests as in world war 1 - all over again.
It's another famous military disaster and it is no way to win a war (even though we will likely win this war on terror eventually but at a very high cost in blood and treasure.)
:-(
Last edited:
Peter, you are the most arrogant bastard I've ever met. :wink:
Irregular forces, Irregular tactics=Asymmetrical warfare.
Simply put, it is a strategy focusing on side-stepping a stronger enemy’s strengths and focusing all one’s limited resources at the enemy’s weakest points – hence the asymmetry
You are not trained in military strategy or leadership and one of the greatest barriers for you to understand defense matters is language. Familiar words such as “strategy” no longer mean what they did a century ago. New words and concepts enter the lexicon that both confuse and clarify. Military officers are specialists. They are intelligent people who understand the complexity that occurs during war or armed conflict. You are a layman in this field and you demean me and all the other fine men and women here on this forum that have or are currently wearing a uniform. You have not earned that right.
To prevent your plan from working, the Taliban merely have to attack your strategy. The only way you can beat the Taliban on their home turf, is by having your troops live and work with the civilian population in order to win their hearts and minds. But Taliban have a saying: “You have all of the watches, we have all the time” How much time are you willing to spend?
Irregular forces, Irregular tactics=Asymmetrical warfare.
Simply put, it is a strategy focusing on side-stepping a stronger enemy’s strengths and focusing all one’s limited resources at the enemy’s weakest points – hence the asymmetry
You are not trained in military strategy or leadership and one of the greatest barriers for you to understand defense matters is language. Familiar words such as “strategy” no longer mean what they did a century ago. New words and concepts enter the lexicon that both confuse and clarify. Military officers are specialists. They are intelligent people who understand the complexity that occurs during war or armed conflict. You are a layman in this field and you demean me and all the other fine men and women here on this forum that have or are currently wearing a uniform. You have not earned that right.
To prevent your plan from working, the Taliban merely have to attack your strategy. The only way you can beat the Taliban on their home turf, is by having your troops live and work with the civilian population in order to win their hearts and minds. But Taliban have a saying: “You have all of the watches, we have all the time” How much time are you willing to spend?
brinktk
Active member
Precisely!
He fails to understand that they don't have to win...anything...ever...
They just have to not lose.
His understanding of the entire situation in Afghanistan AND Iraq is extrememly limited. His understanding of the weapons systems we use is extremely limited. His understaning of prosecuting war in the 21st century is extremely limited...simply put...he's not worth the time or effort to refute anymore.
Well brinktk, you're probably right.
For you Peter.
In a guerrilla war, what happens on the battlefield does not always determine ultimate victory or defeat. The US in Vietnam, the Portuguese in Africa, the French in Algeria and the Rhodesians were all winning militarily, but lost their wars. Thus, an understanding of what will happen in Afghanistan requires looking beyond the fighting men.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
The reason why the Rhodesians lost was because the rest of the world poked their noses in. Mugabe showed the face of being a fair and just president, when the ANC came to power in South Africa he began to show his true colours as the usual despotic African dictator. The Mateble hoisted Ian Smith on their shoulders when he appeared in public and begged him to take back the country and oust Mugabe.
When is a war lost or won? The general opinion about the Vietnam war is that the US lost it. The fact is that the war ended with a peace treaty between North Vietnam and the US after relentless and very heavy US bombardments of North Vietnam. The Americans adhered to the treaty and pulled out. After the US troops left the North started attacking the South again and conquered it, that war was between North and South Vietnam. The US lost South Vietnam, not the war.
The Taliban wil claim victory as soon as NATO and US forces leave. Wether Kaboel kan defend its country or not is irrelevant to the Taliban. Islamic radicals will always clame victory unless they are completely destroyed. A good example is the last Israel/Hamas conflict where Hamas got a terrible beating and was saved by a peace treaty. After the treaty Hamas claimed victory because they were not destroyed.
brinktk
Active member
But that's the point isn't it. Of course they can't win decisively on the battlefield. If they could they wouldn't be fighting a guerrilla war in the first place. The key to winning an insurgency is causing your opponent to lose the will to fight any longer. They simply have to not lose to accomplish that point. One can never completely destroy the enemy in an insurgency with military might. It's virtually impossible. You have to defeat the will and the ideology. That's accomplished first by providing security to the locals. If they don't have to worry about getting intimidated into the service of the Taliban, Viet Cong, Hamas, whatever....the pool of recruits will dry up. After the locals feel secure, all of a sudden you'll start to get actionable intelligence. You can start forming informant networks. It gets much harder for the enemy to operate freely. The people start to see normalcy and that you're not such a bad dude...but most importantly...that you're winning.
People aren't dumb. Regardless of the regime that's backing whatever group...the people are going to back the side that is most likely to win. If they don't, then they get dead when that side eventually wins. The people mostly just want to live their lives without all the fuss about freedom or sharia...both sides are affecting that normalcy...they know we aren't going to stay, so most of them are hedging their bets with the Taliban...hence the Taliban will win.
We can win every battle against the Taliban and lose the whole war because we didn't fight hard enough for the battleground that was the most important to winning the war...the people.
Peter Dow
Active member
The Taliban are a proxy organisation of the Pakistani military intelligence organisation, the ISI. That means that the Taliban are agents of the ISI. The Taliban work for the ISI. The Taliban do the bidding of the ISI. The Taliban kill on the orders of the ISI.
When you mention "actionable intelligence" then the video I posted "SECRET PAKISTAN" is the actionable intelligence we need to take action against the Pakistani ISI, against the Pakistani state for allowing the ISI to operate this way, by for example stop paying Pakistan $2 billion a year in aid from US taxpayer money.
Guys, you are only supposed to pay money to your loyal ally, not to your backstabbing enemy which is what the Pakistani state is right now!
What is the good of having "actionable intelligence" when the only action you take is to keep paying your enemy $2 billion a year? It makes no sense!
Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]
Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE"]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]
Now I know what you meant by "actionable intelligence" you meant something local that the Taliban are up to in Afghanistan that the NATO-ISAF can take action against.
OK, but if that is all you do - just the local fight, never the strategic fight - then you never win. You just keep mopping up the Taliban foot-soldiers as the Pakistani ISI keeps creating new recruits for the Taliban.
At some point, you need to see the big picture and tackle the problem at source.
At the moment, you can't see the wood for the trees.
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
My apologies for posting this again.
Sir Winston Churchill said "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."
Ever felt like :bang: ? Because thats what your doing with this bloke.
Sir Winston Churchill said "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."
Ever felt like :bang: ? Because thats what your doing with this bloke.