US Defence Secretary on Counter Insurgency Skills
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Defence Secretary on Counter Insurgency Skills
Robert Gates the US Defence Secretary has made a public statement to the effect that the rest of the NATO forces in Afghanistan lack the counter insurgency skills and experience of US forces there.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...........
:ugh :
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...........
:ugh :
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 58
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't COIN operations getair support then! 
All joking apart AIDU, you're probably right, but don't it just seem rather ironic that the country that got its nose bloodied in vietnam is criticising us for inadequacy?
I'm sure a lot of people - whatever shade of uniform they wore - who fought died in places like malaya, NI etc etc would have an opinion on how to manage counter insurgency operations properly!
Typical Yank *ank!
All joking apart AIDU, you're probably right, but don't it just seem rather ironic that the country that got its nose bloodied in vietnam is criticising us for inadequacy?
I'm sure a lot of people - whatever shade of uniform they wore - who fought died in places like malaya, NI etc etc would have an opinion on how to manage counter insurgency operations properly!
Typical Yank *ank!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps, just perhaps, you want to get the story straight.........
http://iht.com/articles/reuters/2008...STAN-GATES.php
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates was concerned that his remarks were being interpreted as criticism of individual countries, like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands which have forces in Afghanistan's southern region.
Instead he was saying that NATO as a whole was not structured to handle insurgencies, Morrell said.
My emphasis for the second paragraph. Still feel that way?
http://iht.com/articles/reuters/2008...STAN-GATES.php
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates was concerned that his remarks were being interpreted as criticism of individual countries, like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands which have forces in Afghanistan's southern region.
Instead he was saying that NATO as a whole was not structured to handle insurgencies, Morrell said.
My emphasis for the second paragraph. Still feel that way?
Last edited by brickhistory; 18th Jan 2008 at 22:32. Reason: throttled back being p1ssed off by the subject being taken out of context
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory
Thats not what he originally said, that was his explanation after he realised that he had fu
ed up.
AIDU
..................................., oh hell, why bother trying trying to explain to you ? if you don't have anything useful to contribute, just don't waste your time, I'm sure you have something very important that you could be doing ?
Thats not what he originally said, that was his explanation after he realised that he had fu
ed up.AIDU
..................................., oh hell, why bother trying trying to explain to you ? if you don't have anything useful to contribute, just don't waste your time, I'm sure you have something very important that you could be doing ?
Perhaps he was frustrated. Just the same way the Brits and others should be at those who have decided to let other countries shoulder the burden by not participating in combat operations.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chevvron. You mean like the ones on Srl 41 of http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=306952&page=3 ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thats not what he originally said, that was his explanation after he realised that he had fued up.
1. He is fundamentally correct. NATO as an organization doesn't do that. It also wasn't chartered to do that.
2. He put out clarifying remarks after some individual NATO members took offense as did some here on pprune.
3. So he didn't say what you implied and he clarified afterwards just to ensure no one took offense.
And yet he's still wrong. Very conveniant position you take.....
Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, Iraq......
Yep, the yanks have plenty of experience of COIN, plenty of experience on how to F**k it up and walk away having learnt nothing.
Yep, the yanks have plenty of experience of COIN, plenty of experience on how to F**k it up and walk away having learnt nothing.
Actually, Brick, Malaya lasted for less than 13+ years, since the whole Emergency period only lasted for 12. And the last few years of that involved trying to track down a disease-ridden, demoralised and defeated opposition - as a certain gentleman by the name of David Petraeus would tell you.
Oman counts as a victory, unless you're into counter-factual history. Northern Ireland is too early to tell, but as there's no united socialist Ireland it doesn't count as a defeat yet, even with McGuiness and Adams involved in government.
Afghanistan is four times, and the record there is a bit more favourable than you imply. Since Amanullah Khan went from declaring jihad to sueing for an armistice in the space of 5 months in the one before today, we kind of got our way in that one, albeit undertaking an approach that might be regarded as slightly disproportionate.... (and although the Afghans got independence, we got security for India, which was what we wanted).
Now don't get me wrong - you are, IMHO, quite correct that the stereotyped view that the UK is far, far superior to the US at COIN and has 'won' all its campaigns while the US has lost and has failed to learn anything is a gross over-simplification (see Petreaus, Nagl et al) - but if you are going to point that out, might I respectfully suggest that you go for a more precise approach rather than easily-challenged general points?
Cyprus, for instance, didn't work out as well as the government hoped, and nor did Aden (not Yemen). Ireland pre-1922 went badly and there are some examples from that campaign that make the US approach to COIN in S. Vietnam look like operations conducted by the Salvation Army.
As for Secretary Gates, he perhaps should've thought a bit more about what he was going to say - someone on his staff ought to have pointed out that the chances of causing huge offence far, far outweighed the possibility that NATO members would stop, reflect and say 'Yes, we need to do more'. His clarification will be largely ignored (particularly since the view over here is that when a politician 'clarifies' remarks it means 'politician attempts to dig himself out of hole he's fallen in to') - end result, disgruntled allies and no effect against AQ and the Taleban, all of which couldve been avoided.
Oman counts as a victory, unless you're into counter-factual history. Northern Ireland is too early to tell, but as there's no united socialist Ireland it doesn't count as a defeat yet, even with McGuiness and Adams involved in government.
Afghanistan is four times, and the record there is a bit more favourable than you imply. Since Amanullah Khan went from declaring jihad to sueing for an armistice in the space of 5 months in the one before today, we kind of got our way in that one, albeit undertaking an approach that might be regarded as slightly disproportionate.... (and although the Afghans got independence, we got security for India, which was what we wanted).
Now don't get me wrong - you are, IMHO, quite correct that the stereotyped view that the UK is far, far superior to the US at COIN and has 'won' all its campaigns while the US has lost and has failed to learn anything is a gross over-simplification (see Petreaus, Nagl et al) - but if you are going to point that out, might I respectfully suggest that you go for a more precise approach rather than easily-challenged general points?
Cyprus, for instance, didn't work out as well as the government hoped, and nor did Aden (not Yemen). Ireland pre-1922 went badly and there are some examples from that campaign that make the US approach to COIN in S. Vietnam look like operations conducted by the Salvation Army.
As for Secretary Gates, he perhaps should've thought a bit more about what he was going to say - someone on his staff ought to have pointed out that the chances of causing huge offence far, far outweighed the possibility that NATO members would stop, reflect and say 'Yes, we need to do more'. His clarification will be largely ignored (particularly since the view over here is that when a politician 'clarifies' remarks it means 'politician attempts to dig himself out of hole he's fallen in to') - end result, disgruntled allies and no effect against AQ and the Taleban, all of which couldve been avoided.
Come to think of it, didn't the soviets develop a COIN aircraft (NATO codename Frogfoot - think it was Sukhoi design bureau can't remember the number) for COIN use in Afghanistan?
