NightWatch Special Report on Afghanistan
John McCreary just published a detailed analysis of casualtiy statistics and the state of the war in Afghanistan - the Taliban are making gains and are on the brink of retaking Kandahar, and this against a force ratio of 18-25:1.
From McCreary's report:
The ratios
The loss ratios show the Afghan Army is not doing well and the police remain in a crisis. The overall casualty ratio rebounded in favor of the Allies for the first time this year. The overall ratios of Taliban killed and wounded to Allied
killed and wounded was 3 : 1. In September and October, the ratio fell to 2 : 1. During the summer offensive the ratio was 4 : 1.
The kill ratios once again showed another drop in favor of the Taliban. In November the ratio dropped to 3 : 1, the lowest ratio since the fight began. In early summer the Allies killed Taliban at the rate of 7 : 1. In August the rate dropped to 5 : 1. In September it was 4 :1 in favor of the government. In October the ratio was 3.5 : 1. This is an alarming trend.
I have more on this at my site, along with a .pdf of the NightWatch report.
Metrics don't mean much in war.
Concentrating on such figures as he provides in his "report" give you a trees instead of forests perspective.
In any irregular war a force ratio of 18-25:1 is virtually meaningless. Big bureaucratic western Armies -- and , in this case, their Native allies who are trying to fight the same way -- will never be as flexible as the irregulars. Casualties on both sides will fluctuate and a lot of things -- with some real research instead of just looking at figures -- will tell you why they fluctuate.
Such things as operational tempos impacted by political events, unit rotations (putting new instead of experienced troops in play) and a host of other factors intrude.
To balance that excessive negativity induced by almost meaningless numbers, here's an equally excessively positive number; (LINK). Neither set of numbers means much.
Before you rush to point out that good numbers cited by a General are offset by the tone of the rest of the article, true -- but it's from the AP, not an unbiased source. My point is that the numbers don't mean much no matter how much the punditocracy, talking head and Generals like them.
I did read it at the link from your site
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeffC
McCreary recently retired a senior analyst with J2 after 38 years. You might want to read his entire report before dismissing it as "meaningless numbers". I made a .pdf available at IntelFusion.
Not impressed. The NYT came out with an article couple of days ago that said much the same thing. So have several other outlets.
Look deeper. The system likes metrics, they're something to show -- usually, they prove little but they satisfy those with an itch for 'meaningful data on which to base decisions.' Or for analysts who want more than well honed instincts...
That .pdf reminded me of a page in a math text book rather than any intel estimate of value I've ever read. Sorry. The net content was summed up in this; "Taliban can hold terrain for limited periods; Allies cannot prevent Taliban attacks." which doesn't pass the "so what" test. It does not because in a nation that size with terrain like that where shifting loyalties are a national sport it is simply logical that should be so. It would not change if there were ten times as many Allied troops there.
Consider the fact that the Joint Staff and CentCom are -- properly -- concerned about the health of the US Defense establishment and their entire AO respectively; they'd both be quite happy to see Afghanistan and Iraq just go away. Based on prior experience, I have no doubt that some in both places are actively fomenting to make that happen (Note that is not an accusation of treason, merely of being over zealous in pursuing their Bosses stated -- or assumed -- goals). So CentCom leaks to the NYT the fact they're 'reviewing' the mission. Given the paper's tilt that immediately is cast as the sky is falling...
At the same time, Gates is pushing NATO for a bigger commitment -- not just more troops but the things like Choppers and support elements that they promised and haven't delivered. So he doesn't object at all to the Times saying things are going downhill -- perhaps that'll tweak NATO a bit. Could even be that the J staff leaked instead of CentCom.
I noted in the Times article a 'military official' spouting gloom is quoted. His location is not stated (deliberately, I'm sure, so we'll asume he's in the 'stan) but I'll bet big bucks he's here in the States and his 'professional' opinion is swayed by a whole lot of factors of which current on the ground knowledge is not one.
Wheels inside of wheels and nothing in war is simple -- nothing in the bureaucracy that is the US DoD is even merely comples -- its generally a bucket of worms. I assure you there's no intent to denigrate you or McCreary, I'm just highly skeptical of a numbers approach in a COIN effort. I thought we'd learned better than that from Viet Nam -- apparently not. Sad.
We can disagree on most of that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
They successfully infiltrated and attacked Westerners in one of their most secure environs. Canadian PM Harper has stayed in that hotel. The Tailban infiltrated several attackers who shot and blew up Western expats.
Not at all difficult to do; quite easy, in fact. The Hotel was and is an icon target; resonates far more with the media and the intelligentsia than it has actual effect on the ground. To say it's an IO oriented strike is correct, to say it's a 'victory' is, IMO, an massive overstatement.
Quote:
The IO victory is not so much in the broader Western public, which no longer appears to care much about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather in the Western NGO and aid community as detailed in the Rubin post. If they can pull off follow-on attacks on Western establishments and run the NGO community into Green Zone-style compounds or out of the country, they will have gone a long way towards successfully alienating the Afghan people from the Western mission there.
The broader western public never cared much about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still don't and are unlikely to ever do so -- they, mostly, just want them to go away.
My experience with the NGO community is, over all, far from positive and my experience with western government aid in the ME and Asia isn't a whole lot better. YMMV.
While there is some merit to your suggestion that a lack of such involvement from the west will have an adverse effect on the Afghans, I believe "a long way" is an overstatement of some magnitude. NATO armed forces will pick up the effort as they really pretty much already have.
Quote:
NGO and Western gov help has not been utterly fruitless - it has already vastly expanded the Afghan central government's ability to provide services to the Afghan people...
True -- and most of that support has been from various armed forces.
Quote:
...The only way to build a sense of nationhood and loyalty towards a central government is to establish a national infrastructure and a government which can actually provide security, law, and services instead of another layer of predatory authority. Without Western capital and technical assistance, there is no way that the Afghan central government can do this on its own especially in a neighborhood with fierce competitors like Iran, Pakistan, and India.
It will still take at least a couple of generations; the capital is far, far more important than is the governmental 'assistance' but the west is wedded to building dependency in return for that assistance (the socialist mantra of 'we know what is best for you' is alive and well...) -- I don't think the Afghans will play that game, they're a lot more independent than are Arabs...
Quote:
Of course the Afghans will have to do most of the work and the whole point of Rubin's post which I endorsed is that Western governments must be willing to surrender much of the responsibility and power to the Afghans in terms of the reconstruction effort. But without the capital and security umbrella provided by the West, a truly independent Afghanistan will be strangled in its cradle.
We can agree on all that while disagreeing, apparently on the provision of capital (by whom and with what strings) or that the NGO will have much effect one way or another -- and we can agree they need the security assistance for a while longer.
Contributions from American Students
Roots of Peace Builds School on Former Afghan Battlefield.
Quote:
The U.S. Department of State salutes Roots of Peace, a non-governmental organization that turns minefields into productive farmland, for building a new school on a former battlefield near the Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The project was funded by 1 million pennies ($10,000) raised by American students through the "Roots of Peace Penny Campaign"
The school originally consisted of a few tents serving just 50 pupils after fighting between the Taliban and Northern Alliance destroyed the original building. Today, a new, sturdy 10-room school, certified by Afghanistan's Ministry of Education, accommodates over 260 boys and girls. Prior to construction, landmines and explosive remnants of war were cleared by The HALO Trust
More at the links...
UK viewpoint on staying in Afghanistan
THis article appeared in The Spectator (UK) last week, by Adam Holloway and is to the say the least challenging, notably for the UK: http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...-taleban.thtml
Oddly the article does not say who Adam Holloway is, but a quick Google strongly suggests he is a Conservative MP, who has recently visited Helmand Province and there is a shorter piece on his website: http://www.adamholloway.co.uk/Afgan.htm
davidbfpo