Petraeus - Re-visiting NATO ROE in Afghanistan

[vonGarvin]

that worked so well for the soviets, eh?

Horrible analogy.  First of all, remembering that the USSR had but one army in Afghanistan in the 1980's (41st, if I recall), and remembering that they had six in the German Democratic Republic, three more in the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic and a Tank Army in Poland, I'm guessing that you failed to realise where the Soviet Main Effort was.  On an order of ten to one, the Soviets had more troops facing us in Central Europe than in all of Afghanistan.

If you want to know why the Soviets left Afghanistan, you can't look in Asia at all, but to Europe, where these things were propping up:

That's just the Americans.  They were re-arming.  Big time.  The Soviets had to respond, and in their attempt to match US and NATO spending on conventional and nuclear forces, they went bankrupt.  The writing was on the wall by about 1986-87 or so, and the USSR needed to pull out of Afghanistan in order to concentrate on us.  So, the myth of the invincible Afghan is that just: a myth.  It was through economics that we destroyed the Soviet Union, and if the Pashtuns don't want to play, well, let's pay someone else.  And in the meantime, drop the bomb.

 

[SeanNewman]

TV,

Deep down we both know that you learned everything you know about the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan from this movie:

 

[vonGarvin]

TV,

Deep down we both know that you learned everything you know about the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan from this movie:

That's a good flick, and I think I'll throw it in and watch it again! 

Thanks!

 

[Altair]

Horrible analogy.  First of all, remembering that the USSR had but one army in Afghanistan in the 1980's (41st, if I recall), and remembering that they had six in the German Democratic Republic, three more in the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic and a Tank Army in Poland, I'm guessing that you failed to realise where the Soviet Main Effort was.  On an order of ten to one, the Soviets had more troops facing us in Central Europe than in all of Afghanistan.

If you want to know why the Soviets left Afghanistan, you can't look in Asia at all, but to Europe, where these things were propping up:

That's just the Americans.  They were re-arming.  Big time.  The Soviets had to respond, and in their attempt to match US and NATO spending on conventional and nuclear forces, they went bankrupt.  The writing was on the wall by about 1986-87 or so, and the USSR needed to pull out of Afghanistan in order to concentrate on us.  So, the myth of the invincible Afghan is that just: a myth.  It was through economics that we destroyed the Soviet Union, and if the Pashtuns don't want to play, well, let's pay someone else.  And in the meantime, drop the bomb.

I think you missed my point. I was saying that the soviets did carpet bomb large portions of Afghanistan. It didn't work.

 

[SeanNewman]

Is it really necessary to quote someone's entire post including the photos?

I'm not a moderator on this website, but taking the few seconds to thin-out the quote before you post it would be very appreciated in saving everyone else scrolling through duplicate things.

 

[Teeps74]

I think you missed my point. I was saying that the soviets did carpet bomb large portions of Afghanistan. It didn't work.

You are correct. The Soviets engaged in carpet bombing, direct fire, collective punishment, massive military operations... And it was all for naught. They failed utterly to comprehend that the important ground was not ground at all.

 

[Dog Walker]

Britain's top general in Afghanistan admits 'courageous restraint' must change

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7884017/Britains-top-general-in-Afghanistan-admits-courageous-restraint-must-change.html


Britain's most senior general in Afghanistan has admitted that rules for opening fire on Taliban insurgents must be "re-examined" following complaints from soldiers that they were too restrictive.
Soldiers and Royal Marines told The Daily Telegraph last week that their lives were being endangered by the policy of "courageous restraint" introduced by Gen Stanley McChrystal to cut down the number of civilian casualties.
In an interview with the Telegraph, Lt Gen Sir Nick Parker said troops in more dangerous areas should be able to use "all the tools at their disposal".
Last month was the bloodiest since Nato troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, and it is understood that soldiers will be given more flexibility in using lethal force to defend themselves after some complained they were fighting with "one hand tied behind our backs".
"In some areas we have over-corrected and we have to absolutely make sure we bring that gently back into line," said the Deputy Commander ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).
"Our soldiers have to be committed to the very challenging fight that they are in, they have to have all the tools at their disposal and they have got to feel free to use them in the right way, but what we must do is not alienate the population.
"So we need to re-examine this and make sure that there has been no risk of overcorrecting. We have to ensure that we are allowing our people to have the right degree of manouevre on operations to deal with the circumstances they face."
But the general added that recent special forces operations that had been "extremely effective" in capturing or killing high-level Taliban and could force senior commanders to defect.
"What you have to have is effective operations that target the bad people.
"The effect, hopefully, is that they want to be reintegrated.
The operations, which have intensified over the last six months, are designed to "remove important people from the battlefield, to make conditions better for those living there and to make our troops' job easier, but also to undermine the coherency of the insurgency at higher levels."
Lt Gen Parker, speaking at his headquarters in Kabul, said it was a "hugely emotional" decision to remove British troops from Sangin, where his own son, an officer in The Rifles, suffered a double amputation, but it made military sense to concentrate troops in the more densely populated areas of central Helmand.
The general had to run Afghanistan for almost a month after Gen Stanley McChrystal was sacked by President Barack Obama for insubordination, a decision that came as a "deep shock".
"We were very sad that it happened but the extraordinary thing is that his plan was so effective that the platform was easily taken over by (Gen David) Petraeus."
The general, who has been in post for almost a year, said that while the campaign was "bloody hard work" it was his "professional belief" that progress was being made.

 

[vonGarvin]

The Soviet's methods worked against the Germans, the Czechs, the Poles, the Hungarians, etc.  Had we not stepped in and armed the Mujahadeen, I'm certain that they'd still be there. 
They lost the war because they couldn't afford to be there anymore, not because what they were doing there wsn't working. 

 

[Kiwi99]

Teeps, glad you want to win the war...big thumbs to you.  Now, given the fact that it won't be won, especially with the enemy emboldened by our politicans and media, what do you propose?

Apparently, according to some, holding ground is not the answer, nor his the hearts and mind concept.  Corruption is still rampant in all levels of Afghan governmet and the insurgents are still able to attack whatever and whenever they like, even with all out int capabilities and resources.

Moving out of the FOBs and into communities is a start.  But these locals in these communities are still allowing the insurgents to plant bombs in and around the town...or they are simply ignoring them.  Why is that?  Are the enemy more terrifying than NATO with all its guns and tanks, planes and helicopters?  Do we need to be more terrifying to the locals.

Anyone who thinks we can win this thing needs to seek help.  Battles don't mean jack in the grand scheme, I agree.  We could win all the battles but it won't garner support from anyone.  Do we need to fight dirty, like the enemy?

 

[SeanNewman]

You are the greatest Sgt of all time.

I hope you give these inspirational speeches to the soldiers in your section during work-up training, just so they know how futile all of their efforts are going to be.

"Listen up troops, we've got some hard times ahead of us, but don't worry...nothing you could possibly do will make a difference so let's just go over there, earn some sweet tax-free cash, and know that if we die it will really be awful because it was all for an un-winnable cause...alright everyone look right...sh!thole 10,000 km to your front will be known as 'Futile Sh!thole'".

 

[Kiwi99]

As I am sure in your universe you are the greatest captain of all time. well done to you

 

[SeanNewman]

I make no claims to be flawless by any means, and I am more than willing to admit when we make mistakes and do things wrong so we can get better and improve.

However, that is a very far cry from your defeatist attitude that sabotages mission performance.

"Maintenance of Morale" is the 2nd Princ of War for a reason.  I'll make sure I'm present at your orders if you ever do 3B.

 

[Kiwi99]

Its not a defeatist attitude,  it is reality.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

However, that is a very far cry from your defeatist attitude that sabotages mission performance.

"Maintenance of Morale" is the 2nd Princ of War for a reason.  I'll make sure I'm present at your orders if you ever do 3B.

Defeatist attitude?  Sabotage of mission performance?  Are you the new political officer? 

Out of idle curiousity, why do you want to be at his 3B orders?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do we need to be more terrifying to the locals.

Yes

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Kiwi99, looking at your profile I see you do know what you are talking about, in that you've been here and done it. We may have even taken over our AO from you in the spring. But I will say this. Militarily, yes you are right, we cannot win the war. Politically, yes we can. It is about political compromise, not necessarily with the TBSL in PAK but with the mid level fighters here in country, and the best way they can save face by ending the war too. They are just as tired as we are.

But know this, my lads are actively shedding blood right now in this war you call hopeless. And despite that we are seeing progress. It is tiny, but every step forward does count. Will it count a year from now, I don't know. But no one can blame us for trying. I agree the biggest handicap we have is the political will back home, or lack thereof.

And I won't be the political officer and try to gag you, you've earnt your right to that opinion as have I. But I won't give up on this war just yet.

 

[SeanNewman]

Defeatist attitude?  Sabotage of mission performance?  Are you the new political officer? 

Out of idle curiousity, why do you want to be at his 3B orders?

1.  I have invested a great deal of my time in winning this thing.

2.  Solely to see the part at the end when he says "Orders end" and then gives his motivation to the platoon, which I want to see for entertainment: "Gents, we've been at these VFFA and the 1 PGD a long time, and I have to be honest when I say that I don't think we can take 'em".

 

[Kiwi99]

Sure do hope I can entertain you.  Pretty sad individual you are if that is how you get your thrills and laughs, but every person is different I guess.

Meanwhile, as you carry on full of bravado and a yearning for glory, realists will begin to figure out how we deal with the military in 2012 after the mission.  That should be the focus from now on, as there will be a huge amount of challenges for the entire force to overcome.  Retention...recruiting...equipment...funding...our wounded...veterans affairs...and so on.  Most importantly, the morale of the soldiers who will have to revert back to a non-war army.

I applaud you for your aggression and desire to win, I really do.  However, the battle that we must win is not Afghanistan.  The battle we must win is post-Afghanistan.  Our military, in particular the Army, MUST win that battle.

So take your nonsense about sabotaging the mission, and wanting to be at my orders on 3B and find something constructive to do with them. 

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes

Haha, that's hilarious that you had a one word reply and edited it.

Did you originally write "no" and then have a bad day?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

However, the battle that we must win is not Afghanistan.  The battle we must win is post-Afghanistan.  Our military, in particular the Army, MUST win that battle.

Amen brother.

VP