Commando Training

[SF_BHT]

Good article from NPR on our Commando training.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...56&ft=1&f=1003

[JJ_BPK]

I like it.. A well balanced article, a lot of SF PR, It covers our core ideas,,

"Train Indigenous Personal in the Art..."

U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan are involved in an ambitious project to turn thousands of Afghan soldiers into commandos. The effort to create an elite fighting force is part of the broader counterinsurgency strategy that U.S. military officials say is key in helping stabilize Afghanistan.

We need more of this type of military assistance and a little less SERGE,, in most instances..

SERGE is the only answer sometimes, but it is not helping USA PR in the Middle-East or at home..

Outside of the maga-rich oil guys, the Muslim world needs basic 3R education combined with structured political & military training.

Nearly 40 percent of the soldiers entering the commando program are illiterate, but there are night school courses at the camp where future commandos can learn to read and write.

The illiterate have a chow line mentality, "feed me and I will follow", no mater who or what is the driving force.

Educate them and they will start to make their own religious, political, social, and chow line choices..

[jatx]

Great article, thank you!

[hoot72]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

I like it.. A well balanced article, a lot of SF PR, It covers our core ideas,,

"Train Indigenous Personal in the Art..."



We need more of this type of military assistance and a little less SERGE,, in most instances..

SERGE is the only answer sometimes, but it is not helping USA PR in the Middle-East or at home..

Outside of the maga-rich oil guys, the Muslim world needs basic 3R education combined with structured political & military training.



The illiterate have a chow line mentality, "feed me and I will follow", no mater who or what is the driving force.

Educate them and they will start to make their own religious, political, social, and chow line choices..

Is that a good thing or....? I get the impression either way you pull, it can sometimes have its drawbacks, as is the case when they are illterate and remain illiterate with basic training and some education programs and so forth...

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by hoot72

Is that a good thing or....? I get the impression either way you pull, it can sometimes have its drawbacks, as is the case when they are illiterate and remain illiterate with basic training and some education programs and so forth...

Iliteracy does not help anyone other than despots. There is a reason most despots are religious fanatics or anti-religious fanatic's(aka:Hitler). They have the ability to make the masses believe in their story, their fight, their way of viewing the world. Illiterates are easy to persuade using mysticism. You don't need the truth, you just need their faith, because they don't have the ability to do independent thinking.

Education allows the masses to understand the difference between right & wrong. It doesn't mead they will make the right choice, but it does mean they will have the ability to see pass charlatans disguised as bigoted despots that only want their support for evil.

Humans are a flaky lot, we have areas in the world with great wealth, education, and political stability, but those areas still argue among themselves. The difference is the level of violence and political upheaval.

Read the Miami Herold, daily we have a shootings over drugs or road rage or perceived personal affronts. For the most part, the perps (both sides) are not well educated.

This is not to say the education make a good world citizen. It does say that given the gene pool the world currently has to work with, that education helps.

osama bin laden is considered well educated, but he prays on the uneducated minds of people that don't have the ability to counter his arguments. They listen to a man they believe has the answer they need, with no way to verify.

Along with the lack of education, goes poverty. Poverty is the driving force behind just about every despot in history. Dazzle the un-educated & poor masses with your tails of wealth and fortune, blame their problems on those that have what you want..

Educate the masses, so that they can make informed decisions. Train them to lift themselves above the level of a subsistence existence. Them some will show the others that there is hope.

Paid for by the political campaign for the installation of JJ the Impaler as Imperial World Regency for Life, I am JJ and We support Ourselfs...

[gagners]

Great link. I heard that the other day on NPR and was kinda shocked... A well balanced report.

Refreshingly, there's really no spin to it, either way. It is straight-forward "this is what's going on" reporting. It was nice to hear.

[hoot72]

I actually live in a society that has a great amount of tolerance and respect for people of all faith's and creeds, unlike West Malaysia where racism and stereotyping reigns supreme.

But, I do, from time to time deal with fundamentalist right wing muslims who refuse to budge on simple, every day issues and believe everyone else is wrong and that the whole world is against Islam and that the only way forward is for everyone to be muslim because true muslims (i.e. hardcore right wing funadementalists) are right and everyone else has evil intentions against allah and what have you.

Its like talking to a brick wall. You can try and try to be logiical (and illlogical at times without success) and it doesn't get you past the first mile out of fort lewis...

Yes, I do agree with JJ_BPK's point of view in that education play's a vital role in making a man but when someone is so bitter and so angry against the world, everything rational goes out the window.

Its impossible to talk sense.

[HardRoad]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

We need more of this type of military assistance and a little less SERGE,, in most instances..

SERGE is the only answer sometimes, but it is not helping USA PR in the Middle-East or at home..

Outside of the maga-rich oil guys, the Muslim world needs basic 3R education combined with structured political & military training.

Agreed that we need this kind of training, especially in Afghanistan. The Afghans, especially the Pashtuns, need to see their own people taking up the fight and taking the lead - the population will never be fully engaged as long as the US / NATO is seen as the primary fighting force. Plus, we really don't want to have to keep combat troops there forever (training and loggie support, sure.)

Different story in Iraq - some of the same factors, but it needed sufficient boots on the ground to control the ground. The surge of troops was one factor in the strategy - equally as important were the MiTT and SF teams that have made it possible for the Iraqi Army to step up as a full partner in the counter-insurgency. The most important thing we did there, though, was to get out of the Casey mindset of hunkering down in the major bases and trying to protect the supply lines between them, and actually put our troops out where the enemy and the key terrain (the population) was.

Problem is, politicians and unimaginative generals miss the point - if the surge (= more troops and only more troops in their eyes) worked in Iraq, it'll sure work in Afghanistan. I think that's wrong: the surge was a response to a particular set of issues, and adding troops was one factor in several that led to our success. Just throwing troops into Afghanistan won't help and might hurt unless we have a plan to use them that doesn't piss off the populace.

It's horses for courses - all insurgencies are local, and we need to tailor our responses to the situation on the ground and be as low profile as possible, but as high profile as necessary. And high profile doesn't seem to hurt us as much as a lot of people think in the ME, as long as we're winning. In the US, about 40% of our population either doesn't want to feel bad or wants us to lose anyway - but that's a different thread.

[hoot72]

Originally Posted by HardRoad

Agreed that we need this kind of training, especially in Afghanistan. The Afghans, especially the Pashtuns, need to see their own people taking up the fight and taking the lead - the population will never be fully engaged as long as the US / NATO is seen as the primary fighting force. Plus, we really don't want to have to keep combat troops there forever (training and loggie support, sure.)

Different story in Iraq - some of the same factors, but it needed sufficient boots on the ground to control the ground. The surge of troops was one factor in the strategy - equally as important were the MiTT and SF teams that have made it possible for the Iraqi Army to step up as a full partner in the counter-insurgency. The most important thing we did there, though, was to get out of the Casey mindset of hunkering down in the major bases and trying to protect the supply lines between them, and actually put our troops out where the enemy and the key terrain (the population) was.

Problem is, politicians and unimaginative generals miss the point - if the surge (= more troops and only more troops in their eyes) worked in Iraq, it'll sure work in Afghanistan. I think that's wrong: the surge was a response to a particular set of issues, and adding troops was one factor in several that led to our success. Just throwing troops into Afghanistan won't help and might hurt unless we have a plan to use them that doesn't piss off the populace.

It's horses for courses - all insurgencies are local, and we need to tailor our responses to the situation on the ground and be as low profile as possible, but as high profile as necessary. And high profile doesn't seem to hurt us as much as a lot of people think in the ME, as long as we're winning. In the US, about 40% of our population either doesn't want to feel bad or wants us to lose anyway - but that's a different thread.

As a civilian, I can see lots of logical reasoning and common sense being applied, judging from what is written in the article. I tend to think if you can start at the very root of any problem and to work your way up, it tends to have a better chance of success than trying to start at the top to impress people....

[gagners]

Originally Posted by hoot72

As a civilian, I can see lots of logical reasoning and common sense being applied, judging from what is written in the article. I tend to think if you can start at the very root of any problem and to work your way up, it tends to have a better chance of success than trying to start at the top to impress people....

Agreed. I read recently in Galula's book "Counterinsurgeny Warfare" that the roots of all successful insurgencies are the grass roots - so that's where a successful counter-insurgency must start as well. If you start at the top, the vast majority of the population may remain disconnected from the message or, worse yet, disconnected from any aid intended for them. They remain able and willing to support the insurgency.

As an Armor guy, we were trained to "crush-kill-destroy". It made for a pretty difficult transition to winning hearts and minds. Which increases my respect for what these guys here do - they can be both. it's impressive.

[Wade1066]

Originally Posted by gagners

As an Armor guy, we were trained to "crush-kill-destroy". It made for a pretty difficult transition to winning hearts and minds. Which increases my respect for what these guys here do - they can be both. it's impressive.

Why carry your gun when your gun can carry you.