Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Afghan: Classic Drawdown

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Afghan: Classic Drawdown

    In Dwindling Afghan War, Air Power Has Become a Way of Life

    Dragon Dreams of Yankee Station . . .





    By C. J. CHIVERS

    Death stopped Abdul Qayum, a Taliban commander in Afghanistan’s Zabul Province, in a fiery flash and roar.

    It was an evening in October last year, and Mr. Qayum was meeting several Afghans in a field. Though he did not know it, a Navy F/A-18 strike fighter was circling high overhead more than five miles away, summoned by an American Special Operations team. Its engines were out of earshot, the pilot said, “so we didn’t burn the target.”

    Mr. Qayum led a platoon-size Taliban group and was plotting to bomb an Afghan government office, an American intelligence officer said. Under Western rules guiding the use of deadly force, the pilot was barred from trying to kill him while he stood in a group of unidentified men.

    Then came a chance. The meeting ended, and Mr. Qayum approached a man who had pulled up on a motorcycle, the pilot and the intelligence officer said. Soon the two men were riding together on a dirt road, illuminated on the screen of the aircraft’s targeting sensor.

    The pilot, Lt. Cmdr. Brian Kesselring, released an AGM-65E laser-guided missile. Visible on a video recording declassified and released to The New York Times, the missile struck the pair head-on, exploding with such energy that only fragments of Mr. Qayum’s remains were found.

    The killing of Mr. Qayum and his driver, confirmed by the Taliban and reviewed by The New York Times as part of an examination of operations in Afghanistan by 44 F/A-18s from the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, was a demonstration of the extraordinary technical and tactical abilities of American air power. For both better and worse, that power has become a defining facet of the Afghan conflict and the American way of waging war.

    But the tight integration and expense of air missions, which in Navy crews’ case can cost up to $20,000 an hour, also raise questions about the prospects for the continuing fight against the Taliban.

    Weary of the costs of a long war, Western military forces have already begun withdrawing and handing greater security responsibility to Afghan forces. One worry, several officers said, is that these air operations have become essential, necessary for ground units that are operating in contested areas of Afghanistan and hoping to maintain influence, or even survive. And the Afghan government has nothing to match the role they play.

    Drawing from the experiences of more than a decade of fighting, and after repeatedly refining training and rules of engagement to address concerns about civilian casualties, aircrews work in close coordination with ground controllers more fully, and usually more precisely, than ever before.

    In carefully choreographed killings of tactical commanders like Mr. Qayum, use of heavier ordnance to beat back Taliban attacks, and efforts to keep roads clear of improvised fertilizer bombs, conventional American warplanes are integrated into the finest details of ground war. These missions, distinct from the C.I.A.-run drone program, have allowed a relatively small Western combat force, with just tens of thousands of troops actually patrolling each day, to wage war across a sprawling nation of 30 million people.

    The tactics for air-to-ground war have greatly evolved since the war’s start in 2001. One pilot, saying that he dropped just a single 1,000-pound bomb during a six-month deployment, recalled that at the war’s outset, planes would take off with more bombs than they were allowed to return with for landings. “When this kicked off, they were launching aircraft with unrecoverable loads,” said the pilot, Lt. Cmdr. Peter Morgan. “Basically, you had to drop. That’s all changed.”

    A Sophisticated Balance

    F/A-18 strike fighters are among the world’s most advanced military aircraft, with a price of roughly $100 million each and operating costs estimated at $18,000 to $20,000 per flight hour. Their sorties from the Stennis, each often lasting eight hours round-trip, almost always passed without violence.

    Part of this was the nature of an experienced foe. The Taliban have spent years learning to mask their movements and intentions from aircraft, making themselves hard to spot.

    Another part was the nature of the rules. Even when Taliban fighters were visible, Western military restrictions devised to prevent harm to civilians and minimize damage to infrastructure, codified after prominent and deadly mistakes that fueled Afghan public outrage, sometimes limited a pilot’s options. Just last month, commanders again tightened the rules for use of air power in civilian areas, after Afghans said a NATO airstrike killed 18 civilians in an eastern village.

    In all, Navy pilots released missiles or bombs, or fired their aircrafts’ 20-millimeter cannon, on 41 of the 892 F/A-18 sorties from the Stennis to Afghanistan in late 2011 and early 2012, the carrier air group’s data shows.

    This roughly aligns with the use of air power in the recent war. In 2011, for example, the data shows that NATO fixed-wing aircraft dropped ordnance or strafed on 5.8 percent of 34,286 combat sorties flown.

    None of the air-to-ground attacks from the carrier stirred up allegations of causing civilian or friendly casualties, which, statistically, have been rare over all.

    For the pilots, who live far from the infantry soldier’s daily physical grind and away from the dread of hidden improvised bombs, these strikes and strafing runs hit a personally satisfying chord. They know they are protecting fellow service members and punishing those trying to kill them.

    Lieutenant Commander Kesselring said as much after killing the men on the motorbike. That flight was a welcome contrast to the bad days on job, he said, because often “you arrive to a smoking hole and guys calling for a medevac, and you feel pretty helpless.”

    Still, the current practices and sophisticated equipment were not flawless. On a few occasions the strikes missed. On another, a 500-pound bomb appeared to break apart upon hitting the ground and failed to explode.

    Once a suspected Afghan bomb maker heard the approaching aircraft and sprinted madly for a dirt wall, narrowly eluding a strafe as the rounds struck nearby. The blast wave from a heavier bomb most surely would have killed him, officers said, though it would have put other villagers and their homes at greater risk.

    On other days the pilots and the controllers on the ground were not entirely sure of what was happening in a fast-moving firefight. In these cases officers held fire in favor of restraint or nonlethal displays of presence and power.

    Although these were the sorts of decisions that some American ground troops have generally resented, American officers say caution and proportionality are essential to maintain support both in Afghanistan and the United States.

    A senior Marine officer with command experience in Afghanistan said troops on the ground needed to be wary of impulses to “swat flies with hammers” and risk having airstrikes create more problems then they solve.

    Then there were days when all of the elements for a strike or gun run came together, and the nature of the campaign’s air-to-ground violence emerged. Often these were made when ground troops were imperiled, a few times when the situation was grave.

    Pushing the Taliban Back

    One use of force was on Nov. 10, not long after nightfall in Kandahar Province. Two F/A-18s patrolling over the steppe were told by a ground controller that a combat outpost crowded with Afghan National Army soldiers was under attack.

    From the air, the pilots in each aircraft, Lt. Travis Hartman and Lt. Paul Oyler, could see the gunfight on the infrared targeting sensors in their cockpits. They could also sense the confusion. Three Afghan outposts were soon under simultaneous fire, and a sole American ground controller, who was at a fourth post, was trying to gather information by radio and relay instructions to the fighter jets.

    “It was the biggest firefight I had ever seen,” Lieutenant Oyler said. “For the next two and a half hours we were overhead and doing our best to track it.”

    The Taliban, the pilots said, were under trees and in gullies. The Afghan soldiers could not fight back effectively, and seemed to fire sporadically and erratically. At one point, Taliban fighters had almost reached the walls of one outpost, which was in danger of being breached. “They were in an east-west running tree line, and were basically using that as cover and concealment to move close,” Lieutenant Hartman said. “I’d say they were within 50 meters.”

    Two more F/A-18s showed up from the Stennis. Under older rules, the pilots would probably have been cleared to drop a series of bombs, at least several hundred pounds of weaponry. But with the situation not fully clear, the pilots said, and without a ground controller on scene to direct it with care, the aircraft held back their heavy weapons. “A bomb?” Lieutenant Oyler said. “We wouldn’t know where to put it.”

    Instead, the pilots were cleared to strafe near the most imperiled outpost with their cannons — each F/A-18 has a large, electrically powered Gatling-style gun in its nose that shoots 20-millimeter rounds.

    Lieutenant Oyler and Lieutenant Hartman strafed; then two other F/A-18s strafed, too. Each strafe was roughly 150 to 200 rounds. “We basically worked it in sections, from west to east, and cleared the whole thing,” Lieutenant Hartman said. As the F/A-18s ran low on fuel, a pair of A-10 ground-attack jets arrived to take over, and the Navy pilots headed for a tanker.
    The attacks subsided. The outposts held — without the risks of dropping heavier ordnance into the confusion and darkness.

    Split-Second Calibration

    Similar confusion greeted Lt. Cmdr. Thomas E. Hoyt when Marines called him for help in Helmand Province last October. A Navy medical corpsman had been shot through the left arm in a complex ambush, and Taliban gunmen were still firing from several directions, preventing most of the patrol from reaching the wounded man.

    “He and two other Marines were cut off from the others,” said Capt. Michael J. Van Wyk, a Marine pilot serving on the ground as a forward air controller and who was pinned down by a Taliban sniper in another part of the patrol.

    Upon arriving overhead, Lieutenant Commander Hoyt did not like what he heard and saw. Captain Van Wyk, he said, asked him to drop a 500-pound bomb on one of the buildings that the Marines were taking fire from. The situation was what was known as “danger close,” with Marines right beside the area to be hit.

    The Marines said that the nearest friendly forces were 100 yards away. Lieutenant Commander Hoyt’s view told him the distance was shorter — the two sides were almost intermingled.

    He offered his targeting sensor’s infrared video feed to Captain Van Wyk, accessible via a laptoplike device known as a Rover. This would allow the Marines to see what Lieutenant Commander Hoyt saw, to be certain he was looking at the right place before he strafed or released a bomb.

    The patrol had been out already 12 hours; Captain Van Wyk’s Rover battery had just died.

    To buy time and to get oriented, Lieutenant Commander Hoyt descended for a pass 500 feet over the firefight at about 550 miles per hour, a maneuver known as a “show of force” intended to intimidate Taliban fighters. As he roared by, he released a flare over the building to mark it. Captain Van Wyk confirmed he was looking at the right place.

    Lieutenant Commander Hoyt made two more shows of force. But the Taliban fighters stayed put and kept firing. Marines on the ground fired a purple, a green and a yellow smoke grenade to mark where the Taliban fighters were hidden. The pilot’s confidence rose. “As soon as we confirmed where we can and can’t hit, then we could start shooting,” he said. “There were friendlies all over the place.”

    Lieutenant Commander Hoyt suggested strafing instead of releasing a 500-pound bomb, and the controller agreed. The F/A-18 then made two passes, firing 460 rounds — one long burst into a canal, the other into a courtyard next to the building where the Marines had first asked for a bomb.

    Part of the firefight started to subside, allowing Captain Van Wyk and the Marines to plan a landing zone for a helicopter to evacuate the wounded medic. A pair of Super Cobra attack helicopters showed up, freeing the F/A-18 to climb back to elevation.
    The fight lasted perhaps another hour, and the corpsman was evacuated before its end. “Air power kept Marines from having to die that day,” Captain Van Wyk said. “They were willing to run across that open field to get Doc, and shed their blood. But air power made it so they didn’t have to.”

    In the quiet after the gunfire died down, Captain Van Wyk watched as Afghan civilians stepped from hiding and began to survey the village. Then a sequence unfolded that filled him with alarm, then relief. As many as 20 of them, including women and children, came from the house he had initially wanted struck with a 500-pound bomb. Marines had been taking fire from there.
    Watching the villagers who would have also been killed, he realized that Lieutenant Commander Hoyt had made the better decision. Everyone involved had been spared what might have been years of doubt and regret.

    “I talked to him after and said, ‘Thank you for talking me out of that 500-pounder,’ ” he said. “I don’t have to think about that the rest of my life.”

    A Complex Network

    A few weeks later, another pair of F/A-18s was flying at night over the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. One of the planes was watching over a five-vehicle American convoy as it passed through a canyon and suddenly began taking fire — Taliban guerrillas shooting down from higher ridges in a classic ambush.

    The drivers tried to return to their outpost, but were ambushed again. They called to say they could not see all the places the gunfire was coming from.

    F/A-18s shifted the dynamic. “We had a pretty good God’s-eye view and could see where the fire was coming from,” said Lt. Kyle Terwilliger, a weapon system officer flying back-seat in one of the jets.

    The aircraft shined an infrared marker onto the ridge where the officers saw firing. A ground controller with the convoy, using night-vision goggles, saw the beam and confirmed that it pointed to one of the Taliban’s firing positions.

    Its target identified and determined to be away from a populated area, the aircraft was cleared by the ground unit to drop a GBU-12, a 500-pound laser-guided bomb. The strike would not be simple.

    There was a low cloud cover, and the ridge was almost against the border; the pilots had to be sure that neither the ordnance nor their aircraft entered Pakistan. “We had to circle around to the south and fly back north, parallel to the border so we didn’t go in,” said Cmdr. Vorrice Burks, the lead pilot, who is also VFA-41 squadron commander.

    The bomb struck, and the Taliban firing stopped, he said. The convoy drove on.

    In its way, this strike was a model of what air power can do. It was timely, precise and effective, and it neatly integrated communications, logistics, tactics and firepower, freeing American troops from danger in a remote canyon halfway around the world.

    It was also so complex — with the assistance of an aerial tanker from the Air Force that allowed Navy aircraft to loiter above a battlefield, the use of an infrared marker for a trained controller with night-vision equipment to confirm a target, the release of a laser-guided bomb near a friendly convoy and an off-limits international border — that almost nothing about it was replicable by Afghan forces.

    Asked how Afghan soldiers or police officers might manage a similar tactical problem in the same canyon, Commander Burks gave a knowing frown. “It’s the Wild, Wild West, and the Afghans don’t have these assets to put in the air,” he said. “I don’t know, but they’re not going to do this.”




    sealed with a kiss . . .

    U.S. Grants Special Ally Status to Afghanistan





    By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GRAHAM BOWLEY


    KABUL, Afghanistan — The United States declared Afghanistan a major, non-NATO ally on Saturday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other close Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

    The move, announced as Mrs. Clinton stood alongside President Hamid Karzai amid the towering trees and rose beds on the grounds of the presidential palace here, was part of a broad strategic partnership deal signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May, she said. The pact went into effect this past week.

    “We see this as a powerful symbol of our commitment to Afghanistan’s future,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters at the palace.
    The designation by the United States grants special privileges, like access to excess American military supplies, and training, to countries, Mrs. Clinton said at the news conference in Kabul. In a separate statement, the State Department said Afghanistan would be able to benefit in some areas of military planning, and procurement.

  • #2
    Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

    I think it's safe to say the US will be unable to afford to continue it's overly expensive efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere unless it truly represents an existential threat, as well as conservation of it's military resources IF a larger conflict emerges in the future.

    Using a fleet of Ferraris to haul the rubbish to the dump is not the answer.

    I think we are likely to see further development and use of off the shelf tools, like what is happening in Iraq, where Cessna 208s are converted into ISR(Intelligence Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) sensor platforms armed with off the shelf low cost weapons such as Hellfire.

    Cheap to buy, cheap to fly......but dependent on a permissive to semi-permissive environment to safely operate.

    The same goes with the likes of Switchblade:

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...amikaze-drone/

    Although I think the problem will still continue under the Karzai government...but instead of heaps of money being wasted for limited gain it will be heaps of money being stolen for limited gain.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

      from John Prados "Vietnamization: Success or Failure?"

      Conflicting requirements sharpened as the South Vietnamese forces grew and the demands of various elements increased, but the pool of available recruits stayed the same. The ARVN, the Regional Forces (RF), and the Popular Forces (PF) competed for the same recruits, and competition between them worsened over time. American analysts at MACV and elsewhere credited the RF/PF with a higher contribution to enemy losses than the ARVN, but the latter took priority in Saigon’s scheme of things.


      The requirements also had an impact on critical specialized functions such as intelligence. Draft calls threatened to denude American intelligence of all its South Vietnamese civilian translators, for example, forcing leaders to engage in subterfuge to preserve capabilities. Demands for bodies in combat units similarly pressured the ARVN’s own intelligence people.

      Desertion continued to be a problem, although it was a poorly understood phenomenon. Peak rates coincided with the seasons for planting and harvesting rice, indicating that soldiers went home to help with farming. This suggested that a more liberal leave policy might have lowered the desertion rate substantially.

      Instead, the Joint General Staff adopted an anti-desertion program in 1969. That year there were over 123,000 deserters. There was also a trend of soldiers deserting units located far from home and enlisting in ones nearer their families.

      About 150,500 soldiers deserted in 1970, but some 24,000 returned in one way or another. Such service was lost when deserters were apprehended and imprisoned. The ARVN experienced its lowest desertion rate during 1966. The rates during the Vietnamization years fluctuated, but were all far higher than 1966, especially in 1971, the year of Lam Son 719.

      http://www.vva.org/veteran/1207/vietnamization.html


      Pentagon 'deeply concerned' by rash of 'insider' attacks in Afghanistan


      The Pentagon said Thursday it is "deeply concerned" by a rash of attacks in which NATO soldiers have been shot by their supposed allies in the Afghan security force.

      Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby confirmed that "several" U.S. soldiers were injured in Wardak province earlier this week after an Afghan wearing a soldier uniform began shooting at the troops. Officials have said a total of five Americans were shot in the attack -- Kirby said they are in "stable condition," though the attacker "fled the scene and is still at large."

      The attack was just the latest incident where Afghan security forces have targeted NATO trainers and partners.

      The number so far this year is quickly approaching the tally for all of 2011. The Pentagon recorded a total of 19 attacks involving 26 deaths, 13 of them American, as of early July. In 2011, according to Kirby, there were 21 attacks and 35 deaths.
      "We continue to be deeply concerned about the insider threat," Kirby told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
      The insider attacks have undermined the trust between allies and efforts to prepare Afghan troops to take over their own security as international combat troops prepare to withdraw.

      In the latest incident, a witness said Afghan civilians were talking to the soldiers outside their base when a man in an Afghan army uniform opened fire on them with a machine gun.

      He added that the wounded soldiers were evacuated by helicopter, while the others "took us aside in fear of a possible gun battle." Eman, who gave only one name, said the Afghan who opened fire escaped toward some trees and into a nearby village.
      Wardak, located close to Kabul, is considered a Taliban hotbed and has been the scene of heavy fighting over the past year.

      On last year's anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, a truck bomb outside the same coalition base wounded 77 American soldiers and killed five Afghan civilians. The area is also seven miles east of the Tangi Valley, where the Taliban on Aug. 6 shot down a U.S. military helicopter, killing 30 Americans -- the deadliest single loss for American forces in the decade-old war.

      Efforts to draw down the number of U.S. and other foreign troops in Afghanistan rely on them working closely with their Afghan partners to train and mentor them so that they can take over the security of their country by the end of 2014. But such insider attacks fuel distrust and have triggered increased security protections for foreign troops serving in Afghanistan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

        One thing worth noting about Vietnam.....is that South Vietnam didn't lose a war against an insurgency.....it lost a war against a conventional invader.

        In regards to the issue of embedded training teams being killed at a higher and disproportionate rate compared to earlier years, I would throw out the following couple of possible explanations:

        1.)Insurgents are infiltrating or compelling Host Nation force members specifically to kill/injure ISAF personnel to undermine one of the more effective means of ISAF to build capacity in Afghanistan.

        2.)ISAF personnel involved in Host Nation capacity building, in this case called Foreign Internal Defense(FID), are arguably less well equipped to handle that particular mission than those personnel who are specifically selected and trained to fulfill that mission......like US Army Special Forces for example.

        3.) I'm sure there are other reasons, but 1&2 are the ones that come easiest to mind.

        The relevant language and cultural skillset of US Army Special Forces leaves them particularly well equipped to handle this mission. It's what they've trained to do, and successfully accomplished, for the last 60 years.

        I mean no offense to the many folks working hard to help build capacity within the ANA/ANP, but for many or even most...it's not the regular fulltime job.

        There are only so many SF guys to go around.....and many of them were/are busy doing the heavy lifting of hunting down bad guys, instead of helping to build capacity in Host Nation forces so THEY can do the vast majority of the heavy lifting.

        That's one of the big and common misconceptions about US Army SF. There's an assumption that all they do is rope out of helicopters, kick down doors, and shoot bad guys.

        US Army SF(as opposed to other SOF organizations) are primarily teachers for several of their key capabilities and responsibilities.

        Teach a man to fish....as opposed to handing over some frozen fish sticks.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

          One thing worth noting about Vietnam.....is that South Vietnam didn't lose a war against an insurgency.....it lost a war against a conventional invader.
          You lost me on that one, lek. The successful war against French colonialism, the overwhelming popularity (according to the OSS/Agency) of Vietnam's 'George Washington', Ho Chi Minh, the artificial division of Vietnam by the Great Powers . . . the Viet Cong. Not the same kettle of fish as say Germany invading Poland in '39.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

            Originally posted by don View Post
            You lost me on that one, lek. The successful war against French colonialism, the overwhelming popularity (according to the OSS/Agency) of Vietnam's 'George Washington', Ho Chi Minh, the artificial division of Vietnam by the Great Powers . . . the Viet Cong. Not the same kettle of fish as say Germany invading Poland in '39.
            The effort led by North Vietnam to absorb South Vietnam during the time of direct US combat involvement was mostly a classic guerilla/counter guerilla war. Early on the US effort was mostly a US Army Special Forces effort to build capacity(although that wasn't the term at the time) through ethnic groups such as the Montagnards and Hmong. It resulted in US units of approximately 12 personnel training/supplying/supporting groups of 200-600. And then the US began to do more and more of the direct combat heavy lifting.

            As the US began to telegraph it's withdraw and the Vietnamization of the conflict, it handed over more and more of the direct combat heavy lifting back to the South Vietnamese.

            It wasn't until the complete withdraw of US forces from the conflict that North Vietnam planned and executed a conventional warfare invasion of the South....much like the conventional warfare invasion of South Korea by North Korea.

            I'm not claiming anything along the lines of coulda, woulda, shoulda.......but the complete withdraw of US forces from the conflict is surely a critical reason why North Vietnam's strategy shifted from one of protracted insurgency to one of conventional warfare/invasion.

            An interesting note on the historical heritage of the US Army SF is with one it's predecessor units within it's lineage OSS Detachment 101, Deer Team.

            They helped train, support, and organize Ho Chi Minh and Giap's Viet Minh forces to counter the Japanese in WWII.

            Apparently the OSS Deer Team are very well regarded to this day by the Vietnamese people. It would appear that Ho Chi Minh's efforts to contact and lobby President Truman to work together for mutual benefit post WWII went unanswered.

            It sounds like there are lessons to be learned in there that most folks are probably unaware of.....myself included until recently.

            It will be interesting to see how things progress from here.....maybe with the improving relations and the geopolitical changes in the region/world(meaning shared concern about China) Vietnam and the US can build a positive relationship that could have begun 60+ years ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

              +1. One note to the above. The 'South Vietnamese' government was top-heavy with Vietnamese Catholics, a minority in a heavily Buddhist country. In a similar vein, the repressed hill people - generically referred to as Montagnards - were recruited by SF/Green Berets and fought well, analogous historically to Britain's enlistment of Indian Tribes along the frontier in the War of 1812.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                The most interesting part of the Vietnam war isn't who won or lost - that is already historical fact.

                What is interesting is the lengths by which the 'winners' were willing to endure losses. The estimates vary wildly, but few dispute that the numbers of Vietnamese killed in their struggle to achieve unification were gigantic.

                The same types of ratios can be seen in Afghanistan now, and in any number of other 'interventions' the US has engaged in.

                And the question that comes to my mind is: if in fact the people on the piece of ground in question are so adamant about battling American troops, why again is it so important for Americans to be there?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                  Originally posted by don View Post
                  +1. One note to the above. The 'South Vietnamese' government was top-heavy with Vietnamese Catholics, a minority in a heavily Buddhist country. In a similar vein, the repressed hill people - generically referred to as Montagnards - were recruited by SF/Green Berets and fought well, analogous historically to Britain's enlistment of Indian Tribes along the frontier in the War of 1812.
                  It has only been more recently in discussions I've had with a few of the guys who served in Vietnam quite early on working with the likes of the Montagnards, Cambodians, ethnic Chinese, and other highlands peoples of how ethnically disparate Vietnam and South East Asia really is...recent travels there were quite enlightening as well.....EVERYONE was exceptionally friendly and hospitable with very few exceptions.....but the many small 1-1 clashes between various ethnicities didn't go unnoticed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    The most interesting part of the Vietnam war isn't who won or lost - that is already historical fact.

                    What is interesting is the lengths by which the 'winners' were willing to endure losses. The estimates vary wildly, but few dispute that the numbers of Vietnamese killed in their struggle to achieve unification were gigantic.

                    The same types of ratios can be seen in Afghanistan now, and in any number of other 'interventions' the US has engaged in.

                    And the question that comes to my mind is: if in fact the people on the piece of ground in question are so adamant about battling American troops, why again is it so important for Americans to be there?
                    Total casualties were surely gigantic.......looking at the end of WWII thru to French Indochina Colonialism thru to American light footprint Foreign Internal Defense thru massive US presence thru North Vietnamese mass infiltration thru Laos/Cambodia thru mass Soviet/Chinese support of the North thru the departure of the US thru the Cambodia Khmer Rouge genocide, thru the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia thru the Chinese invasion of Vietnam it's a very long string of horrific conflict that still far exceeds the length and quantity of casualties suffered in post 79 Afghanistan.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                      Originally posted by don View Post
                      +1. One note to the above. The 'South Vietnamese' government was top-heavy with Vietnamese Catholics, a minority in a heavily Buddhist country. In a similar vein, the repressed hill people - generically referred to as Montagnards - were recruited by SF/Green Berets and fought well, analogous historically to Britain's enlistment of Indian Tribes along the frontier in the War of 1812.
                      One of the common themes I personally interpret between conflict in Vietnam and conflict in Afghanistan is that both seem to have lost their way in the transition beyond just a light(relatively) footprint of using SF forces to provide HN(host nation) FID(foreign internal defense) which builds local capacity, with the exception being the highly successful effort of US SF to topple Afghanistan via UW(unconventional warfare) then getting sucked into nation building and insurgency fighting.

                      Instead both morphed into Host Nations becoming dependant on the US to do the heavy lifting....quickly followed by rampant corruption...while the opposition can achieve miracles on simply the smell of an oily rag.

                      Maybe the error was made in looking at both Vietnam and Afghanistan as ESSENTIAL chess pieces or "key terrain" in a game of geopolitical chess, when maybe they should have been looked at as individual drug addicts in a way. In order for help to be effective, you have to want to help yourself first.....it's far easier to send in some SF "Diplomats/Peace Corps with guns" to try and help and ascertain if more would be of value to the Host Nation and US interests than large numbers of conventional soldiers.

                      It's far easier to diplomatically hide small numbers of skilled people and less politically expensive if you have to pull them out of a situation where the HN government equates to an addict unwilling to change than if it's a large number of conventional forces.

                      Look at Somalia......there was a genuine effort to improve the lot of the Somali people, but the huge number of boots on the ground became a quite sticky and prominent political embarrassment.

                      At the moment US SF have been "outed" working in and around Uganda in the search for Kony.......I'm sure they would prefer NO media in their effort to build capacity and stability amongst Host Nation security forces.

                      Apparently their efforts in Mali in recent years have all gone pear shaped and come undone.....as the unintended consequence of European(and US supported) operations in Libya led to a flood of weapons from returning Malian mercenaries which led to a coup and riots.

                      Lots of lessons to be learned....and I've founds that amongst the US SF community(they have a number of public forums) as well as the Small Wars Journal there are some very experienced people who I believe offer "EJ-like" analysis on this stuff.......it's a bit like reading well thought out 1st hand commentary from State Department Foreign Service Officers and not having to troll through Wikileaks

                      The very old example of SF predecessor OSS Deer Team with Ho Chi Minh(medically saving his life) and Giap(who clearly remembered an OSS team member nearly 50 years on at a reunion) is a really interesting example of maybe what might have been....hey maybe Uncle Ho just flim-flammed the team with his sob story(Ho was believed to be exceptionally intelligent and diplomatically gifted)...but you never know.

                      My personal opinion is that I am actually a fairly big fan of US specialist forces such as SF being used aggressively in light footprint operations, particularly in their "less kinetic" roles(meaning not kicking down doors like in the movies) where they teach and upskill locals, and sometimes lead them...to build their own HN inherent capabilities as well as nation to nation relationships.

                      They're often referred to as "Quite Professionals", but I wonder sometimes if they are TOO quiet.....I think many who possess a negative opinion of the US military would be quite pleasantly surprised by some of their personal opinion/analysis....they seem to be the exact opposite of the US Navy SEALs who seem to have taken to the media spotlight with being the right team at the right place on the right day for the Bin Laden hit as well as some other high profile hits.....as well as a successful movie confusing film with reality by using qualified Navy SEALs in a Hollywood blockbuster.

                      I wonder if the "armed diplomats" will emerge into the media spotlight a little bit more when these topics are analysed and discussed in the public domain to share they valuable insight.

                      Regardless.....recent years has been like drinking from a firehose of conflict analysis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                        Not the same kettle of fish as say Germany invading Poland in '39.
                        Being a product of US education system, I had to do some fast adjustment of my historical knowledge in the European part of the world. So please don't take this the wrong way, what you stated there is exactly what I had in my head for a long time.

                        The correction that is needed is that Germany did not invade Poland in '39. Germany AND the Soviet Union invaded Poland '39. Not understanding this fact skews a good grasp of the geopolitical dynamics of the 20-th century. This fact is an important link in a chain of events that started before the Bolshevik revolution and continues on to today.

                        "Soviet Union" is another key meme which needs to be understood, as the war of memes is waged everyday as lakedaemonian demonstrates so well

                        Just as "The End of History" by Francis Fukuyama was wrong, so is the belief that Afghan history will be rewritten with a different result than those of the previous centuries. It is a loosing proposition that profits the few. USA would be in a far better shape had its politics been For the People and By the People of the United States of America.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                          The OP is an advertorial not an article. The tone drips with sycophancy.
                          "Under Western rules guiding the use of deadly force, the pilot was barred from trying to kill him while he stood in a group of unidentified men."
                          This rule seems to be rather loosely applied, particularly in the case of drone attacks. I would humbly offer that invaded peoples under suffrance of (to them) arbitrary death can never make peace with the occupying force.
                          It's Economics vs Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics wins.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                            The OP is an advertorial not an article. The tone drips with sycophancy.
                            That one is easy, it is the New York Times. Do we remember "WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION" Judith Miller writing BS used as facts for why we must GO. But then there was no end in excuses.
                            http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...8_miller.shtml

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Afghan: Classic Drawdown

                              Originally posted by lakedaemonian
                              Look at Somalia......there was a genuine effort to improve the lot of the Somali people, but the huge number of boots on the ground became a quite sticky and prominent political embarrassment.
                              I'm sure there were some who were genuinely interested in improving some Somalians' existence.

                              I'm equally sure there were others seeking to build their foreign policy credentials.

                              But again, the point that I'm making is that the resistance the US military encountered in Mogadishu once again begs the question of why the US felt the need to get involved where it was clearly unwanted by at least a significant portion of the population.

                              Foreign powers playing favorites for economic gain is as old as history, the question is whether the humanitarian angle is the new White Man's Burden (Democracy's Burden?)

                              Originally posted by lakedaemonian
                              The very old example of SF predecessor OSS Deer Team with Ho Chi Minh(medically saving his life) and Giap(who clearly remembered an OSS team member nearly 50 years on at a reunion) is a really interesting example of maybe what might have been....hey maybe Uncle Ho just flim-flammed the team with his sob story(Ho was believed to be exceptionally intelligent and diplomatically gifted)...but you never know.
                              This is all fine and good until you remember that no doubt Osama and any number of other (now) Islamist enemies of the United States also enjoyed the 'distinction' of close working relationships with US Special Forces - both early on and in the end.

                              Osama in the '80s in Afghanistan: Thank you for the Stingers!
                              America to Osama in the '80s: Freedom fighter!

                              Osama in the '00s in Afghanistan: US evil empire!
                              America to Osama in the '00s: Terrorist!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X