Situation in A'Stan Deteriorating - Adm Mullen - Page 5




 
--
 
September 10th, 2009  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
I am not sure where you stand on this matter. What is it you think we should do? And no Im not being a smartass. The only solution I can see is to fight. Take away thier playground and you will be seeing them on your street.
Nothing was further from my mind, I think that you see it just as do most Service personnel.

What I am advocating is that instead of fighting harder, we start to fight smarter. Most military strategists seem to be of the opinion that it is well nigh impossible for a set piece force to defeat a guerrilla force on their home ground. it's like trying to push back the tide with a sharp stick.

It is my opinion that we should use our technological superiority to better advantage than just using smart weapons in the hands of our troops on the ground.

Use our vast technology to gather information which we would then use to just keep taking out their leadership. Fight an unseen war against them, we listen and watch from afar giving the oposition a false sense of security,.. then from out of the blue a Hellfire missile kills one or more of their leadership, this type of strategy would also have several other advantages, not the least of which would be, saving lives and heightening our physical security.

Remember years ago when the papers reported that we had come very close to nailing Bin Laden? and how they spilt the beans about how we had been monitoring his Satphone conversations. That was the end of that, no Al Qaeda leader now uses this form of communication. I strongly suspect that this security leak came about in an effort to appease our political masters, and convince the readers of the press that we were actually "doing something". Hopefully we learnt a lesson from this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Like you said, we need a dictator in Afghanistan that isn't crazy about blowing up our own people.
And there lies the rub. I think that our past experiences would clearly demonstrate that there is no such animal. As soon as they have power, they want to run the place like a medieval fiefdom and then want to hold us to ransom lest they go over to the other side.

That is how middle eastern politics works.
September 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
Spike, you read my mind!!!!
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm advocating.
Supporting the side that doesn't advocate destroying America would be another thing to do if stability in the area is a priority and I believe it will be. As long as there is no one strong leader, that place will continue to be a terrorist haven.
September 10th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Donīt look know, but we are having a rather interesting discussion.

I agree with a few things said here.

IMO The hunter/killer teams are vital if we are going to remove Taleban as a viable factor of force in the region.
These teams should operate in the shaddowlands of white and black to be able (with the Pakis concent) to operate accross the border and into Paki territory as needed when they are following raiding parties.
These teams exist today but are hog tied by ROE,s policy and other crap that is not mixing too well with the reality of this type of conflict.

Secondly I think Monty B has a point in picking the right warlord and giving him the support to slug it out with a few others.
There ARE warlords in the region that are down right hostile towards western troops that are still allowed to operate.

The downside to this strategy is that it is going to take more time, cost more civilian lives and put a greater workload on the SOF units in the area.
The risk is that the policy makers and the public will loose interest in the conflict unless ISAF can say they rebuilt a school that day.

If you are going to be using as today two different missions they will have to be defined more clearly.
To the Afghanis in Helmland province there is no difference between the OEF and the ISAF mission.
That means the ISAF mission is up shits creek without a paddle as their ROE,s are in many cases rediculous.

A bit better up north but there the new T tactic is to get the local villagers look at all western troops the same.
This is being countered with an effective H&M campaign.
ISAF are doing ALOT of soft hat patrooling to try and connect with the villagers, in many cases this have worked and workable intel have been collected.
The next step is to make sure you have a SOF Team inplace that are given freedom of movement to act on that intel.
(German KSK is a shining example on when this part breaks down.)

1. Seek out and destroy the Taleban leadership.
2. Set up an acceptable "goverment" that as many people as possible can accept and give them support (Like the northern alliance during the initial invasion).
3. Rebuild the Armed forces and police force.
4. Leave gradually, keep support in the area as QRF.

This is a HUGE task, but if we have decided to do it we must at some point have thought it worth being done right?


//KJ.
--
September 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
You'll probably need to do the following:
- Create more Ranger and SOF units.
- More UCAVs.
- Money to support an asipring dictator.
The money can come from putting a few aircraft carriers into storage.

Also the question is, although the H&M operations are going well, what happens when our troops leave? Will they have to stay there constantly maintaining relations with these groups for the next hundred years?
What sort of government will these tribes answer to? Not likely a democratic one.
I don't think fighting the foot soldiers of the Taliban with our own troops is the most effective way to destroy them. In fact, the fight itself draws a lot of volunteers to fight for them. It's a chance to fight against the infidel head on. You deny them this opportunity and you deny them a reasonable reason to recruit people. Imagine the sort of morale problem they'd face if they have guys signed up who haven't seen or shot at an American in six months yet have folks randomly get taken out by a Hellfire missile. It's not glamorous anymore.
All the while, most of Afghanistan is now headed up by a dictator with the benefit of American intelligence, air power, equipment (to a degree), training etc., who is hell bent on keeping Taliban out (just as Saddam and other Middle Eastern dictators hate Al Qaeda, Taliban and equivalent groups) and has a pretty bad human rights record. Not the sort of place you'd want to be rolling as Taliban.
Then as they start to lose their momentum and stop being such a threat to America or this new Afghanistan, their leadership starts to crawl out of hiding. Then as they start calling old friends and loved ones you find out where they are and launch a simultaneous missile strike. Sure, it won't be a 100% deal but you'd get quite a bit of them. And then this war is no longer an unwinnable and unending war for any of us, but it certainly will be an unending war for them where UCAVs of increasing sophistication will come and f*ck with them in all kinds of sadistic ways.
Oh, and the occasional SOF raids should be a part of the picture. It would turn the American soldier into an Afghan ghost story. Raids for psychological purposes would be an integral part of the psychops against the Taliban.

Feel free to tear it apart.
September 10th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
You'll probably need to do the following:
- Create more Ranger and SOF units.
- More UCAVs.
- Money to support an asipring dictator.
The money can come from putting a few aircraft carriers into storage.

Also the question is, although the H&M operations are going well, what happens when our troops leave? Will they have to stay there constantly maintaining relations with these groups for the next hundred years?
What sort of government will these tribes answer to? Not likely a democratic one.
1) I think you are going to have to retire the air force completely if you want some level of H&M progress as nothing pisses of a village more than toasting a wedding party and although these incidents are few and far between it only takes one to set relations back to step one.

I tend to think that the air forces role in these situations is purely logistics and intel the fighting needs to be 1 on 1 "assassinations".


2) What does it matter what type of government these people form as long as they are not pissing off their neighbours why should we care if they want to live in a stone age civilisation?
September 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
1 on 1 assasinations will probably very difficult to achieve (we've been failing miserably so far) but launching a hellfire missile at a technical isn't.
Blowing up a wedding isn't the way but I believe these incidents will decrease with better tech and better experience in fighting a war with the view of looking straight down.
The problem with 1 on 1 assisinations is, you can't fool a local. Any foreigner will stand out like a sore thumb and getting someone from the inside to do it will probably require you to extract everyone related to him beforehand as he'll almost certainly get caught even if successful and he and his family will be chopped to pieces as a result. No one's going to take the job with those sort of risks.

As for point 2, you should read what I wrote more carefully because what you're saying is what I'm saying.
September 10th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Yeah I just get the impression we spend too much time and money on creating western cultures in countries where this philosophy is alien when all we really need to be doing is removing the destabilising elements and getting the hell out.
September 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
Either way, you can't go against their culture.
If you do, you've already lost.
Unless you intend to kill every last one of them and have the means and will to do so.
September 10th, 2009  
03USMC
 
 
You can't DX the air power in it's entirerty, most modern forces operate on a combined arms concept CAS being an intergal part of that concept for both conventional and SOF forces.If you want eyes on target by a controller fine, but you can't take air power outta the play book. You could retask and train up other elements into a Ranger type role, most light infantry assets have the ability outside of insertion extraction training and small unit independence ability. Just me but tech like UCAV is only a tool in the box for the dirty, sweaty, scared operator or grunt on the ground.
September 10th, 2009  
Big_Z
 
 
The 173rd Abn and the Aussie SASR had a solid system. The SASR would recon and find the bad guys and the 173rd acted as a direct action force for them.
 


Similar Topics
Interview With Adm. Mullen
Mullen: Marines Could Have Greater Role In Afghanistan
Mullen Seeks 'Balance' For Troops
Adm. Mullen Addresses Troops At Yongsan Garrison
Chinese military aircraft present situation