Situation in A'Stan Deteriorating - Adm Mullen

Big_Z said:
I am not sure where you stand on this matter. What is it you think we should do? And no Im not being a smartass. The only solution I can see is to fight. Take away thier playground and you will be seeing them on your street.
Click to expand...
Nothing was further from my mind, I think that you see it just as do most Service personnel.

What I am advocating is that instead of fighting harder, we start to fight smarter. Most military strategists seem to be of the opinion that it is well nigh impossible for a set piece force to defeat a guerrilla force on their home ground. it's like trying to push back the tide with a sharp stick.

It is my opinion that we should use our technological superiority to better advantage than just using smart weapons in the hands of our troops on the ground.

Use our vast technology to gather information which we would then use to just keep taking out their leadership. Fight an unseen war against them, we listen and watch from afar giving the oposition a false sense of security,.. then from out of the blue a Hellfire missile kills one or more of their leadership, this type of strategy would also have several other advantages, not the least of which would be, saving lives and heightening our physical security.

Remember years ago when the papers reported that we had come very close to nailing Bin Laden? and how they spilt the beans about how we had been monitoring his Satphone conversations. That was the end of that, no Al Qaeda leader now uses this form of communication. I strongly suspect that this security leak came about in an effort to appease our political masters, and convince the readers of the press that we were actually "doing something". Hopefully we learnt a lesson from this.

the_13th_redneck said:
Like you said, we need a dictator in Afghanistan that isn't crazy about blowing up our own people.
Click to expand...
And there lies the rub. I think that our past experiences would clearly demonstrate that there is no such animal. As soon as they have power, they want to run the place like a medieval fiefdom and then want to hold us to ransom lest they go over to the other side.

That is how middle eastern politics works.
 
Last edited:
Spike, you read my mind!!!!
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm advocating.
Supporting the side that doesn't advocate destroying America would be another thing to do if stability in the area is a priority and I believe it will be. As long as there is no one strong leader, that place will continue to be a terrorist haven.
 
Last edited:
Don´t look know, but we are having a rather interesting discussion.

I agree with a few things said here.

IMO The hunter/killer teams are vital if we are going to remove Taleban as a viable factor of force in the region.
These teams should operate in the shaddowlands of white and black to be able (with the Pakis concent) to operate accross the border and into Paki territory as needed when they are following raiding parties.
These teams exist today but are hog tied by ROE,s policy and other crap that is not mixing too well with the reality of this type of conflict.

Secondly I think Monty B has a point in picking the right warlord and giving him the support to slug it out with a few others.
There ARE warlords in the region that are down right hostile towards western troops that are still allowed to operate.

The downside to this strategy is that it is going to take more time, cost more civilian lives and put a greater workload on the SOF units in the area.
The risk is that the policy makers and the public will loose interest in the conflict unless ISAF can say they rebuilt a school that day.

If you are going to be using as today two different missions they will have to be defined more clearly.
To the Afghanis in Helmland province there is no difference between the OEF and the ISAF mission.
That means the ISAF mission is up shits creek without a paddle as their ROE,s are in many cases rediculous.

A bit better up north but there the new T tactic is to get the local villagers look at all western troops the same.
This is being countered with an effective H&M campaign.
ISAF are doing ALOT of soft hat patrooling to try and connect with the villagers, in many cases this have worked and workable intel have been collected.
The next step is to make sure you have a SOF Team inplace that are given freedom of movement to act on that intel.
(German KSK is a shining example on when this part breaks down.)

1. Seek out and destroy the Taleban leadership.
2. Set up an acceptable "goverment" that as many people as possible can accept and give them support (Like the northern alliance during the initial invasion).
3. Rebuild the Armed forces and police force.
4. Leave gradually, keep support in the area as QRF.

This is a HUGE task, but if we have decided to do it we must at some point have thought it worth being done right?


//KJ.
 
You'll probably need to do the following:
- Create more Ranger and SOF units.
- More UCAVs.
- Money to support an asipring dictator.
The money can come from putting a few aircraft carriers into storage.

Also the question is, although the H&M operations are going well, what happens when our troops leave? Will they have to stay there constantly maintaining relations with these groups for the next hundred years?
What sort of government will these tribes answer to? Not likely a democratic one.
I don't think fighting the foot soldiers of the Taliban with our own troops is the most effective way to destroy them. In fact, the fight itself draws a lot of volunteers to fight for them. It's a chance to fight against the infidel head on. You deny them this opportunity and you deny them a reasonable reason to recruit people. Imagine the sort of morale problem they'd face if they have guys signed up who haven't seen or shot at an American in six months yet have folks randomly get taken out by a Hellfire missile. It's not glamorous anymore.
All the while, most of Afghanistan is now headed up by a dictator with the benefit of American intelligence, air power, equipment (to a degree), training etc., who is hell bent on keeping Taliban out (just as Saddam and other Middle Eastern dictators hate Al Qaeda, Taliban and equivalent groups) and has a pretty bad human rights record. Not the sort of place you'd want to be rolling as Taliban.
Then as they start to lose their momentum and stop being such a threat to America or this new Afghanistan, their leadership starts to crawl out of hiding. Then as they start calling old friends and loved ones you find out where they are and launch a simultaneous missile strike. Sure, it won't be a 100% deal but you'd get quite a bit of them. And then this war is no longer an unwinnable and unending war for any of us, but it certainly will be an unending war for them where UCAVs of increasing sophistication will come and f*ck with them in all kinds of sadistic ways.
Oh, and the occasional SOF raids should be a part of the picture. It would turn the American soldier into an Afghan ghost story. Raids for psychological purposes would be an integral part of the psychops against the Taliban.

Feel free to tear it apart.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
You'll probably need to do the following:
- Create more Ranger and SOF units.
- More UCAVs.
- Money to support an asipring dictator.
The money can come from putting a few aircraft carriers into storage.

Also the question is, although the H&M operations are going well, what happens when our troops leave? Will they have to stay there constantly maintaining relations with these groups for the next hundred years?
What sort of government will these tribes answer to? Not likely a democratic one.
Click to expand...

1) I think you are going to have to retire the air force completely if you want some level of H&M progress as nothing pisses of a village more than toasting a wedding party and although these incidents are few and far between it only takes one to set relations back to step one.

I tend to think that the air forces role in these situations is purely logistics and intel the fighting needs to be 1 on 1 "assassinations".


2) What does it matter what type of government these people form as long as they are not pissing off their neighbours why should we care if they want to live in a stone age civilisation?
 
1 on 1 assasinations will probably very difficult to achieve (we've been failing miserably so far) but launching a hellfire missile at a technical isn't.
Blowing up a wedding isn't the way but I believe these incidents will decrease with better tech and better experience in fighting a war with the view of looking straight down.
The problem with 1 on 1 assisinations is, you can't fool a local. Any foreigner will stand out like a sore thumb and getting someone from the inside to do it will probably require you to extract everyone related to him beforehand as he'll almost certainly get caught even if successful and he and his family will be chopped to pieces as a result. No one's going to take the job with those sort of risks.

As for point 2, you should read what I wrote more carefully because what you're saying is what I'm saying.
 
Yeah I just get the impression we spend too much time and money on creating western cultures in countries where this philosophy is alien when all we really need to be doing is removing the destabilising elements and getting the hell out.
 
Either way, you can't go against their culture.
If you do, you've already lost.
Unless you intend to kill every last one of them and have the means and will to do so.
 
You can't DX the air power in it's entirerty, most modern forces operate on a combined arms concept CAS being an intergal part of that concept for both conventional and SOF forces.If you want eyes on target by a controller fine, but you can't take air power outta the play book. You could retask and train up other elements into a Ranger type role, most light infantry assets have the ability outside of insertion extraction training and small unit independence ability. Just me but tech like UCAV is only a tool in the box for the dirty, sweaty, scared operator or grunt on the ground.
 
The 173rd Abn and the Aussie SASR had a solid system. The SASR would recon and find the bad guys and the 173rd acted as a direct action force for them.
 
But like I said, the opportunity to fight and kill Americans draws a lot of recruits. You eliminate this and they become a bunch of guys stuck in a lot of empty space getting picked off by UCAVs. It is no longer glamorous for them.
And this way, you can put the pressure on them for the next hundred years if you have to and no one will even know. But they will feel it. All the while, a dictator in Afghanistan with American funding and support will make it very difficult for them to operate in country.
Occasional raids of opportunity by Special Forces will make them not forget that the Americans are still around. But by doing hit and run missions, their ability to effectively fight against these Special Forces groups will be very difficult.
It would make the enemy feel helpless.
With our own infantry engaged in battle with these guys, regardless of how lopsided the kills are in favor of the US and its allies, they will win the war of attrition and patience.

When the situaiton stabilizes a bit, you take your foot off the gas, give the Taliban a false sense of security while listening for their signals. After a few years they'll be pretty careless and that's when you can have your UCAVs launch a simultaneous strike to take out as much leadership as you can and send a little note saying "America has a long memory."
 
I think daily raids from special forces...day and night ..would be better.. but those other countries that *harbor* terrorists with excuses 'that's not our jurisdiction' should be considered ...as terrorists themselves. Get ultra tough. :roll:
 
GG9909 said:
I think daily raids from special forces...day and night ..would be better.. but those other countries that *harbor* terrorists with excuses 'that's not our jurisdiction' should be considered ...as terrorists themselves. Get ultra tough. :roll:
Click to expand...

You mean like Afghanistan wich is the very problem we are talking about?
 
I think it was Pakistan.. but was said a certain part of their country is considered a haven for the terrorists to run n hide ...but Pakistan said they had no jurisdiction there yet nobody (NATO military) was allowed to venture there...:-? don't remember the exact country but is one of those bordering Afghanistan. I am not going to start any sort of argument or enter into any, btw.
 
GG9909 said:
I think it was Pakistan.. but was said a certain part of their country is considered a haven for the terrorists to run n hide ...but Pakistan said they had no jurisdiction there yet nobody (NATO military) was allowed to venture there...:-? don't remember the exact country but is one of those bordering Afghanistan. I am not going to start any sort of argument or enter into any, btw.
Click to expand...

Actually there are a LOT of places where terrorists can run and hide. If you really wanted to bomb them all you'd probably have to turn half of the habitable world into a bomb crater.
But either way, the strategy you're talking about is the strategy in play right now. And it needs some serious re-thinking. The top Generals in charge (other than Admiral Mullen) also agree.
 
The very reason I think raids should be carried on day and night all over them places by ...'specialists' ...remove all sense of security from the terrorists in hiding. Make them paranoid...sleep deprived...hungry...etc, etc. :-x give them back some their own misery.
 
There's too much area and too many places to look.
Also it means the enemy will have plenty of chances to adapt, which is what they've been doing, hence the higher number of allied troops killed in Afghanistan as of late.
And like I said, what you're suggesting is what's already being done or at least what they've been trying to do so far.
You won't believe the sort of hardships a lot of these folks our guys are fighting grew up with had to deal with. The current generation of Taliban fighters were raised in refugee camps, have very little sense of family, comfort etc. They are used to being sleep deprived, having very little in the way of equipment, having their food and drinks cold (no MRE heaters for them) and certainly never having enough of them. They are VERY tough.
If our guys kill 10 Taliban and they managed to kill one allied soldier, they're winning.
Like I said, can you envision the United States and other countries having a hundred thousand troops in Afghanistan for the next hundred years? I don't.
And while Special Forces are out trying to hunt down and kill the Taliban, and one group of Taliban get through to a friendly village and behead everyone in it, that would mean disaster. It won't matter if you're raiding the Taliban left and right if villages you are supposed to be protecting do not feel convinced that you can protect them from the Taliban.
So we need troops in every village?
And enough Special Forces to raid the enemy daily?
And a public that will back the war regardless of how many soldiers die?
 
I know, it would be nice if it could be done so neatly and is totally unrealistic but they are only thoughts. Sorry.
 
Don´t be sorry, participate in the discussion but make sure you read and understand what military people are saying.

There is no such place where there is no "jurisdiction".
The problem with following Taleban forces into Pakistan are twofold atleast.

1. Pakistan is a sovereign nation, thus crossing it´s borders without permission would be an invasion.
No one feels th eneed to invade another country in that area.

2. The Pakistani goverment, backed by the west to fight the Taleban does have jurisdiction but the local tribes are very strong in that area.
In short, if the Pakistani goverment HAD the political will to erradicate the Taleban they would loose a lot of support.
Thus perhaps not be the goverment anymore.
Likewise should they ok the allied forces in The Stan to "invade" their territory in persuit of Taleban.

Just a few thoughts.

//KJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top