On this one:Originally Posted by Anthony Hoh
Me, too. I'll give it a month or two before it quietly disappears. Not a smart move on several levels...I will really be watching with interest on how this gets implemented/enforced.
I'm not sure that's true.
On this one:Me, too. I'll give it a month or two before it quietly disappears. Not a smart move on several levels...I will really be watching with interest on how this gets implemented/enforced.
I agree ken, it is an order with the best of intentions that will more than likely have the worst of results. Civillian seems to be a more ambiguous word than ever. I touched on the idea of the insurgent who by attacks ISAF forces and then scurries off to the local villages where he is supported by friends and family. I think this order plays too much to the advantage of the enemy. Not all non-combatants are truely non-combatants. I learned this the hard way while doing peace operations in the Legion.
See things through the eyes of your enemy and you can defeat him.
Ok get the drawbacks everyone sees right off
What I haven't necessarily seen is anyone talk about the Afghan piece of this puzzle. What yall are sayin seems pretty ISAF centric. How would you see that piece
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
I would say given the history, culture, religion, recent issues with the locals many Afghans may see it as weakness, the Talibs will certainly see it as weakness and start exploiting it soon.What I haven't necessarily seen is anyone talk about the Afghan piece of this puzzle. What yall are sayin seems pretty ISAF centric. How would you see that piece
If I were a Mujahideen commander I would direct units to start settign up shop in close proximity to civillian compounds. I amy even move my staff and command assets into one and do some clear, hold, opress operations to get the point across to the locals that we are strong and the ISAF are a bunch of majnoon who have lost their will to fight.
Is that the piece you were speaking of?
See things through the eyes of your enemy and you can defeat him.
Absolutely. One recurring theme in talking to Afghans was "The Russians were jerks, but at least they never ran from a fight." ISAF is already too prone to break contact. I can't see this helping that.
Other than that, if we have to run when we're getting shot at, can we at least shoot illum rounds over their houses?
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White
"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap
"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
NO. Absolutely not!
We cannot risk setting a Goat afire. Heaven forbid we burn a Poppy Crop -- neither Solatium Payments for the Goat or Damage Claims for the crop so caused are authorized.Other than that, if we have to run when we're getting shot at, can we at least shoot illum rounds over their houses?
I was afraid of that.We cannot risk setting a Goat afire. Heaven forbid we burn a Poppy Crop -- neither Solatium Payments for the Goat or Damage Claims for the crop so caused are authorized.
I guess those payments would have to come out of the pocket of the responsible commander.
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White
"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap
"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
Adding to what Blackjack said and with which I agree, I suspect the civilians
who are nominally innocent will get more visitation by various bad guys and said civilians will not really appreciate the extra attention (nor will they be happy that a small source of income, claiming non-existent casualties, has been removed).
Aside from the impacts on own forces, the net result is most likely to be more, not fewer, civilian casualties and the Afghans will figure that out fairly quickly. How long it will take us to figure it out is the issue because the number of added casualties will be difficult to determine. Plus, it's been my observation that when a US General reinvents a wheel; usually by simply modifying the existing model by making it hexagonal or octagonal -- and then it doesn't work -- reversion to the old, round variety is done slowly, quietly and below everyone's radar.
Good thing about that technique is the reinventor then gets credit for being 'innovative' while everyone forgets that the innovation didn't work.
We need to get over the idea that "COIN" is something new. All this stuff has been done before. From us in Viet Nam, to the French in their colonies, the British in theirs, the poor Federal commanders tasked to hunt down Morgan and Mosby -- the Hittites, for that matter. Or, to put it in the right location; Alexander...
It's been a month or two...
Has it quietly disappeared?
Audentes adiuvat fortuna
"Abu Suleyman"
Hmmm...
13 Aug AP story via Air Force Times:
A new military approach in Afghanistan may mean buzzing rather than bombing the enemy, according to the general taking over the air war there.
It’s known as irregular warfare, designed to protect local people and then enlist their help defeating Taliban insurgents, Air Force Lt. Gen. Gilmary Hostage said Thursday.
“The first thing we do is fly over head, and the bad guys know airpower is in place and oftentimes that’s enough. That ends the fight, they vamoose,” said Hostage, who will direct the air battle over Iraq and Afghanistan. “The A-10 has a very distinct sound. The cannon on an A-10 is horrifically capable and our adversaries know it. When they hear the sound of an A-10, they scatter.”
Sometimes they do.
A-10
The A-10 is a very old subsonic tank killer.
It sounds like we have nitwits making battle plans if any of these quotes and suppositions are true.
Might as well bang bots together to drive the tiger, but the tiger is still there and will keep killing.
Interesting analogy
Kinda like trucks filled with chains driving along brick roads
Sound just like tanks
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
NATO (German requested) airstrike
From the AP this morning:
From this armchair, this incident confirms that UAV IDs are not infallible, and that civilian casualties come in large bunches where airstrikes are involved (the latter fact is established by the UNAMA Report).NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90
Afghan official says NATO airstrike on hijacked fuel tankers kills 90, including 40 civilians
FRANK JORDANS
AP News
Sep 04, 2009 09:00 EST
A U.S. jet blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, setting off a huge fireball Friday that killed up to 90 people, including dozens of civilians who had rushed to the scene to collect fuel, Afghan officials said.
.....
In Kabul, the NATO command said a "large number of insurgents" were killed or injured in the pre-dawn attack near the village of Omar Khel in Kunduz province. In Brussels, the alliance's chief said it was possible civilians died.
Kunduz Gov. Mohammad Omar said 90 people were killed. A senior Afghan police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said that included about 40 civilians who were siphoning fuel from the trucks.
...
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officer, said the attack occurred after commanders in the area determined that there were no civilians there.
In Brussels, however, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "a number" of Taliban fighters were killed and "there is a possibility of civilian casualties as well."
The German military, which has troops under NATO command in Kunduz, said the airstrike struck the tankers at 2:30 a.m., killing 50 insurgents, adding that "uninvolved (persons) were presumably not harmed."
Militants seized the tankers about four miles (seven kilometers) southwest of a German base and an unmanned surveillance aircraft was dispatched to the scene, German officials said. After the images showed no sign of civilians, the Germans called for a U.S. airstrike, which occurred about 40 minutes after the tankers were seized. ....
This incident is different from the May Farah incident; although both boil down to how much ID is required to justify an airstrike - and whether the presence of any civilians requires an abort.
Illustration of ROE?
Published 15th September 2009, so may predate the enw ROE, on this previously unknown website: http://www.defencetalk.com and under this headline 'Insurgents accidentally blow themselves up' http://www.defencetalk.com/insurgent...ly-blow-21938/ contains an interesting pilots and command centre commentary on when to engage.
Good for information ops IMHO.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks