# USA Sec Def Disses RC-S Forces COIN Capability?



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan*
The U.S. Defense secretary says he thinks the soldiers from Canada, Britain and the Netherlands do not know how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.
Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times, 16 Jan 08
Article link - .pdf permalink

WASHINGTON — In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

Gates' criticism comes as the Bush administration has decided to send 3,200 U.S. Marines to southern Afghanistan on a temporary mission to help quell the rising number of attacks. It also comes amid growing friction among allied commanders over the Afghan security situation.

But coming from an administration castigated for its conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such U.S. criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is controversial. Many NATO officials blame inadequate U.S. troop numbers earlier in the war in part for a Taliban resurgence.

"It's been very, very difficult to apply the classic counterinsurgency doctrine because you've had to stabilize the situation sufficiently to start even applying it," said one European NATO official, who discussed the issue on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the alliance. "Even in the classic counterinsurgency doctrine, you've still got to get the fighting down to a level where you can apply the rest of the doctrine."

Gates' views, however, reflect those expressed recently by senior U.S. military officials with responsibility for Afghanistan. Some have said that an overreliance on heavy weaponry, including airstrikes, by NATO forces in the south may unwittingly be contributing to rising violence there.

"Execution of tasks, in my view, has not been appropriate," said one top U.S. officer directly involved in the Afghan campaign who discussed internal assessments on condition of anonymity. "It's not the way to do business, in my opinion. We've got to wean them of this. If they won't change then we're going to have another solution."

Gates has publicly criticized European allies in the past for failing to send adequate numbers of troops and helicopters to the Afghan mission. But concerns about strategy and tactics are usually contained within military and diplomatic channels.

In the interview, Gates compared the troubled experience of the NATO forces in the south -- primarily troops from the closest U.S. allies, Britain and Canada, as well as the Netherlands -- with progress made by American troops in the eastern part of Afghanistan. He traced the failing in part to a Cold War orientation.

"Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap," Gates said, referring to the German region where a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was deemed most likely.

Gates said he raised his concerns last month in Scotland at a meeting of NATO countries with troops in southern Afghanistan and suggested additional training.

But he added that his concerns did not appear to be shared by the NATO allies. "No one at the table stood up and said: 'I agree with that.' "

The NATO forces are led by a U.S. commander, Army Gen. Dan McNeill, who has called for greater contributions by NATO countries. Some member nations are reluctant to deepen their involvement.

NATO officials bristled at suggestions that non-U.S. forces have been ineffective in implementing a counterinsurgency campaign. They argued that the south, home to Afghanistan's Pashtun tribal heartland that produced the Taliban movement, has long been the most militarily contested region of the country.

The European NATO official, who is directly involved in Afghan planning, angrily denounced the American claims, saying much of the violence is a result of the small number of U.S. troops who had patrolled the region before NATO's takeover in mid-2006, a strategy that allowed the Taliban to reconstitute in the region.

"The reason there is more fighting now is because we've uncovered a very big rock and lots of things are scurrying out," the NATO official said.

Pentagon concerns have risen as violence in the south has steadily increased, even as other parts of Afghanistan have begun to stabilize.

Last year was the deadliest for both U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, according to the website icasualties.org.

But both U.S. and NATO officials have expressed optimism that eastern Afghanistan, which is under the control of U.S. forces led by Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, has substantially improved in recent months.

Rodriguez implemented a campaign that incorporated many of the same tactics being used in Iraq by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad who co-wrote the military's new counterinsurgency field manual.

*"If you believe all the things you hear about Afghanistan, this ought to be real hot," Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, said of eastern Afghanistan. "More than half the border is Pakistan, it's a rough area, historically it's been a hotbed of insurgent activity. It's remarkable in its improvement."

At the same time, violence has continued to rise in the south, which is controlled by a 11,700-soldier NATO force largely made up of the British, Canadian and Dutch forces. Britain saw 42 soldiers killed last year, almost all in southern Afghanistan, its highest annual fatality count of the war; Canada lost 31, close to the 36 from that country killed in 2006. American forces lost 117 troops in 2007, up from 98 in 2006, but U.S. forces are spread more widely across Afghanistan.

"Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat," Gates said. "But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with."*

Some U.S. counterinsurgency experts have argued that the backsliding is not the fault of NATO forces alone.

Some have argued that an effective counterinsurgency campaign implemented by Army Lt. Gen. David W. Barno and Zalmay Khalilzad, who were the U.S. commander in and ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, was largely abandoned by officials who came later.

Barno retired from the military and heads the Near East South Asia Center at the National Defense University. In an article in the influential Army journal Military Review last fall, he blamed both NATO and U.S. commanders for moving away from the counterinsurgency plan since 2006.

Barno accused NATO and U.S. forces of ignoring the cornerstone of a counterinsurgency campaign -- protecting the local population -- and said they instead focused on killing enemy forces.

"We had a fundamentally well-structured, integrated U.S. Embassy and U.S. military unified counterinsurgency campaign plan which we put in place in late '03 that took us all the way through about the middle of 2005," Barno said in an interview. "And then it was really, in many ways, changed very dramatically."

Currently serving American officers, however, have singled out non-U.S. NATO forces for the bulk of their criticism. Among the concerns is that NATO forces do not actively include Afghan troops in military operations.

As a result, local forces in the south are now less capable than those in the east, which operate very closely with their American counterparts.

"Every time you see our guys in the field, you don't have to look very far and you'll see them," said the senior U.S. officer involved in the Afghan campaign. "Getting the Brits to do this and the others is a little more of a problem."

In addition, U.S. military officials said NATO forces in the south are too quick to rely on high-caliber firepower, such as airstrikes, a practice which alienates the local population.

"The wide view there, which I hear from Americans, is that the NATO military forces are taking on a Soviet mentality," said one senior U.S. military veteran of Afghanistan. "They're staying in their bases in the south, they're doing very little patrolling, they're trying to avoid casualties, and they're using air power as a substitute for ground infantry operations, because they have so little ground infantry."

The European NATO official said, however, that alliance data show that all countries, including the U.S., use air power in similar amounts when their troops come in contact with enemy forces.

"Everyone is grateful for the Americans . . . but this kind of constant denigration of what other people are doing isn't helpful," the official said. "It also makes the situation look worse than it is."

peter.spiegel@latimes.com


----------



## cameron (16 Jan 2008)

I'm no military expert but it seems to me that the situation in Afghanistan took a turn for the worse after the US diverted its resources to an adventure in Iraq.  Gates is just trying to pass the buck.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Jan 2008)

Let us all step back, take a deep breath and then take another one before even contemplating posting on this subject.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jan 2008)

I remember stating that the US had hurt the situation in Afghanistan by diverting troops to Iraq on a thread 2 years ago, and was met with a lot of disagreement. Now there are many factors at play here, but the vacuum left by the US has undoubtedly contributed to the current problems. I fully support criticism offered by the United States directed at those NATO countries who are not contributing, but to publicly suggest that the Canadians, Dutch and Brits (of all people!) are stuck in a "Cold War mentality" and do not know how to fight COIN operations is over the line. If Gates feels this way, let him tell the appropriate officials in these nations. In fact, having these forces in Afghanistan frees up American forces to conduct the successful COIN ops we have been seeing in Iraq for the past 4 years.  :

Unfortunately, all these comments will achieve is a chorus  of "I told you so's" from the those who think Canada should get out of Afghanistan. Gates has really given the opposition to Afghanistan in all the NATO nations some great ammo. I'm sure he's already regretting these comments.


----------



## cameron (16 Jan 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I remember stating that the US had hurt the situation in Afghanistan by diverting troops to Iraq on a thread 2 years ago, and was met with a lot of disagreement. Now there are many factors at play here, but the vacuum left by the US has undoubtedly contributed to the current problems. I fully support criticism offered by the United States directed at those NATO countries who are not contributing, but to publicly suggest that the Canadians, Dutch and Brits (of all people!) are stuck in a "Cold War mentality" and do not know how to fight COIN operations is over the line. If Gates feels this way, let him tell the appropriate officials in these nations. In fact, having these forces in Afghanistan frees up American forces to conduct the successful COIN ops we have been seeing in Iraq for the past 4 years.  :



+1


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2008)

> Gates' views, however, reflect those expressed recently by senior U.S. military officials with responsibility for Afghanistan. Some have said that an overreliance on heavy weaponry, including airstrikes, by NATO forces in the south may unwittingly be contributing to rising violence there.
> 
> "Execution of tasks, in my view, has not been appropriate," said one top U.S. officer directly involved in the Afghan campaign who discussed internal assessments on condition of anonymity. "It's not the way to do business, in my opinion. We've got to wean them of this. If they won't change then we're going to have another solution."



Firstly I agree wholeheartedly, and I have said repeatedly that I beleive the Canadian Forces are using the wrong methodology.  Part of the problem stems from the problems the lightly armed Brit Para's had when they where all but run out.   The other issue - is 99% of the time it is USAF a/c that are doing these missions...  One USSF LTC I know said if he had his way they would have sent the fast air and Arty out of country when the intialy push was done, that it a little simplistic as even with the sucesses in Iraq of recent - you can still look south and see areas getting pounded by CAS daily - and we still cop incoming IDF.  However by and large the 

 I am very well aware that the required LI/SOC troops living with the populace will intially be casualty producing, however when the US Mil went to that method here -- it was the when they started the huge gains.  Additionally a HUGE increase in spending on reconstruction (and REAL as opposed to wasted dollars) is needed to show the Afghan populace there is a better way...

WRT to the statements about the US forces in Iraq have hurt Afghanistan -- well most of the foreign fighters came here to fight as opposed to Afghan, secondly the US still has the most troops of any colation partner in Afghan -- and when you see some US units who are on their 3rd or 4th Combat tour since '02 -- and these are 1 year roto's...  Very Very VEry few Canadians have a year in Afghan let alone 4.  As well we sent troops to OEF with 3VP then ran our lilly liver bellies up to Kabul with I is for Incompentance, ISAF, so look in the mirror before we start casting blame.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2008)

After reading the article slowly I dont see where Gates said our allies didnt know what they were doing.
Second Gates was addressing the obvious that most of the NATO militaries had very little COIN experience and that NATO had previously trained for a conventional fight in Europe. Even our own COIN experience had to beresurrected and updated from Vietnam.

Gates is very unhappy that we cant get more NATO forces that would be permitted to conduct combat operations. The comments about the US diverting resources to Iraq instead of Afghanistan is pretty ignorant. The Russians put 150,000 troops into Afghanistan and it only served to unite the tribes to drive out the invaders. We were never going to put troops into Afghanistan on that scale. We already are the largest contributor of forces in country even while we are fighting in Iraq with 160,000 troops deployed there. The taliban cannot be destroyed unless we can kill them in their bases in Pakistan. As long as an insurgency has access to a safe haven they cannot be truely defeated.


----------



## MP 811 (16 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The taliban cannot be destroyed unless we can kill them in their bases in Pakistan. As long as an insurgency has access to a safe haven they cannot be truely defeated.



I agree with this statement completely!


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2008)

The only problem is that I don't see how public comments like that are going to help anything let alone NATO.  By critisising the "Brits and others" in public, won't that just embolden the enemy to go after them?  We have the the US secretary of defense saying that their allies are not as effective as the Americans.  Maybe he's right but I don't see how this helps.  NATO is already showing a very un-united front.  The morale of Canadian, Dutch and British troops is going to take a hit.  I mean these countries are already dealing with homegrown negative press and opinion.  Now they have to deal with this too.  Bad timing and poor taste in my mind.  Right or wrong.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2008)

Didnt bother the Brits when they were telling us we were doing it wrong in Iraq. They said do it our way the "soft" approach. They had their hat handed to them in Basra and if they had ever had to operate in Anbar lets say, they couldnt have sustained the losses without their public forcing them out of the war.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

If the reporter's quoting is to be trusted, this quote....



> ..... "I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview....



taken with this quote...



> "Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat," Gates said. "But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with."



would *suggest* Sec Def Gates is saying, "they don't know what they're doing".  However, it would be interesting to see what question SecDef was answering when he said the first quote, and whether it was a DIFFERENT question than one eliciting the second quote.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2008)

I was looking for a transcript to verify the article but couldnt find one.IMO the problem in Kandahar is the lack of enough troops. In Helmand it depended on the battle group commander on how aggressive he wanted to be.McNeill wasnt happy though and so he moved US troops into the AO.From the taliban side Musa Qala was strategic and we finally have the town in hand. I think the taliban will lie low or maybe divert its effort to Pakistan.At least in Pakistan they have a fair shot at winning.


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Didnt bother the Brits when they were telling us we were doing it wrong in Iraq. They said do it our way the "soft" approach. They had their hat handed to them in Basra and if they had ever had to operate in Anbar lets say, they couldnt have sustained the losses without their public forcing them out of the war.



The problem is that it's going to bother the other two allies that might not be around after 2009.  Comments like those are not going to help public opinion.  The fact the Brits did it in Iraq doesn't make it right or relevant.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I was looking for a transcript to verify the article but couldnt find one.



I'm still looking, too - will share if I can find something...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2008)

First of all, I do not read the Secretary of Defence as criticising the fighting abilities of the soldiers, sailors and airmen and air women.  I do agree that we, the CF are so new to COIN that we couldn't even spell it, let alone explain what it meant back in 2006.  I believe that Mr. Gates is addressing his comments at the leadership, and I fear that there is some element of truth.  He does seem to ignore, however, the fact that many of those CAS missoins are being carried out by the USAF.

There is also this statement that I think no longer applies to CF missions:



> Currently serving American officers, however, have singled out non-U.S. NATO forces for the bulk of their criticism. Among the concerns is that *NATO forces do not actively include Afghan troops in military operations*.  As a result, local *forces in the south are now less capable than those in the east*, which operate very closely with their American counterparts.



From what I can tell in the MSM, Afghan forces operate alongside canadians on a regular basis.  OMLT seems to be a priority as well.  Also, witness the operation by the Taliban to take over the Arghandab district centre last year.  That was almost entirely ANA lead (quite successfully) with some NATO assistance.  That, my friends, is a vast improvement.

Overall, I don't think that Mr. Gates comments are completely well founded; however, there is some truth in his statements.  The pill may taste bitter, but as Mr. Buckley says, "It tastes awful, but it works".

One final point: I just want to emphasise that the courage, fighting ability and tenacity of the Canadian Soldier is NOT at all in question.  If there is fault, it lies in the leadership.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

Now, for a bit more info, from the SecDef's spokesperson, from a Reuters (UK wire service) account....



> ....  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates was concerned that his remarks were being interpreted as criticism of individual countries, like Britain, Canada and the Netherlands which have forces in Afghanistan's southern region.
> 
> Instead *he was saying that NATO as a whole was not structured to handle insurgencies*, Morrell said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (16 Jan 2008)

If Mr Gates believs the NATO forces are not trained enough to compentantly perform COIN ops, then it is mostly the US Mil's fault, as the current SME, for not info sharing enough.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2008)

They offer Longtab courses to people...

  Look at his point -- Canada has very few COIN specific assets, and we ran out to buy new tanks while the M1A2 TUSK stuff here is being mothballed.  Yes its a capable asset - but I'd argue funding and manning JTF, CSOR and the LIB's to a full level and running up a true Canadian SF system (SF as in USSF not SOF connotation) would be 100% more useful in the theatre in the long term strategic vision.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2008)

Is he commenting on the day-to-day tactical abilities of NATO units, or more at the operational execution of these grand NATO HQ's with a piece of the pie for everybody?

He probably has some merit in commenting on the relative inexperience of other countries.  Let's be frank, Canada's last counterinsurgency effort was the Boer War.  Although our experience (and the fact that most of our Army participated) in the Balkans has given us some institutional foundation for operating in a complex, ethnically/tribal riven, religiously fuelled conflict, I think we can say that we walked into Kandahar without really knowing fully what we were doing.  We sent a mechanized battlegroup that was trained and organized to fight in Europe.  We are fighting an insurgency with tanks and artillery - but whether these are useful or not is debatable; Mr Gates own military seems to delight in using them to smash insurgent strongholds like Fallujah.  We don't have a counterinsurgency doctrine in place, and the draft of the one didn't make it too far before the preface became a political gongshow.  Politically, our government(s) didn't know how to explain this to Canadians, and Canadians didn't know how to process it.

So, sure, maybe he does have merit by saying we're not "structured" or "experienced" like the Americans to prosecute this war.  But that doesn't mean we ain't trying and we ain't learning, and I'll bet my backpay that we are far better off now then we were two years ago when we first went in.

My 2 cents.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2008)

Sounds like Gates was taken out of context.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sounds like Gates was taken out of context.


Ditto.


----------



## Mike Baker (16 Jan 2008)

LINK



> BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Some of America's closest NATO allies reacted with surprise and disbelief Wednesday to reported comments from Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting that their troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are not up to the job.
> 
> The Dutch Defense Ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation of a Los Angeles Times article that said Gates complained about soldiers from Canada, Britain and the Netherlands not knowing how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Jan 2008)

The level of commentary on this story is several levels above what I read a short while ago on the Globe and Mail's site. It won't post a link as reading most of the comments is a waste of oxygen.

Methinks the reporter took a few answers by Secretary Gates to questions, structured them to fit his story and dug into his speed dialer to find some sources to add depth to his analysis. He, in Edward's words, quite ably came up with lots of good stuff to fit in between the adds. I suspect that he successfully could defend his story on the basis that all the statements are quoted accurately and are therefore factual. At the same time, whether he intended to or not, he damaged NATO's solidarity in the south, which also lies along the border with Pakistan and is subject to infiltration.

Whether the comments are factual is another matter; the enemy situation varies widely across unfortunate Afghanistan from area to area and even from week to week. Did we not just have reports that the Taliban are planning another major offensive in the south? If I was one of the mad mullahs, it would make sense to me to raise all sorts of hades as the rotation between 03/07 and 01/08 was underway.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Jan 2008)

Why must CTV open comment threads in their articles on their webpage?

Some comments from the article about Gates' comments.



> ance
> I guess he thinks that in trying to spare at least some civilian lives in our assaults on insurgents we're not being aggressive enough.
> 
> "Jethro" (aka Americans) are known for their unbridled assault on anything that moves...
> ...





> Michele
> Ungrateful b.......!
> 
> Bring our troops home and let the US tackle their own problems, which are solely because of their foreign policies of the last 75 years; as well as, their imperial aspirations



 :

Midget


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Jan 2008)

While I agree that there is much to learn and new methods are always welcome, I found the criticisms in the original article a little odd in how they came across painting the US as squared away and the Canadians, Dutch and British as not having it figured out with respect to firepower and ANA.  I also do not think that a straight comparison of RC East with RC South is fair.  While the provinces of RC East were a hotbed during the Afghan-Soviet war and are certainly not safe or easy, RC South is the home of the Taliban and was the site of a relativley conventional Taliban offensive in 2006.  Context in terms of time and place should be accounted for.  

Still, I think that Churchill (or perhaps Ike) said that "The only thing worse in war than having to fight with allies is having to fight without allies."

Criticism between allies can get nasty.  We shouldn't offer ways for our enemies and the opponents of the mission to drive wedges into the alliance.  Whether he meant it or not, we should move on and not get too hot and bothered.


----------



## Petard (16 Jan 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Criticism between allies can get nasty.  We shouldn't offer ways for our enemies and the opponents of the mission to drive wedges into the alliance.  Whether he meant it or not, we should move on and not get too hot and bothered.



Too late. I've read it a number of times, and I've got to stop, it only pisses me off more.
But  I agree with you T2B, this is only fodder for the "why are we there folks".


----------



## GAP (16 Jan 2008)

Care needs to be taken that what we comment on is factual. I mention this because earlier in this thread it has been pointed out that the "reply" he gave supposedly dissing us and others, is not factual at all, but taken out of context.


----------



## scas (16 Jan 2008)

While we as Canadians might not have years of experience in COIN, we are adapting to it, and are doing pretty good, using and adapting the way it is done by the country that has the most experience in doing COIN.. Britain...  However it worded it, or whatever he may have meant, I really don't know what to think, cause while the states Lost Vietnam, the Brits did much COIN in the middle east as they were leaving those regions.. And lets not forget about the IRA..


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

Not a transcript, but a bit more detail (highlights mine) from the Armed Forces Press Service, shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Gates Says NATO Allies 'Committed' to Mission in Afghanistan*
Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service, 16 Jan 08

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2008 – U.S. defense officials made it clear today that while they appreciate the hard work NATO troop-contributing nations are doing in Afghanistan, more counterinsurgency training would help further the allies' success.

In response to reports that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was displeased with NATO allies, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said that the secretary praises the allies’ work. But, he added, the secretary is concerned about their need for counterinsurgency training.

*“At no time did he ever criticize any single country for their performance in, or commitment to the mission in Afghanistan,”* Morrell said.

*Gates has praised the countries involved in the fight in Afghanistan’s Regional Command South, he said, and has many times singled out Canadian, British and Dutch forces “for their professionalism, commitment and bravery in their work in RC-South.”*

*Gates has noted, however, that NATO as an alliance does not train for counterinsurgency,” Morrell said. “The alliance has never had to do it before.”*

NATO came into being in 1949 as a defensive alliance aimed at the Soviet Union. NATO forces were structured to stop the Soviet Union’s Red Army from coming through the Fulda Gap in West Germany and striking through Western Europe.

*Gates “is concerned, and he expressed that to the allies, that we may be sending operational mentoring and liaison teams to Afghanistan which are not properly trained,” Morrell said.*

These teams go to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Gates is concerned that the teams are not well-schooled in counterinsurgency tactics and strategies, Morrell said.

“That’s why there has been a push to send OMLTs to Hohenfels (in Germany) to get counterinsurgency training before going to Afghanistan,” he said, using the military shorthand term for operational mentoring and liaison teams.

The U.S. 7th Army Training Center runs a training area at the base that trains Europe-based American units that are deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates has seen the progress that forces and civilian organizations can make in following a counterinsurgency regimen, Morrell said. The secretary has visited Khowst in Regional Command East and has seen how American forces have had success with counterinsurgency.

“We’ve been doing this for six or seven years, so we are figuring it out,” Morrell said. “It’s taken us a long time to get there. We’re only now enjoying that kind of cohesive counterinsurgency success in RC East.”

*The bottom line with Gates is that he is concerned with NATO and how it is structured to deal with counterinsurgencies, Morrell said, adding that the secretary is not worried about any particular country.*

“Everybody is putting themselves on the line to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda,” Morrell said. “They are doing an astoundingly brave job.”


----------



## FuzzyLogic (16 Jan 2008)

Peter MacKay:


Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay on Wednesday played down criticism of the capabilities of NATO troops in Afghanistan by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, saying Gates told him the remarks were reported out of context.

Noting that Gates praised Canada's military performance just the day before, MacKay said Gates had just told him by telephone that comments published in the Los Angeles Times that most NATO forces were ill-trained to fight insurgencies were "taken out of context."

"They were comments made of a general nature about the need to focus training of NATO and the alliance on counter insurgency," MacKay said of Gates' explanation.

"He made similar comments, quite frankly, when we were in Scotland at the RC south (the southern Afghanistan regional command) defense ministers conference talking about the need to specifically gear training of the NATO alliance towards counter-insurgency," MacKay said.

"And so his comments were certainly not directed at Canada."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCe27wF_cAkNnjBSMj1K7bJSYJIw


----------



## -rb (16 Jan 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *Gates “is concerned, and he expressed that to the allies, that we may be sending operational mentoring and liaison teams to Afghanistan which are not properly trained,” Morrell said.*
> 
> These teams go to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Gates is concerned that the teams are not well-schooled in counterinsurgency tactics and strategies, Morrell said.
> 
> ...



Which a core group of canadians have participated in just this past summer, along with several other NATO nations.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

Here we find a bit of everybody, with a fair bit of clarification from SecDef's spokesperson, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Pentagon Moves to Blunt Gates' Rebuke of NATO Allies*
By Al Pessin, Voice of America, 16 Jan 08

Pessin report - Download (mp3) 894k audio clip
Listen to Pessin report audio clip

The Pentagon is moving to blunt concern and criticism that is already coming from European allies, in the wake of an article in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times. The article quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates as saying some NATO forces in Afghanistan have not been properly trained for the challenges they face there. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

The article quotes Secretary Gates as saying he is "worried" that NATO is deploying some military advisers and combat forces that, in his words, "are not properly trained and...don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations."

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says Secretary Gates was not misquoted, but that he is "disturbed" that the article implies he was critical of individual NATO countries. The article was published the day after the United States announced it will send 3,000 marines to Afghanistan, most of them to help NATO troops in restive southern areas.

*"For the record, he did not -- to the L.A. Times or at any time otherwise -- publicly ever criticize any single country for the performance in or commitment to the mission in Afghanistan," said Morrell.*

Rather, Morrell says, *Gates was lamenting that NATO, as an alliance, has not updated its training to include counterinsurgency operations.*

"As a result, he is concerned, and has expressed that concern to our allies, that we may be sending these Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams to Afghanistan which are not properly trained," said Morrell.

Morrell says Secretary Gates made similar points in December during meetings with NATO nations that have troops in Southern Afghanistan. But the Los Angeles Times quotes the secretary as saying none of the other NATO ministers said they agreed with his assessment.

The Times quotes unnamed U.S. military officers as saying their experience in Afghanistan supports the secretary's comments. They accuse NATO nations of using too much brute force, such as air strikes, and not enough foot patrols to provide security and reassure local residents.

The Times also quotes European officers as complaining that the United States allowed the security situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate by keeping too few troops in the country, leaving NATO forces with a particularly difficult situation.

In Europe Wednesday, officials reacted sharply to the Times story. The Dutch defense minister, who has troops to southern Afghanistan, called in the U.S. ambassador for an explanation. The minister Eimert van Middelkoop was quoted as saying "we do not recognize ourselves" in the Gates comments, and said it must be "a misunderstanding."

The Associated Press quotes the Dutch commander in Afghanistan's Uruzgan Province Colonel Nico Geerts as saying his troops "are well-prepared" for their mission. The Netherlands recently extended its commitment to Afghanistan until 2010.

In addition to the Dutch, there are large British and Canadian contingents in southern Afghanistan. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he has "the greatest respect" for what alliance members are doing in Afghanistan, particularly in the south.

The United States has frequently criticized NATO for not providing enough troops for Afghanistan, but has not publicly questioned its competence or preparation. The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, stressed that Secretary Gates appreciates the contributions of NATO members who have sent troops to Afghanistan.

*"He has gone to great pains to praise those countries who are, at great risk to their own militaries, taking the fight to the enemy in RC [Regional Command] South," said Morrell. "He has gone to great pains to praise the Canadians, to praise the Dutch, to praise the Brits for their professionalism, for their commitment and for their bravery."*

Secretary Gates will meet with NATO defense ministers at a regular meeting early next month. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet with some of her European counterparts next week.


----------



## stegner (17 Jan 2008)

Just out curiosity I wonder if there is a counter-insurgency manual (or whatever  the heck they called it back then) at the National Archives of Canada for the Boer War?  Was that Canada's last counter-insurgency? Or do we count the Russian Revolution?  Maybe this is an inappropriate thread to have this discussion but is there anything we can learn from those past counter-insurgencies as well as those of the 1883-5 Nile Expedition or even the Riel Rebellion?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2008)

> Gates' views, however, reflect those expressed recently by senior U.S. military officials with responsibility for Afghanistan. Some have said that an overreliance on heavy weaponry, including airstrikes, by NATO forces in the south may unwittingly be contributing to rising violence there.



Somebody just wheeled the scrum....... Gawdstruth.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (17 Jan 2008)

I doesn't matter what or how it was said or who published it, the enemy reads newspapers and I'm sure their having a good chuckle at our expense. I think that officials in high places should carefully censor there chatter. No matter how mundane it may sound, some journalist or reporter will be willing to run with it and make it into something it's not and this is a perfect example. 

"Loose lips sink ships". "Zip It". I think from now on what ever Secretary Gates says should go through a press Secretary and be worded so there is no room for interpretation, because this type of blunder just gives the enemy exactly what they want.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2008)

The enemy in this case is the media.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> "Loose lips sink ships". "Zip It". I think from now on what ever Secretary Gates says should go through a press Secretary and be worded so there is no room for interpretation, because this type of blunder just gives the enemy exactly what they want.



I'm scratching my head at how the media handled this, too, but it might be a bit drastic having public officials (like Cabinet Ministers here) speaking to citizens ONLY through spokespeople, dontcha think?

I'll be interested to see how easy it is to get a transcript of the original exchange...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2008)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48688

Gates Says NATO Allies 'Committed' to Mission in Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2008 – U.S. defense officials made it clear today that while they appreciate the hard work NATO troop-contributing nations are doing in Afghanistan, more counterinsurgency training would help further the allies' success.

In response to reports that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was displeased with NATO allies, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said that the secretary praises the allies’ work. But, he added, the secretary is concerned about their need for counterinsurgency training. 

“At no time did he ever criticize any single country for their performance in, or commitment to the mission in Afghanistan,” Morrell said. 

Gates has praised the countries involved in the fight in Afghanistan’s Regional Command South, he said, and has many times singled out Canadian, British and Dutch forces “for their professionalism, commitment and bravery in their work in RC-South.” 

Gates has noted, however, that NATO as an alliance does not train for counterinsurgency,” Morrell said. “The alliance has never had to do it before.” 

NATO came into being in 1949 as a defensive alliance aimed at the Soviet Union. NATO forces were structured to stop the Soviet Union’s Red Army from coming through the Fulda Gap in West Germany and striking through Western Europe. 

Gates “is concerned, and he expressed that to the allies, that we may be sending operational mentoring and liaison teams to Afghanistan which are not properly trained,” Morrell said. 

These teams go to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Gates is concerned that the teams are not well-schooled in counterinsurgency tactics and strategies, Morrell said. 

“That’s why there has been a push to send OMLTs to Hohenfels (in Germany) to get counterinsurgency training before going to Afghanistan,” he said, using the military shorthand term for operational mentoring and liaison teams.

The U.S. 7th Army Training Center runs a training area at the base that trains Europe-based American units that are deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Gates has seen the progress that forces and civilian organizations can make in following a counterinsurgency regimen, Morrell said. The secretary has visited Khowst in Regional Command East and has seen how American forces have had success with counterinsurgency. 

“We’ve been doing this for six or seven years, so we are figuring it out,” Morrell said. “It’s taken us a long time to get there. We’re only now enjoying that kind of cohesive counterinsurgency success in RC East.” 

The bottom line with Gates is that he is concerned with NATO and how it is structured to deal with counterinsurgencies, Morrell said, adding that the secretary is not worried about any particular country. 

“Everybody is putting themselves on the line to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda,” Morrell said. “They are doing an astoundingly brave job


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2008)

And a bit more....

*Gates rejects reports of NATO criticism*
William H. McMichael, Air Force Times, 17 Jan 08
Article link - .pdf permalink
   
On the heels of recommending a new U.S. troop deployment to support NATO operations in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “disturbed” that a news story published Wednesday made it seem like he was criticizing America’s NATO partners in Afghanistan for lacking essential counterinsurgency skills, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters today.

The story, published in the Los Angeles Times, drew immediate criticism from NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

“I’m surprised because I have no indication — and neither has the military chain of command — that any country or countries are not exercising their tasks to the highest levels,” de Hoop Scheffer told Reuters. “I think there is no reason not to conclude that all nations, including the ones in the south, are performing very well.”

The 43,000-member International Security Assistance Force is currently commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeil; current major troop contributors include Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Romania and the U.S., which has 14,000 troops assigned to the force.

The story begins: “In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.”

The story was based on a Jan. 7 interview, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. That was four days before Gates was briefed on the proposal, since approved by President Bush, to send 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan to help fend off what is expected to be an attempt at a spring offensive by Taliban insurgents.

Morrell said Gates did not take exception to any of the quoted material in the story. But “the totality of the piece leaves the impression that the secretary is disturbed with the performance of individual countries in Afghanistan. He is not. He has never expressed such concerns, publicly, to anyone,” Morrell said.

“His criticism ... is exactly what he told the Alliance” in December and repeated to the newspaper in January, Morrell said. “And that is that we as an Alliance have to adjust better to the new reality we find ourselves in — which is not preparing to fight the Soviet army coming through the Fulda Gap, but to fight what may be a persistent threat in the future.”

The Alliance, he said, is “having to make up for those failings,” he said.

Gates is specifically concerned, Morrell said, that NATO is sending to Afghanistan improperly trained 16- to 20-member operational mentoring and liaison teams, known as OMLTs, to conduct training for Afghani army and police forces.

De Hoop Scheffer told Reuters that while he had not verified Gates’ comments, he did not recall Gates having raised the issue of counterinsurgency capability with him or at NATO meetings.

Gates has publicly and repeatedly expressed concern that other NATO countries have not contributed enough combat forces and other capabilities to the coalition effort in Afghanistan — which, he said during a Dec. 19 news conference, “remains threatened by ruthless extremists and destructive narcotics trade.”

Gates has said the International Security Assistance Force is short about 3,500 trainers, and a total of 7,500 additional troops would be needed to meet every command requirement.

Gates expressed no concern during that news conference over any lack of capability in any member nation’s troops.

Gates renewed his manpower concerns at a December meeting of NATO defense ministers in Scotland but acknowledged that “political realities” make it difficult, if not impossible, for some members to increase their commitments of troops. He said he would look for more “creative” solutions, such as an increase in funding for specific needs, like helicopter maintenance.

The NATO effort to rebuild and secure Afghanistan, Gates said Dec. 19, “must be sustained and expanded into next year and beyond.”


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jan 2008)

To address Stegner's post first, many members who have posted here are well studied in counter-insurgency operations. There was not a specific manual for the Boer War, but the British relied heavily upon their experience in other wars on the fringes of the Empire. Mind you, the concept of operations they employed in South Africa would be unacceptable today, especially the use of concentration camps to separate the Boers from the civilian population. Goodness knows, it was attacked in the press at the time. To take your query further, during the North West Rebellion Riel had decided to defend the Batoche area on the South Saskatchewan River and not harass the advance of Middleton's forces. This was widely considered at the time to have been a strategic error that doomed the already meagre chances for Metis success.

I am not sure that the term counter-insurgency is valid for Afghanistan. I think it is too narrow. Depending upon the area and the time of the year our forces may be engaged with large, disciplined bodies of Taliban troops or very small groups engaged in ambushes, IED attacks and the like. Does three block war fit? Dunno, but I am leaning to little war as being general enough to encompass a wide operational range.

Last, yesterday I saw an interview on Mike Duffy Live with the reporter who wrote the LA Times story. He said it was based on an interview with Gates on an aircraft returning from Afghanistan last week and that he (the reporter) has a taped record of their conversation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2008)

As I cannot see any angels walking about, I am rushing in ...

To pick up on Old Sweat’s thoughts:

•	Counterinsurgency is not a static concept. I doubt that there is or can be a stable and detailed _doctrine_ for it. Each insurgency, in each place and time is _sui generis_ except for the fact that, by definition, it is an attempt to overthrow the established order of things. This is one of the reasons so many people caution so many others to not put too much emphasis on Britain’s victory over the Malay/Chinese insurgents around 50 years ago or America’s defeat at the hands of Vietnamese insurgents about 30 years ago: neither can provide a _blueprint_ for other counterinsurgency campaigns.

•	In addition to the common aim (overthrow the established order/replace it with something different) most (all?) insurgencies are also characterized by the society (culture) within which they occur. Thus an insurgency in intensely _tribal_ Afghanistan or in the Balkans in likely to be quite different from one in, say, _homogeneous_ Vietnam. Insurgencies may also be characterized (differentiated) by the role of religion – ranging from essentially irreligious insurgencies (Malaya and Vietnam) to those in which religious differences (and deeply held historic elements) constitute a key factor (Balkans (1990s), India (1940s) and Ireland (1970s/80s)). It is all too easy to use religion against foreign forces – as has been/is being done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

•	Speaking of Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq: it can be hard to tell when an insurgency turns into a full fledged civil war - in which each side has a firm territorial/political-economic base. When that happens any foreign forces may have some difficulty figuring out which side they ought to be on and which side they really are on.

•	Our American friends have done some first rate thinking, I think, on counterinsurgency, *but*, I fear a tendency (which exists, broadly, throughout the West) to take first rate thinking to an extra, unnecessary level and try to _institutionalize_ it into some sort of all encompassing _doctrine_. My favourite example is the so called _Powell Doctrine_. Gen (Ret’d) Powell was, certainly, right to argue that America should, always, avoid "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support."1 To suggest, as many have done, that, pursuant to the Powell Doctrine, America must eschew _peacekeeping_ and _nation building_ is to use _doctrine_ to emasculate foreign policy.


"The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people."
FM Sir Gerald Templer, cited in _End of Empire_, Brian Lapping, 1985 


I think we do have an insurgency in Kandahar – a Pashtun _uprising_ against a Pashtun led government in Kabul. Absent an _el supremo_ (à la Templer in Malaya _circa_ 1953) the _counterinsurgency_ must be the business of the Government of Afghanistan, especially the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. The foreign troops can, at best, support and sustain the Afghans and help create concrete achievements (see below) that will, in their turn, help “win hearts and minds.” 

I would argue that “winning hearts and minds” is, still, the key to counterinsurgency. The “will of the people” is what is at stake and it is, in a manner of speaking, a _beauty contest_ pitting the ideas, ideals and concrete achievements of the insurgents against those of the government (or established order of things). Clearly, to win, “we” (the Afghan _*counter*insurgents_ – supported and sustained by ISAF/NATO) must have and be able to communicate/demonstrate ideas and ideals and concrete achievements. This is why the 3D strategy needs to work.

The insurgents can and, traditionally, do use terrorism to “clear the field” so that they can communicate/demonstrate their ideas, ideals and achievements. For a whole host of reasons “we” (the liberal, democratic West) have decided that terrorism is not a “good” (useful or morally acceptable) tactic, so we have to “clear the field” in other ways – mostly off by driving the insurgents off the field, which is very, very hard to do if, as I believe to be the case in Afghanistan, the insurgents are locals who retreat not to the hills or across a border but, rather, into their own homes which are right on the “battlefield.”

Afghanistan Kandahar is not Malaya in the ‘50s, where ethnic Chinese were trying to subvert a popularly representative Malay government; it is *more like* Vietnam in the ‘60s in which an _indigenous_ insurgency is trying to overthrow an indigenous government as part of a larger civil war.

*Conclusion*: let’s, all of us, Mr. Gates included, help the Afghans to develop a strategy/doctrine/system/tactic/*whatever* to accurately characterize this particular insurgency and then win the counterinsurgency campaign so that the Afghans may get on with running their own country in their own way – *without allowing it to be used as a base from which enemies may attack us*.

----------
1.   http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3209


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (17 Jan 2008)

> I'm scratching my head at how the media handled this, too, but it might be a bit drastic having public officials (like Cabinet Ministers here) speaking to citizens ONLY through spokespeople, dontcha think?



It worked in WW II. FDR. had zippers on all his cabinets members lips and they were zippered closed tight most of the time. Unless of course what ever needed to be said went directly thought him first. No difference here, with the excpetion of modern faster than light global communications.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Jan 2008)

E.R.Campbell:
"Conclusion: let’s, all of us, Mr. Gates included, help the Afghans to develop a strategy/doctrine/system/tactic/whatever to accurately characterize this particular insurgency and then win the counterinsurgency campaign so that the Afghans may get on with running their own country in their own way – without allowing it to be used as a base from which enemies may attack us."

Well said.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> It worked in WW II. FDR. had zippers on all his cabinets members lips and they were zippered closed tight most of the time. Unless of course what ever needed to be said went directly thought him first. No difference here, with the excpetion of modern faster than light global communications.



To play the devil's advocate, there's a case to be made that this is how Canada's government is explaining our role in Afghanistan, and there's no shortage of threads and participants around here that say there may be better ways to do it.

Then again, you might be assuming that the media outlets will consistently get it in context even after the spokespersons speak their piece - a bit of a gamble, at best, I think


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/ts_nm/afghan_usa_gates_dc
CONCERN AMONG ALLIES

NATO allies responded to the Times interview with concern.

Britain insisted its troops had extensive counterinsurgency training, while the Netherlands summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation. Gates phoned his Canadian counterpart to say his quotes had been taken out of context.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48695

Marine Deployment Supportive of NATO
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2008 – The Pentagon’s decision to deploy 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan by spring was intended to reinforce the U.S. commitment there and is not intended as a criticism of the efforts of NATO allies in the region, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today. 

“This deployment of Marines does not reflect dissatisfaction about the military performance in Afghanistan of allied forces from other nations,” Gates said in a briefing at the Pentagon. “It reflects the fact that NATO and U.S. commanders believe they need more troops to take advantage of last year’s military successes, to keep pressure on the Taliban and to accelerate the training of the Afghanistan national security forces.” 

Gates came out with the comments today after a firestorm of international criticism over quotes appearing this week in a Los Angeles Times article in which it appeared he singled out NATO countries for performing poorly in the country’s counterinsurgency fight. 

*Gates said any comments referred to NATO as an institution, stating that it still has shortcomings as it transitions from a Cold War orientation to a more global expeditionary posture. The secretary also conceded that the U.S. military and government have had a difficult time adapting to the protracted counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Gates said the media reports do not reflect “reality.” He said several countries have “stepped up to the plate” and are playing a significant role in Afghanistan. * 

“They have rolled back the Taliban from previous strongholds in the south. They are taking the fight to the enemy in some of the most grueling conditions imaginable,” he said. “As the result of the valor and sacrifice of these allies, the Taliban has suffered significant losses and no longer holds real estate of any consequence.” 

Comments in which Gates was quoted as saying that some troops were “not properly trained” and that some military forces don’t know counterinsurgency operations came from conversations with commanders in theater that specifically addressed operational mentoring and liaison teams. The teams are embedded with Afghan National Army forces and train and mentor these forces. The teams also provide a liaison between the ANA and other forces. 

“We're trying to significantly increase the number of these operational mentoring and liaison teams. And my concern -- what I've heard out of the theater, and it's not just from Americans -- is that some of these groups are not fully trained,” Gates said. 

Gates said he expressed to NATO that more troops could be trained at the Combat Maneuver Training Center, in Hohenfels, Germany. 

“I just want to make sure that, as we ramp up the number of these … mentoring teams, that they are fully trained when they go into the theater. And that's true of every country, including the United States,” Gates said. 

Gates had spoken with several allied officials this week prior to the announcement of the U.S. Marine deployment. Since then, he has spoken personally only to the Canadian defense minister, he said. A Canadian soldier was killed by a roadside bomb near Kandahar on Jan. 15. 

“I wanted to make sure that they understood our respect for their contribution and how much of an impact they are making,” Gates said. 

About 2,200 Marines from 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and about 1,000 troops from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, based at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, at Twentynine Palms, Calif., will deploy. 

The Marines will serve in Afghanistan for seven months. The deployment will boost the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to about 30,000. 

About 1,000 of the Marines will deploy as trainers. That battalion-sized element will be tailored to the needs of the training mission there, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright said in the same briefing. Its ranks will be filled with older, more senior Marines with combat experience. The others will be deployed to the southern region of Afghanistan to help secure gains made there last year.

Transcript.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4121


----------



## Petard (17 Jan 2008)

Great, and so it goes
I still think his comments did not belong out in the common domain, if there was any truth to what he is saying, whether in the original form that was published in the LA times article, or in the current spin, it should have been dealt with internally.
I can't see any purpose behind it, I can only guess, maybe it was meant to be a rationalizing/justifying the Marine deployment aloud for domestic consumption (without thought of external implications?)
I don't know, but it sure doesn't look like its done the alliance any good.


----------



## tdr_aust (18 Jan 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> I'm scratching my head at how the media handled this, too, but it might be a bit drastic having public officials (like Cabinet Ministers here) speaking to citizens ONLY through spokespeople, dontcha think?
> 
> I'll be interested to see how easy it is to get a transcript of the original exchange...


Is this what you refer to?
U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
On the Web: 
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4121
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, January 17, 2008.


----------



## tdr_aust (18 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As I cannot see any angels walking about, I am rushing in ...
> 
> To pick up on Old Sweat’s thoughts:
> 
> ...


On this I am not going to disagree re the concept of doctrine. As you say it is not fixed in concrete on how to do it. Each situation is different. But there are some underlying principles that do not alter. Again principles are not concrete, ie you must follow to the letter.
The US have unfortunately fallen into the ‘Fulda Gap mentality’ for quite some time and their so called COIN doctrine via FMI 3-07-22 Counterinsurgency Operations, 1 October 2004, Expires 1 October 2006was a good example of such mentality.  This was replaced by their current doctrine as per FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Dec 2006. 
Though this is a doctrine it is somewhat large and highly detailed. It also comes with a “reader”, collection of related articles referred to in the FM.
To me this just seems like a blue print for problems as anything too detailed will become “*The Book*” and must be followed like a rule. 

They are worth reading to understand the US mind…

In passing I have read many US FMs and compared them to my Aust equivalent ones. Most US FM are very detailed and seem to treat people as if they need full direction to do what is covered in that FM. I am not sure if this is a dumbing down process or _well your choice of words here_


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2008)

tdr_aust said:
			
		

> Is this what you refer to?
> U.S. Department of Defense
> Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
> News Transcript
> ...



The transcript I'm talking about is the one of the interview between the LA Times reporter and the Sec Def - apparently took place on a plane from AFG on 7 Jan 08.  Since it's not posted at the Pentagon's web page, it's possible that the Pentagon folks don't have their own transcript available, meaning we have to take the reporter at face value re:  his summary of what was said (unless he's willing to share a transcript of his recording of the exchange).


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2008)

We have had a number of cases where the media has fabricated news to cause the administration problems. Its clear that Gates was taken out of context. I suspect that the reporter wont have access to the SecDef in the future.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I suspect that the reporter wont have access to the SecDef in the future.



...or at least not without someone ELSE recording the interview.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2008)

Further to tdr_aust's points - I have used before, and some folks may be tired of it, this analogy. But I still strongly believe it has merit.

The Brits, and Aussies, play Rugby.  The Americans play American Rules Football.

I am attaching 4 photos.  They are of the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide teams of 1892 and 2002, the Cambridge University side of 1874 and of 2002.


A hundred years ago Alabama and Cambridge could have played on the same pitch with some minor adjustments in rules.  Today Chalk and Cheddar have more in common.  The Cambridge team is recognizable to their forebears, if slightly larger.  The Alabama side carries more players than all the  "First Fifteens" of all the schools in Britain 100 years ago.

And each one of those is chosen and optimised and trained and equipped and tasked for a single clearly defined short term goal by the Coach with aid of his staff (another 2 "Fifteens" worth).


Byzantium, that inherited Mediterranean dominance from the Romans, was well known for taking the relatively simple lines of the Romans (a matter of debate) and piling on useless excresences until the original form and purpose of the edifice was lost in great piles of gilt.

It's hard to remember that in both Rugby and American Football the object in both games is the same: to advance the ball over the enemy's goal lines as many times as possible on roughly equivalent fields and roughly equivalent intervals.


----------



## tweetypie (18 Jan 2008)

What shocks me , is how the CON government is so afraid to condem the Americans for making such insulting statements against Canadian soldiers.
I mean we all know Harper will do anything to please Bush, but this is going too far.
But I am not surprised by the Americans thinking Canadian soldiers are not up to the job.
Remember when an American pilot disobeyed orders TWICE and blew away 4 Canadian soldiers.
Remember how Bush did not even make a public statement, did not even apologize, until he came to Halifax I think it was and someone brought it up 
Remember when Bush thanked everyone, including Mexico for being such supportive allies but didnt even mention Canada.
But yet here we see the right wingers refusing to criticize a man who is responsible for 4000 American soldiers dieing and 77 Canadian soldiers
Very sad


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2008)

The SecDef has denied making the disparging comments attributed to him saying he was taken out of context. If he didnt think the Canadians were capable would he permit a Marine MEU to be placed under the command of a Canadian GO ?


----------



## TCBF (18 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> What shocks me , is how the CON government is so afraid to condem the Americans for making such insulting statements against Canadian soldiers....



- Which insulting statements are you refering to?  Please provide and cite sources.


----------



## sgf (18 Jan 2008)

> Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay on Wednesday played down criticism of the capabilities of NATO troops in Afghanistan by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, saying Gates told him the remarks were reported out of context.
> 
> Noting that Gates praised Canada's military performance just the day before, MacKay said Gates had just told him by telephone that comments published in the Los Angeles Times that most NATO forces were ill-trained to fight insurgencies were "taken out of context."
> 
> ...



who then were his comments directed at? Its Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands who are shouldering combat roles in Afghanistan? Sure he said this, and it was suddenly taken out of context when bells went off, that he was actually insulting his Allies. What a dufus. Interesting that people are buying into the taken out of context excuse here, but not when Dion says he was also taken out of context. I guess its all in who is doing the talking.. !!!!!! :


----------



## GAP (18 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> What shocks me , is how the CON government is so afraid to condem the Americans for making such insulting statements against Canadian soldiers.
> I mean we all know Harper will do anything to please Bush, but this is going too far.
> But I am not surprised by the Americans thinking Canadian soldiers are not up to the job.
> Remember when an American pilot disobeyed orders TWICE and blew away 4 Canadian soldiers.
> ...



Meds acting up again?  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> But yet here we see the right wingers refusing to criticize a man who is responsible for 4000 American soldiers dieing and 77 Canadian soldiers
> Very sad



Whats sad is that you throw around our most noble serving members deaths as if they were just a tool for you to criticize, and I won't stand for it.
Welcome to the warning system..........


----------



## tweetypie (18 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Interesting that people are buying into the taken out of context excuse here,



Even more interesting  is that, after he was confronted with his insulting statements, he pulled the old, "My comments were taken out of context " line

Curious that, the British and Dutch governments were furious about what Gates had to say about their soldiers, ( and rightfully so) but yet the Canadas NEW government doing its best not to irritate the Americans, allow him to get away with .
Curious that Canadian soldiers  (SOME)have no problem with Gate's comments




> "I'm worried we'’re deploying (military advisers) that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counter-insurgency operations," Gates told the Los Angeles Times.
> 
> He specifically compared the troubles of NATO forces in the south — the turf of Canadian, British and Dutch troops — with progress made by American troops in the eastern part of Afghanistan.
> 
> ...






> Whats sad is that you throw around our most noble serving members deaths as if they were just a tool for you to criticize, and I won't stand for it.



What is sad is that the day after yet another Canadian soldier died for America, so many people are defending what this MAN? said

 :-\


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> What is sad is that the day after yet another Canadian soldier died for America, so many people are defending what this MAN? said



...and another step up the ladder for you. Going for the whole shebang in one night?


----------



## tweetypie (18 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The enemy in this case is the media.



For reporting, word for word what this person said?
 :


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> For reporting, word for word what this person said?
> :



The media has a bias against the military and the war on terror. The military has had a hard time getting the good news out to the public because the media wont report it. Thankfully we have seen the rise of blogging which has helped to tell the good news.


----------



## tweetypie (18 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We have had a number of cases where the media has fabricated news to cause the administration problems.





> Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson, told the Star that Gates called MacKay to assure him he had no specific concern with the Canadian performance in Afghanistan.
> But he did not deny any of the comments Gates made in the interview


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thankfully we have seen the rise of blogging which has helped to tell the good news.



Unforutunately though, the majority only hear what comes from the MSM and not those who have actual knowledge.


----------



## sgf (18 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The media has a bias against the military and the war on terror. The military has had a hard time getting the good news out to the public because the media wont report it. Thankfully we have seen the rise of blogging which has helped to tell the good news.


i have read many articles regarding the war on terror.. both good news and tragic news, can you show me where the military is having a hard time in this country, getting its news out? How can one depend on or believe what is read in bloggs, when no one has any idea who really  is the author


----------



## TCBF (19 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sounds like Gates was taken out of context.



- Of course he was - he was talking to the press.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> For reporting, word for word what this person said?
> :



We don't know what was said, word for word, because there is no transcript (apparently) available of the initial exchange between the SecDef and the L.A. Times reporter.  Until we see a full transcript, we don't know if the quotes shown in the original article were complete responses to questions as direct as "What do you think of how the allies are fighting in Afghanistan?" - they could easily have been taken from different parts of the interview, and displayed as they were to lead to the conclusion many are drawing.  However, unless the L.A. Times is willing to share a full transcript of the exchange with the world, we can only take the reporter's account at face value - it is ONLY what it is, and nothing more.

Besides, if the L.A. Times story is to be trusted as in context, shouldn't one also trust all the other stories that clarify the SecDef's comments.  Or are we into "I agree only with what agrees with me" mode?


----------



## Franko (19 Jan 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Besides, if the L.A. Times story is to be trusted as in context, shouldn't one also trust all the other stories that clarify the SecDef's comments.  Or are we into *"I agree only with what agrees with me"* mode?



Whoa there.

That would be an independent thought alarm and some might not want to know the inconvenient  facts.         

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Whoa there.
> 
> That would be an independent thought alarm and some might not want to know the inconvenient  facts.
> 
> Regards



Can't be having that, now can we


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jan 2008)

I posted this in another thread:

*When Good News Is No News*

"Certainly it is historically odd for war reporting to diminish almost to the point of public invisibility - just as our troops are starting to gain the upper hand. But we are fighting this war with the journalists we have, not the ones we want"

Tony Blankley
Real Clear Politics


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> who then were his comments directed at? Its Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands who are shouldering combat roles in Afghanistan? Sure he said this, and it was suddenly taken out of context when bells went off, that he was actually insulting his Allies. What a dufus. Interesting that people are buying into the taken out of context excuse here, but not when Dion says he was also taken out of context. I guess its all in who is doing the talking.. !!!!!! :



What a dufus!!!!  Indeed.  I have a question for you and tweetypie.  Were either of you there, when the comments were made, to verify what the LA reporter wrote was indeed factually correct and in the right context?  Perhaps Mr Gates isn't the dufus, but the people calling him one are.


----------



## sgf (19 Jan 2008)

what i see, is a lot of damage control after gates mis spoke


----------



## Teflon (19 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> what i see, is a lot of damage control after gates mis spoke



Good for you!, (little pat on the back) 

Edited to remove double post


----------



## cameron (19 Jan 2008)

I'm going to say something which will irk some of you but i'm going to say it still.   I heartily agree that journalists often cannot be trusted and we should not accept the original reporting of Gates remarks at face value.  By the same token politicians and bureaucrats often cannot be trusted and we should not be quick either to take Gates subsequent explanation of his remarks at face value.


----------



## Teflon (19 Jan 2008)

Cameron

First off I agree, hard to trust a journalist, hard to trust a politician, but since none of us where there during the interview, or know the parties talking we must look at it and give it the common sense test, what makes more sense, Gates insulting the troops abilities of an Ally when the mandate in that nation is growing short and coming up for renewal, or a journalist reporting partial statements or changing the context to "spice up" a story to sell the news.

What makes more sense to you?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2008)

> In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. .......



Lies, dammed lies etc...... And the source always need to be considered but.

Via Gateway Pundit.


----------



## Teeps74 (19 Jan 2008)

Well, what Gates said or did not say bothers me not... I have very little time for anyone in that administration, and frankly, if he does not like what we are doing, he can go cry more to the press... 

We are doing a fantastic job in Kandahar (the home and birth place of the Taliban). For equivalency terms, it would be like holding Washington DC. It is a symbol, one which the Taliban wants and needs to retake very badly... And despite their efforts, we are moving ahead with development in Kandahar City (KC) and province. 

While I was there, many an IED strike was prevented in KC thanks to the local population stepping in and reporting IED teams. What does the fact, that the locals are reporting IEDs to us and the local ANP tell me? It tells me that we are winning in Kandahar Province. Parents like the fact that they can name their children before five now. They like sending their kids to school. They like that we are trying, in conjunction with the Afghan people, to rebuild their country to at least the standard they enjoyed prior to the Soviet invasion. 

The fact that the locals like all of this, puts the Taliban in a very bad position, hence the reason why violence has increased... The population of Kandahar province is starting to trust Kabul, the ANA (and to lesser extent ANP) and ISAF... This trust is ruinous to the Taliban on their home turf. It always gets worse before getting better... 

And now it is getting better.


----------



## cameron (19 Jan 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Well, what Gates said or did not say bothers me not... I have very little time for anyone in that administration, and frankly, if he does not like what we are doing, he can go cry more to the press...
> 
> We are doing a fantastic job in Kandahar (the home and birth place of the Taliban). For equivalency terms, it would be like holding Washington DC. It is a symbol, one which the Taliban wants and needs to retake very badly... And despite their efforts, we are moving ahead with development in Kandahar City (KC) and province.
> 
> ...



Reports like this from someone who was actually there helping to make a difference mean much more to me than what some dumb bureaucrat says.


----------



## tweetypie (19 Jan 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> We don't know what was said, word for word,



Well yea, we do, because the  Penthouse  doesnt disagree with what was reported as to what he said either.
As I posted earlier



> Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson,
> did not deny any of the comments Gates made in the interview



But then again, with all the lies that come out of the Whitehouse since GW moved in, who knows what is the truth any more


----------



## Teeps74 (19 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well yea, we do, because the  Penthouse  doesnt disagree with what was reported as to what he said either.
> As I posted earlier
> 
> But then again, with all the lies that come out of the Whitehouse since GW moved in, who knows what is the truth any more



No tweetypie, we do not know what was said for sure. I have dealt with the press on so many occasions, and to be blunt, they more frequently then not mis-quote, and remove context on purpose, all for the all-mighty dollar.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well yea, we do, because the  Penthouse  doesnt disagree with what was reported as to what he said either.



Well no, we don't  - we know what the L.A. Times reporter wrote, and we know what he quoted, but we don't know all that was said (including the questions).  We do have transcripts available for at least one subsequent interview, which we can compare to stories, but not of the first one that started the ball rolling.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well yea, we do, because the  Penthouse  doesnt disagree with what was reported as to what he said either.
> As I posted earlier
> 
> But then again, with all the lies that come out of the Whitehouse since GW moved in, who knows what is the truth any more



I have to remember to buy alot shares of Alcoa on Tuesday.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well yea, we do, because the  Penthouse  doesnt disagree with what was reported as to what he said either.



I prefer to look at the pictures, and read the letters.  



			
				tweetypie said:
			
		

> But then again, with all the lies that come out of the Whitehouse since GW moved in, who knows what is the truth any more




And we are supposed to take everything you say as Gospel too?



We are working on a lot of speculation here.  Wackos are up in arms looking for a Witchhunt.  Calmer minds are waiting for proof.  Which one shall we call you?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I have to remember to buy alot shares of Alcoa on Tuesday.



My first out loud laugh of the day - thanks LOADS!   :rofl:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2008)

Whats really funny is the stooge we are arguing with has not, nor will ever, set foot in Afghanistan and certainly not to fight for those whom want peace, democracy and free will and require our help while trying to achieve it.

Hey Tweets, 
I'm curious whether you are racist, sexist or a combo of both?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Whats really funny is the stooge we are arguing with has not, nor will ever, set foot in Afghanistan and certainly not to fight for those whom want peace, democracy and free will and require our help while trying to achieve it.
> 
> Hey Tweets,
> I'm curious whether you are racist, sexist or a combo of both?



Bruce, you've GOTTA come outta your shell, you wallflower you - don't hold back, tell us what you think   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2008)

Mr. Gates’ comments (misquoted or not) have struck a nerve and my old, old boss (MGen (Ret’d) Terry Liston (formerly R22eR)) has weighed in with this *comment*, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wcogates22/BNStory/specialComment/home


> *Commentary*
> 
> Was Mr. Gates badly briefed? Or does he simply not understand?
> *No other contingent, particularly the Americans, has demonstrated greater mastery of dealing with insurgents.*
> ...



Amongst his other duties, Terry Liston was, for a couple of years, in the ‘80s, the Director General of Public Affairs so he understands how to frame his ideas so that the media will pick up. He was, also, just a very few years ago, Colonel of the Regiment of the R22eR, so I’m sure this comment is, in some part, written *for* the soldiers of that regiment, _*telling them*_ that M. Gates is full of _merdre_.

I suspect he’s speaking for a large number of senior officers; I can imagine that there was some pretty strong comment around the bar of the Ottawa Army Officers’ Mess last week along the line of Liston’s _”No other contingent, particularly the Americans, has demonstrated greater mastery of dealing with insurgents.”_


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Amongst his other duties, Terry Liston was, for a couple of years, in the ‘80s, the Director General of Public Affairs so he understands how to frame his ideas so that the media will pick up.



Good piece - I'm intrigued that, given his experience, he didn't even mention the potential that the SecDef may have been quoted out of context.  Or maybe it's just me having had a bad day @ work  

BTW, zero responses to repeated e-mails to USA PAffOs asking if there's a transcript lying about of the original interview, so it's still "what the reporter SAID he said".


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jan 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Well, what Gates said or did not say bothers me not... I have very little time for anyone in that administration, and frankly, if he does not like what we are doing, he can go cry more to the press...
> 
> We are doing a fantastic job in Kandahar (the home and birth place of the Taliban). For equivalency terms, it would be like holding Washington DC. It is a symbol, one which the Taliban wants and needs to retake very badly... And despite their efforts, we are moving ahead with development in Kandahar City (KC) and province.
> 
> ...



BZ


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2008)

Just spotted this one in the International Herald Tribune, by another Canadian - he doesn't seem to be buying the statements reportedly made by Gates to our Def Min after the LA Times article.  Shared with the usual disclaimer.....

*Collateral damage*
George Petrolekas, International Herald Tribune, 22 Jan 08
Article link

MONTREAL - Robert Gates, the U.S. defense secretary, hit a nerve last week when he told the Los Angeles Times that NATO forces in Southern Afghanistan were untrained in counterinsurgency, reliant only on Cold War doctrine and firepower and scorned cooperation with the Afghan National Army.

Within hours, the Pentagon beat a hasty retreat, explaining that Gates really meant to galvanize NATO into providing more troops to the embattled south. Despite Gates's heartfelt apologies to the nations concerned, only the Taliban have emerged unscathed from the secretary's impolitic comments.

What distressed many of America's NATO allies was that his verbal bombshells perpetuate the American myth that only the U.S. armed forces are capable of combining aggressive action and cultural sensitivity in the careful measure necessary to defeat an insurgency.

It is no wonder that America's closest allies took umbrage, given that they have plenty of peacemaking experience and are thus very much in tune with the cultural nuances so necessary to win the war the West is waging in Afghanistan.

Many American officers who passed their military adolescence in training to fight in the Fulda Gap - the strategic area in the Cold War era where the Soviets would theoretically invade West Germany - still believe that the U.S. Army is not meant for protracted low-level conflict or nation-building.

The Powell doctrine, so favored by many U.S. officers, of applying overwhelmingly superior force followed by rapid withdrawal from the field, was highly successful in America's first Gulf war but does not apply to the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war in Iraq has awakened military soldier-scholars to the fact that America must wage a completely different type of war - fought among the people, generational in scope - where firepower and maneuver must also include development of civil society and security through close contact with the population. As the United States discovered that the world had changed, so too did her NATO allies. It is disingenuous to imply anything else.

*In 2005, while briefing a small group of senior U.S. generals directly involved with Afghanistan, I was surprised by their perception that Canadian troops under American command would "restrict their battlespace," a term that reflected a lack of U.S. confidence in their allies.*

I had to remind my American colleagues of the fistful of U.S. medals that Canadian snipers and soldiers had earned in Afghanistan supporting the United States in 2002 and a presidential unit citation awarded to Canadian Special Forces in the same conflict. It took an American colonel who had served with Canadians in 2002, calling them "the best trained soldiers he had ever seen, bar none" to dispel the perception.

*Those very same Canadian soldiers have never clung to the safety of secure bases. Many have been killed by IED's or have died in fire fights, including one in which they rescued an American Special Forces contingent in Helmand Province.*

For Canada, with over 10 percent of its army in Kandahar and suffering comparatively high casualties, it is disappointing that sacrifices like these could be forgotten by Canada's best friend and ally.

Perhaps Gates was not told that it is the United States that controls the training and deployment of the Afghan National Army. Since the beginning of Canada's deployment to Kandahar in January 2006, there has not been a ranking military officer or politician visiting Kabul or Washington who has not begged for Afghan National Army battalions to be made available in the South. Indeed, the mantra of the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is to ensure that an Afghan face is in front of all we do. But we cannot cooperate alongside Afghan units that do not exist.

The most troubling of Gates's comments has nothing to do with fighting the insurgency, but with his questionable understanding of the fragile web of compromise that binds the allied participation in Afghanistan and domestic political price paid by many allied governments.

Many of the countries with NATO troops involved in Afghanistan are governed either by delicate coalitions or minority governments for whom Afghanistan is a much debated and divisive issue. The unintended collateral damage of Gate's remarks only fuels the anti-Americanism already rampant among nations whose opposition parties rally against supporting what they perceive as President George W. Bush's war.

If the insurgency has become more violent, the defense secretary might recall that the United States minimized the Taliban threat, frequently telling NATO that it comprised no more than 600 to 1,000 adherents and thus permitted a minimal presence in Southern Afghanistan.

No other force has used air power as vigorously as the United States, notwithstanding friendly fire and Afghan civilian deaths that Gates now decries. What injury the secretary's bombshells might do to the unity of the alliance remains to be seen.

_George Petrolekas is a colonel in the Canadian Army, presently on unpaid leave, who from 2003 to 2007 was involved in the Afghan missio_n.


----------

