Situation in A'Stan Deteriorating - Adm Mullen
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Considering how many mountains there are and how massive they are, it'll take a LOT of nukes.
And from that point on, we'd be the bad guys.
And from that point on, we'd be the bad guys.
Spartacus
Active member
I wish there werent so many posts that I had to read before I could respond. Too bad they all add up for an interesting topic.
I will try to keep this short, for simplicity and time consciousness.
1) The strategy in Astan is very H&M friendly. Yes it sucks, it isnt what many of the people who actually DO H&M were trained for. BUT it is also correct that if we dont win the people, we lose the war. An important thing to remember is that we are not in the country to impose American or western views and beliefs. Coalition forces dont care if Afghans emulate us or not, and most Afghans stick to their traditions.
2) There are separate entities withing Astan, each with a different set of rules that restrict them within the parameters of their mission. ISAF (the main effort) is H&M, but dont think other it is the only mission set.
3) The media and the internet sucks for opsec and infosec. No more on the subject.
4) IMO the war in Afghanistan will be won if we continue to provide the security and support for the Afghan army to rebuild from a demolished state, to at least a semi-functional state. That means training, compounds, infrastructure and support, which all means TIME. If we were to pull out prematurely, the established government(who is neither pro nor anti-American IMO) would topple in a matter of years.
These people want to keep their Afghan ways, fine by me and everyone in Astan. They also want freedom from oppression, (an American concept in the minds of some purely by the fact that we shout it louder on the world stage.) Our role in Astan is mainly security, with support to the developing infrastructure. The course of their social development is purely in Afghan hands.
5) Afghanistan was overlooked for a long time. Once the fight was "won" the focus and resources were shifted to other battlefields. Now with the drawdown from Iraq the focus becomes Afghanistan and how to get out faster. This (in the mind of some) means more troops. Sure, helpful. But remember the surge in Iraq? During the course of the surge, with more boots on the ground violence erupted for a period. You put one cop on the street, he sees what one man sees, can arrest what that one man can tactically handle. You put a hundred cops nearby, you see more and catch more. I am sure you understand that our enemy dont like "the easy way" of coming down to the station.
Summary (for those who dont like drawn out opinions):
1) Progress is being made, but no matter who or what we throw at the problem, it will take time.
2) H&M is not cool to do, but its way better than annhilating a population (although I will admit that sounds wayy easier.)
3) Sure there is an increase of violence. But I (who cant predict the future) firmly believes that it is because we are taking the fight to the TB more than ever.
P.S. Scratch -re- from reconstruction. We are helping build things that have never existed.
P.S.S. Despite what some read through the media, their are few (if any) bars in A-stan, and we certainly do not visit them, and we definetely dont own cars here or drive them on social calls. Those of you who know what I mean had a good laugh when the article to which I refer came out.
So much for short.
I could have sworn there used to be a spell check on this thing...
I will try to keep this short, for simplicity and time consciousness.
1) The strategy in Astan is very H&M friendly. Yes it sucks, it isnt what many of the people who actually DO H&M were trained for. BUT it is also correct that if we dont win the people, we lose the war. An important thing to remember is that we are not in the country to impose American or western views and beliefs. Coalition forces dont care if Afghans emulate us or not, and most Afghans stick to their traditions.
2) There are separate entities withing Astan, each with a different set of rules that restrict them within the parameters of their mission. ISAF (the main effort) is H&M, but dont think other it is the only mission set.
3) The media and the internet sucks for opsec and infosec. No more on the subject.
4) IMO the war in Afghanistan will be won if we continue to provide the security and support for the Afghan army to rebuild from a demolished state, to at least a semi-functional state. That means training, compounds, infrastructure and support, which all means TIME. If we were to pull out prematurely, the established government(who is neither pro nor anti-American IMO) would topple in a matter of years.
These people want to keep their Afghan ways, fine by me and everyone in Astan. They also want freedom from oppression, (an American concept in the minds of some purely by the fact that we shout it louder on the world stage.) Our role in Astan is mainly security, with support to the developing infrastructure. The course of their social development is purely in Afghan hands.
5) Afghanistan was overlooked for a long time. Once the fight was "won" the focus and resources were shifted to other battlefields. Now with the drawdown from Iraq the focus becomes Afghanistan and how to get out faster. This (in the mind of some) means more troops. Sure, helpful. But remember the surge in Iraq? During the course of the surge, with more boots on the ground violence erupted for a period. You put one cop on the street, he sees what one man sees, can arrest what that one man can tactically handle. You put a hundred cops nearby, you see more and catch more. I am sure you understand that our enemy dont like "the easy way" of coming down to the station.
Summary (for those who dont like drawn out opinions):
1) Progress is being made, but no matter who or what we throw at the problem, it will take time.
2) H&M is not cool to do, but its way better than annhilating a population (although I will admit that sounds wayy easier.)
3) Sure there is an increase of violence. But I (who cant predict the future) firmly believes that it is because we are taking the fight to the TB more than ever.
P.S. Scratch -re- from reconstruction. We are helping build things that have never existed.
P.S.S. Despite what some read through the media, their are few (if any) bars in A-stan, and we certainly do not visit them, and we definetely dont own cars here or drive them on social calls. Those of you who know what I mean had a good laugh when the article to which I refer came out.
So much for short.
I could have sworn there used to be a spell check on this thing...
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah but the security part is the concern.
That's what may require about a hundred thousand troops for another hundred years. What happens when that commitment can't be kept? What happens to the H&M operation when a certain village cannot be covered?
That's what may require about a hundred thousand troops for another hundred years. What happens when that commitment can't be kept? What happens to the H&M operation when a certain village cannot be covered?
Spartacus
Active member
The hundred thousand troops for a hundred years falls under the paradigm that the afghans dont count. They do. Some of them are crazy mofos who want nothing more than to kill taliban. We may not want to field troops for 100 years, but the afghans do and will.
Jeewhiz sarg, I wrote all that and thats the response!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Sorry Spartacus, I will try harder. You deserve it. Hooah 
The problem is that once those guys who want to kill Taliban are done killing Taliban (even if not completely anhiliated... reduced to a very minor force) will most likely start fighting and killing amongst themselves. Then what have you got? A whole other mess where our troops have to get in the middle of yet again.
The problem is that once those guys who want to kill Taliban are done killing Taliban (even if not completely anhiliated... reduced to a very minor force) will most likely start fighting and killing amongst themselves. Then what have you got? A whole other mess where our troops have to get in the middle of yet again.
Spartacus
Active member
Last one my friend. Business demands my time.
I see that as a possibility, but (in the short run) an unlikely one. Besides, the ANSF are growing, not diminishing. One day they will be able to support their own need by drawing on a diversified population. In essence their military will one day be a cross-section of their unified population. Hopefully self preserving and self sustaining. If not, well we can help build the house. Its up to them to not burn it down.
I see that as a possibility, but (in the short run) an unlikely one. Besides, the ANSF are growing, not diminishing. One day they will be able to support their own need by drawing on a diversified population. In essence their military will one day be a cross-section of their unified population. Hopefully self preserving and self sustaining. If not, well we can help build the house. Its up to them to not burn it down.
03USMC
Active member
So Spart my question is this when you get time to answer.
Should in your opinion use the ODA's and CA 's to ID the bad guys and once ID'd hit em with the hammer from hell?
Or should we carry this out like a straight ass jug fark puttin conventional forces in to play fark fark
Should in your opinion use the ODA's and CA 's to ID the bad guys and once ID'd hit em with the hammer from hell?
Or should we carry this out like a straight ass jug fark puttin conventional forces in to play fark fark
KJ
Active member
Haha, you instigator you.
In my very humble opinion it´s quite simple.
Get ODA,s to get eyes on, track untill the trail after other High Values are going cold, then bring down the full weight of your resources upon them.
The kicking itself can be administered by several kinds of units.
In an open fight most units with understanding of small unit tactics can beat any Taleban force.
But if you got a nail sticking out and you have a hammer and a screwdriver to knock it in with, ofcourse you are going to go with your hammer.
Should the target be a screw....Well you get where I am going with this..
OPSEC Caution: How the current tracking of T forces are done are not for an open board. End caution.
As for the ISAF mission being H&M.
Yes it is, what Spartacus failed to mention is the OEF mission and the distinction being made between the two by western forces.
That distinction are alot less clear when it comes to the locals.
Hey Spartacus, stay sharp.
You need to get a new shot at the community, you could be an asset.
//KJ.
Spartacus
Active member
I hope I didnt give the impression that I meant to drive the war with no Special Operation Forces and hard hitters. I firmly believe that they are critical to the success. What I am saying is that it is necessary for both to exist in order to be successful, but no matter what we throw at the problem it will require time.
I hinted at the separation between OEF and ISAF, just afraid to open my mouth too wide. Besides, I got to keep you guys guessing what I mean.
Stay classy gentlemen.
I hinted at the separation between OEF and ISAF, just afraid to open my mouth too wide. Besides, I got to keep you guys guessing what I mean.
Stay classy gentlemen.
Thank you very much for sharing that, indeed.