Michael Yon in a Panic over Afghanistan

[FuzzyLogic]

Michael Yon said:

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

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

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

 

[KevinB]

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

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

 

[FuzzyLogic]

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

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[FuzzyLogic]

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[KevinB]

George Wallace and Journeyman got it...

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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

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

 

[FuzzyLogic]

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

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

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

 

[Mithras]

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

 

[Cloud Cover]

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

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

You forgot the sarcasm on, sarcasm off markers.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

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

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

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

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

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

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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

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

 

[FredDaHead]

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

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