Jeez you guys are quick on the draw. :)
Printable View
Jeez you guys are quick on the draw. :)
I think we will have to establish bona fides with a very suspicious Pashtun population first, especially given that the Taliban have held control of these villages for so long. I'd imagine for people inclined to believe the worst of Americans, it's not easy to surrender your women and children --- essentially your own honor --- to them. You could just as easily have a sort of Spartan wife effect --- defend your home and family from the infidel, etc.
based on one action that appears to be still in process might not be just a tad premature... :wry:
Thank you, Ken!!!!
My bad. I didn't realize you guys needed to be told, "Check for hairy feet.":D
"Apparently these were tall, rather broad-shouldered women with hairy feet," Pelletier said.
Still. Having us say the Taliban are cowards who dress as women has got to be better than them saying we kill women and children.
doesn't that shoot your "New ROE seem to be working" theory in the foot? :D
So how much longer before we start allowing female soldiers/Marines to go on these types of mission so our forces are able to detain/search Afghan females. Weren't the Marines doing precisely that during that later OIF deployments? Did we already forget the lessons learned or are there any other factors at play here (such as the declaration that major combat operations were already over; ie- "mission accomplished" banner)?
on patrols in Afghanistan since 2002. Given the articles I've read on this one, I saw no opportunity to use any females. Obviously, when the second batch came out, the Marines shouldn't have allowed themselves to be distracted by the one wounded female but they did. That happens -- but they learned and won't make that mistake again.
Next time they'll have the female Marines -- or Soldiers (since the Army has more females in Afghanistan than do the Marines) -- check all 'females' and hold 'em under (female if possible) guard until the action is completed. Early days, new unit, new AO -- there's always a learning curve.
One take on this one could be that the new rules do not work as they were used to manipulate and escape -- but it's way too early to say that, certainly based only on a couple of fragmentary news articles. Time will tell.
Just a couple of thoughts: On the surface, I'm sure some will try to take the "hairy feet" story and attempt to criticize the new ROE. I wouldn't be so quick to do that, though.
First, as Rank amateur said, we spin this in our direction. It's an information war, so we spread the story all over Helmand: The Taliban dress like women and fear the Americans.
Second, these guys got away. So what? Was it bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Haqqani? Probably not. Probably just some low-level assholes. So when the tribal leaders approach our troops in the area and ask why we allowed them to escape, we say it's because we didn't want to risk harming your families. At that point, if they give us explicit permission to assume that risk in the future, then we have the blessing of the local leaders. Much better to have them request the help--with the attendant risk--than to do otherwise.
in the US, little there to grab. :D thus easy to be fooled...
Not to mention that if it looks female in a Muslim area and a male touches it, he's wrong -- no matter if it turns out to be a big ugly guy, he who touched (and his Tribe) were still wrong for laying hands on what appeared to be a female. I'm amazed that anyone could be so culturally insensitive and gauche as to suggest the troops ought to use their hard won R&R skills to check more closely to be sure the jerks aren't in Burqs :eek:
Amazed... :D
Cuts both ways, also...Good western thought. The average Afghan will applaud them for doing that to escape. Guys have been hiding in Burqas there for centuries.Quote:
...The Taliban dress like women and fear the Americans.
I doubt many will ask; Afghans aren't as nosy and voluble as Arabs. They aren't going to give you such permission because (a) there's nothing in it for them; In the highly unlikely event one or some did give such permission, he who recieves it better check real close -- very probable the Elder(s) know your next objective belongs to a rival. (b) Women are chattels but YOU can't mess with them because they are not yours. Period. (c) even if you cajoled such 'permission' out of them, they'd deny it the first time a female got hurt to avoid risking a cut in the solatia payment. Not their female, no problem, tell he who is bereaved and insist on a share for not telling the Ferenghi...Quote:
...ask why we allowed them to escape, we say it's because we didn't want to risk harming your families. At that point, if they give us explicit permission to assume that risk in the future, then we have the blessing of the local leaders.
Western solutions will not work in Afghanistan. Nor will many things that sort of worked in Iraq work in Afghanistan.
Back to the ROE -- it will take a few month to determine the effect they'll have. It'll take even longer to develop effective TTP to cope with the changes, if any. Bad area to try to impose knee jerk quick fixes, those folks have all the time in the world and they are in no hurry. They know we are in a hurry and that we tend to over react. They propose to take advantage of those flaws...
Doubt it will go over so well with the teenage fundamentalists on the jihad websites. "Die like a martyr or dress like a girl: you decide", is probably not their most effective recruiting slogan.
We shouldn't be. The population ain't going anywhere. A couple bad guys getting away ain't the end of the world. What I'm skeptical about is whether we'll actually hold this village, or any of the other villages we are clearing right now. The tactic only makes sense with a population centric strategy and an operational commitment to holding cleared areas, or whatever the right buzzwords are.
The point is that the Afghans couldn't care less. Teenage Jihadis can flock to the cause and get killed in carload lots, they are broadly irrelevant to Afghanistan and what happens there -- what the Afghans believe OTOH is important. That tag line won't sway them.I'm with you. Does Congress know that? Does Joe Sixpack know -- or care? Nope, we shouldn't rush it -- but I bet we do... ;)Quote:
We shouldn't be.
Not necessarily. If one has swallowed the Kool Aid and believes the rather foolish rhetoric that population centric stuff matters, then one could hope for that. Big fly in that pie is that we do not have enough troops, NATO, US, Afghan (Police and Army) to do that. It would take five to ten times the now available strength to do it that way and neither we, NATO or the Afghans (or anyone else) are likely to come up with gold or the people. Plus we Americans just do not do that stuff well -- impatience again, plus the tour syndrome and the domestic political turmoil every two years. Not our bag.Quote:
What I'm skeptical about is whether we'll actually hold this village, or any of the other villages we are clearing right now. The tactic only makes sense with a population centric strategy and an operational commitment to holding cleared areas, or whatever the right buzzwords are.
So we go to Plan B. Clear, then dazzle with footwork and get the crowd behind the Goal to wave their pom poms or whatever while building roads and schools and giving the max number of troublemakers an opportunity to repent and be productive Pomegranate growers. We can get there. Just makes it more difficult and more likely to provide a temporary 'OK' solution rather than a long term good one. Tough world out there, people don't play fair... :D
We're not going to change 3,000 years of Afghan history and culture. Never were going to be able to do that. Stuff like that happens when the strategy crowd gets target fixation. We screw up. Then the troops have to go try to pull fat out of fires. Fortunately, they usually do a half fast job and it works out okay in the end. Well, sort of okay... :rolleyes:
Let me get this strait....the Enemy..... is a metrosexual...with big hairy feet....and wears a burka? man that Hybrid Warfare is some bad sheet:D:D
We could have just gotten them to talk to the interpreter, answer a few questions, and then take it from there. But as was said, the story is too fragmentary to tell if that was already done.
That's why all people coming out of a structure in a hostage rescue situation are put on their face when they come out. We should have at least controlled their movement, then brought in resources to deal with the issue.
The TTP is valid...seems like we just goofed up the application.
doesn't mean the little dears don't count elsewhere. Afghanistan is not an Arab nation, nor is it Malay. The Malays and the Afghans don't do the jihadi bit, that's an Arab thing. Arabs think Afghans are barbarians and thus are little concerned with what goes on in Afghanistan and they pay little heed to what Afghans might do. Thus my comment that the jihadis won't care but the Afghans will -- and they've been sneaking around in burqas when it suits for years so we won't get much PR or sales leverage out of the action at Khan Neshin.
Yep, we went because we were attacked. Initial plan was to go in, run off the Talibs and then leave. For various reasons, not all readily apparent, we changed the game and decided to stay. Mistake in my view but they didn't ask me. Not only did we decide to stay, we told the Afghans -- and the world -- that we would. In my view, we didn't have to stay but we said we would and so now we have to.
We are not popular in the world and have not been since WW II for many reasons, mostly size, wealth and arrogance. That dislike goes up and down depending on the world situation and what we're up to. The highest the dislike factor has been in my adult lifetime is 1979-70 during Viet Nam. The second highest was in 1975 -- when we left Viet Nam in an unnecessarily embarrassed mode. There was a spike in 1991 over the Marsh Arabs and the southern Shia in Iraq whom we were seen as abandoning after promising help. Then Somalia was a big flub. Another in 1996 when we had to scramble to get Kurds out of Saddam's way. Surprisingly, one of the dislike low points was in 1986, right after we'd bombed libya in El Dorado Canyon.
Point of all that is that when we don't do what's right, we suffer in world opinion -- more so than when we do what's right and some Governments and their intelligentsia get upset. Long way of getting to the point. We can't fix Afghanistan, never were going to be able to do so. We IMO should not have told them we'd stay and get them on their feet. However, we did tell them that. So now we really need to do that because all those jihadis -- they're just waiting for the US to again turn tail. we just need to be careful what we do and where we go -- and of what we say.
We need to do what we say we will do. The cost of not doing that will be greater than the cost of doing it. We leave too soon -- as we did in 1991 -- and we'll back in ten years and, like 2001, it'll be harder next time.
burger things... :D