4 months will tell if NATO is beating Taliban: commander

[Booked_Spice]

I would like to post my opinions on this but I am stumped. I don't understand how he will Know in 4 months. From everything that I have been told and read in the past 7 months we are making a significant impact. So how is 4 months going to change?



http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/08/afghan-canada.html

 

[Booked_Spice]

Here is another news article similar but it was from CTV...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060731/afghanistan_nato_060808/20060808?hub=World

 

[Journeyman]

In the article (which we should all now know, is the journalist's interpretation....), LGen Richards doesn't actually say how "we'll know." It does, however, give him four months to manoeuvre. Otherwise, when some bad news happens in a month or six-weeks, he can say "chill; I said four months."

Perhaps simplistic, but the Brits aren't new to this

...and the second article just adds a chronology because Canadians really suck at history 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I don't understand how he will Know in 4 months.

A competent commander will have a concept of operations which is used to derive a plan; a plan will include criteria for measuring results.

 

[GAP]

The Brit Commander just gave the Taliban a timetable.

 

[Part-Timer]

Not an expert, but won't Old Man Winter be just around the corner in Afghanistan in 4 months? From what I've heard and read, things tend to slow down in the winter months in this part of the world.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ah...that's it.  The brutal Afghan winter is approaching.

 

[pbi]

Not an expert, but won't Old Man Winter be just around the corner in Afghanistan in 4 months? From what I've heard and read, things tend to slow down in the winter months in this part of the world.

That was certainly the case when I was there in 04/05.

>I don't understand how he will Know in 4 months.

A competent commander will have a concept of operations which is used to derive a plan; a plan will include criteria for measuring results.

To me this is the most important point. It is a basic military principle that we set conditions for success, then assess the operation to see if these are being achieved. Without knowing what results we want in any given operation or theatre, (and when we need to achieve them by), we risk endlessly reinforcing failure ala the hideous attrition battles of WWI, or the failed operational concepts in Vietnam.  (Just one more mass attack...just one more bombing raid...)(

Without clear cut conditions for success, we would court disaster. Instead of a cold, hard-headed analysis of gains and losses and the likelihood of success, we would risk being influenced by emotion such as the desire to avenge losses, the desire not to be seen as spineless, etc. This type of thinking can force militaries to stick with failed concepts for the want of anything better, thus pointlessly wasting the lives of their troops. Worse, it can lead to the distortion of the truths we need to tell our political leaders and our people. I welcome LGen Richards' frankness: I don't think it should be interpreted as defeatism.

Cheers

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ah...that's it.  The brutal Afghan winter is approaching.

It will be brutal if the Coalition can seal off the escape routes to Pakistan and continue to press the Taliban throughout the winter. They should ramp up operations then, as hard as it will be for us, imagine how tough it will be for them on the run and no safe shelter or food.