It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I can imagine that in a sea of sand turned to glass will be the fried corpse of a U.N. ambassador drafting up a U.N. resolution...




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
once again afghanistan..You know what i dont get? During WWII, We overtook Normandy in ONE day, and hepled overthrow Berlin a year and a half, once the troops got on land. Here in afghanistan, its going on what 9 years????


LAst I heard, it took a month to take Normandy. The difference today hmm lets see .......how about these days civilian life is important, you just can't go around exterminating cities with all the woman and children like the Brits and Americans did in WWII. The world has higher standards these days.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 



Star for you...

Once again I rarely Agree with you but...
That's a good call...



[edit on 4-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
US troops in Afghanistan 'enough': top US officer

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The number of US troops sent to southern Afghanistan to launch a major offensive is sufficient to seize and hold areas currently under Taliban control, the top US military officer said Sunday.

"We have enough forces there now not just to clear an area but to hold it. So we can build after. That's really the strategy," Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CBS's "Face the Nation."



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
US troops in Afghanistan 'enough': top US officer

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The number of US troops sent to southern Afghanistan to launch a major offensive is sufficient to seize and hold areas currently under Taliban control, the top US military officer said Sunday.

"We have enough forces there now not just to clear an area but to hold it. So we can build after. That's really the strategy," Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CBS's "Face the Nation."


that kind of seems pretty obvious, it's a shame Afghanistan was turned into a sideshow for many years after 2003.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Slayer, it's this part that troubles me. This having sufficient force to HOLD ground.

The Masters of Warfare never, ever, designed to "hold" anything. Holding territory is manpower inefficient, and anytime you forego freedom of movement to man stationary positions, you then become targets.

One doesn't have to "hold" territory to control it. How much better to rapidly pursue and destroy the enemy. You hunt them, you never follow an anticipated line of approach, you close with, and kill them.

In such a manner, one can effectively "control" a territory.

I commend the aggressiveness, but I strongly disagree with our leaders propensity to quickly go into a defensive mode at every opportunity.

Static positions suit rot. Static positions are targets. Static positions are ineffective. Graves are static positions.

Rapid traverse at random alone will deny an enemy a territory.

It was Napolean who said that his marches alone have defeated the enemy.

Our callouses should be on our feet - not our buttocks.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


The British strategy over the past several years was similiar to this, not to hold terriroty but to pursue and disrupt the Taliban. All they do is flee to an area that is either out of their reach, or into an area controlled by the Germans/French, who won't take action against them!

The British have been basically trying to hold down Helmand with between 6-8,000 men for the past several years alone, aside from the Danes, Canadians and Dutch who have stepped up with us with what they can afford to commit. The Americans were focussed on Iraq and were unable to fully commit, and the French/German forces in the north had a wonderful time enjoying the sites and cafe's in Kabul.

Unfortunately, we were unable to commit the amount of forces necessary to get the job done. Up until recently, alot of our available manpower was still in Iraq, something to the tune of another 8,000 troops. With them pulling out soon, we should be able to throw more men into the mix alongside the Americans.

The strategy this time is to hold ground and allow the Afghan forces to cement their control, rather than hit the Taliban then leave the area, allowing them to flood back in before the Afghan's could gain control. Time and time again, British forces had to assault the same towns and villages because once they left and the ANP or ANA were left there alone, the Taliban would attack, cut them off and take the town again.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


We Americans should have learned lessons from Vietnam.

We pursued, but never far enough. They would run to their hides and pursuit would drop off.

One doesn't need to cover every square meter. There are traditional paths of ingress and egress.

A good sniper and observer, with a small security team can cover three square miles-plus of territory. In mountainous terrain, it gets even easier as you can intercept enemy soldiers at natural crossing points.

Keep in mind, these same sniper teams are an invaluable source of intelligence as well.

I'd have scattered sniper teams covering not every square mile, but enough to significantly control key areas. Quick reaction teams with on-site helicopter gunship support, with A-10's on call within fifteen minutes.

When you are able to concentrate many against the few in point attacks, you can do much more with less. Thus, you leapfrog and overlap territories with few actual troops, and you have the benefit of superior firepower IN THE FIELD!

To have villages again and again occupied by enemy forces is a defensive mindset. And not one Master of Warfare EVER held a defensive mindset.

Even if he was defending, it was an offensive defense.

I'm telling you the God's truth, our Generals don't know their business, because they won't get their own asses out in the field to see for themselves.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


This isn't a strategy based around "holding ground", but rather proving to the locals that it is better without the Taliban around. This is the key, getting the locals on side and allowing Afghan athorities time to cement themselves.

It isn't a situation snipers, gunships and A-10's can solve alone.

It's all about showing the locals a better way. Previously, any area cleared of Taliban would eventually fall back under their control, because the Afghan authorities were not supported enough by the local populace. By giving them time to show that the Afghan Government is the proper people to have in charge, then the Taliban will never be able to gain an inroad into these area's.

At least, that is the thinkiing.

Oh, just to defend the commanders, a couple of day's ago a British Colonel was killed in the field. He was also a close friend of Prince Charles. I don't know about the Americans so couldn't comment, but our officers like to get their hands dirty.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


In any war, you have to control the land. The last 8 years in Afghanistan have shown that the current policy of attempted disruption of the Taliban hasn't worked. In fact it has made them much stringer. It is necessary to control the land with many soldiers to put in place infrastructure and economy in these places where the Taliban operate. Once the people see that their lives are better and they no longer fear tha Taliban returning at night - then progress will be made. It is the right policy and it will work, given the commitment of enough troops.

QRT's, snipers etc cannot hold the ground are have shown incapable of disrupting the Taliban. In fact by sing teams such as these the Taliban can choose when and where it wants to fight. Bad tactics there. Afghanistan is a vast land 50% bigger than Iraq, you do the math.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
A good sniper and observer, with a small security team can cover three square miles-plus of territory. In mountainous terrain, it gets even easier as you can intercept enemy soldiers at natural crossing points.

Keep in mind, these same sniper teams are an invaluable source of intelligence as well.

I'd have scattered sniper teams covering not every square mile, but enough to significantly control key areas.


The Taliban have excellent intelligence and local knowledge of the terrain. Sniper teams wouldn't last long against them, in fact it could almost be suicidal doing something like this.


Quick reaction teams with on-site helicopter gunship support, with A-10's on call within fifteen minutes.


This has all been done before, without much effect.


When you are able to concentrate many against the few in point attacks, you can do much more with less. Thus, you leapfrog and overlap territories with few actual troops, and you have the benefit of superior firepower IN THE FIELD!


This has already been done, the Taliban will engage cause some casualties and then melt away.


To have villages again and again occupied by enemy forces is a defensive mindset. And not one Master of Warfare EVER held a defensive mindset.


And you propose what, manning people in every village to hold them at night? Because quick reaction forces would not have removed the Taliban from the area.



I'm telling you the God's truth, our Generals don't know their business, because they won't get their own asses out in the field to see for themselves.


No offence have you sered in Afghanistan or been educated in any war college? I'm curious what makes you the expert. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I apparently didn't make myself clear. Area denial is the purpose. Most sniper teams don't have a security team, but mine would.

In addition, anyone they felt they weren't up to engaging personally, they could call on that close gunship support and be on their asses within a few minutes.

Helicopters refueling off of blivets, parked in the bush, with their own mobile security team enables something that is absolutely necessary. Speed. Quickness.

I know those flyboys like to shut down at night, spend the evenings drinking and sleeping, but that won't get the job done.

Reposition assets!

The helicopters never spend two days in the same place, and never do the patrols.

The sniper teams also relocate to maintain an uncertain location.

This isn't rocket science.

It's a take-off of the flying columns of Ghengis, Sherman, and Schwartzkopf, but without the linear lines.

You press, and press, and press. And when you get a fair sized unit, you crush every single one by hopping in your quick reaction teams.

Linear has been our mistake. These little Fort Apaches are as useful as tits on a tomcat.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
I apparently didn't make myself clear. Area denial is the purpose. Most sniper teams don't have a security team, but mine would.


These would have to be very large security teams, like company size or bigger. The Taliban has proven thy can mass men very quickly for an attack when they want to.


In addition, anyone they felt they weren't up to engaging personally, they could call on that close gunship support and be on their asses within a few minutes.


This has all been done before with much heavier ordnace dropped than what can be carried on A-10, Apaches etc. The thing is these attacks rarely hit their targets during combat as most of the time the troops on the ground don't even know the positions of the Taliban. The Taloiban tend to hit hard then retreat.


Helicopters refueling off of blivets, parked in the bush, with their own mobile security team enables something that is absolutely necessary. Speed. Quickness.


Well these themsleves would become targets of the Taliban, also I imagine supplying these outposts would be a logistical nightmare.



The helicopters never spend two days in the same place, and never do the patrols.


But to be effective they would have to stay in the general area. The Taliban would know within a day they were there and would begin tracking them. They can then choose if and when to attack them.


The sniper teams also relocate to maintain an uncertain location.


But they location would be limited to where the Taliban operate, otherwise they are pointless. They would do extremely hard to remain secret from the Taliban for more than a day or 2 at the most. Especially travelling with the necessary large security team.


It's a take-off of the flying columns of Ghengis, Sherman, and Schwartzkopf, but without the linear lines.

There are no linear lines in Afghanistan. They are no citites or towns that can be taken to defeat the Taliban. They ghave to be gradually oushed out of an area. That area in turn has to be held and rehabilitated, with the establishment of infrastructure, police, local soldiers etc - you know a functioning government. This can only be achieved if the ground is held, because if it sin't the Taliban will return.


You press, and press, and press. And when you get a fair sized unit, you crush every single one by hopping in your quick reaction teams.


That is what they have been trying to do for 9 years, the thing is they can't find the Taliban most of the time. The Taliban know their country betyter than any outsiders, they also know the people better.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by rogue1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs



other than to say I ain't fightin' NO war just because some American politician got his dead carcass dragged through foreign streets. I don't think that would justify a fistfight, much less a war.


Your so intent on arguing your point, you essentially agreed with me without even knowing it.
Good job.


I don't disagree with you on every point, just some. For example, I'm of the opinion too that we ought to get the Bulk of the conventional forces out of Afghanistan and fight against a guerrilla force with SpecOps troops, like it started out, and just keep enough conventional forces around for reaction forces. The bulk would be done with mobile hunter/killer groups and through CAS when the Taliban massed. Making use of indigenous groups like the Northern Alliance would accomplish several objectives, without putting more of our own at risk, buttoned up behind mud brick walls (as happened to the Soviets) and risking a souring of relations with the locals.

I probably don't think that for the same reasons as you hold, but agreement is agreement, eh?

[edit on 2009/7/6 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Why are so many of you identifying with the coldblooded killers that are responsible for this atrocity in Afghanistan. You pontificate like your military strategists involved in a computer game scenario.

This war is completely unjust and immoral. Innocent people are being killed by psychopathic monsters who use war as a tool to further their own ends. This war has nothing to do with freedom or fighting evil. The USA is the one that is evil.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Floating thru Reality
Why are so many of you identifying with the coldblooded killers that are responsible for this atrocity in Afghanistan. You pontificate like your military strategists involved in a computer game scenario.

This war is completely unjust and immoral. Innocent people are being killed by psychopathic monsters who use war as a tool to further their own ends. This war has nothing to do with freedom or fighting evil. The USA is the one that is evil.


How do you suggest we deal with the Taliban? If we just pulled out of Afghanistan, The Taliban would take over and strengthen and become more of a problem in Pakistan, a contry armed with Nukes.

I'm a pacifist and look for a peaceful alternative at all costs, but to allow the Taliban to continue will lead to the misery of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

Maybe I'm being naive here. Someone put me right



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Floating thru Reality
Why are so many of you identifying with the coldblooded killers that are responsible for this atrocity in Afghanistan. You pontificate like your military strategists involved in a computer game scenario.

This war is completely unjust and immoral. Innocent people are being killed by psychopathic monsters who use war as a tool to further their own ends. This war has nothing to do with freedom or fighting evil. The USA is the one that is evil.


You think there's something wrong with the Afghanistan war? How so? I'm not sure what it is you're getting at.

Unjust? How so?

Immoral? How so?

Are you a judge or a god or something, to determine justice or morality?

Psychopathic monsters? You mean the Taliban, right?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Floating thru Reality
Why are so many of you identifying with the coldblooded killers that are responsible for this atrocity in Afghanistan. You pontificate like your military strategists involved in a computer game scenario.

This war is completely unjust and immoral. Innocent people are being killed by psychopathic monsters who use war as a tool to further their own ends. This war has nothing to do with freedom or fighting evil. The USA is the one that is evil.


How do you suggest we deal with the Taliban? If we just pulled out of Afghanistan, The Taliban would take over and strengthen and become more of a problem in Pakistan, a contry armed with Nukes.

I'm a pacifist and look for a peaceful alternative at all costs, but to allow the Taliban to continue will lead to the misery of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

Maybe I'm being naive here. Someone put me right


Nossir, in this case you're ABSOLUTELY right! The Taliban were the product of a premature pull out by the US 20 years ago... We left no civil structure there when the Soviets were routed, and the Taliban arose to fill the vacuum. The US has a moral imperative, a responsibility to the Afghan people to put right what we botched 20 years ago.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 

No, you don't need large security teams for the sniper teams. Three additional men nearby would be most sufficient.

Think about what you said. That the Taliban can mass quickly for an attack.

That assumes a fixed, known, position. This is exactly what I contend is the ongoing problem. Fixed positions. By substituting mobility, you minimize your exposures, you confuse the enemy, and you minimize your danger.

Often, it's as simple as waiting until dark, and simply relocating a hundred meters or so. On four occasions, we caused our attackers to hit where we WERE, enabling us to light into them instead.

Successful warfare is show and hide. Or hide and show. What you show, you will not do. What you do not show, you will do.

Don't try to tell me that gunships cannot find and hit the enemy. The can, and they do, accurately, on a regular basis. The problem most frequently is that from their distant base, by the time they're called and arrive on station, the enemy forces have scattered.

They know the response time, and thus their tactics.

There are times you want to COMPEL the enemy to attack. That's what you WANT. If you can't run all of them down, then have them come to you. To your carefully prepared destruction.

I'd welcome any opportunity to compel the Taliban to attack. Saves shoe leather.

That is why a mobile force with field proximity is critical. It's already been done before! We were placing our gunships in the field, moving daily, and we had no security problems.

The Taliban are dedicated, but they aren't supermen. Speed. Quickness. Rapid response. These factors alone would negate the capabilities of the Taliban or any other guerrillas.

Supplying the outposts would be a nightmare? First, there would be no outposts - only night defensive positions - with a new one every night.

The gunships in the field would only require fuel and ammo, rotated to their bases only for maintenance. The fuel and ammo can be supplied from the air.

It is exactly this big numbers thinking that has led to this cluster *.

You think there are no linear lines in Afghanistan? Tell that to our commanders. They can only think in linear terms. Linear thinking even from a firebase, is still linear thinking - though the form may be more of a radiant shape in terrain. They still think in linear terms, anchored by their bases.

You have to get out of the big numbers box. Away from linear thinking. You have to eliminate everything but water, food, fuel, and ammo.

Heavy is slow, and slow is dead.

Light is fast, and fast kill.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I was reading a recent article on this 4000 troop surge into the Helmand Province. You guys are wondering why we are having such a hard time in Afghanistan? LOL We can't even adequately hydrate our friggen troops. It's hilarious to me to see our troops carrying these 50-100lb packs in 100+ degree whether. I mean come on.................look at the Taliban, they are on horse back or carrying nothing but their AK and a few RPG's. Just like against the Russians they know the terrain and more importantly the Climate. Why are our f'ing troops even moving during the day? They should be moving at night. Why the hell can't we drop water to our troops efficiently and effectively? The article stated that this group of troops had water dropped to them but had to leave most of it behind and let the villager use it all because they had to "move on" and couldn't carrry it anymore. With all our technology our military has forgotten the basic characteristics of soldiering and training. I pity our soldiers I really do. There is absolutley no reason for our troops to be succumbing to heat exhaustion. That's elementary. They should be better hydrated and better more efficient and more accessible depots of water dropped regularly, they should be moving more at night instead of the day, they should be much lighter and quicker............what they hell do they need 100lb packs for? Learn how to hunt and forage like the Taliban do. Maybe start shuttling cattle with them for food instead of carrying 50lb packs. If you want to destroy the Taliban you have to become the Taliban.

I mean my god the way the war is going in Afghanistan if they had the Russians supply them Stinger SAM's like we did in the 80's we would have a fighitng chance.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join