Good job, Niel,
that is a far more accurate and significant comment than many will believe...Originally Posted by Cavguy
Or the force we do have isn't as credible as we'd like to think it is...2) We don't posess enough force to be credible.Yes!4) Taliban has freedom of movement and family ties in the population. This is home turf. The Afghans in this area just want us the hell out and to be left alone. Big difference..................Money quote!.............5)...If the goal is to keep AQIZ attritted, there are better ways to do that than operating out of fixed, vulnerable outposts.
As you know, I'm not in whole hearted agreement on the cities due to the 1st, 2d and 4th items you cited but your post is excellent. My disagreement is immaterial, McChrystal apparently agree with you to an extent so that may be what occurs. I just hope he is not transferring too much of Iraq to a very different rural / urban milieu.
Mike's idea will work, so will yours. The most important thing is to realize that due to your item 2 (and my follow on comment to it) we are not going to turn this thing into achievement of the stated -- not necessarily the actual -- goals in Afghanistan. Thus, in the interim, we simply need to do what we are doing but get better at the Tactical side of things.
My impression, second hand that it is, is that we are getting less good instead of better on that count. That can be attributed, IMO, to lack of strategic AND operational clarity and to over emphasis on force protection ILO tactical agility (that does not bode well for any future...). The operational clarity may get fixed, the strategic element is unlikely to and the Tactical side seems as though it's teaching some really bad habits. Hesco Barriers are neat and a good military engineering innovation. MRAPS are not neat and are not good military innovations. Both are very dangerous to their users...
Bookmarks