# Petraeus - Re-visiting NATO ROE in Afghanistan



## vonGarvin (29 Jun 2010)

From here


> WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he would take a new look at the rules governing the use of heavy firepower in the Afghan war, which have cut down on United States airstrikes and civilian casualties but have been bitterly criticized by American forces who say they have made the fight more dangerous.
> 
> General Petraeus said he would look anew at the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
> *Calling the protection of his troops a “moral imperative,” General Petraeus signalled in his Senate confirmation hearing to take command in Afghanistan what could be his first significant shift in policy since President Obama last week fired the top commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. *
> ...


More on link.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Jun 2010)

I have been very critical of the ROE's that McChrystal implemented. Its like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.


----------



## Ralph (30 Jun 2010)

I don't know how deep of a thread we can have with OPSEC hanging over our heads, but Tomahawk - can you explain further? I found that national and ISAF ROEs were liberal enough to allow all intelligent reactions...whether those with the final say always agreed that a certain effect was needed is a different story...but that's the TOC's, not a four-star's call...


----------



## SeanNewman (30 Jun 2010)

Ralph,

I am completely with you on this one.  If some enemy dude is doing something on the side of the road, the friendly commander goes through a checklist of criteria that must be met, and the vast majority of the time those are met the missile gets fired and he gets killed.

I was a liaison with the Americans twice on my tour but never actually deployed with them on the op so it's hard to say what ROEs they are used to, but I definitely got the impression that they were used to not having to go through any sort of checklist.  

All the griping about McCrystal seems to be people saying "If I'm on the ground and want a bomb I better damn-well get a bomb", without any potential consideration for a sober second thought or collateral damage.

Let us not forget that we are there as Karzai's guests, and we must play by his rules.  Once we start conducting ops how we want and not how the host nation wants, we become occupiers and not helpers of the GIRA.  These are Karzai's criteria more so than ISAF's, and they are in place because when there is no sober second thought we end up killing far too many people who don't deserve it (as in 2007 when we killed more LNs than the Insurgents did).


----------



## Drift Pin (30 Jun 2010)

Let us not forget that we are there as *Karzai's guests*, and we must *play by his rules*.  Once we start conducting ops how we want and not how the host nation wants, we become occupiers and not helpers of the GIRA.  These are Karzai's criteria more so than ISAF's, and they are in place because when there is no sober second thought we end up killing far too many people who don't deserve it (as in 2007 when we killed more LNs than the Insurgents did).
[/quote]

Really ?  We are his guests ? wow

All this time I was thinking we were fighting a war against terrorists or something.  On my last count there are many soldiers giving their lives to defend Karzai's country.  If he doesn't like how we conduct business perhaps its time he took the defending of *his*  country into his own hands.
Civilian casualties are very unfortunate, but it does happen. If we do everything in our power to minimize civilian lives lost I know I can sleep at night.  As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin   
     What petamocto said is perfectly right. If your idea of fighting terrorists/terrorism and
killing or otherwise maiming all sorts of civilians, including women and children in the meantime,
then there would be no difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys", then surely, Karzai would expulse the whole of the ISAF. I would not hesitate to do so.
    I realize that the terrorists know of those rules and try to use it in their favor, which makes for much longer firefights, but half the battle is already won when you gain the support of the civilian population. There will always be the unfortunate ratio of civilian casualties under any rules of engagement, but dropping bombs on civilian targets to eliminate a handfull of terrorists is an outright crime. Furthermore, I don't think Canadians would stand behind such action.
    I sleep well at night, and I consider our fallen soldiers as heros because of that fact.
 Pro Patria


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> ... As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it.



In a war, yes.  But we aren't at war with Afghanistan; we are assisting them as part of a UN-supported mandate in a counter-insurgency.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for killing bad guys when required, but there is a difference between dropping a bomb when you're only going to kill bad guys and dropping a bomb when you're going to kill everyone.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> But we aren't at war with Afghanistan; we are assisting them as part of a UN-supported mandate in a counter-insurgency.


Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We *are * at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.

This pussy-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"


Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place:


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...We *are * at war.
> 
> ...If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever...
> Us or them?  I pick us.  That's why were are there in the first place...



We're not at war.  We're conducting combat operations, but Canada hasn't declared war on anyone.  You of all people should understand that you can have a war with no shots fired, and you can be on a peacekeeping operation with all-out combat.

The attitude of dropping bombs without killing the locals will be responsible for more us of getting killed in the long run, which is why McCrystal was so against it in the first place.

Yes, it is true in your example that Pte Bloggins may get killed if we don't immediately drop the bomb, but it's also true that all it takes is for us to get it wrong once and hit the wrong group of people.  Now we have turned the population against us and instead of 1,000 insurgents who want to kill us it's now 30,000,000 Afghans who want to kill us.  And instead of Pte Bloggins getting killed it's the entire battalion getting killed.

Also, you attitude that anyone near them must also be guilty is also right-out-to-lunch and borderline irresponsible for a leader to post when young impresionable minds may be reading it.  Afghans by nature are curious the same way innocent people in Toronto last week are curious.  I have seen it myself with IEDs going off 100m from me, and us shooting back with tanks and LAVs, and Joe Average Afghans just going on about their business tending to their farm like nothing is happening.  Those people don't deserve to get murdered, thank you.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)




----------



## Altair (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We *are * at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.
> 
> This *****-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"
> 
> ...


 i was taught not to think like that at basic.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

TV,

I am forced to assume that your account has been infiltrated or being controlled by someone in Pakistan.

Or you're on leave and very drunk  ;D

Probably "B".


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2010)

Military Quote
Quote #1237 of 1546:

It is customary in the democratic countries to deplore expenditures on armaments as conflicting with the requirements of social services. There is a tendency to forget that the most important social service a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free.

- Air Chief Marshal Sir John Slessor


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

Altair said:
			
		

> i was taught not to think like that at basic.


They teach you how to think at basic now?  :


----------



## Altair (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> They teach you how to think at basic now?  :


...too soon buddy.


----------



## Rogo (1 Jul 2010)

Would it not be more accurate to say that Canada is at war by entering a conflict zone with its allies who have declared a "war on terrorism"? I do feel that officially or not that Canada should be treating this as a war but war does not justify civ casualties.   It doesn't matter if you are at war with a nation or not to me but if there is an effective way of killing the "bad guys" and not blowing up an apartment building then that option should be explored.


That being said when a platoon is say pinned down from a school and there is no safe way to escape, sorry but I think everyone will agree that the school will have to go bye bye.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> TV,
> I am forced to assume that your account has been infiltrated or being controlled by someone in Pakistan.
> Or you're on leave and very drunk  ;D
> Probably "B".



In this case........... "B" can mean both  ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> pinned down from a school and there is no safe way to escape, sorry but I think everyone will agree that the school will have to go bye bye.



Sorry to say Rogo, but the school doesn't go bye-bye, especially if it's full of innocent little children. That so happens to be the time when you must make a choice, you either seek the un-safe way to escape, or you fight to the last breath. And, if you were under my command, it would be the latter.


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Call this rose a flower, piece of art, or whatever.  We *are * at war.  No, it's not a declared war between states, but if that's your definition, then Germany and the USSR never went to war either.
> 
> This *****-footing around in Afghanistan is pure and utter bullshit.  I'm not saying that we carpet bomb them, but to dress this up in a bunch of words is also pure and utter bullshit.  If dropping a bomb will kill badguys, then let it be.  If said bomb may kill civilians who are nearby, well, they are most likely civilians on "their" side, or whatever.  Makes no difference to me.  Besides, we are 100% "in the good" if the bad guys open up on us.  So, if 1 x NATO soldier's life is in danger because some guy is shooting at him, or whatever, and if that bad guy is in a house?  Too bad, so sad for the homeowner.  I find it morally reprehensible to say to Pte Bloggins' family "Sorry Johnny had to go.  We had the bad guys, but the mud hut from which they were shooting at Johnny is a cultural site.  Anyway, here's your memorial pin.  Don't forget to wear red on Fridays!  Bye!"
> 
> ...



"Kill 'em all and let god sort them out!" eh?

Christ almighty. For the love of god, get this through your overly simplistic skull. It is not as simple as killing everybody who might be a sympathizer. Such an attitude only creates more terrorists (which I suppose to some would be a good thing, as more people to kill the better right?).

This is asymmetric warfare. It is not easy. "Kill 'em all" has proven throughout history to not work at all.

ETA: Cultural structures lose their protection once military action takes place in or around them. By international law, we are not the only ones who are supposed to be trying to take care of them... So if some terrorist apostate Talidouche decides to shoot at me from inside a mosque, there is no legal reason why I can not shoot back. I just can not level the GR to get said bad guy.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Sorry to say Rogo, but the school doesn't go bye-bye, *especially if it's full of innocent little children*. That so happens to be the time when you must make a choice, you either seek the un-safe way to escape, or you fight to the last breath. And, if you were under my command, it would be the latter.


*sigh*
A school full of kids, women, nuns, orphans, etc.  Got it.  
Simple, take cover, take well-aimed shots, and then cordon the place off, treat as a hostage-taking scene, and starve the bastards out.  Once they start tossing bodies of 6 year old boys out the windows, then what?


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> "Kill 'em all and let god sort them out!" eh?
> 
> Christ almighty. For the love of god, get this through your overly simplistic skull. It is not as simple as killing everybody who might be a sympathizer. Such an attitude only creates more terrorists (which I suppose to some would be a good thing, as more people to kill the better right?).
> 
> This is asymmetric warfare. It is not easy. "Kill 'em all" has proven throughout history to not work at all.












It's worked for us in the past.  I'm not saying "kill them all, let God sort them out", and my skull may be overly simplistic; however, my logic isn't.  

And if by killing one we create ten, there must be millions of the little devils by now, no?  :

I'm not saying carpet bombing, I was clear on that.  I am saying that once they throw down the gauntlet in a direct fire attack, we ought not to be pulling punches.  If they hide behind the innocents, then we wait.  We watch and wait with extreme patience.  And then we shoot them in the face.  Repeatedly.

I mean, not bothering about collateral damage seems to be working for the other side, no?


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It's worked for us in the past.  I'm not saying "kill them all, let God sort them out", and my skull may be overly simplistic; however, my logic isn't.
> 
> And if by killing one we create ten, there must be millions of the little devils by now, no?  :
> 
> ...



Make no mistake, I am all for shooting the bad guys in the face. 

The pictures you put up are WW2 if I am not mistaken... Different type of warfare.

Most of the civilians around the talidouche are not their by choice. The bad guys very frequently murder civilians to make a point and gain acceptance. Such a tactic would not work on us currently, but then, we have not survived 30+ years of constant warfare here. Afghans are very much in survival mode now, they, the rural Afghan we most likely deal with, are not thinking further beyond the next hour, as frankly they do not know if they will be alive then.

Sometimes collateral damage is necessary, and it sucks.

We all take this subject very seriously, as we all have lost brothers and sisters in this dirty little war. My singular hope is that when we leave, we do not have to go back there in a combat role... Alas, I am not sure that is possible anymore.


----------



## Rogo (1 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Sorry to say Rogo, but the school doesn't go bye-bye, especially if it's full of innocent little children. That so happens to be the time when you must make a choice, you either seek the un-safe way to escape, or you fight to the last breath. And, if you were under my command, it would be the latter.



Well I am not saying that these are schools full of little children.  Infact I think it is fair to assume that children do not stay in schools while there is a firefight going on.  

I could easily be wrong but I am not condoning dropping bombs on children.   That last little bit was unnecessary on your part let's not try to get personal here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2010)

The more we restrict the rules of engagement the more civilians we save and the more the enemy takes advatage of it and kills us.

Rogo, these people will think nothing of using children as human shields.  If we kill children while trying to kill them then they gain a vioctory because it gets splashed on the news that western soldiers killed children. It's pretty much an SOP for them to surround themselves with innocent bystanders.  Suddam Hussain did the same with his anti-aircraft equipment and shit during the gulf war.  Concept being to get the AA gun you were taking out a school too.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> A school full of kids, women, nuns, orphans, etc.  Got it.
> Simple, take cover, take well-aimed shots, and then cordon the place off, treat as a hostage-taking scene, and starve the bastards out.  Once they start tossing bodies of 6 year old boys out the windows, then what?


All this being a hypothetical situation.....I can only give you a hypothetical answer.
But I suppose, if this was in fact the case, it would be considered a Charlie Foxtrot. So, there would only be two things left to do....."FIDO" (f*** It, Drive On), and make an attempt to clear the building,
or withdraw.

Rogo, The "you" in this case did not mean specifically youself....no personal attack intended.


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> The more we restrict the rules of engagement the more civilians we save and the more the enemy takes advatage of it and kills us.
> 
> Rogo, these people will think nothing of using children as human shields.  If we kill children while trying to kill them then they gain a vioctory because it gets splashed on the news that western soldiers killed children. It's pretty much an SOP for them to surround themselves with innocent bystanders.  Suddam Hussain did the same with his anti-aircraft equipment and crap during the gulf war.  Concept being to get the AA gun you were taking out a school too.



This war is being actively fought on two fronts. 

The obvious one we all get in Afghanistan, where we are winning our battles.

The second front is right here in Canada, where most of us are not even aware that we are fighting and losing. The bad guys want us to kill civilians, that is the reasoning behind suicide car bombs, and other suicide tactics... Such tactics have generally been of questionable effect to us over there, but every time some kid going too fast with his music up too loud get's killed for getting too close to a convoy, that is an informations operations win for the bad guys, because our press can NEVER be bothered to discuss the reason why we have to keep vehicles from closing with us.

The talidouche look to maximize civilian casualties at every turn. They do not care about Afghans, not one wit, because they know we will leave them to it. The talidouche do not have to win the war there, they only have to win the IO war here... And they are getting really good at it.


----------



## Rogo (1 Jul 2010)

So it seems the consensus is that neither here nor there is an adequate solution for ROEs.  You can't level the school, and I agree we shouldn't but then how do you provide security to ground forces without some support that may or may not cause civilian casualties. 

I'm not trying to poke and prod people but I would like to hear people's opinions on solutions because to me neither one nor the other really works to a satisfactory level it would seem. (judging from people's posts here)


57 Chevy thank you for the note, I am a little happier to know that I would not be sent by you to clear out a school on my own hihi


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Rogo,

The key difference is that in a War, the object is for your military to kill the other military, where as in COIN this is not generally possible so it becomes critical to get the population to kill the insurgency for you.

In a war, the population doesn't really matter that much (in comparison to COIN) because as per WW2 if some of them get killed while you're killing the enemy then so be it.  The population doesn't really have a say in whether or not you win or lose, and in fact it is often argued that if a country is really at war their population is probably part of the war effort as well (building tanks, etc).

However, in a COIN that line of thinking is disastrous because the people are the most critical part, and in a way you have to look at the enemy as the ones that don't matter.  While this works well in theory, obviously the reality is that for the soldier getting shot at in the short term, the enemy is pretty frickin' important and needs to be taken care of.  

That's why I get so p!ssed off when people say we're in a war in Afghanistan right now, because if that were the case it would be far easier than it is.  We have to do things that allow us to kill the enemy in the short term but still win the support of the people who will kill the insurgents in the long term.

If not, the insurgents win the population in case of a tie.

I have heard it said that compared to a peacekeeping operation, COIN is easy and a relief because you can at least kill people before they kill you, even if there are rules.  Likewise, in a way war is "easier" than COIN because there's potentially no remorse for your actions and you can use the force at your disposal (keeping in mind the laws of armed conflict that overkill is never allowed).

Another reason we are not at war is because 99% of Canadians' lives haven't changed one bit because of Afghanistan.  Unless someone in your family was killed in the towers, or someone in your family was killed in Afghanistan, the "war in terror" has had absolutely nil impact.  Nobody has been drafted, and no car factories have been taken over by the government to make LAVs.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

:spam:


----------



## Haligonian (1 Jul 2010)

I'm currently depoloyed as part of Stab A in Kandahar City as a Pl Comd so I'll have to be very careful with regards to OPSEC but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

Generally, we aren't held back by the ROE.  The ROE is very liberal.  Where limitations come in is in the use of indirect and air launched munitions against residential compounds. Having said this, self defence is paramount and there is no limitation on the use of munitions in the case of self defence, so the example of the pinned down platoon and the school full of children is moot.  If that platoon is genuinely pinned down (due to volume of fire or casualties sustained) and the only option in the entire battle space is to drop indirect or air launched munitions on to the target then that will be approved. Now if there is any other option for this platoon, such as withdrawal, support from another maneuver element, or less explosive means of fire support such as .50 cal from a Kiowa or cannon fire from an Apache then the indirect or other air launched munitions would be denied and these other means would have to be employed.

I believe it was Technoviking that said that the enemy does not care for civilian casualties and that us being overly concerned is a liability.  I'm going to have to disagree with this.  The Taliban currently employ a sophisticated IO (info ops) campaign targeted at Local Nationals and minimizing civilian casualties and blaming civcas on us is a major pillar of this campaign. This is why BDA (Battle Damage Assessments) have become so important so that we can confirm or deny when we have caused civcas and throw this back at the enemy when it was in fact them who caused it or have lied about our involvement.  This has happened numerous times during my tour and I assure you that minimization of civcas is a strategic issue for this war. When civcas does take place it becomes an immediate issue to Afghans on the street and ISAF forces are confronted with it daily on patrol.  A good example of this was when the American route clearance package shot up the bus with its MK 19 about 2 months ago.  It was not a fun few weeks on the west side of the city following that.

My final point relates to just how much firepower we need to bring to bear on the enemy. A single Canadian sect can carry an aweful lot firepower now a days that 99% of the time the enemy cannot compete with.  Between 2 x C9, 2 x M203, and 2-4 M72's were packing alot of destructive power.  Not including the platoon's assets and vehicles.  This is more than enough to deal with a few INS firing from a grape hut most of the time and will result in less collateral damage.  In addition, once contact has been broken you can patrol to the area you took contact from and inform the people in the area that any damage can be blamed on the Taliban for using civilian structures for military purposes, and then of course tell them they can prevent this from happening in the future by informing ISAF/ANSF about INS whereabouts. This is all done with an ANSF face. This, in my oppinion would be taking the more strategic approach than simply dropping a bomb and carrying on.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2010)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> I believe it was Technoviking that said that the enemy does not care for civilian casualties and that us being overly concerned is a
> liability.  I'm going to have to disagree with this.  The Taliban currently employ a sophisticated IO (info ops) campaign targeted at
> Local Nationals and minimizing civilian casualties and blaming civcas on us is a major pillar of this campaign.



I stand that they don't care; how they spin the results is entirely different.  In fact, if they could blow up a school full of nuns and orphans, they would if they could try to blame us for it.  That they spin it to blame us: got it.

Stay safe over there!


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Haligonian,

I greatly respect your contributions over there, and please keep up the good work.

FYI though, TechnoViking was the Kandahar Battle Group Chief Plans Officer last year so he's pretty up to speed on the ROE regulations.  And he knows a lot about Info Ops because he had the best Information Operations Officer of all time pushing IO Annexes to him.


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jul 2010)

Discussions like these, do help move the goal posts in favour of us. Very necessary for the entirety of the CF to be discussing these issues, as it will help make what it is that we are trying to do that much more clear.

Haligonian, take care of yourself, and your brothers and sisters in arms. We want you all back in one piece.


----------



## Drift Pin (1 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Drift Pin
> What petamocto said is perfectly right. If your idea of fighting terrorists/terrorism and
> killing or otherwise maiming all sorts of civilians, including women and children in the meantime,
> then there would be no difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys", then surely, Karzai would expulse the whole of the ISAF. I would not hesitate to do so.
> ...




I was not saying that we should kill "_all sorts of civilians_" actually.  maybe you should read what I posted once more. There is a big difference between accidentally killing someone innocent from calling a strike on a legit target and strategic bombing. It is an unfortunate result of war however.  Just like blue on blue situations, you can try to mitigate it as much as possible but it still happens.  That's just how it goes.  Would I give up what is most likely our greatest advantage in a fire fight because of it?  f*** no.

If you are in a firefight with an enemy who is in a fortified location and you have the option to bring heavy fire on that position then do it.  Yes, there are times when the odd civilian may be caught in the wrong place but....well...*war is hell.*

Would you rather send an Infantry section into that building to clear it knowing that some of them would not make it out again?  Or would you use the assets you have available  to you to *do your job*?  I know in my heart I would not trade the life of one of the soldiers fighting next to me for the life of a civilian who would see me dead in a heartbeat anyway.  Your milage may vary, but I have been down that road and have seen the results with my own two eyes. (as many others on this forum have I am sure)

Taking away our ability to call down heavy fire will mean more body bags filled with Canadian soldiers and quite honestly I would take any measure necessary to avoid that outcome.  Sure, the odd Civi might get whacked but lets face it, If they had their shit sorted out the ANA would be fighting the Taliban for themselves at this point and we wouldn't have to travel half way around the Goddammed world to do it for them.

Fighting a war requires sacrifice.  We have surely made enough of our own.  If Karzai  doesn't like the way we conduct business as a professional military he can feel free to enlighten us on how it should be done.   Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies, Nuff said.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> ...Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies, Nuff said.



That's where you're wrong in the long-term, though.  I know what you mean in terms of "If we have it we should use it", but there is also the option of not pushing the button and everyone lives to fight another day.  If our soldiers are genuinely fixed then yes of course we need to strike hard to get them out, but these cases are relatively rare compared to the cases where someone thinks they see someone doing something bad so we want to drop a bomb on them (which ISAF/OEF has gotten wrong quite a few times).

Air (or Artillery, or whatever) strikes reduce short-term ramp ceremonies and are justified if the soldiers are fixed.

Air (or Artillery, or whatever) strikes *cause* long-term ramp ceremonies if we overuse them without ever thinking about the consequences of what happens when we get it wrong and turn the population itself into insurgents who want to fight us.


----------



## Drift Pin (1 Jul 2010)

> ...and turn the population itself into insurgents who want to fight us.



Wake up troop 

  I have yet to meet a local who wouldn't smile to my face and stab me in the back as soon as I turned around.  You must have had a better tour than the rest of us because IMO, we will never, NEVER win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.  Half the ANA/ANP/camp workers/terps/locals are taliban and we all know it.  We choose to smile and ignore it even though its as obvious as the nose on your face.

If your only arguement against airstrikes/atillery strikes is winning of local hearts and minds, I fear we lost that battle as soon as we steped off the plane.

But I digress.....


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jul 2010)

Wow, interesting statistics there you've come up with.  Quite the pessimist too because I've seen some ANA do some pretty brave stuff to kill bad guys.

It's not about making them love us (which granted would never happen) but not hating us enough to kill us, or at minimum giving them other employment opportunities than firing RPGs.

It's not the mission to get them to love us anyway, it's the mission to get them to love the ANSF.

And as far as I'm concerned, CF troops are in less danger if we're only fighting the insurgents and not every single Afghan.

Added: I now see that I've been hogging a bit of the posts on this thread, so I'll back off.  Sorry, a bit passionate about this.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin
             My post was referring strictly to your initial statement," As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it." Of which I understand as being bombed to the ground without consideration for civilian lives. Proper use of military assets is always encouraged where the need is encountered. Overkill, as far as I'm concerned is not considered an asset but can/will create an undesirable effect in the civilian population toward coalition forces.
             Knowing that, and if overkill techniques are used in this type of war, then the taliban who
take no regard of civilian lives, will use that to their advantage, thus forcing the ultimate failure of coalition forces to obtain the desired end result......democracy.


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2010)

The closest anybody is going to get to democracy in Afghanistan is a feudal system....you can have all the votes you want, the that leopard isn't going to change its' spots...


----------



## Drift Pin (1 Jul 2010)

Ive seen some brave ANA as well.  *It's the other half that worries me*.  I am not a pessimist, nor an optimist. I would consider my self a realist actually.

Of course the view of the terrain is going to differ from the point of view of an officer over an NCO.  Politics is your world not mine. I am just the guy on the ground who has to deal with the decisions of people who apparently know better.  I bet you a cold beer that your view on airstrikes will change as soon as you are the one in need of such things. When your life is on the line.

I always believed the mission was to train the Afghans to fight on their own.  I don't care who loves who in the long run, but if you take away the commanders ability to use strikes the enemy *will* use it to their advantage.  

Since you have it all figured out, please enlighten me on the subject.  What should we do in the future?  How would we replace such a combat advantage? when we can't call down HE on an objective how do we get the job done without putting our own troops at unnecessary risk? Its real easy to point out the problems with something but its not so easy to come up with a solution.

Just curious


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Wake up troop
> 
> I have yet to meet a local who wouldn't smile to my face and stab me in the back as soon as I turned around.  You must have had a better tour than the rest of us because IMO, we will never, NEVER win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.  Half the ANA/ANP/camp workers/terps/locals are taliban and we all know it.  We choose to smile and ignore it even though its as obvious as the nose on your face.
> 
> ...



In the thick of it, and I am guessing that you are unaware of the tribal make up of some of the areas, and some of the Afghans will never side with the Taliban because the Taliban is the wrong tribe.

It is not near as simple as you are alluding to here. Nor is your guess of half of them being Taliban, even remotely close.

For us to be successful in Afghanistan (and God knows, given the blood of my friends spilled there I pray for success), we only have to keep the Afghans from hating us, and accepting their own government. A return to the way things were prior to 1979. Most of the Pashtun tribes are not aligned with the Taliban currently, and it would be well and good if we made efforts NOT to push them into the Taliban's arms.


----------



## Drift Pin (1 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Drift Pin
> My post was referring strictly to your initial statement," As far as I am concerned, if an air strike will bring home more troops safely then so be it." Of which I understand as being bombed to the ground without consideration for civilian lives. Proper use of military assets is always encouraged where the need is encountered. Overkill, as far as I'm concerned is not considered an asset but can/will create an undesirable effect in the civilian population toward coalition forces.
> Knowing that, and if overkill techniques are used in this type of war, then the taliban who
> take no regard of civilian lives, will use that to their advantage, thus forcing the ultimate failure of coalition forces to obtain the desired end result......democracy.



I agree, Bombed to the ground is overkill and thus unnecessary. That is not what I meant if it came across as such.

I also believe that there is a better chance of hell freezing over than there is of seeing democracy in Afghanistan.  Not being negative, just calling a spade a spade.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Jul 2010)

Petamocto............your not going anywhere ;D  I just know it.


----------



## Haligonian (1 Jul 2010)

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> I was not saying that we should kill "_all sorts of civilians_" actually.  maybe you should read what I posted once more. There is a big difference between accidentally killing someone innocent from calling a strike on a legit target and strategic bombing. It is an unfortunate result of war however.  Just like blue on blue situations, you can try to mitigate it as much as possible but it still happens.  That's just how it goes.  Would I give up what is most likely our greatest advantage in a fire fight because of it?  f*** no.
> 
> If you are in a firefight with an enemy who is in a fortified location and you have the option to bring heavy fire on that position then do it.  Yes, there are times when the odd civilian may be caught in the wrong place but....well...*war is hell.*
> 
> ...



Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies eh? Last I checked PPE, metal detectors, dogs, and EOD were saving more lives than air strikes. How many troops have we lost in direct fire engagements?  Not many.  The main killer of course is IED's and airstrikes will not help us with those. 

The way this discussion is going it seems some people seem to think that we can't use indirect or airstrikes at all. I must stress, if soldiers lives are on the line then munitions will be released!  Tgts of opportunity the limitations are much more stringent, yes, but self defence trumps the limitations. It should be noted that air assets are used daily here and the current best friend of coalition forces is the Kiowa. It's .50 cal is used daily during engagements and does a fine job, without causing excessive collateral damage.

Technoviking, sorry I hope I didn't come across as speaking down to anyone.  I'm not tracking everyone's credentials on here so I just wrote fpr am audience who may not have a high level of experience.


----------



## Kiwi99 (2 Jul 2010)

War is war is war is war is war.  WWI...WWII...Korea...Afghanistan and so on.  Give the troops what they need to win the fight when the fight is being fought.  I agree with the fact that most of them would stab us in the back as soon as we showed it to them. From being there in 06 and again in 09, I have seen zero change in the way the population feels about us.  They simply dont care, they just want to grow their dirt.

Now, all these rants about schools and buildings and civilians and the such.  Who is to blame if civilains get killed in an airstrike?  Us or them?  Answer...IT DOESNT MATTER!  Even if we were totally in the right we are still the bad guys in the media repoort the next day.

The image of the great Afghan warrior culture is a myth.  Sure, theres some brave ANP/ANA types, much as there is brave Canadians/Brits/Americans.  But we also have those who shy from battle (oooh, bad me calling a spade a spade).  If a dozwn taliban go into a village with their guns etc, and that village caves to their demands, then what are we supposed to do.  These locals need to grow a set.  They bitch about the taliban, but cower when they are confronted by them.  Six taliban agains 40 in a village...do the math.

Firepower wins wars...hearts and minds=two to the chest and one to the head.  Hearts and minds campaigns has not won a single war. it creates a nation of wanter and needers.


----------



## SeanNewman (2 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Firepower wins wars...hearts and minds=two to the chest and one to the head.  Hearts and minds campaigns has not won a single war. it creates a nation of wanter and needers.



You've been there twice but still don't understand the mission if you think it's about Afghans wanting us there with their hearts and minds.

Everything a Canadian does to make an Afghan love them is counter-productive to the mission because it would make them want us there longer and it would devalue the ANSF.

That's why it's mission sabotage for Canadians to hand out food, clothing, money, etc.  Every time we do something ourselves it demonstrates that their own country can't provide it for them, so why should they support the GIRA?

It doesn't matter if we're really the ones providing it and a block away we unload our shipment of goods into an ANP truck to distribute (granted, some of it may go missing), the Afghans need to see the ANSF and GIRA meeting their needs, not us.

So does us giving hand outs create wanters and needers like you say?  Yes it does, but that's not why you spent over a year of your life there and I feel sorry for you that nobody explained it to you better before you left.


----------



## Haligonian (2 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99, what do you see as the end state to this conflict?  Is it all Taliban dead?  The Taliban sufficiently attrited to concede the struggle?  I find that many who are arguing for more relaxed use of these munitions have a defeatist strain to their comments, which I don't necessarily completly disagree with as the Afghan people are indeed difficult to work with.  However nobody seems willing to come out and say "we can't win" and instead hide behind the idea that we are fighting with our hands tied. We cannot break the enemies will to fight by causing a large amount of casualties.  We have already done that.  We have killed hundreds in battles and the war continues. We must attack the enemies support by the population.


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Jul 2010)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> We must attack the enemies support by the population.



Haligonian.......you must be from somewhere in Haligonia ;D

Winning the support of the Afghan people is probably quite a difficult task. I must agree with that.
It would be quickly lost in the event of dropping bombs to weed out the insurgents, and they knowing that fact, try using it as a tactic to gain sympathetic support of the people. That is why I am not for
the "dropping bombs" scenario.
   I must say though, that I agree 110% with air support as you have mentioned, for the troops on the ground when and where it is required.

Keep up the good work and my best regards to the troops.


----------



## Ralph (2 Jul 2010)

It's amazing how much harder things become without 429 in effect...


----------



## TCBF (2 Jul 2010)

- One of the reasons we sent tanks over there was to allow accurate, lethal and effective DIRECT fire, where INDIRECT fire would otherwise have had to have been used.

- Great idea... as long as the BG controlling the tanks knows how to use them, or is willing to learn.

- Fact is, Canadian tanks should have been pulled from out of Canadian command (just as 1 Cdn Armd Bde was in Italy in WW2) and given to armies who KNOW and UNDERSTAND armour.  Instead, they sit needlessly (... deleted ...) while our American and ANA allies call in air when a direct 105 or 120 would have done the trick.

- RC South should own the tank sqn, not the Cdn task force.


----------



## Teeps74 (2 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Firepower wins wars...hearts and minds=two to the chest and one to the head.  Hearts and minds campaigns has not won a single war. it creates a nation of wanter and needers.



Am I reading this right?

I mean, I see it, but I am having a hard time believing that anyone could actually say it in the face of all known data.


----------



## SeanNewman (2 Jul 2010)

TCBF,

I'm not really sure what you are referring to with tanks not getting used.  I have personally seen tanks killing people (my tour was 08-09), and the best use for them seems to be the direct fire role taking out enemy behind the super-thick mud walls that are otherwise futile to fire against with conventional small arms.

Any MG seems to be useless, where a LAV has the option of piercing it a bit and then gradually opening it up with HE, but by that time anyone on the other side would likely have moved if not already hit with mach-2 frag.

Tanks on the other hand take aim at a mud wall and one round removes the wall from the ground to the top, about 2-3 metres wide...killing any sort of enemy on the other side.


----------



## rampage800 (2 Jul 2010)

> Instead, they sit needlessly (... deleted ...) while our American and ANA allies call in air when a direct 105 or 120 would have done the trick.



Although I'm sure the Leo's are fast I'm not sure their responsiveness can be compared to an aircraft.


----------



## SeanNewman (2 Jul 2010)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Although I'm sure the Leo's are fast I'm not sure their responsiveness can be compared to an aircraft.



That's true, but_* if*_ they are attached they are immediate and under the command of the local commander, vice aircraft or artillery that may take several minutes and layers of command to spool up.

(Fully understood that tanks are not available to every patrol that goes out, but on the larger-scale deliberate ops they are).


----------



## Haligonian (3 Jul 2010)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - One of the reasons we sent tanks over there was to allow accurate, lethal and effective DIRECT fire, where INDIRECT fire would otherwise have had to have been used.
> 
> - Great idea... as long as the BG controlling the tanks knows how to use them, or is willing to learn.
> 
> ...



Can you elaborate a bit more on why you think the tanks should be held by RC (S), a full two levels higher than they are currently held.


----------



## Drift Pin (3 Jul 2010)

> Air strikes prevent ramp ceremonies eh? Last I checked PPE, metal detectors, dogs, and EOD were saving more lives than air strikes. How many troops have we lost in direct fire engagements?  Not many.  The main killer of course is IED's and airstrikes will not help us with those.



I suppose this was my bad, Replace the work *airstrike* with 155mm artillery strike, mortar strike, whatever the hell you want.  as long as it is indirect /aircraft fire that strikes the dammed target with lots of firepower then that was my meaning.

Yes, these STRIKES do prevent ramp ceremonies haligonian.  I believe a few of us are still here because of the A-10s that were flying on TF 1-06.  More than one occasion we avoided any direct fire engagement because we didn't have to engage the enemy directly.  That, after all is the whole point of attacking from a distance and thus the beauty of having such assets available.  I probably owe my ass to the gunners who were rocking those M777s a few times over there as well.  Why clear thru a Taliban held building when you can make it disappear?   Saved us from having to dismount and risk lives to clear a mud hut.  Since the objective was to kill everyone inside anyway it was nice to have the option of doing it the easy way.

I imagine a few well placed 1000 pounders thru the roof of a Taliban safe house or somewhere where they are making the IEDs will indirectly help with the IED problem even though the results of such are hard to see by troops lower on the totem pole like you or I.  

I can't comment on the Kiowa and how effective it is.  I have yet to see one over there


----------



## Ralph (3 Jul 2010)

The problem is TF 1-06 was four years ago and things are different now. They fight different, so we'd better fight different.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2010)

Ladies and Gents

Let's not forget that ROEs are still OPSEC, so bringing up 'actual' past, present and future ROEs may be going over the line when dicussing this topic.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jul 2010)

Ralph said:
			
		

> The problem is TF 1-06 was four years ago and things are different now. They fight different, so we'd better fight different.


They do?  Are they all left-handed now?  

How about this, we let them fight however they wish, but when they choose to, we shoot them in the face.  Repeatedly.  We fight how we fight because it works, not because they choose to go left handed or whatever.  I mean, war is simple: find, fix, strike.  Finding is the most difficult, but once you find him, just keep shooting them in the face, allowing Development and Aid to carry on.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (3 Jul 2010)

I'm not so sure placing the tank squadron under RC (S) is a good idea.  This is dated however, when the squadron first deployed to KAF, RC (S) refused to let the BG deploy them outside the wire.  They sat inside KAF for quite some time before the BG CO and the Squadron OC came up with a cunning plan.  The plan pitched to RC (S), which was commanded by the Dutch, was this:  the tank sqn needed to shake out so it would go out to Tarnak Farms, conduct a sqn training run out into the desert, leaguer up for the night, then redploy back to KAF.  The real plan, not passed to RC (S), was to leaguer to the South but close to the Panjwayi area of operations.  It was expected that the BG would be in a TIC soon enough, then the sqn would be close by, and thus it would be too easy to sell to RC (S) that the tanks should be launched into the TIC.  

Throughout the remainder of the roto, it was a constant battle between the BG Ops staff and the RC (S) staff to get the tanks to support CA BG operations.  The BG was given many tasks after MEDUSA, however just about all of them prohibited the use of the tank squadron.  Without the personal intervention, in some cases, of the BG CO, those ops would have been without tank support.  They would have sat idle in Massum Ghar.  I have no idea why the Dutch were so set against deploying the tanks.  Only General Toon Van Loon could really say.


----------



## Ralph (4 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> They do?  Are they all left-handed now?
> 
> How about this, we let them fight however they wish, but when they choose to, we shoot them in the face.  Repeatedly.  We fight how we fight because it works, not because they choose to go left handed or whatever.  I mean, war is simple: find, fix, strike.  Finding is the most difficult, but once you find him, just keep shooting them in the face, allowing Development and Aid to carry on.



I'm not talking about TiCs. I'm talking about the rest of the day where you don't have PID on an insurgent and are engaging him. That's the greater part of most days, BTW.
Incidentally, all this hand-wringing about all those assets not being there when troops need them when things go kinetic is bull-pucky. I'll try to be as general here, George, so you don't have to delete this post...NOTHING gets in the way of self-defence. Everything else requires you to put your thinking cap on a little tighter. That's all.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

Sprinting Thistle (PS - I have a 3 year old daughter and get your Tinkerbell reference),

I was on the 08-09 tour and rest assured the tanks were deployed side by side with the infantry coys several times.  They were also free to shoot at whatever required getting shot at.


----------



## Kiwi99 (6 Jul 2010)

Lets face it, those out there every day hunting the enemy have a vastly different view of the war than those who are not.  Its one thing to look at graphs and charts on effects and plans and options and all kinds of other pretty colours, its another thing to deal with the people and culture everyday.

Teeps 74, yeah, you are reading it right.  But you have to live it to understand it.

It seems to me that there are a few who have grown up under the blanket of political correctness commenting on this thread.  

Ralph, I fought it in 06 and 09.  Guess what, buds, the enemy was the same, we are the ones who had changed, and not for the better.  Political correctness running wars, who would have thunk?


----------



## Franko (7 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I was on the 08-09 tour and rest assured the tanks were deployed side by side with the infantry coys several times.  They were also free to shoot at whatever required getting shot at.



We were on every OP save one...and even then we were only a few minutes away. 

Regards


----------



## Ralph (10 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Lets face it, those out there every day hunting the enemy have a vastly different view of the war than those who are not.  Its one thing to look at graphs and charts on effects and plans and options and all kinds of other pretty colours, its another thing to deal with the people and culture everyday.
> 
> Teeps 74, yeah, you are reading it right.  But you have to live it to understand it.
> 
> ...



By "political correctness" do you mean the mandate given to us by our higher to stop living in FOBs and start living among the locals, the ANA and AUP, getting to know them all and attempting to help build some sense of trust between all the parties in the short time we have left in Afghanistan? 
And by "the same", do you mean them giving up on large-scale SA/RPG ambushes and turning to small cells charged with setting up scores of IEDs and then blending back into the population...because they are part of the population? 
Yeah, 2006 was way wicked cooler than 2009 (I was there both times too, buds). Lots and lots of bad guys died back in the day. But that was when they were stupid enough to try and beat us at our own game. They failed. So they changed their tactics, like any insurgency with five brain cells would do. And we changed ours. COIN ops do not yield incredible short-term gains and piles of enemy bodies. They don't result in books being written about day-long gunfights, or sweet videos of airstrikes that show up on YouTube. They require patience and long-term planning at the platoon level unheard to this point in our history. Most importantly, they subject our soldiers to extreme levels of risk where you can go an entire tour without firing your weapon and still have an outstanding chance of becoming a casualty from enemy action. It's almost like the Army expects more from all of us then just memorizing “double tap, dash, down”. Who'd have thunk?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jul 2010)

Ralph said:
			
		

> And by "the same", do you mean them giving up on large-scale SA/RPG ambushes and turning to small cells charged with setting up scores of IEDs and then blending back into the population...*because they are part of the population*?


----------



## Kiwi99 (10 Jul 2010)

Ralph, has living among the populace helped the situation at all?  Record numbers of IED finds, brazen, although fruitless, attacks by the enemy on major installations, casulties from IEDs still being inflicted.  They arent exactly clamouring at the front gate to give info and locations.. Sure, when they want something they wil be there with their hands out, but thats about it...BUDS!


----------



## Kiwi99 (10 Jul 2010)

Furthermore, buds, we arent exactly beating them at their game this time, eh.  Seems the tables have turned...buds!


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Jul 2010)

Of course there are more attacks on us now; there are 10 times more of us in Kandahar than in 2006.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2010)

The Buds network is alive and well!


----------



## Kiwi99 (10 Jul 2010)

Ten X more of us, and we still cant beat them at their own game, interesting!


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Ten X more of us, and we still cant beat them at their own game, interesting!



I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I wouldn't say they hold any ground in the entire province.  They may hold influence in places but there is nowhere they can go where we can't kill them at will.  

Trust me I'm the first guy to admit when we do things wrong, but the tide is changing.

In 1942 after Dieppe it was hard to see that we were winning, too, but the war was shifting overall.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Jul 2010)

Re: they fight differently every year.

Common sense says that they would change their tactics year to year towards what works and avoid what didn't because every year we kill the ones who are either a. stupid, or b. make a mistake.

Anyone who does not think that the Taliban and their foreign fighters are not getting better (more effective) every year is denying the logical.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (11 Jul 2010)

Whoever quoted 'record numbers of IED finds' as evidence that the war is not working totally does not understand the significance of finds versus strikes.

And please stop this 'buds' nonsense, it makes you sounds like a bunch of idiots.

Stop referencing 06,07,08,09. This is 2010, the war has changed, the enemy has changed, and the situation on the ground has changed. And not for the worse either. Unless you can say your feet are on the ground right now you have no idea what is going on.


----------



## Kiwi99 (11 Jul 2010)

We have more troops on the ground than ever before but we are still playing whack-a-mole.  The only locals we have 'won over' are those lining their pokets.  The tide is not changing in our favour.  Politicians in all NATO countries sold us out long ago.  We lost this war, or whatever you want to call it (I have heard it refered to as the harder side of peacekeeping), the day that OUR Government said we would be out by 2011.  It doesnt matter what ammo we expend, what losses we cause them, and them us.  Call that defeatist talk if you want, but it is fact.


----------



## Kiwi99 (11 Jul 2010)

We have more troops on the ground than ever before but we are still playing whack-a-mole.  The only locals we have 'won over' are those lining their pokets.  The tide is not changing in our favour.  Politicians in all NATO countries sold us out long ago.  We lost this war, or whatever you want to call it (I have heard it refered to as the harder side of peacekeeping), the day that OUR Government said we would be out by 2011.  It doesnt matter what ammo we expend, what losses we cause them, and them us.  Call that defeatist talk if you want, but it is fact.  

They dont need to hold ground, holding ground doesnt mean squat in all this.  We have all fought for the same piece a couple times each over there, right.  They can go anywhere they want, as soon as they hear a veh or chopper or see NATO troops they drop their weapons and are now farmers.

Its not that we are doing things wrong, not by any stretch,  it is that they are doing them better.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jul 2010)

Drop the bomb.  I'm sorry, but the people of that part of the world are beyond saving.  By siding with our enemies, they lose.  Start dropping the bombs.


----------



## Teeps74 (11 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Lets face it, those out there every day hunting the enemy have a vastly different view of the war than those who are not.  Its one thing to look at graphs and charts on effects and plans and options and all kinds of other pretty colours, its another thing to deal with the people and culture everyday.
> 
> Teeps 74, yeah, you are reading it right.  But you have to live it to understand it.
> 
> ...



Well good for you. I am not interested in winning battles. I am interested in winning the war.


----------



## Teeps74 (11 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> We have more troops on the ground than ever before but we are still playing whack-a-mole.  The only locals we have 'won over' are those lining their pokets.  The tide is not changing in our favour.  Politicians in all NATO countries sold us out long ago.  We lost this war, or whatever you want to call it (I have heard it refered to as the harder side of peacekeeping), the day that OUR Government said we would be out by 2011.  It doesnt matter what ammo we expend, what losses we cause them, and them us.  Call that defeatist talk if you want, but it is fact.
> 
> They dont need to hold ground, holding ground doesnt mean squat in all this.  We have all fought for the same piece a couple times each over there, right.  They can go anywhere they want, as soon as they hear a veh or chopper or see NATO troops they drop their weapons and are now farmers.
> 
> Its not that we are doing things wrong, not by any stretch,  it is that they are doing them better.



Ever stop to think that the COG is wrong? Land is useless in this day and age... Fighting over it just wastes time money and effort.

What else could we possibly fight over?

I look at history and Malaysia...


----------



## Altair (11 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Drop the bomb.  I'm sorry, but the people of that part of the world are beyond saving.  By siding with our enemies, they lose.  Start dropping the bombs.


that worked so well for the soviets, eh?


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jul 2010)

Altair said:
			
		

> that worked so well for the soviets, eh?


Horrible analogy.  First of all, remembering that the USSR had but one army in Afghanistan in the 1980's (41st, if I recall), and remembering that they had six in the German Democratic Republic, three more in the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic and a Tank Army in Poland, I'm guessing that you failed to realise where the Soviet Main Effort was.  On an order of ten to one, the Soviets had more troops facing us in Central Europe than in all of Afghanistan.

If you want to know why the Soviets left Afghanistan, you can't look in Asia at all, but to Europe, where these things were propping up:













That's just the Americans.  They were re-arming.  Big time.  The Soviets had to respond, and in their attempt to match US and NATO spending on conventional and nuclear forces, they went bankrupt.  The writing was on the wall by about 1986-87 or so, and the USSR needed to pull out of Afghanistan in order to concentrate on us.  So, the myth of the invincible Afghan is that just: a myth.  It was through economics that we destroyed the Soviet Union, and if the Pashtuns don't want to play, well, let's pay someone else.  And in the meantime, drop the bomb.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

TV,

Deep down we both know that you learned everything you know about the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan from this movie:


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> TV,
> 
> Deep down we both know that you learned everything you know about the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan from this movie:


That's a good flick, and I think I'll throw it in and watch it again!  

Thanks!


----------



## Altair (11 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Horrible analogy.  First of all, remembering that the USSR had but one army in Afghanistan in the 1980's (41st, if I recall), and remembering that they had six in the German Democratic Republic, three more in the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic and a Tank Army in Poland, I'm guessing that you failed to realise where the Soviet Main Effort was.  On an order of ten to one, the Soviets had more troops facing us in Central Europe than in all of Afghanistan.
> 
> If you want to know why the Soviets left Afghanistan, you can't look in Asia at all, but to Europe, where these things were propping up:
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point. I was saying that the soviets did carpet bomb large portions of Afghanistan. It didn't work.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

Is it really necessary to quote someone's entire post including the photos?

I'm not a moderator on this website, but taking the few seconds to thin-out the quote before you post it would be very appreciated in saving everyone else scrolling through duplicate things.


----------



## Teeps74 (11 Jul 2010)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point. I was saying that the soviets did carpet bomb large portions of Afghanistan. It didn't work.



You are correct. The Soviets engaged in carpet bombing, direct fire, collective punishment, massive military operations... And it was all for naught. They failed utterly to comprehend that the important ground was not ground at all.


----------



## Dog Walker (11 Jul 2010)

Britain's top general in Afghanistan admits 'courageous restraint' must change 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7884017/Britains-top-general-in-Afghanistan-admits-courageous-restraint-must-change.html


Britain's most senior general in Afghanistan has admitted that rules for opening fire on Taliban insurgents must be "re-examined" following complaints from soldiers that they were too restrictive. 
Soldiers and Royal Marines told The Daily Telegraph last week that their lives were being endangered by the policy of "courageous restraint" introduced by Gen Stanley McChrystal to cut down the number of civilian casualties. 
In an interview with the Telegraph, Lt Gen Sir Nick Parker said troops in more dangerous areas should be able to use "all the tools at their disposal". 
Last month was the bloodiest since Nato troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, and it is understood that soldiers will be given more flexibility in using lethal force to defend themselves after some complained they were fighting with "one hand tied behind our backs". 
"In some areas we have over-corrected and we have to absolutely make sure we bring that gently back into line," said the Deputy Commander ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). 
"Our soldiers have to be committed to the very challenging fight that they are in, they have to have all the tools at their disposal and they have got to feel free to use them in the right way, but what we must do is not alienate the population. 
"So we need to re-examine this and make sure that there has been no risk of overcorrecting. We have to ensure that we are allowing our people to have the right degree of manouevre on operations to deal with the circumstances they face."
But the general added that recent special forces operations that had been "extremely effective" in capturing or killing high-level Taliban and could force senior commanders to defect. 
"What you have to have is effective operations that target the bad people. 
"The effect, hopefully, is that they want to be reintegrated. 
The operations, which have intensified over the last six months, are designed to "remove important people from the battlefield, to make conditions better for those living there and to make our troops' job easier, but also to undermine the coherency of the insurgency at higher levels." 
Lt Gen Parker, speaking at his headquarters in Kabul, said it was a "hugely emotional" decision to remove British troops from Sangin, where his own son, an officer in The Rifles, suffered a double amputation, but it made military sense to concentrate troops in the more densely populated areas of central Helmand. 
The general had to run Afghanistan for almost a month after Gen Stanley McChrystal was sacked by President Barack Obama for insubordination, a decision that came as a "deep shock". 
"We were very sad that it happened but the extraordinary thing is that his plan was so effective that the platform was easily taken over by (Gen David) Petraeus." 
The general, who has been in post for almost a year, said that while the campaign was "bloody hard work" it was his "professional belief" that progress was being made.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jul 2010)

The Soviet's methods worked against the Germans, the Czechs, the Poles, the Hungarians, etc.  Had we not stepped in and armed the Mujahadeen, I'm certain that they'd still be there.   
They lost the war because they couldn't afford to be there anymore, not because what they were doing there wsn't working.


----------



## Kiwi99 (11 Jul 2010)

Teeps, glad you want to win the war...big thumbs to you.  Now, given the fact that it won't be won, especially with the enemy emboldened by our politicans and media, what do you propose?

Apparently, according to some, holding ground is not the answer, nor his the hearts and mind concept.  Corruption is still rampant in all levels of Afghan governmet and the insurgents are still able to attack whatever and whenever they like, even with all out int capabilities and resources.

Moving out of the FOBs and into communities is a start.  But these locals in these communities are still allowing the insurgents to plant bombs in and around the town...or they are simply ignoring them.  Why is that?  Are the enemy more terrifying than NATO with all its guns and tanks, planes and helicopters?  Do we need to be more terrifying to the locals.

Anyone who thinks we can win this thing needs to seek help.  Battles don't mean jack in the grand scheme, I agree.  We could win all the battles but it won't garner support from anyone.  Do we need to fight dirty, like the enemy?


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

You are the greatest Sgt of all time.

I hope you give these inspirational speeches to the soldiers in your section during work-up training, just so they know how futile all of their efforts are going to be.

"Listen up troops, we've got some hard times ahead of us, but don't worry...nothing you could possibly do will make a difference so let's just go over there, earn some sweet tax-free cash, and know that if we die it will really be awful because it was all for an un-winnable cause...alright everyone look right...sh!thole 10,000 km to your front will be known as 'Futile Sh!thole'".


----------



## Kiwi99 (11 Jul 2010)

As I am sure in your universe you are the greatest captain of all time. well done to you


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

I make no claims to be flawless by any means, and I am more than willing to admit when we make mistakes and do things wrong so we can get better and improve.

However, that is a very far cry from your defeatist attitude that sabotages mission performance.

"Maintenance of Morale" is the 2nd Princ of War for a reason.  I'll make sure I'm present at your orders if you ever do 3B.


----------



## Kiwi99 (11 Jul 2010)

Its not a defeatist attitude,  it is reality.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, that is a very far cry from your defeatist attitude that sabotages mission performance.
> 
> "Maintenance of Morale" is the 2nd Princ of War for a reason.  I'll make sure I'm present at your orders if you ever do 3B.



Defeatist attitude?  Sabotage of mission performance?  Are you the new political officer?  

Out of idle curiousity, why do you want to be at his 3B orders?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Do we need to be more terrifying to the locals.


Yes


----------



## Towards_the_gap (12 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99, looking at your profile I see you do know what you are talking about, in that you've been here and done it. We may have even taken over our AO from you in the spring. But I will say this. Militarily, yes you are right, we cannot win the war. Politically, yes we can. It is about political compromise, not necessarily with the TBSL in PAK but with the mid level fighters here in country, and the best way they can save face by ending the war too. They are just as tired as we are. 

But know this, my lads are actively shedding blood right now in this war you call hopeless. And despite that we are seeing progress. It is tiny, but every step forward does count. Will it count a year from now, I don't know. But no one can blame us for trying. I agree the biggest handicap we have is the political will back home, or lack thereof. 

And I won't be the political officer and try to gag you, you've earnt your right to that opinion as have I. But I won't give up on this war just yet.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jul 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Defeatist attitude?  Sabotage of mission performance?  Are you the new political officer?
> 
> Out of idle curiousity, why do you want to be at his 3B orders?



1.  I have invested a great deal of my time in winning this thing.

2.  Solely to see the part at the end when he says "Orders end" and then gives his motivation to the platoon, which I want to see for entertainment: "Gents, we've been at these VFFA and the 1 PGD a long time, and I have to be honest when I say that I don't think we can take 'em".


----------



## Kiwi99 (12 Jul 2010)

Sure do hope I can entertain you.  Pretty sad individual you are if that is how you get your thrills and laughs, but every person is different I guess.

Meanwhile, as you carry on full of bravado and a yearning for glory, realists will begin to figure out how we deal with the military in 2012 after the mission.  That should be the focus from now on, as there will be a huge amount of challenges for the entire force to overcome.  Retention...recruiting...equipment...funding...our wounded...veterans affairs...and so on.  Most importantly, the morale of the soldiers who will have to revert back to a non-war army.

I applaud you for your aggression and desire to win, I really do.  However, the battle that we must win is not Afghanistan.  The battle we must win is post-Afghanistan.  Our military, in particular the Army, MUST win that battle.

So take your nonsense about sabotaging the mission, and wanting to be at my orders on 3B and find something constructive to do with them.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Yes



Haha, that's hilarious that you had a one word reply and edited it.

Did you originally write "no" and then have a bad day?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> However, the battle that we must win is not Afghanistan.  The battle we must win is post-Afghanistan.  Our military, in particular the Army, MUST win that battle.



Amen brother.

VP


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Retention...recruiting...equipment...funding...our wounded...veterans affairs...and so on.  Most importantly, the morale of the soldiers who will have to revert back to a non-war army.



There is no problem with recruiting and no problem with funding.  I will grant you that the bills for post-Afghanistan veterans are going to be enormous, both for physical and mental injuries, and nobody doubts that.

However, ask anyone who served until the 90s and then got out how much they would have complained about our current budgets.

Ask them if they'd mind flying into Afghanistan on our C17s, then driving around in our LAVs and Leopard 2A6s, or pulling the lanyards on M777s or doing an airmobile op on our Chinooks.  And while they're there they can take advantage of being the best-equipped soldiers in the world in terms of PPE, small arms, ammunition, and STANO.

Oh, we also make twice as much now and don't pay taxes.  All of those issues help retention, and if someone wants to get out after everything above I say "Get the _____ out".

As for your final point, everyone at the top has already stated the Army will not sit idle post-Afghanistan and Canada should be fully prepared to have soldiers in action for a long time, wherever it may be.  Units are already being warned off to have their troops ready to go for 2012.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> and if someone wants to get out after everything above I say "Get the _____ out".



And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the fuck up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the fuck out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.

Normally I would have sent you a PM to express this, but as this is all on the boards, I thought this the appropriate venue for push back.

My two cents worth - take it or leave it.


----------



## rampage800 (12 Jul 2010)

> And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the frig up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the frig out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.



This could possibly be the best information on this entire thread forum, well said !!!


----------



## Teeps74 (12 Jul 2010)

When attempting to win over political/public support for this or any future mission, it is certainly defeatist to come out and say, "We can not win...".

COIN demands knowledge on ALL fronts, military and political... And an acceptance that an insurgency will not be won over night. Nor even in a year or two. This insurgency has been fomenting for the past 30 years. The locals are bruised and battered, and because most of us have now given departure dates, they are likely going to take the side (grudgingly) of those who will remain. The locals ARE the Centre of Gravity in this situation. Fail to gain the local support (or at least keep the locals uncommitted), and you may as well stay in KAF, and maintain the airhead.

We could win in Afghanistan. Saying we can't is a sure fire prophecy tho.

Last point, before I withdraw. We have all spilt blood sweat and tears in that country. We have all buried our friends and family as a result of that place. We have seen our subordinates, peers and superiors come back messed up. We are all going to take this subject very sensitively... Walking into the room and swinging a sledgehammer about saying, "I'm right, you're wrong!" is exactly the wrong tact. This thread is filled with plenty of that... And so, with rising blood pressure, I withdraw.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Haha, that's hilarious that you had a one word reply and edited it.
> 
> Did you originally write "no" and then have a bad day?


LOLZZZ!!!!!1111
You really find that "Hilarious"?.
You gotta get out more.

I wrote a longer reply talking about how the Taliban aren't cowards for using IEDs anymore than we're cowards for dropping bombs from remote controlled airplanes. The notion of fighting fairly is stupid, we need to fight to win.
When we hold someone,  detainees get 3 square meals a day that some of their peers would murder for (Better fed than some Canadians, too). maybe some sleep dep.
What happens when they cross the Taliban?  they're worm food.  
I'm not suggesting murdering people but they need top think crossing NATO forces is the stupidest idea imaginable. 

Cut out the niceties. Theres people in Afghanistan who have the desire to and are capable of attacking us.  We tell the people that crap is unacceptable and were going after them, they can help us or try and stay out of the way.

I edited the comment because I felt it rude to jump wholly into the convo with Kiwi when he was addressing teeps.

Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2010)

from his previous comments he's a REMF...


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

Petamocto, sure, right now there are no problems with recruiting and yes we have world class kit.  But how many of those men and women join today to fight in Afghanistan tomorrow?  With no war the recruit numbers will fall, of this I am sure.  And our world class it will deteriorate over time.  With no battle to fight there is no need for kit, as seen by the politicians.  The Canadian public may agree to a UN mission somewhere, but no Government that wants to remain the Government is going to commit CF troops to another war zone.

You obviously have not grasped the issue that is facing the CF over the next five years.  I suggest that you speak with your peers and subordinates to hear their impression of what the future holds.  Although I have a sneaky suspicion that they will be wrong and you will be right.

And you really should answer Apollos question in order to maintain any semblance of credibility.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

Sorry to interupt the bunfight - for those of 3-24:

Getting out into the communities.  Do Afghans want us there?

Secure the populace from the insurgency - how do you secure a populace from itself?

Look up the term Intifada - the British experience of 1839-1842, 1878-1880, and 1919 serve as good examples.  What does this mean for pop-centric COIN theory?


----------



## SeanNewman (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?



Most of my time dealing with the locals was in regards to their damage compensation (when we would run their car off the road, drive through their field, knock down their wall, etc).  And it was quite often.

PPCLI Guy,

Since you have publicly called me out, I will publicly defend myself.  Implying that I do not listen to Sgts is flat out wrong and I don't care if you're a Colonel or not: I call BS.  Every single task I have ever completed has only been after an in depth quest for knowledge and experience from anyone I worked with.

Just because I think that this Sgt is wrong doesn't mean I don't like Sgts or value their input.

Further, since my post was not read properly, I was not saying "Get the ____ out" to him, but those people who still want to get out of the Army even though there are so many reasons to stay in.  I was attacking them, not him, so your VP-brethren defence of him was for naught because I wasn't saying anything bad to him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the fuck up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the fuck out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.
> 
> Normally I would have sent you a PM to express this, but as this is all on the boards, I thought this the appropriate venue for push back.
> 
> My two cents worth - take it or leave it.




Thank you, PPCLI Guy, for saying that. As a retired senior officer I was remiss in not stepping in earlier to remind him of the realities of commissioned service; it should not have to be left, here in these social fora, for senior serving officers to step up, publicly, but I agree you had no choice.

Regards

ERC


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 1.  I have invested a great deal of my time in winning this thing.
> 
> 2.  Solely to see the part at the end when he says "Orders end" and then gives his motivation to the platoon, which I want to see for entertainment: "Gents, we've been at these VFFA and the 1 PGD a long time, and I have to be honest when I say that I don't think we can take 'em".



Looks like you did indeed slag Kiwi.  You can disagree with him, but why do you have to attack him personally by literally putting words in his mouth?  Adding the bit about your being at his future leadership courses in the previous post is also offside.

Lets leave accusations of "defeatist talk" for other IA organizations.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jul 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Secure the populace from the insurgency - *how do you secure a populace from itself*?


I know it's getting rather tiresome that I keep posting pics of H-Bombs, but....







"H-Bomb" of another sort.  ;D

Anyway, not to protect that populace from itself, but to protect us from them.  And I don't mean all Afghans.  I mean Pashtuns.  Not all, but make it clear: if village 'x' decides to join the other side, then village 'x' will be labelled enemy and will be eradicated.  One IED = Light out.  Or lights on.  Whichever.


----------



## Jammer (13 Jul 2010)

Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?
[/quote]

Not much...Oh yes it's KAF...very nice.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2010)

Petamocto, some food for thought, and feel free to take it or leave it as you see fit, but a very wise Sr. NCO whom I respect greatly once told me, "Sir, may I suggest you not be too firmly attached to your position [opinion], so that when it falls, you do too..."  Good words then, and just as applicable these days as they were when I benefited from them the first time.


There are times when it is okay to pause for a moment, hoist the situation around you aboard, and accept without shame that you might have been too closely tied emotionally to an issue such that your conduct was less than exemplary.

2 more ¢ paid forward from a wise old soldier... 

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

All,

regardless of personal feelings and opinions, regardless of experiance in Afghanistan or lack of, time to get this tread back on track.  

The use of firepower and the damage it causes is a double edged sword.  It needs to be discussed in depth.  We all have our own opinions on it.  Those of us who have needed it in very dire circumstances care not if there is collateral damage at the time.  I am quite sure that anybody pinned down would accept anything in order to reduce the enemies volume of fire.  Those who have not experianced such a thing are able to look at it from a more political standpoint, winning the populace, negative effects etc.  Somewhere in there is middle ground.  But the guy who goes out looking for a fight, ie, a combat patrol, may not look as hard if he has a feeling he wont get support if he gets brewed up because of where he is or who is around him.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2010)

Kiwi, your point is very valid, as exemplified by the changing sentiment/frustration of some of the US troops to GEN McChrystal's tightening ROE in the latter part of his command.  The context of supporting fires within the tactical / operational / strategic framework is not a simple one, that's for sure.  Having been present at a number of (then BG) McChrystal's briefs to his CG at the time (then LG) Eikenberry, I am certain that he very clearly understood the complexity of the kinetic/non-kinetic/effects issue within the larger context...as does, I believe, GEN Patreaus.  I am equally convinced, however, that both men had different slants on the overall common theme of kintetic effects to support the empowerment of the Afghan's own security forces and government at large.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Further, since my post was not read properly,



You realize you say this too often.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jul 2010)

Thank you PPCLI Guy (the PPCLI) and Mr. Campbell (Retd, The RCR). ~ Although I think the claim of the original comment being responded to by PPCLI Guy as "caused by Regimental Affiliation" is purely out to lunch.

Well said; and I truely appreciate the non-PC version of the "STFU" recommendations. Perhaps now someone will learn from it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Most of my time dealing with the locals was in regards to their damage compensation (when we would run their car off the road, drive through their field, knock down their wall, etc).  And it was quite often.



I don't envy that. for a few months I was dealing with kinda the same thing, except sometimes it's them showing up with their injured twisted up family members in the back of a car begging for medical care.

When they want something (more so for monitary compensation)  they're your best friend, love NATO, screw the taliban and will tell you what they think you wanna hear.  
To really see what "the people" think and want you gotta catch them when their guard is down.  I was pretty shocked when I started hearing more and more how they would make comments like "atleast when the Taliban were here we had power".  Of course they don't see the reason why they don't have power is because the Taliban is ruining shit in their bid for power. They just see that their quality of life was mostly better then they were here.



Kiwi we're not going to loose the war. It's not a win/loose ww2 kind of senario where our enemies will put their guns down and their hands up.
Are we going to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan? No way. The west doesn't have the resolve for that (yet).  

We're  "winning" because Taliban bombs aren't ripping through bus's in downtown Toronto or Taliban suicide bombers aren't lighting themselves up in the Market in Ottawa.    Left to their own it's only a matter of time before they do.


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo, I have to disagree on your last point about bombs in buses etc.  Bevause that isnt happening is by no means an indicator of winning.  It is simply an indicator of their patience and resolve.  Sooner or later the general public and security services are going to get lax again, people will start to demand that some of the security barries are removed, that you dont need to be searched before boarding an aircraft etc.  That is when the enemy will strike.  So to say we are winning because their are no explosions in down town Toronto is actually false.  To say we are at a stalemate would be more appropriatte. And in a stalemate one side always breaks before the other.  Unfortunatley, history has shown that they will not be the first to crack.


----------



## Big Red (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Kiwi we're not going to loose the war. It's not a win/loose ww2 kind of senario where our enemies will put their guns down and their hands up.
> Are we going to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan? No way. The west doesn't have the resolve for that (yet).



We are leaving. The enemy's power and influence grow by the day. I don't know how you can honestly put a positive spin on that and declare it something other than a loss.



			
				Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> We're  "winning" because Taliban bombs aren't ripping through bus's in downtown Toronto or Taliban suicide bombers aren't lighting themselves up in the Market in Ottawa.    Left to their own it's only a matter of time before they do.



The Taliban are not an international terrorist organization*. Pashtu farmers aren't going to be piloting planes into skyscrapers or blowing up buses in Toronto whether NATO is in Afghanistan or not.

*outside of Afghanistan/Pakistan.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jul 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> We are leaving. The enemy's power and influence grow by the day. I don't know how you can honestly put a positive spin on that and declare it something other than a loss.


We (Canada) are leaving, but we (NATO) are staying.  Think about it.  In 2006, 1 PPCLI did a relief-in-place with a US Arty Battalion for all of Kandahar, and more.  Now there's how many battalions there?  That's no spin: those are facts.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2010)

Don't expect US combat power to stay for long, our President has no stomach for a fight.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> We're  "winning" because Taliban bombs aren't ripping through bus's in downtown Toronto or Taliban suicide bombers aren't lighting themselves up in the Market in Ottawa.    Left to their own it's only a matter of time before they do.



You think the Taliban will start attacking Western cities?


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

Even if the taliban attacked canadian cities, unfortunatley the current political correctness/human rights identidy crisis that most Canadians are going through would result in them being given citizenship and honoured.  Well, thats a possibility.  However, Al Quaeda may attack using Taliban, but a taliban planned and carried out attack in Canada is just not going to happen.  That being said, in this world you never really can tell whats going to happen in the next minute.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2010)

Remember the _Toronto 18_ and, just weeks ago, the _anarchist_ bombing in Ottawa?

We should not get hung up on labels like _Taliban, al Qaeda_ or _home grown anarchist_; there is more that unites a _Taliban_ 'fighter' in Kandahar or Pakistan and an _anarchist_ bomber in Ottawa than divides them. They have a single aim: to overthrow the *civilized*, sophisticated, _capitalist_, liberal-democratic society we have built and replace t with something else. And that's where they are divided: I suspect those middle aged Ottawa _anarchists_ would be horrified at the prospect of living in an Islamist theocracy just the _Talibn_ or _al Qaeda_ adherents would refuse to accept an _anarchist_ system of government. But that does not stop them from making common cause to destroy what we have, now.


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Even if the taliban attacked canadian cities, unfortunatley the current political correctness/human rights identidy crisis that most Canadians are going through would result in them being given citizenship and honoured.  Well, thats a possibility.  However, Al Quaeda may attack using Taliban, but a taliban planned and carried out attack in Canada is just not going to happen.  That being said, in this world you never really can tell whats going to happen in the next minute.



As in actual persons...probably not, but as has already been proven there are any number of homegrown wannabe, sympathizers who would love to wage jihad in the Al Quaeda, Taliban, (pick your label) name....as seen in the Toronto 18, and others....these were inept...others may not be.


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

Again the problem lies within both the Federal/Provincial Governments and Joe public.  Anythign CSIS releases to the public is automatically taken as a joke.  Why?  Because 1-2 announcements ahve not been backed up. IE, MPs under foreign influence.  The RCMP has been treated a s a joke since the death of the Polish guy at the airport.  Both of these agencies could announce a threat warning for an imminent attack, but would be laughed at.  Until said attack actually took place that is.

The Canadian public, at least a large majority, have grown skeptical and already have become relaxed about the threat of either international or home grown terrorsim.  No major attack on Nth America since 9/11 has allowed this to happen. Throw in Canadians fear of Americanisation and we further distance ourselves from believing that the threat still exists.

Unfortunatley, and it is very unfortunate, 99% of Canadian would be shocked at a terror attack on our soil.  And the same 99% that laughed at Govt agencies and accused them of fear mongering, will be the first to attack these agencies for not preventing the attack.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> ...Unfortunatley, and it is very unfortunate, 99% of Canadian would be shocked at a terror attack on our soil.  And the same 99% that laughed at Govt agencies and accused them of fear mongering, will be the first to attack these agencies for not preventing the attack.



I'd wager that a great many (perhaps not 99%) Canadians would believe that Steven Harper and his crew were behind a conspiracy to gain further power if there were ever an attack on Canadian soil...


----------



## Kiwi99 (13 Jul 2010)

I agree.  The names I have heard to describe him....


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2010)

I think the last portion of this thread needs to be seperated from the main topic which is" Petraeus To Review ROE."
To help get things back on the topic here is an anecdote.

From McChrystals ROE directive.



> “If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy… if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don’t know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so.”





> CBS News:
> 
> To the U.S. soldiers getting pounded with thunderous mortar rounds in their combat outpost near Kandahar, it seemed like a legitimate request: allow them to launch retaliatory mortar shells or summon an airstrike against their attackers. The incoming fire was landing perilously close to a guard station, and the soldiers, using a high-powered camera, could clearly see the insurgents shooting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We should not get hung up on labels like _Taliban, al Qaeda_ or _home grown anarchist_; there is more that unites a _Taliban_ 'fighter' in Kandahar or Pakistan and an _anarchist_ bomber in Ottawa than divides them. They have a single aim: to overthrow the *civilized*, sophisticated, _capitalist_, liberal-democratic society we have built and replace t with something else.



I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this in the slightest.  In my dozens of shuras and other sorts of meetings (including some with people who, for all intents and purposes, could be labelled Taliban) I rarely ever heard the term "Arab", "Al Qa'ida" or "Caliphate".  I heard "Pakistan" mentioned alot, but I think terms like "Pakistan" and "Afghanistan" have loose meaning for the Pashtun.  From the interactions I had with the society they're drawn from, I'd venture that most Pashtun insurgents don't really know much or care about "civilization", "capitalism", and "liberal democracy" and they sure as hell aren't on a crusade to destroy it - they're more concerned about the strange armed men driving through their streets and fields and generally pissing them off. 

The average Pashtun irregular, doing the Pasthun thing and fighting the foreigner, has little in common with the middle-class young man wearing GAP clothes and sitting in McDonalds contemplating an identity crisis and a desire to be a "martyr".

Arguments like this only serve to muddy the understanding on who it is we are actually fighting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You think the Taliban will start attacking Western cities?



Left unchecked? Without a doubt.  
I'm not suggesting Taliban fighters are going to spill out of a giant horse and start shooting up the place but left to their own I can see
groups in Afghanistan getting bolder and bolder to the point where we see terrorist attacks on our soil (again).  Right now their too busy
trying to deal with us over there.  If NATO were to be pulled out and they swept in and took power would they be happy and content?
 Personally I don't think so.  

It wouldn't take much to paralyze the US/North America. Look at what happened with the washington DC shootings.



I wish I had taped Dave Grossman's speech he gave at the 1RCR lines a few years ago.  I don't want to butcher any quotes; he was basically
saying we've already won the war because to loose means the end of the western way of life- and we'll use nukes before that happens.  I'll see
if I can find any references to it or recordings and do it justice.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

I think you are confusing Arab Zealots and Afghan Hillbillies and drawing links where none exist.  Even the Quetta Shura has limited aims and operational capabilities and I don't think orchestrating global terrorism is one of them.

Grossman had a few good points but other than that his books proselytizied, expounded on junk theories (using Marshall as your data?!?) and were over the top.  He's got a following in the cheerleading section and that's about it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Left unchecked? Without a doubt.
> I'm not suggesting Taliban fighters are going to spill out of a giant horse and start shooting up the place but left to their own I can see
> groups in Afghanistan getting bolder and bolder to the point where we see terrorist attacks on our soil (again).  Right now their too busy
> trying to deal with us over there.  If NATO were to be pulled out and they swept in and took power would they be happy and content?
> Personally I don't think so.



Of course: the Domino theory. It's been in limbo since the end of the Vietnam War... time to drag it out and dust it off again to justify any investment of 'blood and treasure' in the present conflict in Central Asia.  First Afghanistan, then the rest of the Stans, then the whole of Asia, then Saskatchewan, right? :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Unfortunatley, and it is very unfortunate, 99% of Canadian would be shocked at a terror attack on our soil.  And the same 99% that laughed at Govt agencies and accused them of fear mongering, will be the first to attack these agencies for not preventing the attack.



We can all rest a little more comfortable with the idea that we'll get attacked on Canadian soil.  By and large, Canada is safe.  
Not because we have a great security structure or means to investigate/stem terrorism.  Quite the contrary, our borders are sieves and our white collar privacy laws are so hilarious that we should just be paying money straight to Hezbollah or whoever asks for it.  
Canada is a major facilitator of terrorism.  We house, clothe, feed, educate, medicate and pay terrorists.  We catch them doing things, we keep them because to send them back to their poopy country would be just terrible and mean.  We let them abuse welfare, health care, refugee assistance and pursue thoroughly false claims and pay them to stay.  We catch them sneaking into our country by all manner of illicit means, then when they say the magic "refugee" we let them stay for at least a year unless there is some stunningly provable history with them.  Oh, that's right.  They don't have to have ID.  They can just give any old name and date of birth and won't be held until it is verified.  When they commit criminal acts and are pending charges, we don't send them back even if there is a deportation order in effect because they are pending charges.  We award landed status to the most repugnant people because they managed to get someone to allow them to have a child they couldn't possibly support.  I really can blather on quite a bit more, but I think the point is made.  

So why would some idiot want to blow up a tower and wreck the good thing they have going here?  Consider the Toronto 18 a forward recce probe.  

Clue in Canada.  Sooner would be better than later.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2010)

The Canadian Public in general is very naive and has a short memory.  Look at who they keep reelecting.  We have had, and still do have, terrorists in this country.  Everyone seems to have forgotten all about the Millennium Bomber.  Sure, he was caught at the border.  A good thing, and he never had a chance to carry out his act of terrorism.  What about the people who set him up for his mission?  Where are they?  Where are all the American and Canadian Somalis who have left to fight in Somali in the name of Islam?  Have any come back with "Lessons Learned"?  We have tracked down former "War Lords" from Africa and the Middle East who have taken refuge in our country.  Did they have any subversive plans or were they really only trying to "hid in the crowd"?  The Toronto 18, the Kahdr family, various anarchist groups, the twits who firebombed the bank in Ottawa, the guy who hijacked the bus on Parliament Hill; these are all examples that these people do exist now, and in the past, in Canada.  It is not fiction.  It is fact.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jul 2010)

The real worry, if NATO withdraws and the Talibs take over in at least substantial parts of Afstan, is not that the Talibs will be emboldened to start attacking targets in the West.  Rather it the great encouragement that will be given to Islamist/Jihadist types generally.

OBL spoke of people preferring strong horses to weak horses.  With the Muslim fighters having won three times, as they see it (defeating the two greatest military powers, plus other locals (94-96 on), who do you think will look like the strong horse to impressionable types world-wide?

And of course there is the potentially more immediate effect in Pakistan.  With all the nasty implications for what India might be tempted to do.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The real worry, if NATO withdraws and the Talibs take over in at least substantial parts of Afstan, is not that the Talibs will be emboldened to start attacking targets in the West.  Rather it the great encouragement that will be given to Islamist/Jihadist types generally.



Ok - to an extent; I'd argue that they already have enough encouragment and that our presence, as much as our withdrawl, fuels it.  Read the stuff all these guys spit out.



> And of course there is the potentially more immediate effect in Pakistan.  With all the nasty implications for what India might be tempted to do.



Most articles I've read on Pakistan suggest that this fear is unfounded.  It's not like hordes are going to decend on Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi from the North-West Frontier Provinces to seize the bomb(TM) - they didn't do it after the Soviets pulled out, did they?    The Army, a very secular, stable and wealthy organization, still has the reigns to the place.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think you are confusing Arab Zealots and Afghan Hillbillies and drawing links where none exist.  Even the Quetta Shura has limited aims and operational capabilities and I don't think orchestrating global terrorism is one of them.
> 
> Grossman had a few good points but other than that his books proselytizied, expounded on junk theories (using Marshall as your data?!?) and were over the top.  He's got a following in the cheerleading section and that's about it.



 I'm not talking about  Afghan Hillbillies attacking the ol US but Afghanistan being used as a staging ground, training camp, recruiting shop.  With no NATO presence there it would be like wonderland for terrorists of all shapes sizes and capabilities.  Hope I'm wrong, figure we'll see in a few years.

Grossman's speech was very inspiring and he made what seemed like a lot of good points. (only leadership was invited to go but it would have been more productive to have troops there as most of the material seemed aimed at the soldier pulling the trigger.)
I agree with you about his books though. I liked some of it, didn't like other parts.  His crusade against violent video games while interesting seemed beaten to death and made me loose interest.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Of course: the Domino theory. It's been in limbo since the end of the Vietnam War... time to drag it out and dust it off again to justify any investment of 'blood and treasure' in the present conflict in Central Asia.  First Afghanistan, then the rest of the Stans, then the whole of Asia, then Saskatchewan, right? :


I like where you're going with that!  Where's Saskatchewan though?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2010)

12 April 1963
29 August 1964
05 May 1966
24 June 1970


Just off the top of my head.

Canadians are wonderfully forgetful when it comes to terrorism at home.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2010)

Shortly after 9/11 we knew this would be a long fight.  We knew Afghanistan was going to be the cornerstone where the West's dedication to 

Sometime after that the Canadian (and American and British et. al.) public got off that train and went to the mall.


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Jul 2010)

Kevin

well put. Even Old Man Turtle would agree.  The question is, how do we get them back on the bus.

Going  back to the article about the US troops in the FOB getting mortared and not being allowed to fire back, even though they had PID. Again, when will troops say that if they dont have the support, they aint going?  Its not an unrealistic possibility.  

Charges and court martials may not be the answer here.  Nor accusations of cowardice.  With restrictions being placed more frequently than not, what are the troops to think?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about  Afghan Hillbillies attacking the ol US but Afghanistan being used as a staging ground, training camp, recruiting shop.  With no NATO presence there it would be like wonderland for terrorists of all shapes sizes and capabilities.  Hope I'm wrong, figure we'll see in a few years.



Okay, but terrorists use the USA (9/11) and Canada (Ottawa 18) as staging grounds, training camps and recruiting shops.  Is preventing a few dusty tents and an obstacle course from being set up in Tarnak Farms really an effective counter-terrorism strategy?


----------



## GAP (14 Jul 2010)

For everything that has been said, most I can understand, some I sympathize with, but, having lived through watching the US make noise about training up the Vietnamese Army to handle their own security, then beetling out of there as fast as they could throwing $$ at any perceived problem....then watching the fall of Saigon shortly thereafter....I'm not hopeful. 

The same high sounding praises are being paid to the ANA, ANP, etc, the billions are rolling in, but you know what.....nothing is different...they're in over their heads, the country is not supporting them, the US people are not supporting them, their allies are crapping out.....they just want it to get to a stage where they can wash their hands of it and get out....

Now having said all that, let it be understood that I am talking about the politicians....not the forces. They obey their orders, do their job magnificently, and bear no fault in this......my  :2c:


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2010)

This is a difficult balancing act.  We know that civilian casualties create new insurgents.  We also know that an incompetant, incapable or impotent military force is (or will quickly become) irrelevant.  As such, if we are seen to carry but never wield the "big stick" then we will become irrelevant and lose the war.  If we swing the big stick a few times too many (or too hard) then we will protract or lose the war ... and the more times we protract the war the greater our chances of losing.

If we are going to win, we must find the right balance of agressive use of force and restraint.  That right balance is going to change with time, circumstances and location.  In vast areas of operation where COs don't have the capacity to establish relations with each communicty, the OC, with his supporting FOO/FAC, becomes the best qualified person to assess the weapons effects, collateral risks, threat, etc, etc.  That OC, still with his supporting FOO/FAC, becomes the best person to decide when and where the hammer should be dropped - he will also be the person to clean-up the knock-on results of collateral damage & civilian casualties.

As ref from another thread:


			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As for civilian deaths:
> 
> Civilian Casualties Create New Enemies, Study Confirms
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/civilian-casualties-create-new-enemies-study-confirms/
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jul 2010)

Just boot the Karzai crime family.  Put the district leader of the Dand district in charge.  Boom, you're on your way!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jul 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> The question is, how do we get them back on the bus.



A staggering domestic death toll.  The sheeple just don't get it.  Until they hurt, nothing is going to change.  And our enemies know it, thus they will keep things nice and genial.
Or at least until they feel they are assured of victory...


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> A staggering domestic death toll.  The sheeple just don't get it.  Until they hurt, nothing is going to change.  And our enemies know it, thus they will keep things nice and genial.
> Or at least until they feel they are assured of victory...



Sadly, ZHC, I fear that you are absolutely correct.  

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Aug 2010)

Latest:

Petraeus establishes new rules of conduct for Western forces in Afghanistan
Directive asserts troops' right to defend themselves but calls for continued efforts to safeguard Afghan civilian lives.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-combat-rules-20100804,0,5192303.story



> Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan —
> 
> The new American commander of Western forces in Afghanistan has issued a directive asserting troops' right to defend themselves, but also calling on them to continue efforts to safeguard Afghan civilian lives, military officials said Wednesday.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------

