-{SpoonmaN}-

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.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Ray

Now what?

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

-{SpoonmaN}-

I think it's probably a good idea to negotiate with the Indigenous Resistance. For a start they're likely to be easier to ply because they have some investment in the future of the country, which the Arab and Pakistani fighters don't. There's also the issue of killing Afghans, whatever their beliefs, damaging the Allies' justification of helping Afghanistan.
It'd be great if they can actually isolate the foreigners from the rest of the Resistance, the Afghans might take more kindly to the notion of NATO killing other foreigners than they seem to be now with NATO killing other Afghans. Besides from what I'm told they really hate the Arab Islamists in Afghanistan.

Officer of Engineers

Soon,

What are you asking? We don't go hunting Taliban in house-to-house searches. They present themselves as legitimate targets when aiming machine guns and mortars in our direction.

__________________
Chimo

Ucar

Mission specific details and the use of tactics may interfere with OpSec since people are still on the ground there.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I was just wondering what the general tactics at play are. For example I'm lead to believe the US Forces operating outside of NATO are being pretty aggressive in hunting Al-Q but aren't really into fighting the Talibs. I just wanted to know if I had the right ideas or if the information I've got is lop-sided or plain old incorrect.

Ray

Spoonman,

Read the book by Khaled Hossein "A Thousand Splendid Sun".

He is an Afghan settled in the US and he has a moving story in this book including a commentary in the story of the different factions of the Taliban. Actually, it has the public's feeling right from the Communist time to the current woven in the story.

And he isn't too kind to the present dispensation either.

His "Kite Runner" is another book that is very poignant!

-{SpoonmaN}-

Thankyou sir I'll set about finding it to read during my adventures in Britain. Part of the reason I'm asking for info on the Afghan/OEF issue is due to the frequency with which people have been verbally assaulting me for wanting to join the British Army. Apprently being a "liberal" in today's world means you have to be totally intolerant of everyone who doesn't think like you.
So any information upon which to base my opinions and arguments is greatly appreciated.

Simullacrum

Hey spoonman.

Do what you feel you want to do in regards to joining the army.
I dont think you will have a problem in joining, with the way things are.
Being a soilder you cant bring into play political views. If you are then, the army is not the the right place to be.
my concern and question is to you.....since the UK is not your country
will you be a good little soilder and and do as your told for queen and country, or will any occurances come up that will lead you to think other wise. if that happenes then that can be a major problem, not just for yourself, but for the others that will dpend on you.!

-{SpoonmaN}-

I'm far from nationalistic, I'd serve Britain as faithfully as Australia. Besides, I believe very strongly in the mission in Afghanistan, and I believe very strongly that the rest of the world has an obligation to fix the mess we have all made in Iraq, whether or not that will happen is beyond my control. If I were to be sent to either place I would simply try to do the best I could, which is all anyone can ever do.
Besides I'll no doubt be rather invested in trying to keep my collegues alive.

JMH

US, NATO and ANA troops are doing a superb job in Afghanistan. The problems in Afghanistan are based in failed government policy, economic problems exacerbated by corruption and a tolerate European and Afghan attitude toward extremism. This is coupled with a strategic failure in Pakistan of not destroying Taliban training camps, which if not corrected will doom Afghanistan to anarchy.

With the support of the poppy crop, the Taliban have become self sufficient with Hamid Karzai's brother as one of the top drug lords in the country. The Afghan government is extremely corrupt with Afghan government officials using US and European aid money to build their own mansions and estates while the Afghan people live in abject poverty. Also, the Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan from which they can launch terror campaigns across the Afghan/Pakistani border every year during the summer months.

In addition to this over half of the NATO force in Afghanistan (German, Italian, Spanish and French forces) will not deploy to southern Afghanistan and join the US, British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch and Danish forces in the fight against the Taliban. Consequently, only a small number of NATO troops in Afghanistan are actually actively seeking out and attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Consequently:

-There are too few troops to secure the Afghan/Pakistani border
-There are too few troops available to interdict the Taliban entering Afghanistan from Pakistan.
-Over half the NATO troops that are available in Afghanistan cannot or will not be used in combat operations.
-the Taliban have a near limitless supply of madrassa students that are trained every year in the Taliban's Pakistani Bases to be used in the annual summer offensives against NATO Forces, the Afghan Government and Afghan civilians.
-significant numbers of ANA troops who are trained by US military personnel are actually members of the Taliban, who regularly desert the Afghan army to join jihad movements in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
-In addition to terrorizing Afghan civilians with shakedowns and kidnappings, the Afghan National Police coordinate with Afghan drug lords to protect the poppy trade which in turn finances the Taliban who provide for the poppy supplies safe transit to Pakistani seaports

Changing unit tactics will not address any of these problems.

Several ways these problems could be addressed are:

-Increase the US commitment to Afghanistan by three brigades
-Use all NATO combat units in Afghanistan in counter insurgency operations in southern Afghanistan
-Recruit the Northern Alliance tribes to fight the Taliban
-Pressure the President Hamid Karzai to make the existence of the Taliban in any form illegal in Afghanistan
-Pressure President Hamid Karzai to crack down on his corrupt government officials to ensure that western and US aid money actually benefits the Afghan people.
-Pressure President Hamid Karzai to allow the firebombing of poppy fields throughout Afghanistan.
-close and fortify the Afghan/Pakistani border
-Pressure President Musharraf to shut down Pakistan madrassas and destroy the Taliban base camps located in Pakistan
-encourage Europeans to crack down on they’re illicit drug use

If these problems are not addressed, no amount of military effort in Afghanistan will ultimately prevail, unless the US turns to a scorched earth, total war policy which would either drive out the tribes that support the Taliban or exterminate them.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Isn't the problem with the poppy fields that 1. Poppies are really, really hard to eradicate, the sh-t is like a weed, and 2. a lot of Afghan farmers can't make a real living off farming anything else, and as such will only be more pissed off with the Allies than they already are?

JMH

If defeating the Taliban is an objective than you have to go after they're resources: Poppy crop, Madrassa recruits and bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Concluding that this is too hard and therefore should not be attempted ensures victory for the Taliban. Afghan farmers have hated the west for hundreds of years and this hatred began in the 1830's when British army occupied the land that is today called Pakistan. There is nothing the west will ever be able to do to completely alleviate this hatred.

They west could legally buy the Afghan farmers poppy crop to prevent any profits from going to the Taliban and than slowly help the Afghan farmers change to crops other than poppy. But, if the corrupt Afghan government officials continue appropriate western aid money for they're personal use than even this sort of agricultural aid program would be an expensive failure.

Firebombing the Afghan poppy fields, closing the Afghan Pakistani border and significantly increasing the number of combat troops engage in counterinsurgency operations in southern Afghanistan would be more effective.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Apart from the firebombing thing, which brings up the concerns I noted before, I totally agree. I think one point that needs to be quickly adressed is as you said the corruption, incompetence and negligence of Afghan tranistional officials. My idea would be to keep them in office and pay them plenty to shut them up, while completely removing most of them from the decision making process, especially in regards to law and order and reconstruction. Simply put it seems like the Government is not ready to govern itself, and therefor needs to be taken out of the important areas in a way that will not make too many waves. If they keep getting paid plenty to do less then I doubt they'd complain. As you said getting the Northern Alliance back in the picture is a smart move in my opinion. Buying up the skag is also a good idea, I think anything really drastic like firebombing wouldn't be constructive. The Allies need to aknowledge they're in for a long, long time and have engage in a clear-hold-build campaign that works gradually. And yes, the Europeans need to start taking responsibility for the mess that they helped make.
My opinion anyway.