Posted on 07/16/2008 6:30:59 AM PDT by tobyhill
CNN) -- NATO-led forces in eastern Afghanistan have left a temporary combat outpost station, a site insurgents tried to overrun earlier this week in a push that led to the deaths of nine American soldiers.
But a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force said Wednesday that ISAF troops and Afghan National Security Forces would "continue to perform regular patrols near the village of Wanat."
"The citizens in Wanat and northern Kunar province can be assured that ISAF and ANSF are going to continue with a strong presence in the area,'" said spokesman Capt. Mike Finney said.
"We are committed, now more than ever, to establishing a secure environment that will allow even greater opportunities for development and a stronger Afghan governmental influence."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
If this is true it is a very bad move.
We cannot repeat the mistake made so many times before; fighting over the same piece of territory again and again in a war of attrition.
It didn’t work 35 years ago, it didn’t work in Iraq and it won’t work here.
I’m generally opposed to second guessing commanders in the field, but this seems like a rather bad idea; and surely it will be a propaganda victory for the Taliban.
We’ll see...
I read the story on Fox, amazing, we retreat because of 200 guys. The fox story said the rebels have moved into the “fort” or whatever so my thinking was “Why aren’t we bombing it into oblivian?”
I believe this “retreat” is part of a larger plan. Loose lips sink ships and all.....
I think the base is still there.
Obviously the enemy's strength was underestimated - that happens, just as it has many times throughout history.
Afghanistan has slipped backwards and today is of recent more dangerous than Iraq where our death toll is dropping and local security apparatuses are beginning to function. The answer isn't to hunker down on a FOB somewhere and avoid casualties, that approach has all to often become the M.O. in many multinational operations, and outside the US forces you'll see very few that are willing to really bite down and do much. Hell, they're all but growing poppy fields right under the noses of some of our allies who do nothing about it because they fear retaliation.
That approach is what led to problems in Iraq, but it takes troops and lots of them to "surge" into the country side and defeat the enemy.
If Mohammed won't go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed.
"Retreat" is a not a bad idea. This is not mano a mano WWI or WWII. Our advantage is Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere is not the number of our "boots on the ground", never was. More "boots on the ground" without deployment strategy only gets more "boots" sent home wrapped in the flag. Our advantage is in technology - surveillance and precision bombing etc. but we need to get the targets to the target area where we can use them. Let them "come to us". Also, it gets locals sick and and tired of Taliban / al-Qaeda and more interested in helping us.
I like your take on it -- perhaps it's a good way to draw more flies to the poop, if you will. Easier to get them when they're all swarming to one spot.
My response is that use of the term "allowed" is questionable, very questionable. I would like to be a fly on the wall when the leaders of the 200 armed Taliban pay a night time visit to "Freeper tobyhill, the chief of Wanat".
I think the problem is that we need more Arab language translators in Afghanistan.
Or maybe we need to bomb Pakistan while opening a diologue with Iran.
In any case, this whole Afghan thingy is a distraction from the real problems that America faces. Like climate change.
Is that you Donals Rumsfelt? Boot on the ground are what win wars. Unless you want to win by exterminating the enemy population, which the USA doesn't.
At least we could have left a few lethal “surprises” in the fort...
The war in Iraq was won when the Sunnis decided to stop fighting us. That happened before the Surge - when the Anbar Awakening occurred. What convinced them they couldn’t win was getting taken apart by the Shiite militias in Baghdad and by the pre-Surge U.S. military in Fallujah and then (especially) in Ramadi.
Arabic will not help in Afganistan, unfortunately. You may be right about the lack of translators, however, but about 85% of the Afghan population speak either only the Pashtu or Dari dialects of Persian/Farsi...
And if the Taliban forces are holed up in one fort, could we not just “bunker-bust” them all to Paradise???
I don’t know - the position might not have been a good one, tactically. I don’t see anything wrong with repositioning to a better location (pending knocking the bejeebers out of the enemy, of course).
Anyway, does anyone have a precise lat / long for Wanat. I want to look it up on Google Earth. (Armchair generalship...)
The military must have something up their sleeve, or another stupid Iraqi type move.
More bodies aren’t the answer, and were even in Iraq probably unnecessary and served more of a political end than any real effect on the ground.
In many cases, we know who the bad players are, we often even know where they are at (in round about area’s) and it’s not a matter of lacking firepower and bodies, but the lack of wanting to go after the targets for whatever reasons.
It’s the political environment which will make or break success in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the military which will do its job well when ordered. Success in Afghanistan will be difficult when you have a “safe haven” in Pakistan, when some allied nations are so casualty adverse that they will do nothing except sit there on a FOB bunkered up pushing up reports of all the things they have done……….. The surge in Iraq was the success it was because we loosened the chains around the Army/Marine Corps throat and let them go after the bad actors while willing to accept high casualties. As in man power on the ground, it appeased some political calling for this (A compromise) and while the forces in theater surely weren’t opposed that’s not what brought the results on the ground.
Had we kept 330,000 troops in Iraq as in 2003 during the major combat phase, we still would not have found Saddam or his sons any faster.
If some allied nation were to send 20,000 troops more, what difference would it make? Their Tornado’s can’t drop a single bomb! They avoid the hot spots. Their troops don’t partake in direct action against some of the bad actors, and they pretend that those poppy fields right under their nose aren’t there either……… What does a bigger number of troops mean? Wars like this can be lost even if you have 500,000 troops rammed into an area the size of S. Vietnam. It’s about intel and politics now, IMHO.
I am amazed that the history of the battle for Iraq is already being rewritten to mitigate the success of the military surge strategy!
Ok......that doesn't change what I am saying.
The words "knew" and "helped" may IMPLY that the villagers acted voluntarily (exactly what the MSM wants you to think- they edit the material so it says what they want it to say). Let me put in bluntly. --- You are Mr. Mayor of Wanat (the village). The Taliban come in armed and say, "You're going to keep your mouth shut AND you're going to help us. Or, we'll slice your kids throats right in front of you, and when you are done screaming (so everyone else in the village can hear you), we're going to string you up in the middle of the village. Ok, Mr. Mayor; what is your decision?
IMHO - when one makes the worst possible assumptions about the motives of the villagers, and the potential of the "villagers" to turn to your side, a huge mistake is being made.
Simply reflect back on the fact that many of the Iraqis who were killing our troops are now on our side; due to Petraeus's ability to understand the intimidation some of the "villagers" were under.
Yes, I understand, American soldiers died. War stinks. But, IMHO the objective is to win the war against the people who are threatening to kill the villagers if they don't cooperate.
Before I went to Vietnam, the MSM had me thinking that those people in the countryside were fighting us because of this "ideological" struggle between capitalism and communism. What I found upon arrival was that it was much less ideological than presented in the media and more like what I have described above. They lived in grass huts and were just trying to keep their families alive. We already have the majority of Muslims in Afghanistan cooperating, so if religion is an element, it appears to be secondary. From what I can see from afar, the only major difference from the people of South Vietnam is that the huts in Afghanistan are made of stone.
Even if you disagree, I would ask that you analyze media material from the perspective that 77% of the MSM are writing and editing information with the primary intent to spin that information so that it benefits the socialist perspective. It doesn't even matter what the media on the scene see and report, this stuff is edited in New York. We must all be constantly on guard, sometimes it is very difficult to spot.
More troops is not without a price of its own. It costs money to have more troops in theater (Logistics and personnel costs). It long term puts MORE stress on the DoD when trying to rotate units into and out of theater and not have troops extended or stay under one year at home station before deploying again...... There is an actual number of forces that is required, and it is computed. It is even broken down by type, etc. The DoD generates a list of required units by time and time needed and these are programmed in. Going above this number doesn't achieve much, but does cost you.
Your reasoning: A loaf of bread takes 30 minutes at 300F to bake. You think by turning the heat to 600F you can do it in 15 min. Try it, tell me how that went for you.
Things take time. And in these types of wars, what will ultimately decide victory are the conditions which are set by our policy makers, the executive, our allies, the affected nations in that region, etc.
The Anbar Awakening occurred when the Sunnis realized that they better cut a deal with us because otherwise they were going to get slaughtered by the Shiites.
“Not enough boots on the ground” is the political equivalent of “not enough money for education / schools” that liberals keep advocating to “solve” failures of education system and high dropout rates.
Had we deployed more “boots” with the corresponding increases in support, security and logistics personnel and other costs ( “tooth to tail ratio” - http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1249899&displaytype=printable ) without real specific deployment mission, we would have found that [inevitable] much higher casualties and financial costs jeopardize entire mission due to greater loss of morale and unhappiness and untenable political situation at home which could lead to really losing the operation in Iraq. The only place we had that was even close to really losing the “War in Iraq” was here at home, not “in” Iraq.
Having now “lost in Iraq”, Democrats via media are trying to gen up the same feeling of “losing in Afghanistan” as they did in Iraq, gleefully reporting on even minor skirmishes which resulted in dozens of “militants” dead as “real resurgence of Taliban”, especially if there were casualties on our side (even if not involving US troops).
Most of the city’s buildings and houses are more or less intact, but some areas have been completely destroyed. I toured the destruction in South Lebanon at the end of last year, but I didn’t see anything there on the scale of what happened in Ramadi. Nor did I see anything even remotely like this in Baghdad.
“We took the gloves off,” said Captain Dennison from where he described as Middle of Nowhere, Kentucky. “We had to.”
In reading that article, you will see that one of the key mistakes Al Qaeda made was to blindly go after anyone who was Western in appearance - particularly through the use of IEDs. If they had been smart they would have welcomed Western reporters into Ramadi (particularly Western film crews) because it was the Western reporters who acted as the only check on our military forces. Once it got too dangerous for Western reporters to go into areas like Ramadi (which meant no daily tv footage from the Anbar province), our military was able to take the gloves off and fight they way they needed to in order to win.
Amazing how many people are unable or unwilling to accept that. Unfortunately, John McCain is a major proponent of "more boots on the ground" and is very anxious to take credit for the "Surge" which he also wants to see and portray as only through the prism of increased number of our troops, not increase and proper deployment of properly trained Iraqi force and more stable political situation.
And training and weeding out of Iraqi forces was a strategy from beginning. It took less than 3 years to create a new functional Iraqi army and police force. David Petraeus was the one charged with the task from the beginning, and it is just one of those things that take time, along with the final "stage of grief" - "acceptance" on part of certain groups of population.
Exactly!
These kinds of actions carry much more significance with the muslims and in remote areas and small villages than with us.
We say to ourselves "We can knock these guys out anytime we want" but what the villagers see is the good guys packing up and the bad guys coming back.
And when we pull out, even for a short time, the bad guys come in and kill any suspected collaborators.
The next time we show up no one will give us the time of day because they know death is right around the corner and they don't trust us to stay.
You know, it is as if all the bloody but valuable lessons learned in Vietnam have been forgotten and now have to be relearned at great cost all over again.
We cannot abandon people to be massacred as we did the Montagnards and others in 'Nam.
Good observation. Hizbullah’s actions always take into account, if not specifically designed for the PR/media angle they know they’ll get from sympathetic Western press.
al-Zawahiri even had to send a letter to al-Zarqawi to change his tactics, which neither he nor his successor al-Masri took heed.
AQI also was not kind to locals, which generated a lot of resentment and willingness on their part to change sides and cooperate and share intelligence with our forces, which also led to us getting the crucial map of [rings of] AQI operations after bombing al-Zarqawi to Paradise in 2006.
Well the surge, “more boots on the ground worked”. Yall can spin this and spin that, all what you want, but the fact is more boots on the ground worked. Period. Have fun writting you own, never to be read history. Me, I’ll stick to the facts of what worked (boots on the ground) and what didn’t (winning the hearts and the minds).
Society is different today:
• People have no stomach for war.
• Expectations are unrealistic.
• We are more heterogeneous, Norman Rockwell is dead, and so are his values and this society he drew.
• Patriotism, loyalty, duty, and honor are meaningless words thrown around in a society that has replaced all sense of morality with situational dependent ethics. In WWII there were cases of people committing suicide when turned away from a recruiters office, today recruiting offices need to have force protection measures in place in case they get pipe bombed, molotov cocktailed, picketed……
Politically:
• Nothing is holly and anything goes. Any theme that has potential political capital can be picked up on.
• Our politicians today are openly buyable. As a DoD or OGA employee you need a clearance and indeed this is an anally retentive process. Yet you have politicians intentionally leak information in political ploys, you have some that will sell their vote to the highest bidder or campaign contributor.......
We are like ancient Rome, and like they, we are declining not because some enemy from outside is crushing us, but because of decadence, perversion, and decay from within. Our own leaders will knowingly sabotage our efforts as a nation when their party or own political career benefits from it; think Pelosi going to Iraq, the use of Abu Gahrib by politicians trying to attack the administration……… Our demise will like most other great societies come from within.
Our demise will like most other great societies come from within.
The progress and fate of society comes down to its leadership. Sustained lack of leadership over sufficiently long period of time will render the society not great and eventually cause its demise.
Very good points you make.
And concerning this village, this site orbat.com, reports that the Talibs did allow the villages to EVACUATE before they started the fighting. Quite gentlemanly of them, IMO.
And to put it bluntly, the US held them off, losing 9 but killing upto 200.
The essential question of November 2001 still stands; if you do not tackle Afghanistan as part of a strategy that includes Pakistan, it’d going to be awfully hard to get meaningful traction.
Hmmmmmm.
Funny, CNN didn’t mention this part of the story. Much damage was done to the terrorists. You are right (as usual).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046583/posts
The success of the "surge" was only possible because of those earlier events (of which the surge had nothing to do with). Nonetheless, the surge was the correct course of action.....but you are wrong with your premise.
1. Leaving Wanat is a bad move from a PR standpoint and
from the perception of the villagers. My son was at
Wanat on Sunday. What wasn’t destroyed during the fire
fight was destroyed afterward. So there wasn’t really
anything for the Taliban and Villagers to occupy. IMO
we still should have stayed.
2. More boots on the ground worked for a few hours on Sunday
for the Taliban.
3. Politicians do not win wars. They end wars. Warriors win
wars.
4. Even in remote Wanat the media still was able to spin and
mislead.
5. Vietnam is a textbook example of what happens when
politicians and the media play the part of generals.
Unless the politicians let our generals do their job and
the media report the facts without bias or agenda,
Afghanistan will be the next chapter.
This location was not needed in seeing to that taking place - Trust those on the ground, those in this specific AO are who made this call - That should give you reason for pause -
Thank you for the post and first-hand account from the place.
And warm welcome to FR!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.