Afghanistan-US
 

NightWatch (AFCEA.org)
July 6, 2009

Afghanistan-US

By John McCreary

The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders intended to reduce Afghan civilian casualties, Reuters reported 6 July, citing an unclassified report describing the changes. General McChrystal said in the report that U.S. and NATO forces must make a shift away from conventional combat and toward winning Afghan support.

Some of the changes include new guidelines for air strikes that weigh the need for air support against the directive to avoid civilian casualties and excessive damage on residential compounds, and new training ordered for all U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Comment: NightWatch has been following Afghanistan since 1979, literally since before the day the Soviets invaded. The notion of outreach to Pashtun tribal elders, imams and councils has always sounded eminently practical and reasonable to Westerners. The problem is that Pashtuns do not want outreach or even good “governance” – whatever that means. They are very clear that they want security and will be loyal to whoever provides it.

As for Coalition forces, the Pashtuns want them out of Afghanistan. They say so, openly. They do not need Coalition friendship, however, well intended. The window of openness to foreign forces closed five years ago, including to Arabs; the opportunity for good government closed with it.

Judging by the increase in the number of wounded Western soldiers in May, the reduction in air support has had the predictable effect of increasing Coalition losses. During May, 27 allied soldiers were killed and 58 wounded.

May 2009 was the second month of the Taliban summer offensive, which was just beginning to ramp up. May was the worst month for Western causalities since September 2008. In the seven-year history of the conflict, May 2009 ranks as the fourth bloodiest month.

In successful counter-insurgency operations, outreach and cultural sensitivity initiatives make a difference only after secure conditions have been restored, meaning that security problems have been reduced to the level that they can be managed by police or paramilitary police without the assistance of military combat forces.

Energy and resources devoted to making friends with Pashtun elders in Helmand are a waste of time unless accompanied by a guarantee of security for more than a few weeks. They will be loyal to whoever can provided reliable protection 24X7 for persons and property all the time. For now that is the Taliban.

More importantly, Pashtun elders will and do understand and interpret Coalition initiatives as short term dodges that implicitly admit the Coalition is not able to provide the security that commands their respect and loyalty. The Coalition is only the latest outside power to make promises that it cannot keep for more than a few months, not the first.

Security is what the Taliban offer in over 150 of Afghanistan’s 398 districts. Their leaders know the increased US and other Coalition forces are to help ensure the security of national elections in August. They can out wait them. Meanwhile, the reduction in air support exacts a high price in Allied casualties on the ground.

NightWatch (AFCEA.org)
July 6, 2009

Afghanistan-US

By John McCreary

The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders intended to reduce Afghan civilian casualties, Reuters reported 6 July, citing an unclassified report describing the changes. General McChrystal said in the report that U.S. and NATO forces must make a shift away from conventional combat and toward winning Afghan support.

Some of the changes include new guidelines for air strikes that weigh the need for air support against the directive to avoid civilian casualties and excessive damage on residential compounds, and new training ordered for all U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Comment: NightWatch has been following Afghanistan since 1979, literally since before the day the Soviets invaded. The notion of outreach to Pashtun tribal elders, imams and councils has always sounded eminently practical and reasonable to Westerners. The problem is that Pashtuns do not want outreach or even good “governance” – whatever that means. They are very clear that they want security and will be loyal to whoever provides it.

As for Coalition forces, the Pashtuns want them out of Afghanistan. They say so, openly. They do not need Coalition friendship, however, well intended. The window of openness to foreign forces closed five years ago, including to Arabs; the opportunity for good government closed with it.

Judging by the increase in the number of wounded Western soldiers in May, the reduction in air support has had the predictable effect of increasing Coalition losses. During May, 27 allied soldiers were killed and 58 wounded.
May 2009 was the second month of the Taliban summer offensive, which was just beginning to ramp up. May was the worst month for Western causalities since September 2008. In the seven-year history of the conflict, May 2009 ranks as the fourth bloodiest month.

In successful counter-insurgency operations, outreach and cultural sensitivity initiatives make a difference only after secure conditions have been restored, meaning that security problems have been reduced to the level that they can be managed by police or paramilitary police without the assistance of military combat forces.

Energy and resources devoted to making friends with Pashtun elders in Helmand are a waste of time unless accompanied by a guarantee of security for more than a few weeks. They will be loyal to whoever can provided reliable protection 24X7 for persons and property all the time. For now that is the Taliban.

More importantly, Pashtun elders will and do understand and interpret Coalition initiatives as short term dodges that implicitly admit the Coalition is not able to provide the security that commands their respect and loyalty. The Coalition is only the latest outside power to make promises that it cannot keep for more than a few months, not the first.

Security is what the Taliban offer in over 150 of Afghanistan’s 398 districts. Their leaders know the increased US and other Coalition forces are to help ensure the security of national elections in August. They can out wait them. Meanwhile, the reduction in air support exacts a high price in Allied casualties on the ground.
__________________________________________________ ___________


These two highlighted points are very troubling to me. Delayed time on station, for legitimate requests for air support, ARE increasing coalition losses. I was fortunate to operate under the "ask and you shall receive"...no questions asked, environment.

General McChrystal...never mind, I am sure protocal is being re-evaluated.

I read in the Stars and Stripes, McCrystal was quoted as saying that CAS would only be authorized if CF were in danger of being overrun (paraphrased). Ridiculous. Since when is the best offense a good defense? I predict that this rule, if not changed will result in what could be described as "South Park" tactics, as in, "Look out! He's coming right for us! -BANG-" Anyone remember when raids couldn't be written as a raid in the CONOP?

Let's hope this knee-jerk reaction stays just that and sanity returns before it results in more casualties.

Fay Observer 07/08/2009
 

I can never find the small articles on line in the Fayetteville Observer.

Anyway, in this morning's paper was a small story in section A.

The story said US forces in Afghanistan had some Taliban forces holed up in a couple of buildings with civilians. They were offered a chance to let the women and children go. The women in burkas and kids came out.

When the US Forces went in nobody was home. It appears the Taliban put on burkas with the women and walked away.

Ain't the first time it's been done - whatever happened to the principle of the 6S's until the sheep-wolves have been sorted out? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

They do not search Women because they would be offended............:rolleyes:

Damned if you Do and Damned if you Do Not.........

We have to not offend a possible Human Bomb.....;)

Aren't there females available to search the women? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

You are right and the Israel's do it well as they have women in their front line combat units. Hummmm What are we missing???? Women...
It would be great if we could but then we would have a lot more Dependents to deal with. Bring in a French Unit.... They are going to outlaw the wearing of the Burka so they do not care if they offend them....:p

For being such brave Jihad i's they sure like to hide like women and fade away. What happened to stand and fight the infidels until the last man....:rolleyes:

Those guys are all dead and roasting in Hell.

TR

I think I read that article on cnn.com posted last Monday, July 6. It said that the US forces were Marines and that no women were available to search the "females" wearing burkas.

Whatever happened to this unit?

Seems to me that someone might have considered the probability of running into this situation again and OPCON'd a few of these Marines to the operation since it's so important and all. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

All you have to do is get your Terp to ask them "women" a simple question. "Are you from this Village?" "Where is your home?"
HTH teams have female soldiers on them. Few VERY FEW!!