Article

2008-08-21 Afghanistan

Afghanistan: More troops needed to stop Taliban attacks, says think-tank

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-08-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 But it was announced two days ago that we are sending three brigades (12,000-15,000 troops) over the next six months. The think-tankers are a little behind reality.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-21 08:28|| 2008-08-21 08:28|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm sorely tempted to get a biplane, the kind with the agricultural spraying tanks, and a few thousand gallons of RoundUp™. I'm thinking I could put a dent in the poppy crop, at least til I got shot down, and I keep wondering if that would put the Talibunnies out of business.

Don't know, just saying ...

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-21 09:27|| 2008-08-21 09:27|| Front Page Top

#3 same hammer dont work for all problems.

Interesting though how for several years the notion of using MORE troops in Iraq and changing counter insurgency tactics was derided as foolishness - both by the left (which insisted that Iraq was a mistake apart from tactics) and the right (which could countenance no criticism of Rumsfeld, and by implication, of Cheney and Bush). Now we've found both were wrong, and the neocon critics of Rumsfeld - Kristol, Kagan, and McCain - were right all along.

I'd like to see a detailed analysis of the situation in afghanistan (hey, maybe I should check the link, huh?) and I would like to see WHY clear-hold-build, using large numbers of troops, is NOT the optimal strategy for Afghanistan. My vague impression is that Petraues has been promoted to CINC Centcom in PART to implement in Afghanistan more or less what he did in Iraq.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 09:38|| 2008-08-21 09:38|| Front Page Top

#4 well its not really a full think tank report.

But interesting stuff nonetheless

This year - 2008 - has been the deadliest year, there have been more attacks and more sophisticated attacks. This has had a psychological effect on the people of Afghanistan.

"They don't believe international troops can defeat the Taliban and if they think that we will lose their support."

IE the strong horse theory. An idea RB sometimes supports in other contexts, esp at the grand strategic level. In Iraq we've seen how important it is at the tactical level. It doesnt seem that unreasonable to think it plays similarly in afghan.

Zakhilwal said Western leaders must urgently increase troop numbers and transfer peacekeepers, including German troops currently based in the north, into combat roles.

Like many afghans, apparently, he'd like the germans to get off their butts.

"What the Taliban has done is to spread their lines, they are overstretching the military,"

Consistent with discussions here of Pashtun demographics, attrition, etc.

he said. "Small pockets of insurgents are operating in different areas which makes it harder for NATO troops to fight.

When they bunch up its easy to kill em. Sometimes they are dumb enough to do that, but often not.

"Tuesday's attacks show that the Taliban is on the steps of Kabul. It looks like the Taliban are attacking Kabul from three sides - south, west and east."

Zakhilwal said apart from increasing troop numbers, more needed to be done to prevent the cross border movement of militants from Pakistan.

Does anyone disagree? Other than the Pakis, that is?

"Afghanistan is key in the war on terror," he said. "If we fail it is about global security, global terrorism. Afghanistan is the key to winning the war on terror, not Iraq."

while I can see where THAT will get some panties in a bunch, the grand strategic judgement is not really key to the tactical situation in afghanistan.

The Senlis Council, an independent security and development policy group, has research offices throughout Afghanistan, has been documenting the Talibans activities since 2006.

It has documented a number of violent attacks that have taken place across the country in the past week from Khost in the east to Kandahar in the south.

The council said there had also been heavy fighting in the southern province of Zabul where the government claimed to have killed 32 insurgents early this week.

they do not seem to among the clueless.

It has predicted the situation will worsen in Afghanistan without a change of strategy and increasing troop numbers to a total of 80,000.

I dont know when they asserted this, or how it relates to the recently announced changes in US deployments.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 09:47|| 2008-08-21 09:47|| Front Page Top

#5 pardon - on rereading its not real clear if he meant the taliban were becoming overstretched or rather that the Afghan military and NATO troops were becoming overstretched. I think he meant the later - too bad he wasnt asked about the former.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 09:49|| 2008-08-21 09:49|| Front Page Top

#6 I would like to see WHY clear-hold-build, using large numbers of troops, is NOT the optimal strategy for Afghanistan.

Harder to do in a country with fewer cities and large areas of mountainous terrain between them, for one thing.

The basic principle is solid but executing it in a country like Afghanistan is harder than in Iraq.

That said, the poppies need to go -- and simultaneously to be replaced by other income sources.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-21 09:55|| 2008-08-21 09:55|| Front Page Top

#7 pardon - on rereading its not real clear if he meant the taliban were becoming overstretched or rather that the Afghan military and NATO troops were becoming overstretched. I think he meant the later - too bad he wasnt asked about the former.

The Taliban don't have to really hold territory in Afghanistan, they just have to make it hard for us to hold territory.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-21 09:57|| 2008-08-21 09:57|| Front Page Top

#8 yeah, but they have to engage in disruptive actions in several places at once. At least against a large clear-hold-build strategy they do. In that sense they CAN become overstretched - theyre blowing stuff up in Kabul, while say, losing their base in Helmand.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 12:53|| 2008-08-21 12:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Harder to do in a country with fewer cities and large areas of mountainous terrain between them, for one thing.

hmmm. 18 or so months ago the cities in Iraq looked very bad. Very, very, very bad. Im sure mountains present a DIFFERENT challenge, but Im not sure cities presented a lesser one.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 12:54|| 2008-08-21 12:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Point of information, liberalhawk: John McCain is not a neocon, he's a warmonger. ;-) In fact, a lot of his positions would make him a Scoop Jackson Democrat, were that species not extinct. Hence the cries of "RINO!" that have on occasion reverberated through the right side of the blogosphere.

I, on the other hand, might be considered a neocon, except for not having been a red diaper baby.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-08-21 14:37|| 2008-08-21 14:37|| Front Page Top

#11
liberalhawk, with all respect, you have less than deep familiarity with military tactics and strategy, with logistical requirements or with the equipment (including C4ISR capabilities) that we've brought to bear on Iraq.

Cities are well suited to clear/hold/build tactics because of their density of population and economic activity, among other reasons. It's possible to clear and hold an urban neighborhood or, with some effort, open and fairly flat terrain, using a manageable number of troops augmented by e.g. UAVs. Once they're held, they can be rebuilt for peaceful economic and force projection purposes. Their density means that logistics supply routes are manageable within the urban area and that it is feasible to set up local operating bases which stabilize each area.

Heavily mountainous areas with far fewer ground mobility routes, with substantially greater density of natural cover and with fewer natural 'hold' locations present a significantly different challenge.

Cities presented a problem because we weren't willing to flatten blocks and kill a lot of civilians. Mountainous terrain present problems for entirely different reasons and call for different tactics and overall strategy.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-21 16:05|| 2008-08-21 16:05|| Front Page Top

#12 And just to state the obvious, Iraq is an urbanized country. Afghanistan is not.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-21 16:18|| 2008-08-21 16:18|| Front Page Top

#13 I think I made clear I understand the challenges are different.

I also admit to lack of first hand experience. I am going largely by press and blog reports, which seem to indicate a great concern by coalition forces with conditions in Afghan villages. I get the distinct impression that the Taliban use villages, mountain hamlets, and individual compounds as their primary operational bases, more than unpopulated mountainsides (I would also note that Iraq has mountains along the iranian border, yet our adversaries there have normally fought us in cities and surrounding agricultural areas.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 16:23|| 2008-08-21 16:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Like I said, LH - with all respect, you're missing the main point of my comments.

You could start by pondering the old but true chestnut "professionals study logistics".

If you want to multitask, also consider the ratio of likely useful info gathered per UAV mile flown over an urban area vs. countryside with occasional villages. Extra points if you imagine the impact on sensing of lots of rocks, trees, winding valleys.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-21 16:24|| 2008-08-21 16:24|| Front Page Top

#15 i found an article by stratfor, but thats stratfor.

This piece is somewhat older. It indicates at least to me that Centcom while seeing differences, does think there are strong parallels.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/what_petraeus_would_face_in_af.html

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 16:29|| 2008-08-21 16:29|| Front Page Top

#16 I understand that pros study logistics.

Im thinking for example, of some recent writeups of the situation in Helmand. The brits were ensconced in one town, and couldnt press further south. A unit of Marines managed to do so, and then the town to the north went into hold and build mode. I even googleearthed the area to see waht they were talking about. Yeah, I understand in theory the taliban could have tried to go around them and try to attack their supply lines back to the prov capital, but IIUC that didnt happen. Im not sure WHY it doesnt happen more, or if the MSM and the blogs just aret covering Afghan well enough for me to see the reports. I think MAYBE its cause while the taliban can use the low density and terrain to move for hit and run raids, its not sufficient for extended attacks on supply lines, esp given their own logistical limitations, and the continued usefulness of air and sat recon.

My impression is that the Soviets actually had the muj on the run, despite a much broader based insurgency, and Sov forces not quite up to NATO standards, UNTIL the muj got AA capability. Which the Taliban do not now have. IE its my impression that despite cover opportunities in the mountains, air is still a very effective weapon in afghan.

Again, I admit to much ignorance. Im not so much trying to make a case, as to express frustration at the lack of good coverage and analysis of the situation in Afghanistan.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-21 16:37|| 2008-08-21 16:37|| Front Page Top

#17 In many ways, Afghanistan is a LOT like Vietnam: we're fighting an enemy who supports a brutal ideology and refuses to acknowledge any other; the nation is built around several large villages connected by poorly-maintained and poorly guarded logistical ties; exchange "mountains" for "jungle", and the terrain becomes very similar (and just as big a problem); the "enemy" has access to a nearby country which offers him sanctuary where he can recover, rebuild, and rearm; the people have a long history and many honored traditions and flat don't like strangers; and there's a long-standing tradition of tribal animosities that makes a simple, one-size-fits-all solution virtually impossible. We won in Veitnam by convincing the people life in the future would be better for them (our congress threw all that away, but it WORKED up until US politicians got cold feet).

There are several things we're doing, but not strongly enough, that would help win the war in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have never had very good medical treatment. We're doing something about that, but it needs to be in greater depth, in more places, and more regularly. They need a transportation infrastructure, and we need a logistical pipeline. We could do more to provide both. The people of Afghanistan have an honored tradition of self-defense. Let's encourage that - give the locals the kinds of weapons and equipment they need to defend themselves from the Taliban, and give them training in how to use those weapons most effectively. We also need to NOT fuss when they go goat-hunting with an 81-mm mortar. Give them something that will allow them to have fun - something forbidden under the taliban. Whether it's music, movies, literature, goat-barbecues, or whatever, a diversion will help them feel better. Case in point: during the Great Depression, attendance at movie houses were never greater. A movie gave you the opportunity to escape your own personal tragedies and enjoy someone else's trials, troubles, romance, or whatever. It will work with the Afghanis, also.

The biggest problem the US has is logistical. Afghanistan is completely land-locked, and the nations on all four sides aren't exactly friendly with the US or its activities in Afghanistan. We may have to end up running land convoys from Karachi to Kabul, guarded by either the US military or a contractor like Blackwater. We may need to build a rail line from Karachi to Kabul, to speed up transshipment and make it easier to defend shipped goods.

The one thing we DON'T need to do is to try to fight the war against Islamic militancy on the cheap. It only makes it more obvious our hearts aren't really in the fight, and the local people can't trust us.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-08-21 18:33|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-21 18:33|| Front Page Top

#18 OP,
exchange "mountains" for "jungle",
Plenty of jungle-covered mountains in places.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-08-21 19:19|| 2008-08-21 19:19|| Front Page Top

#19 Afghanistan deserves the George Aiken treatment. Declare victory and withdraw.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-08-21 19:34|| 2008-08-21 19:34|| Front Page Top

23:57 Waldemar Uneack9263
23:55 Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields
23:54 GDLotA9226
23:49 Waldemar Uneack9263
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:28 Red Dawg
23:27 Woodrow Phaviper9249
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:23 SteveS
23:18 trailing wife
23:17 Steve White
23:12 trailing wife
23:09 newc
22:43 SteveS
22:37 Alaska Paul
22:36 trailing wife
22:31 Pappy
22:26 Alaska Paul
22:24 Iblis
22:20 Barbara Skolaut
22:16 3dc