Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 143

Thread: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    War is war. Tactics and strategy don' suddenly take on new meanings depending on if a war is conventional, or unconventional.
    Oh my God! I nearly missed this gem of wisdom from you, Sarge.

    Are you an O/C at JRTC? For God sakes I hope not if you say something like this. Yeah, actually they do change, constantly. Haven't you been over there? It's called trying to keep up with the enemy and adapt to the operational environment. You know, like when the insurgents figured out when we got better armor on our trucks, so they made the IEDs bigger? They changed tactics. So did we, then they did, and so on. How can you be a senior NCO, an 11B at that and say something so rediculously stupid? God if you were in charge we would still fight Napoleonic tactics against the Taliban! Ha! Incredible!


    The Rand Report? What units did those guys serve in?
    Only the most prestigous think tank in DC that a ton of retired Generals work for.

    Hawkish jingoists love to cite Rand all the time for FP/NS studies.

    C'mon, man.

  2. #102
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    In Afghanistan, it is vital that American and NATO troops get out of their protected bases to work alongside Afghan forces and build trust with civilians. In some ways this may be trickier than in Vietnam, as our troops will have to navigate the tribal and ethnic rivalries that have long divided Afghan society.

    [...]

    In Afghanistan, combat does little good unless allied or Afghan forces remain behind to keep the Taliban from simply moving back in.

    [...]

    Allied forces in Afghanistan may have to accept increased risks to themselves as the price of protecting the population. There have been some grumblings that they are hampered by the rules of engagement, and perhaps in platoon-level operations that it true. But Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, is right that Western forces have to cut down on civilian deaths caused by air power and reckless use of force.

    [...]

    President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has no signature triumph like Land to the Tiller, nor has he made many efforts to reach out to average Afghans. Perhaps Washington should make some of its support to his government contingent on anticorruption efforts and delivering real services to his people.

    [...]

    Given the diversified population of Afghanistan there has been too much emphasis on central government — if the Karzai government lags in giving money and supplies to local and tribal leaders, the United States should consider doling out more aid directly to them.

    [...]

    In Afghanistan, a continuing security presence in contested areas will be key to getting Afghans and former insurgents to aid the war effort. As long as they fear Taliban reprisal, locals will stay silent.

    [...]

    Improve security: Protection of the people (not body counts, as in the earlier period) became the measure of progress in Vietnam. The appropriate metrics to watch in Afghanistan are probably economic growth, the percentage of children attending school and health data, along with freedom of movement within and between population centers.

    [...]

    Similarly, the Taliban uses the Pakistan border as its own barrier, and American drone attacks can do only so much. Either Washington must find a way to get the Pakistanis to step up the fight against the terrorists, or consider operations across the border.

    [...]

    President Obama has said that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. If so, he must put his political capital behind it. As he and his advisers plan the new course for the war, he must also come up with a new approach for selling it to Congress and the American people.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/op...vietnam&st=cse

    These are snippets from an article by Lt. Col. Lewis Sorley (Ret.) and they point out what we need to do in Afghanistan to win.

    Lewis Sorley, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, is the author of “A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.”

    OBL 11/24/02

  3. #103
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Very True. Afghanistan's location (land-locked) also prevents the Army from deploying Mechanized forces to the AO. They must depend on light, airborne, air assault and striker units to carry the load in A-stan, because the 1st CAV, 1st Armored or any other Tank BDE won't be coming to help. They can't get into the country.

    Iraq continues to plague us. Many brigades that could go to A-stan to help are STILL on orders to Iraq, a conflict that is over for us. All that is left is to haul all of our crap out. I wish the Iraqis would just ask us to leave.
    Surely you're not suggesting that mech units take the lead in Afghanistan, Cap? I think someone already made that tactical mistake.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Cap, in counter-insurgency operations, holding ground is not a barometer of success. If the enemy isn't interested in holding ground, then we shouldn't be either.
    They are...remember the word "sanctuary". That's what we want to prevent.

    We should interested in one of two things: interdicting the enemy on his on turf, or drawing him out so we can engage him. Actually, we should be doing both.
    Right; we do both; taking ground from him. Attack him in his strongholds, clear the area of the enemy and hold the ground; not to let him back in.

    You actually explained it pretty well for me.

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Surely you're not suggesting that mech units take the lead in Afghanistan, Cap? I think someone already made that tactical mistake.
    No way. I'm mearly saying that is harder to resource because we can't use any MECH BDEs which are nearly half the Army.

    I would send the MECH BDEs w/o their equipment. Light!

  6. #106
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    They are...remember the word "sanctuary". That's what we want to prevent.
    That's why we want to present a threat on his home turf, where he feels most comfortable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's why we want to present a threat on his home turf, where he feels most comfortable.
    Exactly. Attack him, take his ground, hold it, build it, secure it and don't give it back. Perfect COIN analysis. Exactly what we did in Iraq.

  8. #108
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    No way. I'm mearly saying that is harder to resource because we can't use any MECH BDEs which are nearly half the Army.

    I would send the MECH BDEs w/o their equipment. Light!
    I agree. Looks like you learned a little something as an FSO. Hangin' with those grunts learned you something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #109
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Exactly. Attack him, take his ground, hold it, build it, secure it and don't give it back. Perfect COIN analysis. Exactly what we did in Iraq.
    i.e. destroy the enemy and his ability to wage war. You're catchin' on, Cap. Hang in there, you'll be a commander one day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #110
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Very True. Afghanistan's location (land-locked) also prevents the Army from deploying Mechanized forces to the AO. They must depend on light, airborne, air assault and striker units to carry the load in A-stan, because the 1st CAV, 1st Armored or any other Tank BDE won't be coming to help. They can't get into the country.

    Iraq continues to plague us. Many brigades that could go to A-stan to help are STILL on orders to Iraq, a conflict that is over for us. All that is left is to haul all of our crap out. I wish the Iraqis would just ask us to leave.
    When Obama orders the Afghanistan troop increase they will likely come from Iraq.

    OBL 11/24/02

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •