Small Wars Council - OEF

en Thu, 17 May 2012 02:18:18 GMT vBulletin 10 http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/images/misc/rss.jpg Small Wars Council - OEF - Afghanistan http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/ Why hold senior detainees at all? http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15526&goto=newpost Mon, 07 May 2012 11:26:27 GMT From WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/secret-us-program-releases-high-level-insurgents-in-exchange-for-pledges-of-peace/2012/05/06/gIQAFfJn6T_story.html?tid=pm_pop): ---Quote--- KABUL — The United States has for several years been secretly releasing high-level detainees... From WaPo:

Quote:

KABUL — The United States has for several years been secretly releasing high-level detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan as part of negotiations with insurgent groups, a bold effort to quell violence but one that U.S. officials acknowledge poses substantial risks.

As the United States has unsuccessfully pursued a peace deal with the Taliban, the “strategic release” program has quietly served as a live diplomatic channel, allowing American officials to use prisoners as bargaining chips in restive provinces where military power has reached its limits.

We've discussed something similar on the theory that most detainees are useless rank and file--if even that much. So where do folks stand on paroling senior detainees? ]]> OEF - Afghanistan Presley Cannady http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15526 2005 and 2012 Strategic Partnerships http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15500&goto=newpost Wed, 02 May 2012 00:47:05 GMT The 2005 Bush-Karzai Joint Declaration of the United States of America and Afghanistan on Strategic Partnership (http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/afghanistan/WH/20050523-2.pdf) (23 May 2005), was announced (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058994.html) shortly after it was signed. IMO: this... The 2005 Bush-Karzai Joint Declaration of the United States of America and Afghanistan on Strategic Partnership (23 May 2005), was announced shortly after it was signed. IMO: this document was a binding Executive Agreement (between heads of state), which is equivalent to a treaty as to areas which are within the constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

The Obama Administration ratified the 2005 Strategic Partnership; but, it reiterated its desire to continue that agreement in amended form.

The 2005 strategy had three main headings: Democracy and Governance; Prosperity; and Security. The 2012 Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America (1 May 2012) has five main headings: Protecting and Promoting Shared Democratic Values; Advancing Long-Term Security; Reinforcing Regional Security and Cooperation; Social and Economic Development; and Strengthening Afghan Institutions and Governance.

The 2012 Strategic Partnership has a one-year unilateral termination clause; unlike the 2005 Strategic Partnership which had no termination clause. The 2012 agreement has other limitations, suggesting it is very much an "illusory contract" - from the WH Factsheet:

Quote:

To be clear, the Strategic Partnership Agreement itself does not commit the United States to any specific troop levels or levels of funding in the future, as those are decisions will be made in consultation with the U.S. Congress. It does, however, commit the United States to seek funding from Congress on an annual basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces, as well as for social and economic assistance.

A number of agreements remain in effect until re-negotiated (or until the 2012 Strategic Partnership is terminated): 2012 MOUs on Special Operations and Detention Facilities (LINK and LINK); 2003 Status of Forces Agreement; and several multi-national agreements (e.g., 2001 Bonn, 2010 NATO-Lisbon, etc.). See, Status of Forces Agreements and UN Mandates (28 Feb 2008, Matheson), for various UN, NATO and US declarations and agreements then in effect regarding Astan and Iraq.

Regards

Mike ]]> OEF - Afghanistan jmm99 http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15500 OEF has it been worth the human cost? http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15481&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:39:48 GMT I think this question has been asked before within a variety of threads, but the Lowy Institute have raised the issue - under a different headline. Questions that all of those nations involved need to ask, not just Australians. ... I think this question has been asked before within a variety of threads, but the Lowy Institute have raised the issue - under a different headline. Questions that all of those nations involved need to ask, not just Australians.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...n-failure.aspx

The author starts with:

Quote:

Some good things have been achieved in Afghanistan, and some of them may even last once ISAF has gone. But for those of us interested in the decisions that governments make about the use of armed force, the fact that something has been achieved is not enough. The question that must be asked is whether the achievements have been worth the cost..(sentence removed)....But it is a question that we Australians cannot afford to duck.

Citing an Australian TV documentary, which cites retired Major General John Cantwell:

Quote:

: At its heart it's about supporting an alliance with the United States. That's what got us into this when the ANZUS Treaty was invoked. Is it worth it? I as a Commander asked myself that question many times. And I really really struggle with it. The only way I can see through this, so that I can sleep at night, is to differentiate - to say it's not worth it for the lives that you lose. You could never look at any soldier, sailor or airman and say, your life's forfeit for some political purpose. That's just unacceptable. But at the highest level of strategy, and in the dirty ugly world of international relationships, where it's you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, that those lives become less important. And taking that longer term view, that hardnosed, realpolitik view, that politicians do, and must, it's worth it. But not at the human level.

Link:http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori...12/3476114.htm

He writes:

Quote:

...the decisions – including the moral decisions — to commit soldiers to combat are made at two different levels. There is the operational level, where the decisions are military, and the strategic level, where they are, to use his word, 'political'...He seems to argue the standards of morality at the two levels are different. At the strategic level the standards are lower, and 'lives are less important'.....

Everyone involved in such a decision has a responsibility to exercise exceptional diligence in contributing to it. All of them must meet the same moral standard: have they been sufficiently careful in ensuring that the potential cost in lives is justified by the potential policy benefits?

I believe Australian strategic decisions about Afghanistan failed to meet this standard. Soldiers were committed to dangerous operations when there was little prospect that those operations would achieve their policy objectives

He ends with an even more difficult passage:

Quote:

Military service in a society like ours is based on an implicit agreement. Soldiers agree to follow orders; to go where they're sent and fight who they're told, even at risk to their lives. In return, we – their senior officers, their ministers and ultimately the public – promise that we will not order them into danger unless really critical national interests are at stake, and the operations they are committed to have a reasonable chance of success. In Afghanistan I'm not sure we have lived up to our side of that deal.

]]> OEF - Afghanistan davidbfpo http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15481 OP Shal http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15460&goto=newpost Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:58:30 GMT I had the honor of talking to one of the Soldiers involved in this battle and it will no doubt go down in the history of this conflict as one of the epic platoon size battles. While the battle says a lot about the Taliban and Pakistan that have significant implications, I just want to focus on the... I had the honor of talking to one of the Soldiers involved in this battle and it will no doubt go down in the history of this conflict as one of the epic platoon size battles. While the battle says a lot about the Taliban and Pakistan that have significant implications, I just want to focus on the heroics of this platoon who fought for 8 days straight to overcome the odds. These articles don't come close to capturing what I heard today, so I hope the Army publishes a historical piece on the battle eventually.

http://www.oregonherald.com/news/sho....cfm?id=327554

Quote:

Throughout the intense fighting, the besieged defending force of 36 U.S. and Afghan army soldiers fought off multiple suicide bombers and at least four overrun attempts by between 400 and 500 heavily armed insurgents, who had been trucked in from Pakistan and who managed to advance to within 5 m of U.S. positions. Afterward, the soldiers confirmed 115 kills and estimated at least 200. "It was the most coordinated thing any of us had ever seen, but just the sheer number of forces they had massing on that position was ridiculous," Staff Sergeant Everett Bracey, of 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 2-27 Infantry Battalion, told TIME. (Watch TIME's video "A New Season of Fighting in Afghanistan.")

The attackers were reinforced and resupplied throughout the fight from bases and depots in the safe haven provided by Pakistan. "We saw 60 vehicles come out of Pakistan -- just drive in," said Staff Sergeant Anthony Fuentes, looking at a topographical map a few days after the battle. "This whole route, it goes all the way up into Pakistan. It's a two-hour trafficable route from the border." Added company commander Captain Michael Kolton: "It was Pashtuns and Arabs and Chechens and Punjabis -- everyone and their sister joined in on this one."

The defenders of OP Shal also recognized that their attackers had been well trained. "They used the standard operating procedures that the U.S. Army uses," explained Fuentes. "We expected contact, but we didn't expect that. Their fire was so heavy and precise that to get up and look at their near sector, the joes just had to say, 'O.K., I'm just going to eat one in the face just to get up and see if somebody is moving on me.' And every time they lifted their head up, there was somebody there."

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/0...-star-031912w/

Quote:

For three days, the enemy relentlessly attacked Observation Post Shal in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

And for three days, Cpl. Michael A. Moynihan led his fellow soldiers in a fierce defense of their OP, directing attacks and providing covering fire even though it exposed him to the intense enemy barrage. A mortar hit his position and knocked him unconscious; after he came to, Moynihan continued to lead the fight.

For his actions Oct. 11-13, Moynihan was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest award for valor.

More medals awarded and more pending after an epic battle where 400-500 Taliban repeatedly tried to overrun the Combat Outpost. ]]> OEF - Afghanistan Bill Moore http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15460 Huge Attack Planned for Kabul http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15458&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:11:10 GMT http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17796556 ---Quote--- Afghan security officials say they have foiled a huge attack in the capital Kabul, as they gave details of the seizure of 10 tonnes of explosives. ---End Quote--- ---Quote--- He said three of the captured militants are Pakistani... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17796556

Quote:

Afghan security officials say they have foiled a huge attack in the capital Kabul, as they gave details of the seizure of 10 tonnes of explosives.

Quote:

He said three of the captured militants are Pakistani citizens, and two are Afghans.

'Confessions'

The five suspects had confessed that the planned attack was co-ordinated by two Taliban commanders with links to Pakistan's main intelligence organisation the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), according to the spokesman.

]]> OEF - Afghanistan Bill Moore http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15458