Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Slims · 07-10-2010, 08:32 PM

Roachboy: I was not trying to squash discourse, but rather get you to back off from loading my words. I obviously have my opinions, but I was trying hard to keep them apolitical and discuss based on the merits (or lack therof) of my post. Personally I feel the problem is systemic and not tied to a particular party....right wing has nothing to do with it as they prosecuted the war in much the same fashion.

With regard to your comments:
The information gap is huge beyond all reason. The media very rarely reports the boing, dull stories about small steps forward and chooses instead to focus on spectacular operations, big attacks and large failures. What gets lost in the noise is the near 100% reinvention of strategy here. Most soldiers only feel frustrated by the bureaucracy and have not yet seen the sea change that is coming.

You don't have to take me at my word for the country as a whole but please believe this: In my region local stabilization efforts have been paying huge dividends. Most of the army is struggling to adapt to the flexible environment that is a counter-insurgency....but the book on how such actions are to be conducted is being completely re-written in order to fully incorporate the local population and simply deny sanctuary (I keep mentioning that in my posts because it is absolutely critical to understand) to the insurgents. In areas where that occurs, it becomes a simple reconstruction and mentoring issue as there will be very little fighting left to do.

I understand how weak and corrupt the Karzai government is. It is something we have to deal with every day. But, they are in control of the major population centers and the population in those centers is mostly supportive of the Afghan Government (if not Karzai). We are also working both ends to tie the rural areas loosely to the government. As the country as a whole begins to buy-in they will necessarily take a more active interest in what is being done at the national level. I don't intend to paint a rosy picture, but rather one of potential.

With regard to the 'hands tied' aspect of this conflict: Political pressure is a reality in all aspects of our lives. Soldiers are doing their jobs and continuing forward with their assigned missions...they are just unable to carry out those missions as well as they could under slightly different rules. I was not implying in my previous post that we would be able to accomplish a 'different' mission if the rules were changed.

Right now most Infantry units will not leave the wire with less than a platoon. It means they can patrol an area with a lot of guys rather than patrol multiple areas with smaller elements....It makes their effective footprint much smaller.

It has become nearly impossible to get risky missions approved. We recently attempted to pre-emptively smash a large (several hundred) group of INS preparing to conduct an attack against one of our bases. It took more than a week of planning and working channels before it was finally denied because the INS had moved on by the time we were able to get all the approvals.

In order to get a basic mission approved we have to produce a monster power point presentation where formatting errors will get your mission kicked back to correct....which simply lengthens our response time and requires us to put a lot more time into producing pretty products than 1: training 2: planning or 3: conducting missions.

This is largely because of the pressure to do everything possible to ensure nothing bad happens. I hate to say it but ultimately we are soldiers and need the freedom to make mistakes or we cannot turn around quickly enough to counter INS fighters who have no paperwork before conducting operations.

Again, it is a frustration, not a show stopper. With the current rule-set these difficulties can be overcome through a combination of new tactics and more troops....But by allowing a higher OPTEMPO for the soldiers already here the additional troops would be largely unecessary (though helpful).

I fully agree with your statement regarding Political Incoherence....I was trying to separate that from the perspective of the Military...To most of the leadership on the ground here the war is winnable and we have clear goals.

Will:
The Soviet Union killed so many regular Afghans that they made enemies of the entire country. They also had less technology (which helps, but doesn't win the war, I know), a less palatable ideology and made a lot of mistakes which we have learned from. They also became tied to their bases and conducting only large operations...Something we are having trouble with but have not fully fallen into.

The Northern Alliance had pushed (slightly) out of the mountains as far as bagram airfield. They were stuck there in a stalemate and had been for several years. The airfield is only a handful of kilometers from the mountain safe havens and that is why they were not pushed back...The taliban had the NA guys near bagram outnumbered 10 to 1 but were fatalistic enough to believe that all they would gain would be a few kilometers of plain before being stopped by the NA at the base of the mountains.

Likewise in Nangarhar the NA controlled the northern mountains but not the dominant plain or the airfield.

The NA controlled most of the northern provinces but very little overall of the central and southern provinces. They had a large presence in the East but were not in control of any of the key industrial (such as it is in Afghanistan) or commerce centers.

07-10-2010, 08:32 PM	#68 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Roachboy: I was not trying to squash discourse, but rather get you to back off from loading my words. I obviously have my opinions, but I was trying hard to keep them apolitical and discuss based on the merits (or lack therof) of my post. Personally I feel the problem is systemic and not tied to a particular party....right wing has nothing to do with it as they prosecuted the war in much the same fashion. With regard to your comments: The information gap is huge beyond all reason. The media very rarely reports the boing, dull stories about small steps forward and chooses instead to focus on spectacular operations, big attacks and large failures. What gets lost in the noise is the near 100% reinvention of strategy here. Most soldiers only feel frustrated by the bureaucracy and have not yet seen the sea change that is coming. You don't have to take me at my word for the country as a whole but please believe this: In my region local stabilization efforts have been paying huge dividends. Most of the army is struggling to adapt to the flexible environment that is a counter-insurgency....but the book on how such actions are to be conducted is being completely re-written in order to fully incorporate the local population and simply deny sanctuary (I keep mentioning that in my posts because it is absolutely critical to understand) to the insurgents. In areas where that occurs, it becomes a simple reconstruction and mentoring issue as there will be very little fighting left to do. I understand how weak and corrupt the Karzai government is. It is something we have to deal with every day. But, they are in control of the major population centers and the population in those centers is mostly supportive of the Afghan Government (if not Karzai). We are also working both ends to tie the rural areas loosely to the government. As the country as a whole begins to buy-in they will necessarily take a more active interest in what is being done at the national level. I don't intend to paint a rosy picture, but rather one of potential. With regard to the 'hands tied' aspect of this conflict: Political pressure is a reality in all aspects of our lives. Soldiers are doing their jobs and continuing forward with their assigned missions...they are just unable to carry out those missions as well as they could under slightly different rules. I was not implying in my previous post that we would be able to accomplish a 'different' mission if the rules were changed. Right now most Infantry units will not leave the wire with less than a platoon. It means they can patrol an area with a lot of guys rather than patrol multiple areas with smaller elements....It makes their effective footprint much smaller. It has become nearly impossible to get risky missions approved. We recently attempted to pre-emptively smash a large (several hundred) group of INS preparing to conduct an attack against one of our bases. It took more than a week of planning and working channels before it was finally denied because the INS had moved on by the time we were able to get all the approvals. In order to get a basic mission approved we have to produce a monster power point presentation where formatting errors will get your mission kicked back to correct....which simply lengthens our response time and requires us to put a lot more time into producing pretty products than 1: training 2: planning or 3: conducting missions. This is largely because of the pressure to do everything possible to ensure nothing bad happens. I hate to say it but ultimately we are soldiers and need the freedom to make mistakes or we cannot turn around quickly enough to counter INS fighters who have no paperwork before conducting operations. Again, it is a frustration, not a show stopper. With the current rule-set these difficulties can be overcome through a combination of new tactics and more troops....But by allowing a higher OPTEMPO for the soldiers already here the additional troops would be largely unecessary (though helpful). I fully agree with your statement regarding Political Incoherence....I was trying to separate that from the perspective of the Military...To most of the leadership on the ground here the war is winnable and we have clear goals. Will: The Soviet Union killed so many regular Afghans that they made enemies of the entire country. They also had less technology (which helps, but doesn't win the war, I know), a less palatable ideology and made a lot of mistakes which we have learned from. They also became tied to their bases and conducting only large operations...Something we are having trouble with but have not fully fallen into. The Northern Alliance had pushed (slightly) out of the mountains as far as bagram airfield. They were stuck there in a stalemate and had been for several years. The airfield is only a handful of kilometers from the mountain safe havens and that is why they were not pushed back...The taliban had the NA guys near bagram outnumbered 10 to 1 but were fatalistic enough to believe that all they would gain would be a few kilometers of plain before being stopped by the NA at the base of the mountains. Likewise in Nangarhar the NA controlled the northern mountains but not the dominant plain or the airfield. The NA controlled most of the northern provinces but very little overall of the central and southern provinces. They had a large presence in the East but were not in control of any of the key industrial (such as it is in Afghanistan) or commerce centers. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence