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...
U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan, page 3
privacy
reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 07:45 PM by SLAYER69
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]
Star for you...
Once again I rarely Agree with you but...
That's a good call...
[edit on 4-7-2009 by SLAYER69]
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 03:42 PM 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."
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 03:47 PM by rogue1
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.
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 04:13 PM by dooper
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.
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.
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 04:24 PM by stumason
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.
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.
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 04:39 PM by dooper
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.
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.
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 04:48 PM by stumason
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.
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.
reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 05:35 PM by rogue1
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]
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]
Good job.
reply posted on 6-7-2009 @ 01:30 PM by dooper
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.
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.
Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Posted 1 days ago with 66 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 66 member flags
FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
Posted 8 days ago with 53 member flags
Posted 8 days ago with 53 member flags
Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
Posted 4 days ago with 40 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 40 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un assassinated (rumour)
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 minutes ago
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 minutes ago
The Pope will die within a year: Vatican 'assassination fears' revealed
Other Current Events, Posted 14 minutes ago
Other Current Events, Posted 14 minutes ago
Congrats to the Right Wing! "Bishops Want Businesses Exempt From Birth Control Coverage"
US Political Madness, Posted 23 minutes ago
US Political Madness, Posted 23 minutes ago
Pictures That Shocked The World (viewer discretion advised)
Education and Media, Posted 41 minutes ago
Education and Media, Posted 41 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Here's an update on the "strange metal boxes washed up on Oregon beach"
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 10 hours ago, 16 flags
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 10 hours ago, 16 flags
Iran Worried USA is Building 8500th Nuclear Bomb!!
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 16 hours ago, 12 flags
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 16 hours ago, 12 flags
'Anonymous' hacker group threatens 'reign of terror' against Israel
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 9 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 9 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Iran Says US Attack Would Be ‘Akin To Suicide’
Breaking Political News, Posted 11 hours ago, 113 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 11 hours ago, 113 replies
Here's an update on the "strange metal boxes washed up on Oregon beach"
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 10 hours ago, 43 replies
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 10 hours ago, 43 replies
I was told I'm John the Baptist in dreams - Isaiah 17 Prophecy Damascus being destroyed, viral pand
Dreams & Predictions, Posted 16 hours ago, 34 replies
Dreams & Predictions, Posted 16 hours ago, 34 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.298 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.298 seconds
