The French in Afghanistan

[AdamG]

This ain't good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26281580

SUROBI, Afghanistan - Insurgents ambushed a group of French parachutists outside Kabul, sparking a battle that killed 10 of the soldiers in the biggest loss of life for international forces in combat in Afghanistan in more than three years, officials said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a team of suicide bombers tried unsuccessfully to storm a U.S. military base near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in a daring attack on a major American installation.

The French soldiers from the 8th infantry parachute regiment were on a reconnaissance mission in the Surobi district, an area known as a militant redoubt about 30 miles east of the Afghan capital.

Qazi Suliman, the district chief in Surobi, said the ambush sparked a three-hour gunbattle. French president Nicolas Sarkozy confirmed that 10 were killed and 21 wounded in the clashes.

An Afghan official said that four of those soldiers had been kidnapped by insurgents and killed. 1The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't supposed to release the information.

Suliman said he had a report that 13 militants were killed.

*
Khost attacks
In the attack on the U.S. base just a few miles from the border with Pakistan, militants failed to gain entry to Camp Salerno in Khost city after launching waves of attacks just before midnight on Monday, said Arsallah Jamal, the governor of Khost.

The attacks came a day after a suicide bomb outside the same base killed 10 civilians and wounded 13 others.

*
Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, the Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman, said Afghan soldiers, aided by U.S. troops, chased and surrounded a group of insurgents, and that six militants blew themselves up when cornered. Seven other militants died in those explosions and a rolling gun battle,2 he said.

"(The Afghan National Army) is saying that anytime we get close to them, they detonate themselves," Jamal said.

Comments
1. AQ's new manual suggests taking hostages and killing them in gruesome ways.
2. Sounds like these bombers are deliberately luring our people in close. I wonder if the militants running where the same ones who had the suicide charges or if it was a bait-and-switch.

[Stevely]

Rest in peace, mes amis :(

[Rank amateur]

The French paratroopers were on a reconnaissance mission with U.S. Special Forces operatives and the Afghan National Army when they were ambushed in a strategic valley in the Sarobi district, about 50 kilometres northeast of the capital, Kabul.

While details of the battle were sketchy, French Defence Minister Hervé Morin said that about 100 heavily armed Taliban fighters attacked the tank column late Monday, setting off three hours of fierce fighting and clashes that continued overnight.

Nine French paratroopers were killed at the start of the ambush, he added. A 10th soldier died when his vehicle overturned on a road toward the end of the fighting. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080820.AFGHANFRANCE20/TPStory/TPInternational/Europe/)

It appears that the bad guys aren't afraid of tanks.

[Ken White]

It appears that the bad guys aren't afraid of tanks.the French defense minister or both don't know that neither the French nor US SF have any tanks in-country...

Given the current penchant for reporters to call a Frigate a 'Battleship' this is not surprising.

Even if there had been tanks, why should anyone be afraid of them?

[Rank amateur]

the French defense minister or both don't know that neither the French nor US SF have any tanks in-country...

Given the current penchant for reporters to call a Frigate a 'Battleship' this is not surprising.

Even if there had been tanks, why should anyone be afraid of them?

The Canadian tank article linked to here a while back said the Taliban were afraid of tanks. Canadian newspaper too. Darn Canadians are making me look bad.


French defence officials said about 100 soldiers - from France, the US and Afghanistan - were on a reconnaissance mission when bad road conditions forced them to stop their vehicles.

A group of French soldiers was sent ahead on foot to check the terrain, but they were ambushed by Taleban fighters and nine were killed.

A tenth French soldier was killed when his vehicle overturned on the road.

An Afghan intelligence officer told the BBC the troops had been ambushed from several directions.

"The Taleban and al-Qaeda forces used heavy machine guns and other weapons. They fired from mountains and gardens," he said.

The fighting went on for 24 hours and it is understood that reinforcements had to be called in to airlift the troops to safety.

They were VABs and the soldiers were out in front of the vehicles.

[Ken White]

The Canadian tank article linked to here a while back said the Taliban were afraid of tanks. Canadian newspaper too. Darn Canadians are making me look bad.Don't trust the media, they're clueless, seriously so. Really.

Not least in confusing sensible respect for capability with being afraid -- not at all the same thing...
They were VABs and the soldiers were out in front of the vehicles.I know. The VAB (and there was probably a VBL or three in there and with USSF, some up armored HMMWV of one kind or another also) is not a tank -- it isn't even a very good combat wheeled vehicle. Ergo, it probably doesn't get much respect at all from the bad guys, only anticipatory drooling at big targets. ;)

[Distiller]

Le Monde writes that the soldiers were not killed/wounded (10/21) right at the beginning of the 13 hour skirmish. They interviewed somebody who survived and that guy says they had serious C3 problems, finally ran out of MG ammo and grenades and had only their Famas left. In addition there was no artillery support, and it took four hours till (Afghan) reinforcements arrived, which then were shooting at everybody, including the French. And finally CAS also hit the French, not only the Taliban (they were as close as 50m). The ten killed belonged to the 8th RPIMa, the 2nd REP and the Tchadian RMT.

[Ken White]

so it's perhaps pretty accurate. Given 2d REP and the 8th RPIMa plus the Chadian; US SF and Afghans, I guess C3 problems were virtually guaranteed and ANA reinforcements firing up everyone seems to be par for the course. CAS close is always dicey. Surprised that with vehicles, they ran out of MG Ammo, though.

[davidbfpo]

The BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7572612.stm and by a defence commentator: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/

Note the emphasis on the French public not supporting the deployment; once again an example of the political failure to explain why.

Rest in peace mon ami.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Not me, but from the Kings College London War Studies Kings of War blogsite: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/les-erreursand-how/#comments

Very pithy comments on the ambush and the Taliban threat (in a moment will post to a Taliban thread too).

davidbfpo

[Entropy]

More here (http://www.france24.com/en/20080827-canard-enchaine-taliban-ambush-afghanistan-france-patrol-french-soldiers).


New information surfaced Wednesday on the death on August 18 of 10 French soldiers who, while on a reconnaissance mission in Eastern Afghanistan, were ambushed by Taliban insurgents. French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, reputed for its investigative reporting and political scoops, suggested that the French patrol may have been betrayed by their Afghan interpreter. 'A few hours before the soldiers departed on their mission on August 18, the interpreter who was supposed to accompany the small patrol disappeared,' said an article on Wednesday [27 August 2008] in Le Canard Enchaîné. According to FRANCE 24 sources, this version of the facts was given to journalists by soldiers who had participated in the mission while they were being treated at the French military hospital in Kabul. According to the newspaper, French officials speaking anonymously admitted that the insurgents knew about the French patrol’s mission 'through the missing interpreter, or through Afghan police or soldiers.

[kaur]

Mass Attack on French Paratroopers Heralds New Taliban Tactics


French press interviews with survivors of the ambush describe a rapid breakdown in command and communications, with Taliban marksmen taking down French soldiers at will. Among the first to be killed were the deputy section leader and the radioman of the advance unit. The warrant officer in command was shot in the shoulder. Soon afterwards the paratroopers’ radio communication with the RMT broke down. Heavily outnumbered, the French remained pinned down and under fire from small arms, machine guns and rocket launchers for four hours without reinforcements. Ammunition for all weapons other than their assault rifles ran out as the soldiers were unable to reach supplies still in their vehicles, although a VAB with a section from the 35e Régiment d'Artillerie Parachutiste in the rear of the column was able to deploy the vehicle’s machine gun and four 120mm mortars in support (La Depeche, August 21).

http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=346#

[Rex Brynen]

French soldiers unprepared for Taliban ambush: report (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wparatroopers20/BNStory/International/home)

A secret NATO review obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the French who were killed in August did not have enough bullets, radios and other equipment. By contrast, the insurgents were dangerously well prepared


GRAEME SMITH
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
September 20, 2008 at 1:11 AM EDT


It was mid-afternoon when a tribal elder invited a U.S. military commander for a quiet chat in a garden. His village was surrounded by foreign troops, hunting around the mountain valley in search of infiltrators from Pakistan rumoured to be lurking in the barren hills.

Thirty soldiers from a French airborne platoon wandered farthest from the village, exploring a steep slope covered with rocks and scrubby vegetation under a high ridge.

That hill would soon become a killing ground, scene of the deadliest ambush against international forces since 2001, and the latest troubling sign that the insurgents are mastering the art of guerrilla war.

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.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/gm_paratroopers_web.pdf

[AdamG]

"There was no Nato report," said a French army spokesman, :wry: saying such information was based on "rumours" possibly fed by "partial" accounts from soldiers questioned after the attack. He denied that the troops ran out of ammunition quickly and said that radio reception was only lost for a few minutes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3042557/French-troops-ran-out-of-ammunition-in-Afghanistan.html

[bourbon]

French troops were killed after Italy hushed up ‘bribes’ to Taleban (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6875376.ece), by Tom Coghlan. The Times (London), October 15, 2009.


What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.

US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic.

However, a number of high-ranking officers in Nato have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well.

Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment.

[kotkinjs1]

Here's the same story from today's Foreign Policy:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/15/did_italy_pay_off_the_taliban


Did Italy pay off the Taliban?

But the larger question is: why is this so damming? Isn't this now part of our strategic calculus to consider paying off those same Taliban when necessary to achieve our larger withdrawal aims?

[Entropy]

But the larger question is: why is this so damming? Isn't this now part of our strategic calculus to consider paying off those same Taliban when necessary to achieve our larger withdrawal aims?

It's damning when you don't tell your relieving force who you've been paying and why, assuming this story is true.

[kotkinjs1]

right - I understand that; it is pretty sh!tty that this little gem was left out in the turnover brief. I was only referring to the payoffs. The article focuses on the payments to militants to maintain the peace:


"US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west."

Is cutting a deal with militant tribes or even factions of the Taliban so horrible? This article paints it out to be.

[bourbon]

"US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west."

Is cutting a deal with militant tribes or even factions of the Taliban so horrible? This article paints it out to be.

My "this is ugly" comment was in reference to not informing the French, if this is indeed true; not the matter of payments.

I am flabbergasted that US intelligence officials were 'flabbergasted' when they found out that the Italians had been buying off militants. The Italian government is confronted with commitments to its allies, and unpopular domestic support for its endeavors in Afghanistan that is increasingly sensitive to its casualties. Until recently in the eyes of many European countries, foreign corruption was a legitimate tool in business and diplomatic matters – it was even a tax deduction in some countries. It shouldn’t come as a surprise; disappointment perhaps, but not surprise.

As to the merits of bribing tribes or factions of the Taliban, I would not consider it something so horrible as to leave it from consideration. Just so long as they are open to greenbacks; none of this Euro, Yuan, or Ruble funny business.

[Ken White]

We, the British, the Spanish, the Italians AND the French have all paid for quiet from time to time according to several who have been or are there. I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye -- and I'd also bet there's a domestic political angle for surfacing it at this time...

[milnews.ca]

We, the British, the Spanish, the Italians AND the French have all paid for quiet from time to time according to several who have been or are there. I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye -- and I'd also bet there's a domestic political angle for surfacing it at this time...

Interesting you should mention this - just spotted this in a French wire service story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091016/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestnatomilitary):

.... according to a number of Western and Afghan officers, all speaking on condition of anonymity, the politically sensitive practice is fairly widespread among NATO forces in Afghanistan.

One Western military source told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar, while another officer spoke of similar practices by the German army in northern Kunduz.

"I can tell you that lots of countries under the NATO umbrella operating out in rural parts of Afghanistan do pay the militants for not attacking them," the senior Afghan official said.

He added that it "seems to be the practice with military forces from some NATO countries, excluding the US forces under NATO, the British forces and the whole coalition forces" under the US-led "Operation Enduring Freedom".

"I think more than 50 percent of NATO forces deployed in rural Afghanistan have such deals or at least have struck such deals" to ensure peace, the official said.

He said he did not want to say precisely how many but one Western officer said: "As it's not very positive and not officially recognised, it's never spoken about openly. It's a bit shameful.

"Consequently, it's sometimes not communicated properly between the old unit and the new unit that comes in to relieve them," which may have happened between the Italians and the French ....

I note the original story from the Times also attributes "Western military officials" - wonder what part of the West we're talking about....

[Graycap]

We, the British, the Spanish, the Italians AND the French have all paid for quiet from time to time according to several who have been or are there. I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye -- and I'd also bet there's a domestic political angle for surfacing it at this time...

As a long time italian lurker I think that another time Ken is spot on.

I 've made comments in the blog under the "italian job" post since I didn't notice this thread.

Only one more thing to think about. This article is part of a complex media campaign against italian prime minister. Probably his too close relations with russia and lybia are the driver. Southstream against Nabucco, ENI against BP or Shell. And you have to consider that Murdoch group is a big enemy of Berlusconi. Something like FOX and Obama only just a bit more "spicy".

Graycap

[davidbfpo]

Yes, you'd expect this and read on: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSM5ghQShu5GtxfCo7fFMO8M_BlAD9BBFTR00

davidbfpo

[Graycap]

Nothing new IMHO. This kind of accusations have a political objective and therefore a political management. Now the only real news could be an official document or an official spokesman that clearly demonstrates that italian government is lying. If this should be the case the crisis in western alliance could escalate pretty bad. Each intelligence has something in store.

I really don't understand the reasons of using this argument to make pression.

The real problem is the alliance management. And this problem can't be solved with this kind of leaks.

Graycap

[milnews.ca]

....to help draw the eye away, perhaps, via The Times online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6881602.ece) (bolding mine):

Mr Frattini said it was untrue that Italians paid off the Taleban and failed to inform the French, but “there is certainly a problem of how to co-ordinate the allies in Afghanistan”.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan, 22 Italian troops have been killed, six in one attack in Kabul last month. There are nearly 3,000 Italians serving in Afghanistan. He said that when the Berlusconi Government came to office in May last year, it abolished most of the caveats under which Italian troops operated. However, it remained the case that when asked to enter a combat zone, Italian forces had six hours in which to decide whether or not to go in.

It was willing to abolish this caveat so that troops could be dispatched immediately, but up-to-the-minute intelligence was vital, Mr Frattini said. “If we are asked to go to, say, part of the province of Kandahar to take part in fighting, we naturally want to know what is the intelligence on the area. Unfortunately there is no such co-ordination.”

Italian officials deny that they are barred from intelligence sharing because the Government is considered too close to non-Nato countries such as Russia and Libya. Mr Berlusconi makes a private visit to Moscow and St Petersburg this week to celebrate the birthday of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister.

Mr Frattini said the problem was that intelligence was “the only resource not put at the disposal of everyone”. He said that in Herat, which is under Italian and Spanish command, there was excellent co-ordination with Spanish forces, “but if I want to leave Herat to go to Kandahar it is another matter”.

More grist for the mill...

[davidbfpo]

Milnews.ca,

This Italian statement makes one wonder how NATO allies can allegedly fail to co-ordinate; there have been decades of NATO co-operation, followed by Bosnia and Kosovo. France even when not a miltary partner in NATO had relations with Italy and Spain. I would be surprised if the 'Cold War' NATO era plus has so quickly been forgotten - no, wrong adjective, disappointed is better.

I leave aside the growing EU factor in political relationships, after all France, Italy and Spain are all leading members.

Interesting to know Italy dispensed with its operational caveats; don't recall seeing that reported and this was repeatedly called for by ISAF commanders.
Did anyone else follow them?

davidbfpo

[Graycap]

Slowly but inesorably the different strategic motivations behind the different national contingents come to to evidence.

Now that the new american administration has begun a overhaul of afghan strategy the problems become more urgent.

IMHO the real strategic motivations for Italy to be in Afghanistan have little to do with afghan future and more with mantaining our role in NATO even with military forces substantially in non operational conditions. This role in NATO is important to reassure USA when our country has been seen as too inclined toward Russia and Lybia. If we want freedom of action then we must be a good NATO partner.
To be a good partner was easy with the Bush administration and with Afghanistan a lot less dangerous. Bush didn't care much about european contribution and FOB-centric way of operate could be sustainable.
Low probability of losses could justify the strategic gains.

The different strategic approaches to Afghanistan is the reason behind the "collaboration" difficulties. I think that these difficulties are more at political level than at the tactical. The alliance seems to work only at tactical-military level, completely ignores the operational one (ISAF vs OEF), and is in great difficulty at the strategic one when every member, US in primis, is acting with his own agenda. IMHO afghan campaign outcome can greatly menace the alliance future.

Now with ISAF directly involved in COIN and with McChrystal new directives it is increasingly probable to have more losses in the future and our internal public opinion could very easily become unsupportive of the mission.
We are in Italy. We are used to have only peace-soldiers. Our politician could talk only in this terms. E.g. an italian sniper killed a local talib commander some days ago but this news must be kept under the radar of MSM.

IMHO the central point is a strategic bargaining: the US need our help? The US should grant us freedom of action on other tables and include NATO members in the strategic planning. The impression is that the americans decide what is their best course of action and then NATO member should comply.

About new caveats in Italy there has been little discussions in the spirit of the above cited peace-soldiers. Obviously they are secret but from the spike in the number of "contacts" reported something has changed for sure.

Graycap

[Fuchs]

I have a fundamental problem with sacrificing humans.
There's little difference for me between an Aztec priest who cuts a hole in the chest of a man with a stone knife and then rips out the heart on the one side and a politician who sends troops into a war zone for nebulous prestige or relations gains.

For the religious among us: not even god wants human sacrifice, why should be accept it for prestige or relations?


But you're right; several European governments did not intend to fight war in Afghanistan, but to provide some auxiliary troops to a stabilization mission in exchange for prestige and improved relations.

The were despicable fools, and trust me; in private I'd use different descriptions :mad:

[tequila]

There's little difference for me between an Aztec priest who cuts a hole in the chest of a man with a stone knife and then rips out the heart on the one side and a politician who sends troops into a war zone for nebulous prestige or relations gains.

Well, you must hate pretty much every politician or military commander in history. Thucydides' concept of public or national "honor" is closely related to the modern concept of prestige or "standing", after all.

[Graycap]

Just to close the discussion about the alleged bribing of taliban by italians.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/british-army-coin-guidelines-i/

From SWJ blog posting about a Times article.

[Fuchs]

http://www.cdef.terre.defense.gouv.fr/publications/doctrine/doctrine17/version_us/Doctrine17us.pdf

A whole issue about AFG.

[M-A Lagrange]

Thanks Fuch for posting this.

I would also recommand (for the French readers only), the high quality blog Secret defense post on COIN. It is a critic of the COIN doctrine (Published at the same momment that the doctrine nb 17 review).

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2010/05/mon-opinion-la-contreinsurrection-une-doctrine-tr%C3%A8s-utile-pour-les-militaires.html