Time to Send CF Fast Air to AFG?

[The Bread Guy]

(FULL DISCLOSURE:  This is from an e-zine I edit and distribute, written by one of the subscribers.)

Interesting question posed:  If U.S. fast air collateral damage is causing too much hostility among Afghan civvies, why not bring in Canadian air to support our troops in a way that won't antagonize those facing Canadians?

http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/13309

"Time to change the Piper:  How U.S. Air Power is Hurting Canadian Efforts in Afghanistan"
Lorne Warawa

Highlights:

"When Taliban fighters retreated from open warfare in the region, they took shelter and used civilians as human shields to ward off the pressure, a tactic perfected against Western Forces by the insurgents in Iraq to great effect. The predictable result was a wholesale bombing of a town and the loss of innocent civilian lives."

(...)

"I'm going to add that if the whole thing there blows up into a full bore insurgency on the unremitting scale of the Sunni Triangle, Canadian support for the mission will crumble. Harper will face a disaster in policy directly because US firepower caused anti-Western sentiment to grow to an extent that sustained an increased number of Insurgents. Even though closer American ties will not be to blame for this, they will none the less be seen as a factor in Harper's Afghanistan policy. The opposition will pounce on the fact US firepower caused our credibility as peace-makers there to crumble. There will be a real linkage of the two factors and Harper will face a Lyndon Johnson dilemma."

(...)

"So far, Canada has had success in convincing Afghans that we are fair and there to develop the rightful Afghan government, not take their country over. That success was jeopardised by wholesale destruction. What I fear is more Canadians will have to die to kill the recruits this mess has garnished the Taliban and those Afghans who are opposed to the Government."

(...)

"First off, until we can implement change, all U.S. airpower and any other large scale support weaponry for any sector ISAF is working inmust be placed under fire control of ISAF fire controllers only - regardless of U.S. activity. That means ISAF and NATO rules of engagement are the only ones in effect. Those who are risking their lives on the ground should be the ones calling the shots - that’s fair enough for anyone ... ISAF nations should supply their own airpower as soon as possible. The Canadian, British and Dutch forces have the capability, and therefore will supply all such support. "

(...)

"They can allow US warplanes to decimate our credibility and cause more Canadian soldiers to die, or they can withdraw our forces. Or they can take a bold lead and elevate a key problem in establishing trust in that war torn country. "

 

[tomahawk6]

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, thats what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.

In WW2 the allies bombed military targets but civilians were killed at those targets because they were munitions factories, refineries, aircraft plants and so on. The air campaign was expanded to bombing entire cities in retaliation for the mass bombing of London. This was total war. Today we strike only tragets that are either attacking coalition forces or are targets of opportunity. Taliban "civilians" will be killed if they are aiding insurgents by housing/feeding them. In the GWOT civilans cease to be so when they become active participants. The insurgency cannot exist without sympathizers. So when you read about an airstrike killing enemy fighters and "civilans" substitute sympathizer for civilian. The sympathizers are the support network the insurgency requires to survive.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

One of the problems with prescion (sp) bombing is that the world thinks these bombs and missles are so accurate that when we miss its on purpose.

 

[tomahawk6]

We don't miss with these PGM's. The taliban sympathizers are comingled with the taliban fighters.

 

[geo]

In the eyes of the Afghan people, airpower - be it American, Dutch, Brit, French, German OR Canadian.... is "American".

You're wasting your time & breath on thinking in such a fashion (IMHO)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Probably the fastest and most efficent way possible to eliminate the CF-18 from inventory would be send a few of them over there right now. One civilian death and it would be game over.

 

[Ahkenaten]

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, that’s what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.

What were they doing at a Taliban base? Taliban don't have any 'bases' in Afghanistan. It wasn't a 'location containg 80 Taliban', it was a village. These Afghans weren't sheltering these Taliban, according to my information they were just sitting there hoping not to get killed when the Taliban entered their village after running away from an American attack. This is harbouring/sheltering? A muderer being chased by the cops runs into your home and when it’s all over you get charged as an accomplice to murder for aidding and abbeding? C’mon, man. If someone else has information other than that PLEASE pipe it this way, it would be much appreciated. Also it's looking now like it might be closer to 50 Taliban dead and 34* civilians killed.

Now I'm the first in line to agree with you 100% with regards to your assessment of the media and it's 'hammer the emotion' angle -- I'm right there with you on that one...further more I also realize that if this was done solely with ground units and artillery there would still likely be many civilian casualties and coalition dead to boot...BUT if you think NATO can run a campaign whereby every air strike kills 1-2 civilians for every 5 (confirmed) Taliban kill and succeed in a mission that requires, (not a secondary objective by a long shot) convincing the people to work together...well I think yer dead wrong. We need to convince them to work with us and the rest of their countrymen and not the Taliban...after all this isn't 'democracy at gunpoint' as many protesters would claim, right? They have to do it themselves or we've already lost.

Now what the writer is suggesting in article seems a little simplistic to me. For example what one poster said here is probably true: Most people equate all airpower with 'American'. But every civilian killed is a step backwards. To my thinking 80 Taliban dead - 16 (34?) civilians dead is easily equitable to 80 steps forward and 16 (34?*) steps backwards. I don't pretend to have a solution, but I don't think it's to overstretched to say this incident's strategy used in overabundance is not going to work.

US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, that’s what really matters.

Not if the mission is lost it doesn’t. Not by a long shot. If that were ‘all that mattered’ none of us would be there.


*http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/26/afghanistan.deaths/index.html

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, thats what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.

In WW2 the allies bombed military targets but civilians were killed at those targets because they were munitions factories, refineries, aircraft plants and so on. The air campaign was expanded to bombing entire cities in retaliation for the mass bombing of London. This was total war. Today we strike only tragets that are either attacking coalition forces or are targets of opportunity. Taliban "civilians" will be killed if they are aiding insurgents by housing/feeding them. In the GWOT civilans cease to be so when they become active participants. The insurgency cannot exist without sympathizers. So when you read about an airstrike killing enemy fighters and "civilans" substitute sympathizer for civilian. The sympathizers are the support network the insurgency requires to survive.

Just my humble opinion but I think there's a huge difference between total war and counter-insurgency, in particular where you are trying to build popular support for a new democracy.  More to the point when those soldiers and NGO's that are bringing "western ideals" to replace tribal customs also drop bombs and even by accident kill civilians, you create a tremendous amount of resentment and anger.  In short, I think the use of air power in any urban setting where there is the possibility of civilian casualties (whether Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else) while trying to gain popular support is ill-advised as even tactical gains are guaranteed to result in a strategic loss.


Matthew. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The taliban were fair game as a military target. They occupied a village which also makes that a legitimate target. The villagers were sympathetic to the taliban cause which makes them an enemy. The province was the seat of taliban power so it shouldnt come as a shock that they support the aims of the taliban. The use of airpower is legitimate both in defending coalition forces when they come under attack and for striking taliban positions BEFORE they are able to strike coalition forces. These strikes are directed by special operations forces that locate enemy positions, paint the target for a precision strike then ground forces go in to assess damage.

The taliban spring offensive has had the aim to capture a town for propaganda purposes and overrun ANA/coaltion base camps. They have used over 1000 fighters coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan and so far over half have been kileld or captured. No towns have been captured. No bases overrun.
I for one could care less about the loss of people who are supporting the taliban. You have to remember these villages can defend themselves if they don't want someone from entering the village. The taliban are there because they have permission to be there.

I agree that this is obviously an insurgency against the elected government of Afghanistan. So far the ANA and police have proven able to more than hold their own against the taliban because most people do not want a return of rule by religious zealots. In eastern Afghanistan we are operating in the heart of Taliban power.To defeat them we have to beat them on their own ground. The more ineffectual they show themselves to less power they will have. On the other hand the reconstruction efforts are important because these projects are visible and help improve the lives of local people. Any time our medics hold sick call in a village we create goodwill. Goodwill is returned with reports on taliban movements in an area. Every time you get a civilian seeking medical attention at the camp gates you are beginning to make real progress, because they would never do that unless they felt safe from retaliation.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

But you have to realize the allied bombing of "civilians" story smeared all over the news live and in living colour was the biggest "win" for the bad guys all Spring.

And for the record, I'm with you....If the villagers were sheltering them, then they should be fair game.  But if you're going to overcome the apologists in the media, you better have your 4-star General out front saying that in plain english rather than letting the photographs and video coverage out while providing no context to the viewing public....and letting ignorant journalists try to provide context on their own.



Matthew. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

....and I can't help wondering, since the Taliban don't wear uniforms just how do the "press" seem to know who's who?

 

[Bobbyoreo]

I say send them over. Give the Airforce something to do!!!! Plus it wont hurt to get them some op experince!!!

 

[KevinB]

:

Dumbest Idea ever.

For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.  IIRC not all Cdn Hornets are equiped for PGM's - not do we have vast stores of them anyway -- so we would drop a lot of "dumb" bombs for a while...

Two - its war, a lot of LAV's and Howitzers are putting rounds on tgt - neither which are terrible descriminate.

IF the populace was so concerned about taking fire they should not shelter the enemy - PERIOD.

Besides - the ANA kill a ton more civilians than the Coaltion anyway.

 

[Bobbyoreo]

"For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.  IIRC not all Cdn Hornets are equipped for PGM's - not do we have vast stores of them anyway -- so we would drop a lot of "dumb" bombs for a while..."

First off we have pilots already flying with the US Marines and Airforce. I don't think it would increase any deaths if CDN AF got involved. I do believe that they do need the proper equipment which alot of our planes don't have.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

....and I can't help wondering, since the Taliban don't wear uniforms just how do the "press" seem to know who's who?

I believe it was Grange on CNN commenting on Iraq who said something to the effect of "That although 95% of bullet wounds occur in young men of the exact same demographic as the insurgents, if they don't have a gun on their person when admitted into hospital, they're immediately classified as a "civilian casualty" which is nuts".


M. 

 

[mdh]

For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.

Exactly the point I was going to make; there seems to be an assumption in the original thread that US combat pilots are wildly bombing anything that moves (perhaps an understandable prejudice given our recent history with the USAF in Afghanistan.)  I guess the idea is that the CAF would do "peacekeeping" CAS as opposed to the aggressive US "peacemaking" CAS  ; either way it doesn't sound like a convincing argument given the realities of war in Afghanistan.

 

[SupersonicMax]

We were supposed to send a 6 pack there in July but the idea has been cancelled...  I took this info last summer in Bagotville... Pilots were training for this.

Max

 

[geo]

if memory serves me right, the CF18s weren't wanted the last time things flared up in the Balkans - or was it the Gulf? . IICR something about the compatibility of our comms systems (old) compared to the US & UK gear (new)

 

[Good2Golf]

if memory serves me right, the CF18s weren't wanted the last time things flared up in the Balkans - or was it the Gulf? . IICR something about the compatibility of our comms systems (old) compared to the US & UK gear (new)

Kosovo, but they went after some discussions with the USAF.  We didn't have HAVEQUIK II - compatible radios.  In the end, USAF needed section and element leads (many Cdn Hornet pilots were so qual'd) more than they didn't want to transmit on single frequency.  Our 18's are now HQ-II compliant.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[probum non poenitet]

A very touchy topic, a very emotional one, and if there were a clear and simple answer, we would have taken it.

Tomahawk, I must disagree with you. If a village containing enemy is considered fair game, ie those 'sheltering' Taliban are legitimate targets, why not level the whole village with a B-52 strike? Why mess around with presence patrols at all?
Once you acknowledge that tactic, you can no longer claim to be fighting "to free the populace" - rather you are seeking to annihilate segments of it. Once that sinks in to the locals in Afghanistan and to the public in Canada (and probaby U.S.A.), it's over.

There are many reasons against that approach, both on the Afghan front and the home front.
Schrecklichkeit does not work in counter-insurgencies. It creates more enemies than it kills.
History is replete with populations turning against an occupier the more violent their methods became. I cannot think of many that were tamed that way - conquered yes, but brought onside, I cannot think of any.
It is the dangerous consequence of fighting a counter-insurgency with a conventional-war mentality.

I don't judge the tactical commanders. Their responsibilities are to win the tactical battle with minimal loss of friendly life. Grand strategy doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you are under fire.
So what happens if your patrol comes under fire from a village? Do you order an airstrike on it?
Damned easy for use to argue from the armchairs.

But consider this: maybe the villagers are 'active supporters' of the Taliban. Or maybe they were villagers, just trying to stay alive and back a winning horse that won't treat them too badly. Taliban, ANA, take your pick, just let me go to mosque, don't kill me, and don't drive me into poverty.

One day in roll the Taliban - you cooperate or you and your family die. Fair enough. Most villagers would choose cooperate.
Then in comes the coalition - in the fight an airstrike destroys your house and kills half your family. Now you have a bias where perhaps you didn't before.
Maybe before you just wanted to back the winning side, but now you have a sworn vendetta against the West.
Put the shoe on the other foot, you would probably be ready to kill if you weren't before.
I am speculating, but there are many examples of this from other nations in other wars.

Now, some of the 'civilian casualties' are perhaps guerillas. But some of them are children, and that is a bad, bad thing, and you can't say they were combatants.
Those casualties are taken to the regional centres for treatment - Kandahar - and the word is going to spread.
I don't say one incident turns the tide of the war, but if the Coalition adopts a "It was a Taliban village, they were all fair game" they are setting themselves up to fail.

The enemy knows this. They are no doubt going to use it as a tactic.
I don't know the means to defeat this tactic, but we must put our tactical/strategic heads together, or this issue could defeat us.

If you can put the photo of a child wounded by Canadians and/or Coalition on the cover of the papers every day, support will crumble. That is almost a certainty. It is an emotional issue more than a logical one - you can explain Taliban tactics and area of effect weapons to the public until you are blue in the face, but the fact is: You kill too many children by mistake, the mission ends.

Like any new tactic that is hurting you in war, you must find an innovative way to counter it.
I do not have that tactic yet, but it is imperative that we (as a Coalition) find one, IMHO.

Please don't take this personally, I think this is an ugly topic that must be hashed out if we are to succeed.