Low troop levels behind deadly attack: analyst

[the 48th regulator]

Low troop levels behind deadly attack: analyst

Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie speaks on Canada AM from CTV's studios in Ottawa, Thursday, Aug. 4, 2008.

CTV.ca News Staff
 
Updated: Thu. Sep. 4 2008 9:39 AM ET

A Taliban attack that killed three Canadian soldiers shows the price of not having enough troops to hold and secure hard-won ground in Afghanistan, says a prominent retired general.

"What's worrisome is it happened in Zhari district," Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie told Canada AM of Wednesday's attack on an armoured personnel carrier that wounded another five soldiers.

Canada started its mission in Kandahar province in February 2006. One of the soldiers killed -- Cpl. Andrew Grenon, 23, of 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry -- was in the first rotation, Mackenzie said.

"And they cleaned out Zhari district, which is where this attack happened yesterday. And now, two years later, Canadians only control approximately one-third of Zhari district. The Taliban control (the remainder)," he said Thursday.

"Once you win a battle, you can't just abandon the area. You have to secure it. And there are nowhere near enough troops in southern Afghanistan to secure the ground that's won."

NATO is failing at the political level to generate enough troops, Mackenzie said.

Canada has 2,500 troops in Kandahar. NATO agreed last spring to add 1,000 more.

The U.S. has recently dispatched 800 combat troops to Maywand district, which is just north of Zhari and Panjwaii, another district where Canadian soldiers have been involved in constant skirmishes with the Taliban.

But Mackenzie said 800 here or there won't make that much of a difference. "I'm talking somewhere about 10,000 required to secure the territory," he said.

'Worrisome'

In the spring of 2007, the Taliban had success in causing multiple casualties by attacking Canadian armoured personnel carriers with large improvised explosive devices planted in the roadside.

However, insurgents attacked this LAV III carrier out on a security patrol Wednesday without using a roadside bomb. Smith said it's been two years since the Taliban killed so many Canadian soldiers in a direct attack.

"This is attack is worrisome in the kind of sophistication of the attack. At the same time we have not done the complete investigation on it," Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk said Wednesday at a defence conference in Banff.

"We've got great soldiers out there who again will react to this, have a look at it, learn from this and apply those lessons."

Natynczyk said there has been an increase in Taliban activity in the past few months, but he couldn't say what is behind the group's more aggressive tactics.

"The security situation during this campaign season and the fighting season is tough and we are seeing sophisticated capabilities in terms of training proficiency of the Taliban, not only in our own region but also in the Regional Command East and in Helmand province as well," he said.

"But at the same time we're learning, we're adapting and trying to get ahead of the Taliban."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that the Taliban's fighting season might be set for a seasonal slowdown.

"We know there have been times that the tempo has increased when the kinetic activity has gone down. Traditionally we have seen now as we enter Ramadan a slowing down of some of the violence which we hope and expect," he said.

Mackenzie said Thursday that he doubted there would be any "holiday" from the fighting due to Ramadan, the Muslim holy month.

Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith told Canada AM from Afghanistan that Ramadan has historically been a quieter period -- except in the last two years. Some Taliban look on this as a good time to commit suicide attacks "because the gates of Heaven are open," he said.

The latest casualties push Canada's military death toll to 96 since 2002. Of the five injured soldiers, one remains in critical condition. Another is in serious condition, two others are in good condition and the last has been treated and returned to duty.

One of the three fallen soldiers would have been returning to Canada in a matter of weeks.

With files from The Canadian Press




© 2008  CTVGlobalmedia All Rights Reserved.

Hmm,

Is General Mack getting ready for an election, or making a pointed observation.

I am a huge fan of Lew, just wondering about the article.

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

If he was successful on a Conservative ticket, he would be a good candidate for MND....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Low troop levels behind deadly attack: analyst

...not to mention a (reportedly) approaching federal election here, and one for sure in the U.S.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What I always wonder about is why these articles always state "there are 2500 Canadian troops in Kandahar"  but never mention how many of those are "tooth" and how many are "tail".  (Maybe that is OPSEC)  IMO, its deceiving and a half-truth.  But Joe and Jane Taxpayer don't know the difference for the most part...its like showing them a picture, but its out of focus.

 

[The Bread Guy]

On the other hand, someone may have explained the difference, and the reporter rounds up and makes it simpler.  From my limited experience, MSM sometimes doesn't handle nuance well.

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually from my perspective the issue isnt having enough troops on the ground. There has been the same number in Kandahar for quite sometime. Rather what we are seeing is a change in strategy of the taliban. They are infiltrating into areas close to Kabul and south into Kandahar due to the intense pressure coalition forces are putting on the taliban in the UK/US areas of operation.

The terrain in Afghanistan is rugged and unforgiving. The Russians couldnt control the country with 100,000 troops and the Afghan regime's 300,000 man force. In comparison ISAF has a much smaller footprint not to mention the variety of ROE's which serve to constrain operations.

ISAF has started to adapt to the change in strategy by the taliban.Additional US forces were deployed to Helmand and Kandahar to help.The 2/7 Marines were deployed originally to train the ANA but increasingly we see the battalion engaged in combat operations probably to help meet the requirement for more troops. A surge of sorts is in the works for Afghanistan next year,meanwhile the problem will be to counter the taliban attempt to target our less aggressive NATO allies around Kabul and to blunt their efforts in Kandahar.Additional French troops deploying into RCE will allow US forces to shift into the Canadian AO.It sounds like ISAF will not be hunkering down for the winter and will aggressibely search and destroy taliban elements. There is no easy or quick fix. Its pretty clear that the ANA will need to be alot larger and that will take alot more time.

 

[Old Sweat]

I am leaning towards Tomahawk 6's theory. The Taliban are starting to come out to fight in the open. The last time they tried this, it cost them dearly. Have they over estimated their capability and under estimated the combat capability of their foes?

If they concentrate, they can achieve local superiority in ground forces, but make themselves terribly vulnerable to 'the all over the place' weapons, to steal a phrase from our comrades in the sapper world. By this I mean that our forces can concentrate a devastating array of indirect fire and aerial delivered weapons in relatively short order, and do so without necessarily laying a binocular on them. Moreover, then these weapon systems can shift their fires in a matter of minutes tens of kilometres away and pound the crap out of another enemy force. That gives our side an advantage that is virtually immune to enemy interference, at least at this stage.

The disadvantage we face is the fear of civilian casualties, and the Taliban will exploit that by deployment amongst the population, and by email claiming our side has devasatated a village or a wedding procession or . . .

Still, the advantage is on our side when they come out to fight.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My concern is how Timmy is going to message this new approach (even though man for man, they're no match conventionally against the Coalition - or those members that fight more than others, anyway):  "Look, we're fighting them on their terms, and they're not winning yet - we haven't stopped fighting, have we, so therefore we must be winning."

OS also raises a good point re:  they don't care about civvy cas, so they'll stand toe-to-toe using human shields, and we still look like the bad guys (talking optics only, not ground truth).

Wiser words never typed....

There is no easy or quick fix.

and I fear that at the best of times, there is no public patience for the needed time frame, and the search for and offer of "quick and easy" becomes intensified during election campaigns.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I read The Economist magazine as (to me) it gives the most objective reporting.  In a recent issue it discussed the Afghan Army.  Building large scale units take time, and now we are seeing some fruition.  Incredibly, each week a whole battalion of 530 troops with officers graduating from training.  By next spring they will reach their full strength of 80,000 troops.

A British Liason Officer stated "they are agresive and fight forward".  Hardly garritroopers.

Why does the media not report this?  It's obvious that the Afghans do need to run their own country.  Our civies just don't seem to have the patience.

Cheers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"What's worrisome is it happened in Zhari district," Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie told Canada AM of Wednesday's attack on an armoured personnel carrier that wounded another five soldiers.

"And they cleaned out Zhari district, which is where this attack happened yesterday. And now, two years later, Canadians only control approximately one-third of Zhari district. The Taliban control (the remainder)," he said Thursday.

"Once you win a battle, you can't just abandon the area. You have to secure it. And there are nowhere near enough troops in southern Afghanistan to secure the ground that's won."

NATO is failing at the political level to generate enough troops, Mackenzie said.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Kandahar. NATO agreed last spring to add 1,000 more.

The U.S. has recently dispatched 800 combat troops to Maywand district, which is just north of Zhari and Panjwaii, another district where Canadian soldiers have been involved in constant skirmishes with the Taliban.

But Mackenzie said 800 here or there won't make that much of a difference. "I'm talking somewhere about 10,000 required to secure the territory," he said.

I can't comment intelligently about the tactical situation, I'd be so far out of my lane as to be 200m off the main axis of advance, well past the pecker-brush and into the swamp.

But, IMO, the meat of what he said is in the parts I've bolded from the cut-down quote.  I've always trusted his opinion;  I'd follow the man up the hill and down the valley any day of the week. 

I am trying to stay focused on the question of what was his purpose in stating what he did;  was it that he is a 'safe venue' to get the message out on the MSM, where as the MND, CDS and others can't quite say things such as this?  I'd assume that the General is still plugged-in and aware of the stategic/tactical side of the CF, in particular, what our army is doing/will be doing.  Its not like he is out of the country-club so to speak...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Another issue with more troops on the ground is the very vulnerable supply line. More troops means more supplies and more problems. I would like to see focus on a NW supply route which even if torturous and long, gives us a secondary supply chain and long term economic benefits for Afghanistan and the region.

 

[Greymatters]

A trend Ive seen in past deployments is how, over extended time, more and more positions will slide back into the main base/HQ, or outside positions get cut back while HQ positions stay at par.  Either way, what starts as a primaily 'pointy end' force gradually becomes 'back-heavy'. 

 

[Thompson_JM]

A trend Ive seen in past deployments is how, over extended time, more and more positions will slide back into the main base/HQ, or outside positions get cut back while HQ positions stay at par.  Either way, what starts as a primaily 'pointy end' force gradually becomes 'back-heavy'. 

I can agree with that....

anyone who remembers the Ant-Hill... (oh Gundy how I dont miss thee) on 01-07 will remember that it was occupied for a good long time, and then we pulled out.... and then the taliban came back and scared off the ANP, so then we had to go back in....

some days over there I felt like all we were doing was the military equivilent of sticking a pot in a sink full of water... it only displaces the water for as long as the pot is there... once it goes, the water comes back.....

much was the same with Timmy and the Gang... once the canadians pulled out of an area, they would come back fighting, knowing damn well the ANA and ANP couldnt really fight back....

Yes the ANA are getting better, but as long as all they operate with is Ford Ranger Trucks then they really have no better standing on the Battlefield then Timmy and his Toyota Hilux.... 

Think about it... Taliban vs Canada

Them: Light infantry, RPG's 106mm, Rockets, GPMG's  Soft Skin Trucks
Us: LAV III, RG-31, Leo 2 MBTs and more small arms and firepower then one could even imagine...

Taliban vs ANSF

Taliban: Light infantry, RPG's 106mm, Rockets, GPMG's  Soft Skin Trucks
ANSF: Light infantry, RPG's 106mm, Rockets, GPMG's  Soft Skin Trucks, and in some areas, Up-armoured Humvees, limited numbers though....

Better chance isnt it?

I think that unless we can give the ANSF heavier firepower ie: some sort of LAV or TLAV or Armoured veh... there isnt going to be alot they can do to hold ground, compared to the way we hold ground...  meaning, Pot in a sink of water, when we leave the area, the Talibs will just roll right back in.... until we come back... and the cycle begins anew...

Having said that, I have been out of theatre for over a year now, and (i hope) things have changed... and the ANA and ANP have heavier firepower and vehicles to get the job done...  but if they dont, then its just gonna be the same cycle over and over again.....

and without going into OPSEC, when I was there there was Definatley a very large number of support troops vs cbt troops... but i dont know if they were larger then the number of boys and girls in the fighting roles.... I know the NSE was smaller then the BG

 

[T.I.M.]

Some of the ANA units are fantastic, and some are junk.  It's a bit of a crap shoot.  2/1 Kandak was probably more successful than the BG for the first three months we were here.  Then 1/1 rotated in. . . well, a squadron of air cadets could have taken the entire Kandak.  Say no more.

The ANA still have trucks, and smallarms and RPGs, but they get more practice on those weapons than most Taliban, and they do have body armour, some NVGs, and mentors providing a link to CAS and arty.  And they also have numbers, overall.  2/1 routinely creamed the Taliban in Zhari, prior to the summer build up, and killed some key enemy commanders to boot.  If all ANA units were as good as 2/1 we'd be cruising.  Unfortunately Afghans are very personality centric, and a lot of 2/1's success was because they had a brilliant and ruthless commander, and a pretty decent staff under him as well.  Remove him and the unit would probably just be average.

Anyway, yes, we need more troops. We've just been going back and forth over the same ground since we crested post MEDUSA, which is a function of not having the manpower to properly complete the hold portion of clear and hold.  On the plus side, the Yanks are coming, so that may not be as big a problem in 2009. . .

 

[Weinie]

    I don't think there is any politickin here. MGen MacKenzie has been making this point for some time now, to no avail. See some of the links below.

    http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/inside_the_mission/lewis_mackenzie_viewpoint.html

    http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/4-06%20More%20Boots%20on%20the%20Ground%20Needed.pdf
   
    http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/07/06/4317382-sun.html