|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Counter Insurgency cannot work in Afghanistan.|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
According to the counter insurgency bible, the Field Manual/Marine Corps Reference Publication (FM/MCRP) that was revised in 2006 by General Petraeus “Political power is the central issue in an insurgency.” This is why the General is famous for saying that "you can't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency."
>http://www.usgcoin.org/library/doctrine/COIN-FM3-24.pdf FM/MCRP section - 1, paragraph -113. “The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government.” If there is no legitimate government for the people to be loyal to, American troops could occupy (secure) every village in A-stan, and the insurgency will still not be defeated. Counter insurgency cannot work in Afghanistan because: 1. Afghanistan does not have a legitimate government. They have a corrupt government that is internationally recognized as having stolen the last election. 2. The Afghani people have a tradition of NOT following a central government, even a legitimate one. Of the six indicators of a government’s legitimacy that are described in the FM/MCRP, Afghanistan does not meet even one of them: “1-116. Six possible indicators of legitimacy that can be used to analyze threats to stability include the following: • The ability to provide security for the populace (including protection from internal and external threats). • Selection of leaders at a frequency and in a manner considered just and fair by a substantial majority of the populace. • A high level of popular participation in or support for political processes. • A culturally acceptable level of corruption. • A culturally acceptable level and rate of political, economic, and social development. • A high level of regime acceptance by major social institutions.” 1-120. “A COIN effort cannot achieve lasting success without the HN (host nation) government achieving legitimacy.” General McChrystal’s plan is to defeat the Taliban by being nice to the Afghan people; which requires a ROE that is far more restrictive than any that American forces have fought under before; while fighting an against an Afghan insurgency that has never, ever been defeated in all of history. It is a plan for disaster. Many comments have been that we need to rush more troops to A-stan like General McChrystal wants – right away because that is what will be good for the troops. The General’s plan is not good for American, and is damn sure not good for the troops. I say that slugging away at an “industrial-strength insurgency” with ROE that are very restrictive to prop up a corrupt government that is not supported by a majority of the Afghani people is a recipe for quagmire – and a disservice to the grunts. Time for America to do what is right for America – fight those who would attack us, think about nation building later. |
||
|
SlackMaster Actual |
What do you think they've been doing the last 6 years in A-stan? "Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master of the soldier." THEODORE ROOSEVELT |
|||
|
|
Member |
Needs to be done without hands tied. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------  Proud member ------------------  |
Having served as an advisor in Vietnam and A-stan I can tell you that Petraeus is very much in-tune with what can work at least to date. His only weakness maybe his straight-line view of it all...because counter-insurgency can change momentarily...and you can tell too many of the locals too much and have it bite you in the ass. This ass biting includes those you see as your counterparts in the Afghan Army.
Good example was the shooting of two of our troops by an Afghan National Police member...that is typical insurgent psy-ops... |
|||
|
|
Member |
Most of the efforts have gone into fighting against the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan – people who do not have the capability to attack America. In the last year or so, drone attacks have increased considerably. Those attacks have been detrimental to al Qaeda - America's number one enemy or those who would attack America. More efforts should be put into attacking al Qaeda, less on nation building. That would require less, not more troops in A-stan. http://forums.military.com/eve...432001#7460031432001 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------  |
Don't know about that, Chicago seems to still get by.  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud member ------------------ |
Wake up and smell the roses...: )...we in the US may have a Constitutional problem with our national government as well...in an electoral sense.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The government system similating western culture in Afghanistan may not be a suitable match. The tribal system of the past and the constant changing and interactions of loyalties likely does not mesh well with a democratic system that may be too similar to ours. There is a price for loyalty, i.e., the basis for bribery and corruption. The culture and civil interactions of land ownership, etc. is completely different from our system and values. (Not unlike other situations the U.S. has faced, and which most here are quite aware of.)
If we are to incorporate our values and governing system into their society, it will require more troops to provide the necessary security into the many remote areas of Afghanistan. That or accept a different governing system. They know of or understand little of our democracy. To get it right in Afghanistan, it will likely take much time, more troops, and an aggressive ROE that includes air and artillery support. Otherwise, there will be many instances like this recent attack with 8 more soldiers lost. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well General McChrystal disagrees with you as to what it takes to get it right. His plan is to pull back and protect the cities, where most of the population is. And his ROE is based on a guidance that he and his staff wrote titled: “Protecting the people is the mission. The conflict will be won by persuading the people, not by destroying the enemy.” >http://www.scribd.com/doc/19075680/COMISAF-COIN-GUIDANCE The General has established a ROE that limits even the basic rule: "A soldier always retains the right to defend himself and members of his unit." That rule has been modified for the first time ever for American forces. So what we end up with is a war where soldiers and Marines try to protect populated areas, waiting to be attacked or on patrol getting hit by IEDs and Rules of Engagement that require them to not respond to hostile acts in order to protect the people. That is no way to fight a war, let alone win one. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
• A culturally acceptable level of corruption. Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
Member |
You are right. Persuading the people might possibly be done a tribe at a time. That might require changes in governing where the varied tribal leaders throughout the country have more of a voice. Maybe something structured similar to the British Parliament. A similar make-up like the House of Lords could possibly bring more unity. |
|||
|
Member |
Look at all of the success WE have had in A'Stan in the last several years.
Look at all of the success the former Soviet Union had there in their eleven years. Let us face a fact of the situation we find ourselves in: We have, for all intents and purposes two..and ONLY two...options. (1) Without delay or advance notice...pull all of our troops out of there...and let them solve their own problems. (2) Act in a completely "Colonial" manner, and bomb or shoot all resistance into non-existence. Neither option is politically palatable, but there really aren't any other choices. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Why is it that people can only see one of two options for A-stan? A full counter insurgency that requires massive troops and years and years of commitment; Or All American forces must withdraw. |
|||
|
|
Member |
What other....minimally....workable options are there?
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Little Afghanistan |
|||
|
|
Member |
Um...lessee!
Large numbers of troops confined to relatively small geographic locations with pretty much completely unreliable local support. Unrealistic and (virtually) suicidal ROE. Enemies unidentifiable and unknowably numerous. Really makes me glad I am retired. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Very, very well presented. I have been saying something similar for a while now but not anywhere near as articulately. This govt is so friggin corrupt. The warlords (and I've talked to a few) are one of the worst problems, by far. Think mafia, alot of them are the same lowlife breed. Unfortunately, this mentality of 'screw everyone else, as long as i get mine' has seeped down somewhat into alot of the populace around here in various ways. The thinking around here lately seems to come down to "when in doubt, lie, etc." This is sad but understandable. Generally speaking (in the past), I've found Afghans to be very honorable, hospitable, etc. and they're good people. But lately, ..... I have had warlords sit with me and lie to my face about crap so that they can get richer at the expense of anyone else. Also, there is extremely little trickle-down theory going on here at all. Warlords have been using us to get back at their enemies. They have tried to use me as well, for the same friggin thing. Bottom line, we take out AQ in FATA, Chitral, & Quetta and certain provinces in A-stan too. Then we focus on getting rid of corrupt warlords. We do not give money to any of them without tangible results. We trust (a tiny bit) but always verify. The UN and or the legitimate govt tries or at least investigates those warlords who have human rights abuse charges against them, those who are trafficking in drugs, those who are using extortion, assault, murder, etc to keep power in their little feifdoms, etc. Karzai had to co-opt these warlords (Dostum, Fahim, etc) so that he had someone on his side against AQ and the Taliban. If we take out a sh*tload of AQ/Taliban in Pakistan, khost, paktya, paktika, and helmand, kandahar as well as nuristan and kunar; maybe Karzai (or his possible successor Abdullah) will not need the warlords as much, hopefully. Yeah, we can take out the majority of AQ (no way will we ever totally defeat muslim extremism until alot of other issues are addressed, waaay too long to go into here) but if we leave A'stan without a working, viable govt, they (AQ) can go back to the way they were, re-occupying their militant training camps all over here, recruiting, re-equipping, training, and in a few years, it'll be the same damn thing all over again. Terrorists/militants thrive in countries with failed govts. They will have their safe haven back. IMHO, we HAVE to deny AQ and affiliates any safe havens anyplace. When and if someone comes up with a better way to do that (other than boots on the ground), by all means, please share. JMHO This message has been edited. Last edited by: Paul_J, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Can you reference the new ROE? I just talked with a soldier about 3 minutes ago. When I asked him if the ROE has changed to that, he laughed, looked at me funny and said that is total BS, and "whichever dumb&^* said that is full of #$%^". All soldiers have the right to defend themselves and their fellow soldiers. Not saying it's not true, it could be. Maybe some Marine units in another province are saying that; maybe they have a stricter ROE. Maybe this particular soldier hasn't gotten the word yet. I'd just like to see it for myself. If you're right, I agree, this is FUBAR. |
|||
|
|
Member |
We can't pullout of Afghanistan now. The war profiteers - the international bankers and the military-industrial-complex barrons have not yet achieved a sufficient return on investment. After all, wars are not about ROE - they are about ROI. A surge of 20K to 40K American troops for another two to three years should increase profit margin substantially. Compound the number of troops times the logistical support costs and profits should increase expoentially. Monopolistic capitalism is a great motivator for fomenting protracted wars. Who cares if we win or lose? Who cares who we chose to be our enemies? What matters in war is the potential profit margin. The deaths of military members, and Afghans and Iraqis (and soon to be Iranians) are acceptable loses to be expected when generating income during a wartime economy. Makes you proud to be an American!
|
|||
|
Member |
Good posts here.
xerello, if this in your first post is true:
1. Afghanistan does not have a legitimate government. They have a corrupt government that is internationally recognized as having stolen the last election. ..." Then how can this be the solution?
As Paul_J stated, terrorists/militants thrive in countries with failed governments, so in my mind the solution must be more "nation-building" while keeping on fighting against terrorists/militants and upholding security. By "nation-building" I don't mean just reconstruction, but also economic cooperation (international trade), education, solution for the poppies (see "Poppy for Medicine"), and so on. All of which contribute towards a legitimate government. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Good point. I had an idea a couple of years ago about the poppy. right after bush stated whatever it was about corn and biofuel I had a thought that since corn is widely grown here in afghanistan (not sure about down south since I haven't seen it first hand, but I know for sure up here in the central and northern part)and since right after bush said this, the price of corn went up quite a bit. Anyway, they can replace some of their poppy crop with corn (but leave some for medicinal poppy). since corn is in no way illegal, it completely cuts out all the crooked middle men who are involved in the heroin refinement process, smuggling, etc. (which means more of a lion's share of the profit for the lowly farmer, right now they hardly get crap for their poppy) This might have a modicum of effect on cutting down on some of the corruption as well as denying a source of funds to the taliban. this corn could be shipped to a nearby plant (yeah we'd have to spend money initially to build some spread out thruout the country) to refine the corn into fuel. This is not the only answer though. There is also natural resources thruout the country, coal, natural gas, etc. that they Afghans can actually take advantage of to start to finance their own govt. Right now they are being financed by the international community (mainly America, I think). Which means the police get paid $2 per day. The teachers get paid about the same. Why should a policeman have to risk his life for that crap when he canmake more possibly ($3 per day) in construction? The only reason is because law enforcement in Afghanistan is "lucrative" in other ways. Why should an intelligent teacher live in poverty while teaching the Afghan kids when he can work on an American base making ten times that? So you can see that law enforcement and education (two very important institutions in a viable country) are suffering dueto low wages. If Afghanistan can start producing products which can bring money in for themselves, they may be able to raise the pay for these teachers and police, as well as maybe the ANA. The police have less reason to be corrupt; the teachers have less reason to quit. Plus, if the NGOs, the military, and the State department get their heads out of their azzes, and start coordinating some of this moeny we keep giving them (without much accountability) then we might actually have more control. For example, a malek (village elder) gets $10,000 from the State Department to build a well for his village. The state dept weenies go back to the safety of their office in Kabul...a while later a dude from an NGO comes along and gives the same malek $5,000 to build a well, goes back to his office.....neither of them comes to check on the progress. Or they might go so far as to email the malek (who's brother is the contractor building the well ) and ask for a picture of the well. The malek (AKA warlord) takes a pic of a different well from a different village and sends it to the State dept weenie. To much frigging trust going on here. then the US military comes along and adds their money into the pocket of that same corrupt warlord...cough cough....sxuze me Village elder. This si just one of a multitude of corrupt things they got going to dupe us into giving our money to make the warlords richer. Alot of that money ain't getting to the right places. You'd think we'd have learned by now.Oh yeah, and they use extremely shoddy material when they do build so it doesn't last for crap. Take for example the ring road that was just built, it is already falling apart because the contractors use sparse and shoddy materials so they can pocket as much profit as they possibly can. i could go on and on. Bottom line is we have to stay here, we have to have boots on the ground, we have to trust but verify. |
|||
|
|
Member |
When I say military goes out to addd to the money for the warlord, i mean they also pay for community improveent. Also how abouut this BS:
our soldiers go out to the villages giving blankets, pens, yadda yadda to the villagers but used to they'd just give it to the malek's guys to dole out to the villagers since they know their villagers and our soldiers do not. Guess what happens? Yep,you got it. the frigging elder's men sell the blankets and stuff to the villagers. Americans are very honest but this means we are too damn trusting. We are helping to make the Afghan govt more corrupt (and a heck of a lot richer). |
|||
|
|
SlackMaster Actual |
LOL, spewed some coffee on that one... "Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master of the soldier." THEODORE ROOSEVELT |
|||
|
|
Member |
I have several sources for how insane the current ROE is in A-stan. OPSEC prevents these sources from being specific, but the complaints are loud and clear. The ROE came out just after McChrystal published his guidance titled: “Protecting the people is the mission. The conflict will be won by persuading the people, not by destroying the enemy.” >http://www.scribd.com/doc/19075680/COMISAF-COIN-GUIDANCE The Marine who sent this guidance to me described it as a “warm and fuzzy” way to fight a war. Another source said that as of now, human shields really are shields. “In certain sits’ we cannot return fire when being fired upon because of the civies.” But I cannot verify those sources because they are in personal e-mails. Here is what one military.com poster wrote while he was home on leave. Originally posted by M1Lase_n_Blaze: “To post the ROE would be in violation of OPSEC, however I can assure the Major that I have a copy of the latest ROE in my wallet, I'm not basing my comments on a news story but personal experience in the area up until 19 days ago, and I can assure him that that part of any ROE we have ever seen before "A soldier always retains the right to defend himself and members of his unit" has been "modified." I can attest as an eyewitness to almost an exact same situation in Laghman Province, the province directly west of Kunar this last July. A Marine embedded training team under RPG/small arms attack requested indirect support on the source of the fire and were denied as the target grid fell within an area previously determined to be restricted. (too close to a village) That was just the latest incident I personally witnessed. Air is air. Sometimes it's there, but its not wise to depend on it.” http://forums.military.com/eve...232001#8190009232001 So a direct question like: “can you defend yourself if fired upon” should get an answer like “F@%&en a.” Ask the question, are there certain situations when you cannot return fire when being fired upon and let us know what the answer is. |
|||
|
Sarcastic Member |
Because you either do something right or you do not waste your time with it at all. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Spot On! Excellent Post, you see what so many here fail to realize... |
|||
|
|
Member |
MisInformed is a much better "tag" for you, hammerhead...  |
|||
|
|
Member |
If there were no war going on in Afghanistan, it would be a monumental task to build that country into a stable, prosperous one – a task that could bankrupt this country. But there is a war going on. And the government is corrupt. And the population is illiterate (43% of the male population can read, half that for females.) Companies are not going to invest in a war torn country that has a corrupt government, because it does not make business sense to do so. Unless an area can be secured and contracts guarenteed. In Columbia we have spent billions and have the cooperation of the strong government there – coca production is still huge. Why do you think we would have more success with a weak government and an armed insurgency? Trying to liberate and rebuild the entire country at one time is doomed to failure. I am not saying don't try and build up any part of A-stan, just start small, then spread out. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. Little Afghanistan Let the Taliban have parts of the country. Secure a part of A-stan and help to make stable. Then let the Afghan people see which rule they want to live under. fighting for every inch of A-stan will exhaust us - which is what the enemy wants. |
|||
|
|
Member |
As far as the ROE. You were right (I asked around). I apologize for doubting you on that.
 As for the rest, I still say we have to focus on denying AQ any safe havens. BTW, they have quite a few in mind besides A-stan and Pak. Yemen, Somalia, the 'stans north of Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, the Islamic Maghreb, Sudan, Indonesia, maybe Maldives, Philippines; just to name a few. One of the reasons insurgents thrive in failed govts is because the populace is opposed to their corrupt, incompetent govt, therefore they support (in whole or in part) the insurgents who may promise a better govt (whether they're full of crap or not). In order to help reduce the level of support for insurgents, the populace must feel as though they have a legitimate govt which is working in their best interests. JMHO |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud member ------------------ |
Paul J...your assessment of "the people" is true they gravatate to fair and supportive larger organizations that help them make it through the day...survival. Also, the population endures inconveniences of doctrine and relition and politics to "just" survive. The people "fear" the unknown and that just might be the unformly dressed US soldiers and A-stan military or national police.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Counter Insurgency cannot work in Afghanistan.
