Feasibility of an Afghanistan "Morice Line"

[Cavguy]

All,

Related to my RFI on crossing points ...

I have recently been doing some basic research into the effectiveness of barriers or obstacles in counterinsurgency ops. As we know, micro-level barriers (city berms, "gated" communities) were used to good effect in OIF, and have lots of historical basis.

During Algeria the French successfully employed the "Morice Line" of fences backed by sensors and mobile detachments to interdict resupply from Tunisia. The US attempted with less success to do this in Vietnam. This tactic stretches back to the Romans and Chinese two thousand (+) years ago.

Would a "modern" version of the Morice line be possible, or effective in Afghanistan? I acknowledge a fence is an impossibility, but what about a sensor barrier backed by a reaction force? It may not even be feasible on the entire 1500 mile border, but perhaps it only needs emplacement in certain areas? Like any obstacle emplacement, it could serve to canalize movement into areas we want it to go.

A salient argument against such a bariier is that we have been unable (or unwilling?) to do the same with the Mexican border.

Have modern sensor technology advances made this more affordable/practical? Is it even feasible given Afghanistan's terrain?

[davidbfpo]

Niel,

The UK tried a 'line' along the border with the Irish Republic during 'The Troubles', which was updated as technology etc developed and finally in the "hot zone" of South Armagh took the form of hi-tech obs towers atop hills. Mixed reviews. Perhaps your UK Liasion can point at a Royal Engineers viewpoint? Not sure in the Military Review article three years comments.

The Rhodesians spent a fortune on a 'line', mainly minefields and in JK Cilliers book IIRC was finally assessed as not worth it. Mines were lifted and used for IEDs etc. Very little technology, sensors - yes mines going off.

Not even sure if the French finally agreed the 'Morice Line' was worthwhile. Note the Moroccan border rarely appears in the books I've read.

The Moroccans of course built their huge barrier in former Spanish Sahara, to restrict Polisario and IIRC that is credited with being a success.

A 'line' on the Afpak border seems uneconomic and impractical from my armchair, except along the non-mountainous parts i.e. Baluchistan border. In my reading on Imperial policing there, there is no mention of a 'line'.

davidbfpo

[Entropy]

Cavguy,

Here's an oldie but goodie you might want to take a look at.

[Cavguy]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Cavguy,

Here's an oldie but goodie you might want to take a look at.

Great Source. Cites ~500 crossings north and south of the Khyber Pass.

[Entropy]

I have a couple more I remember that I'm trying to relocate.

In the meantime, your RFI raises political questions as well, since there are significant disputes on where exactly the border is. Additionally, the Afghan government isn't too crazy about closing the border. This was Karzai's reaction to an announcement that Pakistan intended to build a fence and mine part of the border (From the 29Dec06 edition of the NYT):

President Hamid Karzai voiced strong opposition on Thursday to Pakistan's announcement that it would lay mines and erect fences along its border with Afghanistan. He said the moves would only hurt the people living in the region and would not stem cross-border terrorism.

''Thousands and thousands and thousands of people have been maimed and killed by mines,'' Mr. Karzai said in comments to journalists at the Presidential Palace, ''and we are strongly against this idea. We are politically against it, and in humanitarian terms we are against it.

''Mines will not prevent terrorism crossing the border into Afghanistan, or militants who come and kill our people. Laying mines or fencing the border will only separate people and families from each other. Rather than helping, it will cause people difficulty in movement in trade and meeting each other.''

Karzai's comments on mines are understandable, but the Afghans and Pakistanis have clashed over the placement of Pakistani fences as well.

All in all, a very tough nut.

[Cavguy]

Originally Posted by Entropy

I have a couple more I remember that I'm trying to relocate.

In the meantime, your RFI raises political questions as well, since there are significant disputes on where exactly the border is. Additionally, the Afghan government isn't too crazy about closing the border. This was Karzai's reaction to an announcement that Pakistan intended to build a fence and mine part of the border (From the 29Dec06 edition of the NYT):

Karzai's comments on mines are understandable, but the Afghans and Pakistanis have clashed over the placement of Pakistani fences as well.

All in all, a very tough nut.

I wouldn't advocate mines or a fence, but a passive sensor barrier backed by (air?) mobile QRF or helicopters. The CIA paper you linked mentioned Mi-24's as the most effective interceptor, but I'm sure our ROE rules are far stricter.

[MikeF]

Here's a startpoint. I'll try to contact some of the Pak infantry officers and see if I can get better data.

v/r

Mike



NATO and Afghanistan: Outlooks and Challenges
Dr. Maqsudul Hasan Nuri

It (Pakistan) has established nearly 900 checkpoints and set up many crossing points along its mountaineous border with Afghanistan

[Entropy]

Here's something interesting on sensors for border monitoring. I particularly like this quote at the end:

During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, rebels threw live rabbits over base fences to trigger motion detectors. After several weeks of false alarms, the bases turned off the motion detectors, allowing surreptitious attacks, a clear failure to factor systems aspects into the design.

I can't really find what I was looking for besides that CIA document. I'm thinking I must be remembering it on siprnet. I don't have access now, but I recall some NGA products on border crossings - you might want to look for those if you're able.

Here's some more background you might be interested in:

Defeating Transnational Insurgencies: The Best Offense Is a Good Fence

This references some good sources and is worth your time (see chapter 2), provided you haven't already seen it. Here's a bit from the conclusion:

The historical examples of transnational sanctuaries in irregular warfare indicate that most limited military operations are not effective in denying combatants sanctuary. Airpower, even extensive bombings and attacks such as those used by the Americans in Vietnam, can hinder enemy operations across borders. However, countermeasures, especially antiaircraft fire and ground concealment, have prevented airpower from effectively shutting down borders on its own. The same goes for barrier systems that rely on technology such as mines or sensors to take the place of human patrolling of borders. Sensors and mines may slow cross border activities for as long as it takes the enemy to figure out a way around them, but there has always been a way around the technology. Likewise, ground raids in force across borders can do serious damage to insurgent sanctuaries, but by definition raids are not sustained efforts, and the guerrillas can and do return when the raids end.

Personally, I think the best that can be hoped for is a limited amount of harassment and interdiction.

There are several communities the border divides. The border even cuts through a couple of villages. Many people make their livilihood through cross-border trade, none of which is regulated. Determining who is and isn't an insurgent, even with a comprehensive sensor network, ISR and QRF's isn't going to be easy. Some of the nomadic tribes spend part of the year in Afghanistan and part in Pakistan - and have for generations.

Ultimately, I think the locals will be the most effective "sensor" and barrier to insurgent use of the border, but that, of course, depends on their support.

[IntelTrooper]

In my opinion, total control of the border wouldn't be plausible but increasing control substantially through a combination of ISR and an air mobile QRF is not only reasonable but should be a priority. When trains of donkeys loaded with ??? come through the mountain passes, there is something fishy going on. If they aren't carrying weapons, ammunition or explosives, then they are trying to circumvent the tariffs at the official border crossings and the money is probably going to fund nefarious activity, anyway.

[Cavguy]

Originally Posted by IntelTrooper

In my opinion, total control of the border wouldn't be plausible but increasing control substantially through a combination of ISR and an air mobile QRF is not only reasonable but should be a priority. When trains of donkeys loaded with ??? come through the mountain passes, there is something fishy going on. If they aren't carrying weapons, ammunition or explosives, then they are trying to circumvent the tariffs at the official border crossings and the money is probably going to fund nefarious activity, anyway.

Good point.

I want to head off people and mention clearly I am talking about increased monitoring and surveillance backed by troops, not mines or fences, and with the understanding that it would likely be employed along the most trafficked areas.

A good point was raised though, how much of the Taliban supply comes through existing, legal checkpoints through graft or corruption?

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by Cavguy

A good point was raised though, how much of the Taliban supply comes through existing, legal checkpoints through graft or corruption?

And that's going to be one of the rubs in any insurgency situation, especially if the central government is weak, corrupt, or any combination of the two. One of the interesting observations to come out of efforts to electronically monitor the Ho Chi Minh trail was how easy it was for the North Vietnamese to develop counters (usually of a low-tech nature) to fielded high-tech sensors. And the more low-tech the insurgent force is, the harder it is for these efforts to really be more than a nuisance to their supply efforts. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to augment current physical efforts, but one should always remember that it isn't a silver bullet.

[Rank amateur]

I think it's the wrong place for the fence. Put them around the villages. (Or put another way, why stop the insurgents from crossing the border, if they can get all the supplies they need from Afghan villages?

[goesh]

If I were Joe Taliban I would repeatedly run women and large kids into the sensor zones from multiple locations with an occasional martyr thrown into the mix.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

I think it's the wrong place for the fence. Put them around the villages. (Or put another way, why stop the insurgents from crossing the border, if they can get all the supplies they need from Afghan villages?

plus, they go to Pakistan for R&R -- stay in Afghanistan and they have to be always on the alert and must keep moving. They do that for a while until they're pretty well exhausted and then rotate out for a rest, refit and resupply of stuff they can't get inside Afghanistan.

[William F. Owen]

Didn't I mention closing the border before or making it a lot more difficult than it is?

About a year ago I talked to an Indian Army Colonel, who knows the ground and felt a great deal more could be done to interdict the boarder, especially between the tribal areas and the AO, than was currently being done. A mixture of air surveillance, fences and sensor grids do make it technically feasible.

Worth the effort? I don't know as I don't have the Int or the analysis, but just saying it can't be done is not correct.

[Eden]

As a planner I always thought in terms of opportunity costs. Guarding the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is roughly equivalent to screening the Appalachians, if the Appalachians were twice as rugged and swarming with armed clans. A mixture of boots on the ground, outposts, aerial reconnaissance, sensors, and airmobile forces could hinder or canalize cross-border infiltration.

But then comes the 'so what' question. What do we gain by committing resources to that mission, and what opportunities are we missing because those resources aren't available elsewhere? In CJTF-76, the head MP was directed to study this problem and he briefed the CG that RC-East's border interdiction was ineffective due to insufficient resources (and Afghan corruption/complicity, but that's another story). Yet we did not apply additonal resources (there weren't any), nor did we abandon the effort. So, a MP battalion continued to work the mission with very little payoff - I guess because border interdiction is item number 3 on the COIN checklist. That battalion, in my opinion, could have been better employed elsewhere.

In practical terms, for Afghanistan, I do not think there is sufficient cross-border traffic of arms, munitions, and men to justify the effort it would take to interdict it. What we can and should concentrate on is strengthening border control sufficiently so that the Afghan government can tax legitimate trade and stop large-scale illicit trade

[Mark O'Neill]

The costs and resources would be enormous, but my study of COIN to date suggests that it would indeed have a tactical and, possibly, operational effect. Problem is that neither wins a COIN war.

A savage war of peace provides a good primer regarding the effectiveness of the Morice line.

Cheers,

Mark

[jcustis]

Leaning on my knowledge of things Rhodesian and how they dealt with infiltration, our own border with Mexico, and recent exposure to the problem of lethal smuggling vicinity of Sinjar Mt., this is an tough nut to crack.

It is techically feasible...to a degree. Ground-based sensors have their limitations, which become show-stoppers when one or more simply crap out and you don't have a secondary means of conducting ISR.

Air-based sensors have different limitations, but the biggest comes from latency between sensor, control station, and eventually that COC/TOC that has to act on the information. Good teams work through it well, but it takes a significant amount to time to get to that point, and Wx effects can put a heavy bind on things (although I do not know the prevailing conditions along the border through the year).

Just off the top of my head, we are talking about a significant commitment of resources - even for just specific TAIs and NAIs. That goes back to what several others have pondered regarding the juice and the squeeze.

Finally, the QRF becomes a whole other matter. An airborne one might work with limited results until the first Chinook or Blackhawk gets shot down with a 14.5mm, then it's anybody's guess as to how the tactics might have to be changed. And heaven forbid if any of our boys survived the landing and were put on video. The memos and armchair quarter-backing to come out of that would be brutal.

Once an airborne QRF goes wheels up, its situational awareness goes to crap real fast, especially at night, and we have already demonstrated in several glaring instances during OEF that we do not truly "own the night", nor do we do very well at cross-cueing certain sensors to the guy on the ground. In my humble opinion, without a significant investment in training a task-organized force that was run by guys heavily educated in all sorts of historical heliborne envelopment techniques (to include such concepts as the application of the Rhodesian Fire Force and our Air Cav experience in Vietnam), we'd be half-assing the effort and in turn would get mixed results. And I mean that in a very serious tone.

Coming from my time in a helo-company as a rifle platoon commander, C2 of a heliborne fight is not easy task. When you add in limited visibility, terrain, and the enemy's vote, the guys running it would have to be exceptionally switched on leaders. You can get away with a few lapses when you have various supporting arms working for you, but you are still left with only two choices: 1) landing nearby and making some sort of movement to contact, and 2) landing on the objective and taking on significant risks in the process. I do not believe that our ROE supports what needs to be done to conduct either option effectively, but then again, I have not been on the ground yet and am simply speculating. I also speculate that supporting arms required to achieve even minimal suppression can come in only one form, and I have no idea what the aviation sortie allocation looks like.

In short, we can do some of it, but probably not all that is required for a "line" to be effective compared to other concepts.

[IntelTrooper]

Originally Posted by jcustis

Finally, the QRF becomes a whole other matter. An airborne one might work with limited results until the first Chinook or Blackhawk gets shot down with a 14.5mm, then it's anybody's guess as to how the tactics might have to be changed. And heaven forbid if any of our boys survived the landing and were put on video. The memos and armchair quarter-backing to come out of that would be brutal.

Once an airborne QRF goes wheels up, its situational awareness goes to crap real fast, especially at night, and we have already demonstrated in several glaring instances during OEF that we do not truly "own the night", nor do we do very well at cross-cueing certain sensors to the guy on the ground. In my humble opinion, without a significant investment in training a task-organized force that was run by guys heavily educated in all sorts of historical heliborne envelopment techniques (to include such concepts as the application of the Rhodesian Fire Force and our Air Cav experience in Vietnam), we'd be half-assing the effort and in turn would get mixed results. And I mean that in a very serious tone.

Coming from my time in a helo-company as a rifle platoon commander, C2 of a heliborne fight is not easy task. When you add in limited visibility, terrain, and the enemy's vote, the guys running it would have to be exceptionally switched on leaders. In short, we can do some of it, but probably not all that is required for a "line" to be effective compared to other concepts.

Having operated in the border area and seen the Herculean effort required to get a helicopter-borne mission to actually get a green light, I have say all of this is valid. The mountainous areas are treacherous both from a terrain standpoint and the advantage that indigenous insurgents have. Technology can help even the odds but it's not a universal solution.

I will say there are assetts which have the required skills, equipment, and support to successfully carry out these type of missions, but I'm not sure they would be enthused with being assigned as high-speed border guards.

My experience says that if this kind of operation were carried out on a consistent basis during a few months when illicit border activity is at its highest, it would send a message that would discourage such crossings for a couple years. Then they would start testing the waters again and hopefully by then, the border communities would have a sufficient security force/pro-government presence that they would take care of hostile border crossers on their own.

[Uboat509]

What bugs me about this whole thing is that SF has a number of mountain teams who are trained and equipped to do this exact mission but the risk adverse nature of the command has precluded their use. As a result, these mountain teams are suffering some degree of atrophy in their mountain skills as the experienced mountaineers rotate out or retire. The mountains of Afghanistan have SF mountain team written all over them. It is long over due that we start using them that way.

SFC W