COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

HOPE!!!!

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

That's a direct result, in my view, of the lack of resolve, decisiveness, and leadership coming from the White House. If the trumpet sounds uncertain, who will answer the call?

That said, the selection of soldiers who go see the chaplain isn't always representative of the military as a whole. Soldiers who speak to the chaplain about morale problems are naturally the ones with morale problems.

But you can bet dollars to doughnuts that these chaplains are in a position to assess the delta - the change, in morale - and if the chaplains in two separate battalions are concerned enough to take the extraordinary step of speaking to the media about it, then Houston, we've got a problem.

This can be turned around, though. The morale problems on the ground simply reflect the morale problems at home. And if Congress is questioning the mission, and the folks back home are questioning the mission, and the White House is questioning the mission, but none of them our paying the price... it's only the US soldier, sailor and Marine on the ground shedding blood every day for a mission the President can't be bothered to sell (too busy trying to enrich Mayor Daley and the rest of the Chicago mob with the Olympics), well, to quote Rudyard Kipling,

Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool, you be that Tommy sees!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, chaplains, Politics, soldiers issues, Warfighting

The New York Times reports:

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.

Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.

The proposed force increase - about 7,000 troops - is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said.

Obama hasn't articulated a contrary position since that time. McChrystal came out in support of the only guidance Obama has publicly given so far. Truth be told, it was Biden, not McChrystal, who 'put his cock on the anvil' arguing a position contrary to the President. It was Biden, not McChrystal, who was "off the reservation," with his proposal.

Biden should keep his council private and use the chain of command. If Biden really has a problem with the Commander-in-chief, he should resign now, and then he can go as public as he likes.

Democrats, of course, philosophically hold the same position -- and blame McChrystal.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, Biden, foreign policy, McChrystal, Obama, Politics, soldiers' issues, War on Terror, Warfighting

So General McChrystal is getting excoriated by the leftards in the media, by Gen. James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, and now by Generalissima Pelosi herself for providing a forthright answer to a question directly in his purview by a member of the media.

The treatment he is getting is outrageous.

Why?

1.) The question was whether the General would support Biden's suggestion to dramatically lower troop strength in Afghanistan, and try to fight it with special operations forces and Predator strikes. The general said he would not.

There are strong doctrinal resources for this: COIN doctrine, however imperfect the fit with the Afghanistan battlefield, holds that the "key terrain" in the counterinsurgent fight is the population itself. The fight is not for control of real estate, but for the loyalty of the people.

That takes boots on the ground.

The second doctrinal reason to reject the Biden plan is that COIN, by its nature, is intelligence driven. The best source of battlefield intelligence is a strong relationship between our soldiers and marines on the ground and the local population. If we enact the Biden plan, the result will be a rapid retreat from the battlefield, leaving the population, including many who risked everything to support us, to the tender mercies of Taliban reprisals. If we retreat even a little from our commitment to village and tribal elders who have stuck their necks out to support us, word will spread like wildfire and the village and tribal elders will cut their own deals in order to survive.

In my view, we may already be seeing this happening: In a vicious firefight last week, in which an American outpost was in danger of being overrun, the Taliban was able to stockpile hundreds of weapons in a nearby village mosque. Large numbers of villagers must have known. And yet no one alerted coalition forces.

The logistics for massing materiel already underway, the Taliban managed to quietly gather in battalion strength to launch two deliberate attacks against American and Afghan outposts... and again, no one alerted Coalition forces.

This is symptomatic of a huge tactical intelligence failure on the ground. American forces were not, apparently, present in enough strength to defend the position and patrol aggressively simultaneously - with disastrous but not unsurprising results: A poor relationship with the people of the neighboring village and the ceding of the tactical initiative.

General McChrystal is seeing the same compromise being made all over the country: Troop strength being spread too thin. And Biden, without acknowledging the strategic and operational tradeoffs that MUST come with a reduction in troop strength, and without adjusting the General's mission in Afghanistan, wants to spread those troops even further.

So General McChrystal sticks up for his mission - and what's more, advocates precisely what President Obama himself is already on record as advocating: a substantial increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe three brigades in Afghanistan."

McChrystal, then, was simply articulating a view already publicly endorsed by the Commander in Chief. As far as we know, the President has said nothing since that piece was published that would contradict that view. He has long held that Afghanistan is the central front on the War on Terror Group Hug Against Scary Things, and has repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan to prosecute that war. McChrystal was well within his guidelines, and when the President has been as vague and noncommital in policy statements as he has - despite a direct request from McChrystal for more troops, what else does McChrystal have to go on besides Obama's own public pronouncements?

Further, given the President's repeated calls for an increase of two to three brigades in Afghanistan, it wasn't McChrystal speaking out of school, it was Biden. I would argue that the Biden plan is the outlier, not McChrystal's statement that he would not support it.

What's more, there is no way that McChrystal can possibly be seen to be bucking the chain of command... because A.) Obama, the commander in chief, is already on record as calling for MORE boots on the ground, not fewer, and B.) Biden is NOT NOT NOT in the chain of command in any sense whatsoever.

I'm very cognizant that subordinates at all levels should take care not to pain their leadership into a corner. But that obligation goes both ways - leaders owe subordinates clear guidelines and directions. And that goes ESPECIALLY when the battlefield situation is vague.

I've noticed for several months now that Afghanistan policy was coming apart at the seams. Not from any one thing, but from having read a variety of news reports and hearing things through the military grapevine, the infantry mafia, the blogger boys club, and the intel syndicate. I haven't had time to blog them lately, and I regret that now. But this was a long time in the making.

McChrystal used the chain of command. He submitted his request to his boss,, General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And that, apparently, is where it languishes, because the President and his National Security decision-making apparatus has not yet produced a product useable for the commanders in the field.

McChrystal used the Chain of Command... the Chain of command, unfortunately, is not functioning.

McChrystal is entitled to know what he is expected to accomplish. He needs to know in order to issue orders down the chain. Every soldier and marine and corpsman and airman on the ground is entitled to know what he or she and their units are expected to accomplish.

Everyone involved in the effort is entitled to a decision from the President.

It's not like he didn't know the Afghan war was waiting for him when he got to the Oval Office.

Splash, out

Jason

And Pelosi's an ignorant twit.

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, COIN, McChrystal, soldiers' issues, USMC, War on Terror, Warfighting

The great Michael Yon takes a vivid look at how the British Army public affairs machine is interfering with the press.

Labels: Afghanistan, Great Britain, soldiers' issues, The media

For those so inclined.

This study explores the nature of the insurgency in Afghanistan, the key challenges and successes of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign, and the capabilities necessary to wage effective counterinsurgency operations. By examining the key lessons from all insurgencies since World War II, it finds that most policymakers repeatedly underestimate the importance of indigenous actors to counterinsurgency efforts. The U.S. should focus its resources on helping improve the capacity of the indigenous government and indigenous security forces to wage counterinsurgency. It has not always done this well. The U.S. military-along with U.S. civilian agencies and other coalition partners-is more likely to be successful in counterinsurgency warfare the more capable and legitimate the indigenous security forces (especially the police), the better the governance capacity of the local state, and the less external support that insurgents receive.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, infantry, Intelligence, Warfighting

If Obama and his Administration gave a good god-damn about retirement security, they could start by reigning in obscene spending so we won't have to inflate American's retirement savings into oblivion, or tax the bejeezus out of distributions from 401(k)s, 403(b)s IRAs, SEPs, and annuities, in order to have a prayer of paying off our debt.

Instead, our Dear Spender proposes replacing cash refunds with taking on even MORE government debt.

If he really wanted to help people, he would push for waiving the 10% withdrawal penalty on 401ks and IRAs for people under 59 1/2 who are unemployed, or for the purpose of starting a new business (and hiring!). All that's needed is to expand the definition of qualified hardship withdrawals to include unemployment income.

But he won't.

Instead, he screws around the edges. Unused vacation pay?? Sounds like an idea only someone who's had his head so far up the Union's ass for years would love.

He wants to put long term retirement savings in government savings bonds, of all places? With interest rates at historic lows???? If he were in private practice, he'd get sued nine ways from Sunday.

And then, Dear Leader wants to send the paper savings bonds directly to the workers? So they can stuff them in a drawer somewhere? No third party administration? No transfer agent to keep track of beneficiaries? This sounds like a banana republic plan.

I'm all for having a default 'opt-in' for retirement plan participation. That's been a good idea for a long time - though there are a lot of details to work out, including figuring out a reasonable 'safe-harbor' solution for plan sponsors who don't want liability for taking either too much risk or too little risk with the money. There are ERISA headaches when a plan sponsor's executive class gets a 6% return over years because of a reasonable allocation to equities, while the worker bees get 2% returns because the worker bee assets were deposited into money markets. Lots of companies have declined to offer retirement plans precisely BECAUSE of this kind of ERISA liability.

(Incidentally, an automatic opt-in provision helps executives, who can't max out their own plans, under "top hat" rules, unless they meet participation requirements among the rank and file.)

The plan to issue savings bonds instead of tax refunds? It's a massive screwing of the working and middle class. With interest rates low, massive spending and inflationary expectations, such a deal is a very bad one for workers (and a great one for the IRS!).

It's also a massive redirection of spending power from main street USA to K Street, Washington. All it does is ensure government bureaucrats once again take the first cut of any tax refund checks.

(What gets me is that libtards will, if pressed, and in the same breath, argue at once that we need increased participation in 401(k)s but we shouldn't partially privatize Social Security because equities are too risky to rely on for retirement savings.)

All in all, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Obama's proposal.

Why the Hell is he wasting bandwidth on this garbage, anyway? He ought to be pressing the case for his abortion of a health care reform package, or mustering up public sentiment to fight and win in Afghanistan. (That's the one he thought was important, remember?)

Instead, he's blowing political capital on these distractions, impaling himself against the Republican pikes over health care reform, and letting the Afghanistan war effort shrivel and die for lack of rhetorical oxygen and leadership from the President.

The likely result is that Obama will fail at all three initiatives.

I want him to fail on health care reform. Utterly. I do NOT want him to fail to win in Afghanistan.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, finance, investing, Obama, Politics, retirement

I would point out, though, that Obama elected to keep the same Secretary of Defense. He also sacked the guy he says was underfunded and neglected.

"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"The president is focused on ensuring that we meet measurable benchmarks. ... It's going to take some doing."

I'd hate to be the President that has to clean up after this crew in power now.

But if I were, I sure wouldn't be passing the buck backwards nine months into my term.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Obama, pentagon, Politics, War on Terror

The latest episode of WeeWee's Big White House Adventure features our hero, St. Barry, Partner of God in Matters of Life and Death, lashing out at reform opponents (e.g., people who can read) for spreading "outrageous myths" concerning his health care plan.
Which myths? The Senior Partner(TM) specifically mentioned abortion, claiming that the bill will NOT allow for public funding of abortions. The problem: Not even the Associated Press believes him.

Associated Press, August 5, 2009 -- Gov't Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion

Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

The predictable leftard argument is that Congress is insisting that abortions will not be paid for using tax dollars, but premium dollars. This is a distinction without a difference. Utterly dishonest. They pretend that money is not fungible. Government subsidizes the plan, the plan pays for abortions.

Obama also claimed that the plan would not fund benefits for illegal immigrants. If this is true, why did the Democrats in Congress vote, by party line, not to check patients for eligibility to prevent this very occurance? Obama also claimed that the "Death Panel" rumors are false. Not even the New York Times is signing on to that piece of tripe anymore.

New York Times: A Basis is Seen for Some Health Care Fears About the Elderly.

White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational

Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.

Obama. While he's spending precious political capital on anything but shoring up support for the War in Afghanistan, he is squandering it here at home, using his bully pulpit not to beat down Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but to beat down his fellow Americans.

Obama. Everything he says about health care reform is a lie, except for "if," "but," and "the." And I'm not so sure about "the."

Labels: Abortion, Afghanistan, Democrats, health care, immigration, Obama, stupid, The Left

"'Tis but a scratch!"

A BRITISH soldier who had part of his leg blown off by a landmine is preparing to return to Afghanistan to settle “unfinished business” with the Taliban.

Private Matt Woollard, 20, is expected to be the first British infantryman to return to the front line after being fitted with a prosthetic limb.

Woollard, a member of 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, lost his lower right leg after setting off an insurgent bomb while on patrol near Kajaki in May 2007. His heart stopped three times while he was receiving treatment.

“I want to get back and do what I was sent to Afghanistan to do in 2007 — take the fight to the Taliban,” Woollard told The Sunday Times.

We have footage:




But read on, and look what's buried:

The mounting casualties come amid concern among senior officers that some of the mines and explosives used in the Taliban bombing campaign are coming from Iran. Their fears appeared to be backed by statements from Dennis Blair, America’s director of national intelligence, confirming that Iran is supplying Afghan insurgents with weaponry.

In a statement to the US Senate intelligence committee, obtained by the Secrecy News blog last week under freedom of information rules, Blair said Iran was covertly supplying weapons to the Taliban while publicly supporting the Afghan government.

“Shipments typically include small arms, mines, rocket-propelled grenades [RPGs], rockets, mortars and plastic explosives,” said Blair. He added: “Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for successful operations against coalition forces.”

British military intelligence sources were more cautious. “It is an undefined amount of explosives that has come in from Iran,” said one source. “But, yes, there is concern that some of the mines and explosives the Americans are talking about may have been used in the Taliban bombs.”

Impossible!!! The Taliban are Sunni radicals!!!! The Iranians are Shia!!! It's impossible for them to even be in the same zip code without spontaneously combusting!!!! Bush lied!!! People died!!!!!


Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Monty Python, soldiers' issues

I died doing what I was born to do I was happy and felt great about myself although the army was sadly the ending of me it was also the making of me so please don't feel any hate toward it.

A 19-year-old British private's letters home, including his last one.

Rest ye well, brother.

Labels: Afghanistan, in memoriam

Marcus at JustBarkingMad continues his look at the doctrinal underpinnings of the new ROE in Afghanistan here, building on this post here, but has not, as yet, provided anything approaching a useful suggestion to the platoon leader on the ground faced with contact from an Afghan house or village.

Herschel Smith gets much the better of the argument, in my opinion.

Try as I might, and having given Marcus two extensive posts to defend his position, the new ROE just doesn't seem to me to pass the 'boots-on-the-ground' test. I think his position is complicated by the fact that if ANY guidance is so complicated to express that it takes more than two full blog posts on JustBarkingMad to spell out, it will NOT pass the boots-on-the-ground test, by definition.

Here's my guidance:

Find the enemy. Cut him off. Pursue him. Fix him. Close with him. Kill him.

If Afghan forces are capable of conduction the last two, AND are at hand, then let them take the lead, by all means. But if they are not? Then go after the Taliban and kill them where they are.

It ain't rocket science. The time to get all fucking involved and kissy-faced with the tribal elders and get your panties all in a wad over civil affairs issues is BEFORE the moojies open up on you from the house on the corner. NOT during the fucking firefight.

Jus in bello concerns about proportionality and the economy of force principle of war still apply.

Marcus says "this shit is chess, not checkers."

No. This shit ain't chess. This shit is war.

Let me take it a bit further. I'm reminded of a joke at the end of the movie Colors. There's two bulls up on a hill, looking at a herd of cows. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey, pop! Let's run down the hill and fuck one of them cows!" The papa bull says to the young bull, "No, son. Let's walk down... and fuck them all!"

Well, guess what. Just because COIN doctrine says you WALK down the hill instead of RUN down the hill doesn't mean that when you get down the hill you don't fuck the cows. YOU STILL FUCK THE COWS!!!!

Do I need to explain further?

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, bloggers, soldiers' issues, Warfighting

Obama the Lion has a new general in Afghanistan, and Obama the Lion's new general has announced tough new rules of engagement: Track down Taliban holing up in a house? Leave them alone.

Run away.

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle.

What kind of fellatist journo takes a look at what's essentially an order to surrender the towns to the enemy and considers that a "strong" anything?

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Nice. So the civilians have no incentive to fight off Taliban themselves. And the Taliban get a million free safehouses around the country out of the deal.

If we lose Afghanistan, this is the moment you can point to.

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said.

Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!!

The Obama military. Tough. Strong.

UPDATE: MCQ at Blackfive has the same reaction I do, and asks: "I mean, you tell me, where, if possible, would you initiate all of your contact from now on if you're the Taliban?"

UPDATE II: In the comments to the above, commenter Marcus, who apparently blogs here, writes:

General McChrystal is playing a very smart game of counterinsurgency. He understands the Afghan culture--particularly the ethical code of "Pashtunwali." Two of the major tenets of Pashtunwali are "Melmastia" and "Nanewati" which loosely translates into "hospitality" and "protection." The Afghan people--and the ethnic Pashtun in particular--will provide shelter and protection in their own homes for whoever asks for it. That includes the Taliban... and our people too.

Destroying houses and villages with Taliban in them because the locals won't turn them over is a quick way to turn the population against us. The center of gravity in this war--and any counterinsurgency for that matter--is the popular support of the people. In this case it is the Pashtun peoples, as the insurgency has not caught fire amongst the Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks or other ethic groups within the country.

Unlike in Iraq we enjoyed a tremendous wave of popularity amongst the Afghan people after we invaded. The Afghans hated (and still hate) the Taliban, and therefore welcomed us in with open arms. This has all changed within the last two years and our popularity with the people there has plummetted. Since we cannot hope to win if the people hate us, we have to get them on our side. And what the people there want more than anything right now is security--so McChrystal's metric of success may very well be spot on.

We can run around killing insurgents all day long but that will definitely not win the war for us. It didn't work in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan either. If we focus on killing bad guys while alienating the Afghan people we will eventually lose. Then we'll sit around like the Vietnam generation and bitch about how we won all the battles but lost the war. They lost because they didn't understand COIN. We've figured it out--it sure as hell took long enough--and now hopefully it's not too late to apply what we've learned.

If you look at the new FM 3-24 (Counterinsurgency), or more importantly read Bernard Fall, Sir Robert Thompson, Roger Trinquier or even Mao you'll see that protecting the populace and getting them to support you is critical.

McChrystal is applying COIN doctrine while tailoring it to the Afghan culture. He's also looking at it from a operational and strategic perspective... not tactical. And that's good, since that's what the man gets paid for.

Will we lose more people on the ground because of this adjustment to the ROE? Maybe. But I would argue its better to lose a few more men and women and win the war, rather than be casualty-adverse and lose it.

Now that may sound like a cold thing to say from a "Chairborne Monday Morning Quarterback," and it would be. So full disclosure--I will personally be over there humping the hills and working with the ANA in a few months time--and I still think McChrystal's policy is the smart play. I'm willing to put my own ass on the line, perfectly comfortable with this new ROE. It's up to guys like myself to figure out the tactical problems framed within the confines of guidance nested within the operational and strategic framework. And I'm cool with that.

Like Denzel Washington said in the movie Training Day... "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, soldiers' issues, stupid, War on Terror

Cedarford, a racist, bigoted, Jew-hating jerk who comments on Althouse, nails the recent escape of a NYT reporter from Taliban captivity:

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the NYTimes hostage negotiation for their reporter.

"Look, we gave you info on the Afghan Predator program, America tapping into SPRINT to find Islamoid financiers. We regularly give page 1 to any "wedding party atrocity" you alledge. We helped kill hundreds of American soldiers by working hard to inflame Muslims with endless stories of Abu Ghraib, GITMO torture, Haditha, Koran desecration..Details on jammer devices the military was trying against IEDs. Endless advocacy of terrorist's precious rights and civil liberties."

"Frankly, you Taliban and Al Qaeda owe us! Release our guy!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, journalism, New York Times, War on Terror

MONUMENTS

We are not statues

Standing among the trees,

A tribute to what has passed.



We are not statues,

Though our faces are stone,

Chiseled by time, shaped by history

That we are now part of,

As it is part of us.



We are living monuments,

Stoic in the shadows

As the world around us moves.



Colin Halloran, 23, senior

Central Connecticut State University

More here.

Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq, New York Times, Poetry, soldiers' issues, the Arts, veterans

Let's sell out the Poles, and humiliate the British. Then we'll reach out to "moderate Taliban," whoever the f*ck they are.

Great plan!

Labels: Afghanistan, foreign policy, Obama, stupid, War on Terror

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Read this from Michael Yon, who says the French military and NATO are lying about the contents of this after action report.

The Globe and Mail looks at an ambush in which a platoon of French soldiers got chewed up and spit out by Taliban fighters last month.

A NATO report on the incident obtained by The Globe and Mail provides the most in-depth account so far of an attack on Aug. 18 that shook the countries involved in the increasingly bloody campaign. The NATO report, marked “secret,” reveals woefully unprepared French troops surprised by well-armed insurgents in a valley east of Kabul. Ten soldiers were killed, the report concludes, but the other soldiers were lucky to escape without more deaths.

The French did not have enough bullets, radios and other equipment, the report said. The troops were forced to abandon a counterattack when the weapons on their vehicles ran out of ammunition only 90 minutes into a battle that stretched over two days. One French platoon had only a single radio and it was quickly disabled, leaving them unable to call for help. Chillingly, in an indication that the French troopers may have been at the mercy of their attackers, the dead soldiers from that platoon “showed signs of being killed at close range,” the report said.

By contrast, the insurgents were dangerously well prepared. The investigation found evidence of well-trained snipers among the guerrillas – highly unusual, because the Taliban are frequently mocked for their poor marksmanship – and indications they were supplied with incendiary bullets designed to punch holes in armour

See the play-by-play of the maneuver scheme here.

The presence of skilled snipers in Afghanistan is perhaps a significant development. (I can't gauge what the distances are, but their aimed fire was accurate enough to prevent immediate reinforcement of the cut-off element, which goes to show you how effective trained snipers can be. The sniper may not have been the killing force. But he made the killing force more effective by making it impossible for the French to maneuver.

I think you have to consider the probability that there are sniper schools in neighboring Pakistan, but I also wouldn't discount the possibility that some of the snipers from Iraq in 2005-2006 have gone underground and are resurfacing in Afghanistan.
I'm sure that Al Qaeda has done its best, when its defeat in Iraq became imminent and obvious, to pull resources out and redeploy them elsewhere.

Labels: Afghanistan, Warfighting

Ralph Peters: "We should have killed that punk on a battlefield where it was legal to do so."

Labels: Afghanistan, War on Terror

The Taliban attempted to overrun a newly established U.S. outpost in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan, launching a complex attack at approximately 4:30 in the morning. As of right now, the coalition confirms that nine U.S. soldiers have been killed in the attack, with 15 more US troops and 4 Afghan troops wounded.



Bill Roggio has more details, including information about a separate incident in which the Taliban was able to mass in company strength and conduct an ambush.

This engagement ended better for us, with US Marines and allied Afghans killing 40 screaming moojies in the Helmand province in Southern Afghanistan.

The Taliban have been resurgent lately, undertaking bolder and larger scale operations, though these are very risky for them, since to concentrate in enough force to overrun a combat outpost, they would have to gather in clumps large enough to be vulnerable from the air. I suspect that Taliban casualties in the first attack will prove to be severe indeed.

But, of course, they don't care a lot about their own. The point of the attack was, doubtless, to successfully overrun and eliminate an outpost at whatever cost. The real target isn't the US military. The real target is the halls of congress, the halls of parliament in allied nations, and the media.

Were they successful? That's up to us.

Meanwhile, send up a prayer for our fallen soldiers, our families, and all the men and women of the units engaged.

Splash, out

Jason

(P.S., The photo, I believe, was taken by Ahmad Terry. The photo is not connected to the incident today.)

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, Warfighting

The Medal of Honor has been awarded to Lt. Michael Murphy, USN.

Labels: Afghanistan, heros, soldiers' issues