Strategy in Afghanistan – A Babel Fish Analysis

by Babel-Fish | October 17, 2009 at 07:12 pm

132 views | 20 Recommendations | 11 comments

Journalist and Citizen Journalist that write about Afghanistan from their office or home comfy chair can not really have a clue about the need to change strategy in Afghanistan. Even those with an ex-military back ground can not understand the present problem. This present problem is the main cause for troops being killed and slain very easily in Afghanistan.

Soldiers normally really have no great experience warfare in such a mountainous and steep valley arid terrain such as found in Afghanistan. Where as their enemy have a long history of guerrilla warfare in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. They are cunning in laying explosives and guerrilla war tactics. Laying ambush and sniping in small groups moving quickly and causing small and major disruption is their cup of tea.

It’s really not a question of specialized equipment, more armor, more helicopters and better protected transport that will solve the rising death rate. It is a question of more man power, more information gathering and denying the enemy the high ground. Tracks and roads are scarce due to the winding nature of these tracks and roads it means it’s easy to set up roadside bombs that seeming get bigger and better to penetrate armored vehicles.

There is a problem when the military rely on armored personnel carriers as they have to be light and not made too heavy by armor because the terrain is not tank friendly. Using the principles of helicopter warfare has a big flaw as the enemy have plenty of ground to air weapons.

To win or even hold ground so less troops are slaughtered, strategy see the need for soldiers on foot and the use of the terrain as their protection. This is in fact the strategy of the enemy they are mostly on foot. At present the strength of the troops in the war zone are not a sufficient force to apply this more sensibly logic strategy the only conceivable way to win or cut down casualties and deaths.

I expect the new general on the ground has come to the same conclusion to beat the enemy on the ground use part of the enemies own strategy. More observation allows for calling in more mortar, possibly light artillery fire plus support from the air.

Of course such new strategy needs much thought from the president that wanted to bring the troops home soonest and now is told 60,000 extra troops are required but 40,000 should be okay. Peace activist are now disappointed as they can not work out why there is a need to stay in Afghanistan longer and now more troops may be sent to the war zone.

The answer was given by the new general on the ground and that prior to the handover there is a requirement of a responsible functioning government. The fact that there is problem, that the election, has come under attack as being a fraudulent event. UN first made light of the election fraud, certainly the government is not yet in a position to take over and now there could be a fresh election that will take months to set up. Mean while the US military has a big problem of further death tolls.
Now of course Obama has a big problem that of Military advice that states that prior to removing the troops and send them home, more troops have to be sent, strategy has to be changed to stem the casualty problem.

Now seemingly John Kerry a Vietnam vet, wants the status quo to stay until the Afghan governments up and running responsibly. Now I know why it was a good thing he did not become president.

US Senator John Kerry has said it would be irresponsible to send more US troops to Afghanistan before the result of the presidential election there is clear.

Mr Kerry's comments came as foreign officials pressed Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept that he might have to face a run-off.

A fraud investigation is expected to bring Mr Karzai's vote count below the 50% needed to avoid a second round.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk

Now I will confess I am sitting in a chair thousands of miles away from Afghanistan a citizen Journalist with a British Military background. That has never step foot in Afghanistan so possibly my analysis is not spot on but I expect I am not far away from the truth. lol

Meanwhile Obama has to make up his mind, yes he has to do something and yes it could be the wrong decision. Something that people can blame him for if the cookie crumbles.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

albertacowpoke

at 01:47 on October 18th, 2009

Prior to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, Canada's military had made the decision to get out of the tank business. Canada had the Leopard tank on it.s inventory. The fleet had been bought in 1977 was maintenance intensive and obviously very expensive to replace or maintain. This decision was made while our Chief of Defence Staff was an Armoured General (tanker).

In the early days in Afghanistan your assessment on Armoured vehicles is correct. Canada's Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) is equipped with a 25mm cannon, wheeled and had some difificulty negotiating the terrain in country. It also lacked stand-off capability.

Tanks and Leopard type Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV) could actually blaze trails, while Leopards could achieve the stand off to any weapons the Taliban had to offer. Consequently the decision was made to deploy tanks to Afghanistan and were deployed successfully. This eventually caused the Taliban to reinvent themselves and and revert to insurgency type hit and run tactics.

It is my assessment that when President Obama decided to replace General McKiernan in March with General McChrystal he did this with a counter-insurgency in mind. The General has now made his assessment on the number of troops it would take to implement this policy successfully. Notwithstanding, there is no guarantee that this policy will work.

President Obama has campaigned on a shift of emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan. It was a major part of his campaign platform.

Selection and maintenance of the aim, as you well know, is one of the principles of war. Without a clear goal it is difficult to come up with a viable strategy. Once an aim is selected, the decision cannot be made on political grounds.

At the very least, I would have expected the Commander in Chief to meet with his General on the ground and get a battle field tour. Seeing is believing.

Regarding helicopters, Canada has actually saved lifes of soldiers because of them. You are correct in your assessment of hard to navigate roads and terrain with wheeled and tracked vehicles. Helicopter are being used for resupply and rapid deployment of troops.

Having been involved with the training of troops for Afghanistan, lessons learned are constantly evolving the way troops are trained. Canada has been in theatre since early 2002 and many of the commanders have up to four tours in Afghanistan. I trust their assessment. Despite diminishing public support, probably not to the same extent as in the US or the UK, our troops still feel that they are making a difference in Afghanistan.

John Kerry's credibility was doubtful almost 40 years ago and still is today when it comes to the military.

President Obama does have to do something. This is a decision he can.t avoid. Leadership is about making decisions that may go against the grain of the general public. Being President is not a popularity contest.

Thanks for you analysis. Sorry for my ramblings, but I.m compassionate about our soldiers' sacrifice and their judgment.

Babel-Fish

at 20:21 on October 18th, 2009

Your ramblings are spot on and your training the troops clearly gives your opinion an edge that we should all respect. I myself as stated within my article am sitting in a chair miles away from the conflict and I must add my views on tactics are based on my history of a long over military career and yours is laced with actual knowledge of up today tactics and about modern warfare tools.

Thank you very much for your input its very appreciated.

djermano

at 01:56 on October 18th, 2009

I wonder why you don't mention that Afghansitan was a complete hoax to begin with Bob? You are a military man and follow the political football. Just why did Bush wait 2 months before sending troops, and then he decided not to focus on Afghanistan, but went to war with Iraq?. How much rot do you need to smell the stench from staying?

Karazi is a fraud, they caught his crew red handed. He should be disqualified...and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah the new President of Afghanistan.

The US military can not win..even if they did send in more troops.. Why because sending more and more troops will send a signal to Iran and China...that more is up than Afghanistan.....and it is rather stupid to send more troops that can not move around in Afghanistan...because they become easy targets for say China Airforce, or Iran's Airguard, or Pakistan's airforce...

The longer they stay the more they provoke greater set of circumstances to evolve. Russia suddenly becomes an alli to the Taliban is not out of the question.....They could even get Chechneyan Fighters to help the Taliban to make it look like Russia is not involved..but really are....and giving the Chechan's a new life in Russian thought.

The only way they can win the war..is to remove troops and change the war into an economic relief effort...This new relief in supplies and humanitarian aid..would change the ideas in Afghanistani minds that America is an occupier... Then other countries will follow by also sending in econmic building help.... Why do we spend so much money on the military to senselessly kill...and then spend as much to rebuild? It is madness. We need to send in relief and let hope encircle the wagons of good intent..... We are builders not destroyers of people. No one is a terrorist.......when the military leaves. Also Senator Kerry has much creditability. I trust him more than naive Bark Bark Obama who knows nothing about war or being President..

The Rev.

Babel-Fish

at 20:25 on October 18th, 2009

Do I have to remind you that I have wrote many articles and two complete analytic opinions on Bush and cronies oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in detail and giving a total global picture. This article concerns Obama's and the general on the grounds problem and not the reason why the war was started. But how its going to end and why the troops can not be removed at this time and place in history.

This article will however be part of a chapter in my e book that will contain the whole global picture as from 9/11 till the end of these oil wars. Russia will not get it self involved nor China no one is going to back the Taliban other than Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations. That's because both Russia and China are sick of such terrorism within there own territories.

It's a case yes Obama want to stop the wars and a case of the complications prior to doing so. Life is unfortunaly like that its to do with sods law. I commend you concerning your thoughts on obtaining peace but your not taking in to consideration the sideline and underlying problem of achieving such peace.

djermano

at 01:46 on October 19th, 2009

This article concerns Obama and how he treats the Bush generals who do not want to be stained with Bush's lies....so they prolong the removal of troops to give themselves creditablity to assure their pensions when they retire; like you do by collecting a military pension from Britain....while knowing you hate them....and is why you live in the Philippines.

You are wrong Bob...because if suddenly the Taliban became friends to Russia and China...they are not terrorists any more. In fact Bob Russia and China relish the thought of getting involved....because with this Global Economic Slowdown it would spur greater economic activity between Russia and China...since they just signed a new economic deal..focusing on securing Eurasia in their hemisphere of neighborly influence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357523,00.html

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2009_10_13/China_Russia_to_sign__55b_in_trade_deals.html..

What better way to get economic growth moving in Western China along the Afghanistan border? Just have the nimwit Americans send in more troops. America thinks it will win the war by sending in more troops, will in fact backfire...and they will lose even more creditability....then blaming it on Obama's lack of experience.

Mark my words Bob troop increases into Afghanistan will be alerting other factors and objectives.... China certainly does not need more unrest sparking ethnic riots that can spread in that region. Especially if Chinese people are then killed, because of the American action in sending in more troops. That is why increasing troops is not the answer to the problem. It is not a Math problem in having more guns creates peace...It is a step in believing a takes a better man to turn away from war...than one who proceeds thinking testosterone is his sweatband of success.

Increasing troops by putting the frog in warm water with a slowly incremental increase is not going to go unnoticed as well.. The US was winning the Afghanistan situation when they helped the Taliban evict Russia...but now the US lost its Diplomatic Cool headed step by step economic supporting plans... Instead they came in rage....under the image of a lie...and don't have the courage to stop it.

Obama by sending more troops might as well sign his own assured loss in the next election. World opinion has the US at an all time low....from their brazen war methods and occupation....You are literally crazy to support the continuation on the path of more war. Nobody listened to Hans Blix....and he was right.

First of all Bob there is no objective in Afghanistan. What is the purpose to stay? Stop the terrorism...But the terrorism is because the US invaded and is occupying Afghanistan... Pakistan is just as bad targeting people as terrorists....and then they are surprised because they are now fighting back...because they are not terrorists.

The News needs to be: Obama decides to remove 10,000 troops per each 3 months, and increasing economic professionals of the willing for calming perceptions....and down grading the need to use or even have arms. He needs a team of US diplomates to interact with Russia and China....to formulate a new dicotomy of relations for Eurasia in solving the World Economic Financial Crisis.

This diplomatic approach would be to have cooperation with Russia and China to help Afghanistan develop under the leadership of Dr. Abdullla Abdulla because he is not the puppet choice of the carried hardon reminder of Karazi..who represents the symbolic threat of more violence and terror.

Once there is a plan of economic cooperation designed...in that China allows to trade its ownership of billions of dollars in US Treasury Bonds...for the shipment of Oil and gas to the US....not necessarily from the Caspian Area...but from the interconnection of the China Russian relationship...it would change the direction of American indebtedness. That being a plus for the US and a plus for China and Russia. In fact an Oil pipeline could be built and extended across the Bering Straits into Alaska for the US markets. That would be a much better resolve to solving the Afhganistan situation...while also getting equal cooperation in developing Geothermal Wells across North China and Russia to provide electric power....

This is the goal...this is the good approach...this is the way to have people forget about the War and the Generals who are worried about their reputations...It is about slowing the Afghanistan situation in concern to more is better...when in fact it is not....

Once China and Russia and the US have an Eurasian Deal....The E3 can work with India and solve the Pakistan problem. Which is worse Pakistan having nuclear weapons or Iran?

I think it is Pakistan..who presents the greater threat because it threatens more people..meaning Russia, China, India, and the US ultimately because they are in the region.

Iran's only threat is to Israel..and the world is not about to consider that as more threatening than the effect of nuclear war and war developing because of Pakistan. Clearly that is the focus.... That is also why Obama does not want to esculate tensions by bringing in more guns..and troops.....

It is the diplomatic side of the administrations that need work and development. So it is what we and they need to pursue.....

The Rev

Why for once can't we Americans use our head for once....instead of our guns? Hello out there....knock knock knock......" Its Rev Jermano...beckoning you to leave your guns to home and follow the road to intelligence and economic well being....in concern to ending the war in Afghanistan...and reaching a concensus that mankind can see success without going down the bombs and bullets path."

The Rev

Babel-Fish

at 02:56 on October 19th, 2009

I am still a patriot and do not hate my country I dislike the people that term themselves politician and the corrupt Elitist that pull the strings. I earned my pension it was not siting behind a desk most of the time but facing public enemies withing an urban battleground. I also played a part in the cold war and did a job I was proud to do and in an army that is next to none that I consider the best disciplined fighting force in the world. That gets rid of the pride and hopefully eradicates the hate factor you wrongly suspect I have.

The US threat has been eradicated concerning your first link Obama in fact stopped the Polish project of a star war defense system. Russia does not give a damn about Afghanistan it was glad to be rid of its problems there within the cold war period. China is doing trade with Russia great but both countries will not be mad over more troops sent to Afghanistan. Even from here in the Philippines I can see that is true, no real vibes of such a thing is apparent.

djermano

at 18:13 on October 19th, 2009

Well Bob I could give a hoot about being a patriot..because that implies you believe in armies and the military... There are several a story that I am sure you are aware...that makes me anti- British and anti- American as well. I am sure you are as well disgusted, or you would be still living in the UK clucking beer mugs. Only you know the real you... In fact if it was me...I would refuse a pension from them. But we have our own values and sense don't we!

The US missile defense threat has not been eradicated..simply transformed....you know that.. Perhaps even setup in Afghanistan. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7453..

And Russia does give a damn about Afghanistan...They are connected because of the loss lives of soldiers there. ..and other investment interests. Russia is sitting on the fence so to speak Bob...while they agree to not like terrorism...they at one time financed the Warlords there.... They do not want Chechnya and Taliban coalition to transcribe....but it maybe a good thing if it did...because the Taliban would be looking to Russia with more favorable meanings....that is to repair the damage that happened because of their past support to the US... This means it would neutralize the Chechen threat and make the Chechens more supportive to Moscow....Perhaps vindicating them..and making them a new Russian deployment network.

http://www.understandingwar.org/themenode/russia-and-afghanistan

The Rev.

Babel-Fish

at 20:35 on October 20th, 2009

Patriotism is love for country and only applies to that factor perhaps that word means something else in USA. But in UK it means love for country and country men.

I believe there has to be armies protecting nations and not fighting wars to conquer. The reason is that without such protection a countries can be over run by a dictator such as Hitler.

You just can not scrap a countries military without every other nation doing the same and that is an impossibility. I can be proud to say that my service was just protecting my country from invasion during the cold war and when in Northern Ireland curbing terrorism and protecting innocent people on both sides of fence.

The missile defense was most defiantly scrapped by Obama!

Russia nor China back or will back the Taliban its not in their interest to do so.

Yes I do love my country its just the politicians I do not like.

djermano

at 04:43 on October 21st, 2009

Patriotism most certainly implies the willingness to take up arms and support a military. I do not believe nations need armies protecting themselves. You of all people still pushing the Hitler dictator excuse is quite unrealistic in a world where we see out of control Democracy becoming worse than a dictatorship. .. All countries would abandon their militaries if the US was the first to step forward.

The problem in the world is that mankind really has no intelligence or moral compass to see that their reliance on killing and opposing vs. aggression and murder is deliberate by their own doing.....instead of taking comfort in the mindset that mankind is above the realm toward killing for gain...or whatever illconceived thought they can't control.

You see Bob...I believe people who support militaries are ill, and have every intention to using them eventually.....

It will be a grand day when I can leave this madness called earth controlled by the military lunatics. I shall never accept their hypocrisy.

The Missile Defense was not scrapped....So please read Bob and get current..

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/17/arms_control_backers_speak_of_adjustment_not_scrapping..

It's just another flagrant lie by Obama...trying to show he is different from Bush..when in fact Bush was planning to adjust the deployment anyway.

You love your country is post and parcel to who runs it... I find it difficult to divide the two.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Talibans-political-ace-A-letter-to-Shanghai-group/articleshow/5129198.cms...

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/russiataliban.html?id=538552003....

The Rev