A New Strategy for Afghanistan?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A New Strategy for Afghanistan?
General Stanley McChrystal's Initial Assessment, as COMISAF, was presented as a 66 page report to Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, on 30 August 2009. The unclassified main section was leaked to the Washington Post today. Most of the media has offered various spins, while the orginal photocopy is here.
The General sets three questions:
- Can ISAF achieve the mission?
- If so, how should ISAF go about achieving the mission?
- What is required to achieve the mission?
While the TimesOnline or the BBC try to offer a UK media view, the report sets out an interesting assessment of the threat and the insurgents potential courses of action. See what you think and where it might take the UK military.
The General sets three questions:
- Can ISAF achieve the mission?
- If so, how should ISAF go about achieving the mission?
- What is required to achieve the mission?
While the TimesOnline or the BBC try to offer a UK media view, the report sets out an interesting assessment of the threat and the insurgents potential courses of action. See what you think and where it might take the UK military.
IMHO the General's report is both candid and accurate. I'm no military strategist but I do spend a lot of time in that country (and have done for the past few years).
The bottom line? NATO is doing the best it can -- with FAR too few people on the ground. And the prime reason for that is that most (if not all) NATO countries are not able or not motivated to provide more troops and equipment. Though the politicians won't publicly admit it, they know that the number of troops needed to "eliminate" the Taliban is likely five to ten times what are in country now. The game: NATO pushes the Taliban out of "Village A" or "Area A" in a province. Within weeks -- or even days -- NATO troops must leave to accomplish the same task in another area. So the Taliban immediately return to Village A or Area A. As long as there aren't enough troops to hold the ground already taken, the game will remain thus.
The irony is that as time goes on, countries become less committed to the cause, so the chances of any sort of "win" for NATO decrease too, because there is less chance of any significant increase in resources.
Whatever the reason, once one decides to fight, one must put everything one has into that fight. To do less -- to commit oneself halfway -- is horribly unfair to all those men and women in uniform -- and to the woman and children of Afghanistan. If you know you aren't going to win the battle with the mandate and resources you have, then it's criminal to continue. Either commit to it or (sadly, IMHO) get out.
grizz
The bottom line? NATO is doing the best it can -- with FAR too few people on the ground. And the prime reason for that is that most (if not all) NATO countries are not able or not motivated to provide more troops and equipment. Though the politicians won't publicly admit it, they know that the number of troops needed to "eliminate" the Taliban is likely five to ten times what are in country now. The game: NATO pushes the Taliban out of "Village A" or "Area A" in a province. Within weeks -- or even days -- NATO troops must leave to accomplish the same task in another area. So the Taliban immediately return to Village A or Area A. As long as there aren't enough troops to hold the ground already taken, the game will remain thus.
The irony is that as time goes on, countries become less committed to the cause, so the chances of any sort of "win" for NATO decrease too, because there is less chance of any significant increase in resources.
Whatever the reason, once one decides to fight, one must put everything one has into that fight. To do less -- to commit oneself halfway -- is horribly unfair to all those men and women in uniform -- and to the woman and children of Afghanistan. If you know you aren't going to win the battle with the mandate and resources you have, then it's criminal to continue. Either commit to it or (sadly, IMHO) get out.
grizz
Not_a_boffin,
Result? World in flames across the globe with revenge the best motivator known.
Clearly not a thinker either....................
Result? World in flames across the globe with revenge the best motivator known.
Clearly not a thinker either....................
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McChrystalBall is a fool.
His prescription is to repeat all of the same mistakes as were made in Vietnam.
More troops. Train and arm and equip a cadre of Collaborators; transport them to the countryside and then tell 'em to go and slaughter their countrymen and kinfolk.
It didn't work in Vietnam and it sure as hell won't work in Afghanistan.
The bloody fool really hasn't got a clue. He talks about "reintegration" of the Resistance fighters into Afghan society. He just doesn't understand the depth of feeling among the Afghans and he doesn't realise that they are integrated with the populace. That's the problem, not the solution.
He really needs to learn from the British experience in Oman in the 1970s. The Hearts & Minds programme there was spectacularly successful.
He needs to listen to Thomas Barnett.
His prescription is to repeat all of the same mistakes as were made in Vietnam.
More troops. Train and arm and equip a cadre of Collaborators; transport them to the countryside and then tell 'em to go and slaughter their countrymen and kinfolk.
It didn't work in Vietnam and it sure as hell won't work in Afghanistan.
The bloody fool really hasn't got a clue. He talks about "reintegration" of the Resistance fighters into Afghan society. He just doesn't understand the depth of feeling among the Afghans and he doesn't realise that they are integrated with the populace. That's the problem, not the solution.
He really needs to learn from the British experience in Oman in the 1970s. The Hearts & Minds programme there was spectacularly successful.
He needs to listen to Thomas Barnett.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn’t dismiss the man as a fool. I listened to him on the wireless last Sunday and I got the impression that he had grasped the “hearts and minds” principle. He made the point that it can’t be done from inside an armoured vehicle and needs actual contact with the ordinary people. What he didn’t mention was that the previous heavy handed approach from certain quarters has p**ed off the natives so much that it’s now probably unachievable without massive resources.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: gla
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can't want what they don't know about.
If we want them to behave more like "us" then they are going to have to find out what that means. Instead (or as well) as handing out wind up radios we need to hand out free satellite systems so that they can discover what we mean by equality and opportunity. It seems to work quite well in Iran/Iraq/Saudi.
Only when the population want something that the Taliban can't give them will they actually want to sing from our song book.
Only when the population want something that the Taliban can't give them will they actually want to sing from our song book.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only when the population want something that the Taliban can't give them will they actually want to sing from our song book.
So why not cut off supplies of Diesel fuel and fertilizer to districts where I.E.D.'s go off? If the locals mend their ways and stop making bombs, then they can have fuel and fertilizer again.
So why not cut off supplies of Diesel fuel and fertilizer to districts where I.E.D.'s go off? If the locals mend their ways and stop making bombs, then they can have fuel and fertilizer again.
