# Michael Yon in a Panic over Afghanistan



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

Michael Yon said:

_Early this spring, when I reported from Afghan farms about this year's bumper opium crop, people thought I was using that opium. Now it is common knowledge that the opium trade is fueling a Taliban comeback. Mark this on your calendar: Spring of 2007 will be a bloodbath in Afghanistan for NATO forces. Our British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, and other allies will be slaughtered in Afghanistan if they dare step off base in the southern provinces, and nobody is screaming at the tops of their media-lungs about the impending disaster. I would not be surprised to see a NATO base overrun in Afghanistan in 2007 with all the soldiers killed or captured. And when it happens, how many will claim they had no idea it was so bad and blame the media for failing to raise the alarm? Here it is: WARNING! Troops in Afghanistan are facing slaughter in 2007!_ 

Yon claims his information comes from the special forces community, of which he used to be one.  Is this all just frantic folks crying "wolf", or is Spring 2007 shaping up to be a big one for our people in Afghanistan?

More at: http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/reading-afghan-tealeaves-disaster-on.html


----------



## KevinB (20 Dec 2006)

We got the same intel from the same community last year -- it was was not widely dispersed or listened too -- and IIRC Yon wrote the same thing.

Quite simply the Taliban and AlQ can make it unpleasant but they are not slaughtering anyone.  The goal of the ACF/AGE is to create discontent and public apprehansion in the mission -- resulting in a coalition pullout.  That is the only way we will lose.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Dec 2006)

...and there is always a Spring offensive. It's in the rule book.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> We got the same intel from the same community last year -- it was was not widely dispersed or listened too -- and IIRC Yon wrote the same thing.
> 
> Quite simply the Taliban and AlQ can make it unpleasant but they are not slaughtering anyone.  The goal of the ACF/AGE is to create discontent and public apprehansion in the mission -- resulting in a coalition pullout.  That is the only way we will lose.



What I hear you saying, if I may paraphrase, is that it comes down to politics, and the Taliban will target our politicians indirectly through our troops.  I certianly don't agree with the "slaughter" part of Yon's article either; it seems to be taking an extreme viewpoint.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> What I hear you saying, if I may paraphrase, is that it comes down to politics, and the Taliban will target our politicians indirectly through our troops.  I



No you have that wrong.  The Taliban will target our politicians (and public) indirectly through our Press.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

... but they need casualties to get the effect they want.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2006)

If I may hazard a guess, "slaughtering" Western troops and overrunning bases requires a concentration of troops that is very difficult to achieve (without getting hammered) when we control the skies.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> ... but they need casualties to get the effect they want.




Not really.  Just look at what they have managed to do to date.  Look at what the G&M prints, besides Christie Blanchford's articles.  Look at the Toronto Star.  Listen to Dion, Ducceppe and Taliban Jack.  They have been playing the press since the beginning.


----------



## KevinB (20 Dec 2006)

George Wallace and Journeyman got it...

Fuzzy -- they cannot military succeed again ISAF.  That then requires them to target issues that will errode the publics will to fight.
  Articles like this are an effective 5th Column


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...and there is always a Spring offensive. It's in the rule book.


Worked for the Soviets, and the Germans were usually kind enough to reply in kind in the following summer, although in 1944 the Russians showed bad form and launched Operation Bagration.  Then again, there was no spring offensive prior to Barbarossa, so I guess it works out in the end.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

Since my shtick is "history", I'm a civi not a soldier, let me add this:

The turning point in Vietnam (yes I know, this is not Vietnam), was Tet.  The American forces hammered the VC and NVA in Tet.  The VC never recovered as most were killed or captured, yet the leftwing press seized on Tet to destroy the American public will to carry on.

If I were a Taliban strategist, I'd understand this, that even though I can't win militarily, I just need to keep the combat going and feed the press and Jack Layton.  I'd understand that burning schools and bombing markets works on the press.  And I'd understand, that the bigger the battle, the more casualties, the more whining I'll create on the home front.

Now, if we had the unity of purpose and determination that existed within our country prior to the 1960's, the lads on the ground could always know that nobody would pull them out until they'd completed the job.  They could actually "trust" the press and politicians.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

Have you looked at Bosnia?  Who 'controlled' the favours of the Press there?

This is all part of Warfare today.  It is History, or History in the Making.  This is nothing new, but we have given it a new name; "The Three Block War".  We are now talking about "Asymmetric Warfare".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

How can that guy claim that he made some massive revelation by telling people that there are opium poppies in Afghanistan?  OOOO, great scoop, Scooter.  What's next?  "There is ice in the Antarctic".   :


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2006)

>...and there is always a Spring offensive. It's in the rule book.

Especially in Afghanistan, where it's impossible to campaign during the Brutal Afghanistan Winter or the Searing Afghanistan Summer.


----------



## Mithras (20 Dec 2006)

I dunno, seems like hysterics to me. "THE SKY IT IS FALLING!! Maybe.. this spring?"


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >...and there is always a Spring offensive. It's in the rule book.
> 
> Especially in Afghanistan, where it's impossible to campaign during the Brutal Afghanistan Winter or the Searing Afghanistan Summer.



You forgot the sarcasm on, sarcasm off markers.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

Before you all dump all over Michael Yon: He did predict that Iraq would dissolve into sectarian violence, and he did so before the invasion.  His sources are special forces and his knowledge is purely firsthand military.  He is former special forces.  I saw an interview with him, and what concerns his group (special forces) most is the introduction of fly-by-wire technology into Mr. Taliban's goodie bag.  

Just for arguement sake, imagine one such weapon being turned on a LAV3 or Leo ... then imagine the political fallout.  It's outside my knowledge base, but I'm supposing that a very significant change in tactics would also result.

As long as NATO owns the air, I can't see the "slaughter" part coming true, but I can foresee political fallout that would be drastic.  I see a very smiley Jack Layton in that future.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Dec 2006)

Sunni's and Shi'ite not getting along.  Who would have thought?  Bases overrun.  Sounds more like Chicken Little to me.  I won't discount his information out of hand because that would not be tactically sound but sounds a little over the top.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Dec 2006)

The nice thing about predicting a catastrophe (without getting too specific on the details of said disaster) is that if it comes true then you look prophetic, and if it doesn't then you can claim that your warning averted that catastrophe.

I don't underestimate the Taliban, but the article is alarmist in my opinion.  There was an offensive last summer when the Taliban made an open move against several district centres.  The world was watching Lebanon at the time, so most missed it.


----------



## FredDaHead (20 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> Before you all dump all over Michael Yon: He did predict that Iraq would dissolve into sectarian violence, and he did so before the invasion.



Nostradamus predicted 9/11, too. Does that mean the Antichrist is upon us?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Nostradamus predicted 9/11, too.


[sarcasm]
Whoa...whoa...whoa....

Nostradamus predicted that there would be an eleventh day to the ninth month?  That man was pure GENIUS!!!!
[/sarcasm]


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Dec 2006)

Predicting Sectarian violence in Iraq is on par with predicting a mugging in downtown New York.

The fallout from new weapons being used by Timmy? Well, we adjust tactics as required, and keep on fighting. And find out who provided said new weapons.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

Scrooge_Des said:
			
		

> Predicting Sectarian violence in Iraq is on par with predicting a mugging in downtown New York.
> 
> The fallout from new weapons being used by Timmy? Well, we adjust tactics as required, and keep on fighting. And find out who provided said new weapons.



... and there in lies the problem!  So, you find out that the weapons are Korean or Chinese, but purchased through any one of a dozen third party states.  What do you do about it?  NATO isn't even willing (yet), to deal with the Pakistani safe-zones where most of the Taliban are being trained, armed, rested, and cuddled.

Don't get me wrong, if I had my way there would be no safe-zone anywhere, ever, in any neighbouring country; I'd make Nixon look tame.  But that's just me.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (20 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, if I had my way there would be no safe-zone anywhere, ever, in any neighbouring country; I'd make Nixon look tame.  But that's just me.


Now what exactly do you think the situation would be in Iraq if there was a group that ran across the border into Iran and the US hit them there?
Or the situation with Syria with Israel bombing Lebanon and hitting Hezbollah inside Syria?


----------



## FuzzyLogic (20 Dec 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Now what exactly do you think the situation would be in Iraq if there was a group that ran across the border into Iran and the US hit them there?
> Or the situation with Syria with Israel bombing Lebanon and hitting Hezbollah inside Syria?



I guess it all depends how long one plans on dragging out the inevitable.  If Afghanistan is winnable with safe havens in Pakistan producing a "spring offensive" each year, then stay the course.  If though, domestic support in Canada and elsewhere can be measured only in a few years then I think you know the end result.  Do you want to win in the long run, or do you want a repeat each year of the same thing.  Build a school, they burn it down.  Hier a teacher, they kill her; not to mention night letters on doors. 

Call me a cynic, call me a realist, or just reckless … but it’s my contention that this conflict is heading the way of Iraq if something drastically different isn’t done.  There is more than a grain of truth in the enemy’s maxim, “You’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time!”  Extra-national safe havens are, were, and will always be the one single thing that enables insurgencies to outlast superior armies.  It’s like having a neighbour with dandelions … you can spray all you want, but new seeds never stop drifting in.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

However, if we can get to a point where we are sitting on large portions of the Pakistan border and can provide concrete proof of the bad guys hiding out there, political pressure can be brought on them to get a grip.  As it is now, there is this big no-mans-land and PAK can claim that nobody is border jumping.  Everyone knows that is crap, but politics is a big childish game of "you can't prove it so it doesn't exist".  Heck, the PAK embassy is trying to say that Mulla Omar is in Kandahar conducting operations.   Article link  You would think someone might have noticed him by now?  
Once the border is shored up, though, if PAK is held to some accounting and brow beaten into action the bad guys are going to be feeling pretty squeezed and trapped.  
Yes, and my sky is a rosy cotton candy colour.


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> ... but they need casualties to get the effect they want.



Fuzzy, they already have casualties.
Our press are repeating ad nauseum on a daily basis that we have lost 40+ troops since 2002.....


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> Call me a cynic, call me a realist, or just reckless … but it's my contention that this conflict is heading the way of Iraq if something drastically different isn't done.



I'm on the ground in Iraq and I have a year and change in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is not made up like Iraq so it does not have the capability to descend into the same type of ethnic violence.  Please consider the size and population of Pakistan before you so naively and cavalierly propose to bomb out areas of it.
  Finally consider that the USSF pers do not have nearly the presence or coverage in Afghanistan these days Michael Yon's commentary is tragically alarmist.
US Department of State distributed the same sky in falling stuff last year from him.


----------



## Desert Fox (21 Dec 2006)

Wow, this guy is clearly on somthing and I'm willing to bet its green. We should invite Mr. Yon to join us in the discussion..... :dontpanic:


As for intervention on behalf of or inregards to Pakistan, it'll be hard to make them budge. The current government isnt in the most stable position, it very much depends on radicals to prop them up. Meanwhile they have the US breathing down their neck. It's a tough spot for President. Muz.....forget it... to be in. 

He's being forced to walking a fine line between American backlash and domestic riots. Hence the title of his recent book, In the Line of Fire (or somthing very close to that effect)

Its clearly having an impact on the situation our boys face, making it much harded to sort out this problem, but its we all know its going to be a process and a half to restore A-stan. For the time being, the Pakistan army's "attemps" to clear the border region will have to do... It'd be nice if we co-ord our fire plan with thiers :threat:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

Desert Fox said:
			
		

> He's being forced to walking a fine line between American backlash and domestic riots.



Agreed.  But he still has plausible deniability in his favour, and the only people who can say for a certainty are the secret squirrel types and they aren't going to give it up.


----------



## Desert Fox (21 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Agreed.  But he still has plausible deniability in his favour, and the only people who can say for a certainty are the secret squirrel types and they aren't going to give it up.



Or will they?     (probably not)


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2006)

There is a big difference sending in surgical assets to eliminate the occasional target of opportunity, and sending in troops and support to wipe out a village that is a training center.
  We get away with the covert stuff, taking risks and occassionally losing whole teams.  But a conventional attack would topple Musharef (sp).

This is COIN, where everything you do has a strategic impact, down to the troop in the back of a LAV who throws candy or fuel tablets (as candy)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

My dumb....COIN?   ???


----------



## R933ex (21 Dec 2006)

COIN= Counter Insurgency


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

TY   ;D


----------

