This may belong in the staff college as it is mainly adressed to the Military Professionals amongst us, if the mods see it necessary to move this thread then they will hear no complaints from me.
Anyway, I was wondering what sort of Battle tactics the Allied Forces in Afghanistan (NATO-ISAF, US-OEF, ANA, Northern Alliance etc.) have been using to take on the Taliban/AQ Rebels. From what I have seen (from the all-knowing and ever-honest media) there has been a lot of CQB, but I've also seen a lot of fast patrols that tend to call in Fire Support to eliminate resistance whenever it is encountered. However my perspective of the issue may well have been slanted by the BBC's apparent fondness for trailing with the 3 CDO Brigade Recon Troop. One BBC journalist commented that the Marines weren't too keen on the hit-and-run approach, but they didn't have enough people to actually pin down and assault Rebel Forces most of the time, and were thus worried that the air-strikes and arty barrages they were calling in were hitting the wrong people. I believe he even said they didn't have the strength to actually move in and inspect the site to confirm kills.
Is this true? Do the Allies have a problem with committment and surface area in Afghanistan? Would the Allies do better to pull in more troops so they could fight at close-quarters and there for reduce civilian casualties (if this does in fact work)? Or is the media simply slanting my (still) civilian opinion because they only embed themselves with soldiers that fight in vehicles rather than on foot?
Answers may well affect my opinion on the worth of the effort in Afghanistan so please avoid non-sensical replies.
Anyway, I was wondering what sort of Battle tactics the Allied Forces in Afghanistan (NATO-ISAF, US-OEF, ANA, Northern Alliance etc.) have been using to take on the Taliban/AQ Rebels. From what I have seen (from the all-knowing and ever-honest media) there has been a lot of CQB, but I've also seen a lot of fast patrols that tend to call in Fire Support to eliminate resistance whenever it is encountered. However my perspective of the issue may well have been slanted by the BBC's apparent fondness for trailing with the 3 CDO Brigade Recon Troop. One BBC journalist commented that the Marines weren't too keen on the hit-and-run approach, but they didn't have enough people to actually pin down and assault Rebel Forces most of the time, and were thus worried that the air-strikes and arty barrages they were calling in were hitting the wrong people. I believe he even said they didn't have the strength to actually move in and inspect the site to confirm kills.
Is this true? Do the Allies have a problem with committment and surface area in Afghanistan? Would the Allies do better to pull in more troops so they could fight at close-quarters and there for reduce civilian casualties (if this does in fact work)? Or is the media simply slanting my (still) civilian opinion because they only embed themselves with soldiers that fight in vehicles rather than on foot?
Answers may well affect my opinion on the worth of the effort in Afghanistan so please avoid non-sensical replies.
Comment