Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    16

    Default 4. Secure supply routes for Afghanistan. By air lift. (continued)

    Securing the land around Camp Bastion


    Quote Originally Posted by UK Forces Afghanistan Blog
    RAF protecting Camp Bastion, June 27, 2012

    Personnel from Number 5 RAF Force Protection Wing, based at RAF Lossiemouth, have now been deployed at Camp Bastion for two months where they have responsibility for providing security at the main British base in Helmand province.


    51 Squadron RAF Regiment personnel on patrol.

    Number 5 RAF Force Protection Wing, comprising members of the Wing Headquarters, 51 Squadron RAF Regiment and 2622 (Highland) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, left RAF Lossiemouth on 16 April 2012 and the personnel are now two months into their deployment to Afghanistan.

    They are serving with members of No 2 (Tactical) Police Squadron from RAF Henlow in Bedfordshire, soldiers from the Tonga Defence Services and elements of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery, which together form the Bastion Force Protection Wing.

    Since their arrival they have taken responsibility for the security of the Camp Bastion complex, one of the busiest airfields in the world with over 28,000 people working on-site. They are also responsible for patrolling the surrounding area, covering over 600 square kilometres, to prevent insurgent attacks against the airfield and its personnel.
    So it matters that Camp Bastion is well defended and I want to make sure we are using the correct tactics to secure the land around any airfield camp we are defending.

    So I have some new comments to make which occurred to me after seeing that photograph of our soldiers patrolling through poppy fields. I am wondering if there are poppy fields in that 600 square kilometres around Camp Bastion?

    Anyway, we don't want or need any high vegetation around the air field which would allow insurgents cover to sneak close to the base, either to launch missile attacks or to plant anti-personnel mines, I.E.D.s or anything else.

    Much better if the land is cleared of all tall vegetation so that it is much easier to keep clear of threats. Short grass is good.

    That may mean buying out farmers who are growing crops, buying their land around the camp, compensating them but only if they are growing worthwhile crops.

    If they are growing poppy fields then they don't deserve compensation in my book.

    Either way there is a big job for our engineers to clear the land all around the camp of all cover useful to an enemy. So that's clearing all the 600 square kilometres which was mentioned as being patrolled by our forces.

    It is a big job to keep such a large area of land free of cover and yes it is OK to hire local Afghan labour to help with keeping the vegetation down. After all, we will have put some local farmers out of living so they'll be looking for employment.

    It might be an idea to have grazing animals on the land to keep the vegetation down but I would not be surprised if the Taliban shoot grazing animals if they can but if they do that's a reminder to us that the Taliban are still out there if a reminder is ever needed.

    I assume in a dry land like Afghanistan that burning vegetation is easily done and that'll be the easiest way to clear the land I suspect. So I approve a "scorched earth" policy.

    At night when it is not so easy to distinguish between a farmer tending his grazing animals and an insurgent pretending to be that, I suggest that the 600 square kilometres should be an exclusion zone for everyone except Camp Bastion personnel. So all local Afghan workers who clear vegetation during the day need to go back to homes outside the 600 square kilometres every night.

    This is the attitude NATO - ISAF and our base security forces need to take. We need to take ownership of all the 600 square kilometres of land which we are patrolling around Camp Bastion and optimise it for security.

    It would be the same outrage if the Afghan government dares to suggest that we don't take ownership of the surrounding land, don't clear the land, and should instead allow existing cover for insurgents in land surrounding Camp Bastion as it would be if the Afghan government dared to suggest that we open the doors of the airbase itself to the Taliban.

  2. # ADS

    Join Date
    Just Now
    Location
    In your thoughts
    Posts
    42

  • #12
    The Chopping Block papachop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Sill, OK
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    1. You haven't spent a day in uniform, please don't come here and try to teach us about military leadership.
    2. Your post is too ridiculously lengthy to read, but just the parts I glanced at are ludicrious. They display a complete lack of understanding in logistics and support. If you did, you would know that significantly increasing the amount of air being used is not possible financially.
    3. It isn't an "AfPak" conflict. The Pakistan nation is an ally. Whether or not they're a great one is up to debate, but we are NOT at war with them as a nation.

    We're getting out of Afghanistan. It isn't a "winnable" conflict. The only question is what is the best way to do it gracefully. And military minds with much more training, experience, and education than a civilian military enthusiasist are working it.
    1LT Papa Chop
    Executive Officer (25A)

    Quote Originally Posted by GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower
    “The one quality that can be developed by studious reflection and practice is the leadership of men.”

  • #13
    Short Timer CWO Sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Regular Army
    Posts
    7,912

    Default



    lol. All sounds nice and dandy on paper. I see all the logistical issues in this country and the challenges that occur on a daily basis. I guess you have a solution for the suicide bombers and green on blue attacks killing our troops?

    More of this commie type of posts and we going to delete the thread and ban you. lol
    Iraq/Afghanistan Veteran (OIF V & OEF X & XIII)
    101st Airborne Division & 4th Infantry Division combat vet
    Serving overseas

  • #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    1. You haven't spent a day in uniform,
    I don't need to be in uniform to be on the right side in this war. Our forces in uniform are fighting for our freedom. I appreciate their service very much and I'd like to help the best way I know how.

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    please don't come here and try to teach us about military leadership.
    Well call what I am trying to teach "war strategy" if that helps any but whatever we call it somebody ought to try to teach it.

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    2. Your post is too ridiculously lengthy to read,
    Well I guess you are too busy. No problem. Maybe others can find the time?

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    but just the parts I glanced at are ludicrious. They display a complete lack of understanding in logistics and support. If you did, you would know that significantly increasing the amount of air being used is not possible financially.
    Point 4 of my plan considers two options to develop secure supply -
    • by land and
    • by air.
    And those options would take time to implement.

    So don't claim that I am saying we can put all our eggs in the air supply basket starting tomorrow.

    It is definitely feasible to ramp up our air supply capacity and over time approach a 100% supply capacity, by adding or lengthening runways (for bigger planes which can carry in more supplies per landing) or even creating new air bases in new locations.

    The main thing is to increase security of all the supply.

    If there is established a secure land route which does not involve paying the enemy who are taking our protection money one day and killing us the next then land-supply may be better in many ways.

    But it would be strategically wise to have spare air capacity to use if a formerly secure land route became less secure for whatever reason.

    Mine is a belt and braces approach.

    Also you are missing my point if you are concentrating only on supply into an airfield or across the border into Afghanistan

    There is also the issue of supplying our forces through Afghanistan where secure land routes either from the border or from air-supplied bases to nearby bases will be a better option in some cases. Not every base can have its own runway though air drops or helicopter supply should be an alternative option for any properly secured base I would expect.

    Talking of which I am dismayed at the isolated forward bases we have such as along the Afghan / Pakistan border where we have troops whose only supply method right now is by air drop because the roads are so insecure. I would rather abandon such outlying bases and concentrate our defences along our critical supply routes. For us to be trying to secure every inch of the Afghan mountains is more trouble than it is worth in my opinion.

    It is possible financially to spend the same money but spend it more wisely.

    My strategy is fully expecting and planning for secure land routes as well as increasing air supply capacity as a more capable back up option.

    When it comes to supplying the Afghan forces and the Afghan population generally then Afghans will be looking for ways to secure their own national road network and extend railways to more of their country so we ought to be showing them how to secure a land supply route, not setting a bad example by driving over unsecured roads and getting ourselves bombed and attacked from the road-side.

    Also I didn't decide the number of troops the West has stationed there and I have no ideal number of western troops there. The numbers of troops I have discussed to secure land supply routes were intended to be Afghan troops, either Afghan national army or perhaps auxiliary to NATO-ISAF.

    I am just saying that if the West's military leadership decide they want and need that many troops then strategically they ought to factor in supplying them by air if and when we need to, otherwise it is just begging the enemy to threaten to block the land route and hold us to ransom, protection racket style, to get all the supplies we need for all the troops we have.

    I am neither particularly for a surge nor a draw-down - I am just particular about having multiple options for supply so we don't end up having to pay the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    3. It isn't an "AfPak" conflict. The Pakistan nation is an ally. Whether or not they're a great one is up to debate, but we are NOT at war with them as a nation.
    I've never suggested an attack or a war against the Pakistani nation, meaning the people as opposed to the state. Parts of the Pakistani state, likes of the ISI, have been at war with us for many years as intelligence reports have been warning for many a year.

    You really ought to find a couple of spare hours and watch this.

    This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan.

    VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours)


    So I have never suggested war with the Pakistani nation, but all involved ought to face up to the fact that a bit of the Pakistani state is at war with us and deal with it.

    I suggested attacking the Taliban paramilitary indoctrination base which is the ideological headquarters of the Taliban (and maybe an operation HQ too) and that is no more "attacking the Pakistani nation" than drone strikes on forward bases of the Taliban near the front lines.

    Since it is the Taliban who attack the sovereignty of the Pakistani nation with their terrorist attacks on other Pakistanis who don't bow down to their terrorist demands then by attacking the Taliban wherever they are we are actually defending the sovereignty of the Pakistani nation, not attacking it.

    Also the ISI HQ is how the military dictators of Pakistan, generals like Musharraf, impose their dictatorship upon the people by killing or terrorising them one way or another.

    So once again, an air strike by the West upon the Pakistani ISI HQ is really striking a blow for Pakistani national sovereignty against the fascists who want to dictate to the people.

    But I do see there is risk it won't be seen that way by the rest of the Pakistani state. So we really need to explain who exactly we are attacking and why in advance of any attack so that our strike is understood to be for the people of Pakistan and not against them.

    Here is the former Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf who took American money to use it against us being interviewed by the Daily Show's Jon Stewart.





    Not that Jon Stewart should be blamed too much when the same enemy leader was welcomed to the White House by President Bush.



    Many have been lied to by this man, Musharraf. He is a very plausible and personable liar but he and his military intelligence agency the ISI have long been backstabbing us by sponsoring the Taliban and other terrorists.

    There are other ways of dealing with Musharraf - to bring charges of sponsoring terrorism against him perhaps. Some Pakistani courts have (that's why he is in exile) and the Pakistani courts and our courts might do the the same to the other Pakistani generals who have been such backstabbing partners for the West in the war on terror.

    Wikipedia: Pervez Musharraf

    Since quitting politics in 2008, Musharraf has been in London since 24 November, 2008 [134] in self-imposed exile.

    ...

    On February 11, 2011 the Anti Terrorism Court,[148] issued an arrest warrant for Musharraf and charged him with conspiracy to commit murder of Benazir Bhutto. On 8 March 2011, the Sindh High Court registered treason charges against him.[149]

    He also warned of a new military coup[153] and said the military must play a bigger role in order to gain stability in Pakistan.


    Condi's tribute to Benazir Bhutto, martyr for Pakistan (YouTube)

    Condi was right to speak so kindly about Benazir Bhutto I think. She was a better friend to the people that the liar terrorist Musharraf that's why she was killed by our enemies.


    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    We're getting out of Afghanistan.
    Drawing down certainly.

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    It isn't a "winnable" conflict.
    Sure it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    The only question is what is the best way to do it gracefully. And military minds with much more training, experience, and education than a civilian military enthusiasist are working it.
    I'm all for graceful.
    Last edited by Peter Dow; 08-17-2012 at 08:01 AM.

  • #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWO Sharkey View Post
    lol. All sounds nice and dandy on paper. I see all the logistical issues in this country and the challenges that occur on a daily basis. I guess you have a solution for the suicide bombers
    I can certainly offer ideas that I think can help a whole lot.

    We need to establish security wherever our forces are regularly, keep suicide bombers, as with all enemy, well back.

    That means for example, establishing a secure perimeter around any road we supply along and excluding non-authorised traffic. A suicide bomber in a truck should be stopped miles away before he gets within miles of a road we are supplying along. Traffic wanting on our roads needs to be stopped at bomb proof control points miles away from our roads. Only duly authorised traffic gets through onto our road. Yes "our road". In a war zone, any road we supply along is our road and any Afghan that wants on it has to satisfy us that it is in our interests to let him on our road. That's the attitude needed by military leadership. Any fool surrendering control of our supply roads to the Afghan politicians should not be commanding our mission in Afghanistan.

    So not only should suicide bombers not get anywhere near our roads - neither should Afghan "civilians" on foot who might be planting road side bombs. Any person on our road needs to be there duly authorised doing whatever is we have authorised them to do.

    Now seizing Afghan main roads will generate problems and complaints by the Afghans. So to keep and make friends with Afghans and lessen any disruption caused by seizing their roads, we might consider offering a bus service or a road haulage service operating from bomb-proof secure control points for Afghans who want to use our road for civilian purposes.

    Offering those services on our supply roads is not something to rush nor to subcontract out to unreliable Afghans because again that would allow the reintroduction of suicide bombers and road-side bombs and other breaches of security.

    Either way we make very sure of who and what gets onto our supply road.

    We need to make our supply routes as secure as a fortress.

    I have posted a diagram showing how that can be organised in post #7 but here it is again but a bigger image this time.




    Our troops should not be mixing regularly with the general population. That's a job for the Afghan police. If we get intelligence where the enemy are located within the general population then we can air-strike that location or use artillery or do a raid like the one to get Bin Laden. Hit them hard and fast and get out back to our secure bases before the suicide bombers have time to react.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWO Sharkey View Post
    and green on blue attacks killing our troops?
    Green on blue attacks is evidence that the Afghan forces are not ready to stand on their own under the rule of Karzai or the Afghan president. This tells me they still need to be operating under NATO-ISAF as an auxiliary NATO force. I would not want us or anyone in the international community to be funding a green force under Afghan political control that was attacking our blue forces. If that is happening then don't pay Karzai for green forces, spend the money ourselves and run green as a NATO auxiliary force just now until we really can trust them.

    Now, if you are telling me that the green forces are under our control then we really ought to be making a better job of vetting, indoctrination, military policing and the like to make sure only loyal troops are in uniform.

    I wouldn't expect Karzai to know what he is doing with the green forces and so I am not surprised if Afghan forces under him are going bad. I would expect our NATO-ISAF to be getting a grip over any auxiliary force we are in charge of politically.

    For example, I would even pick loyal-to-us Islamic preachers which the green troops listen to. I would sack any green troop soldier who is listening to unauthorized Taliban or pro-Taliban Imams or whatever they call their preachers. We need to control the way green troops think otherwise someone else will.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWO Sharkey View Post
    More of this commie type of posts
    It's not commie type posts. The commies or the Soviets had their go in Afghanistan from 1979 - 89 and got their asses kicked out - same as we will if we don't up our war strategy like I suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWO Sharkey View Post
    and we going to delete the thread and ban you. lol
    Well moderators do that kind of thing. It doesn't help our military though to silence help offered from your civilian friends.
    Last edited by Peter Dow; 08-17-2012 at 08:54 AM.

  • #16
    The Chopping Block papachop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Sill, OK
    Posts
    2,211

    Default



    Dude, you don't get it, do you? YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO OFFER ADVICE ON MILITARY TACTICS OR STRATEGY (especially since you don't know the difference between them). It's like a Firefighter Instructor that's never fought a working fire, or a Police Department Field Training Officer that's never worked the road.

    I don't need to be in uniform to be on the right side in this war. Our forces in uniform are fighting for our freedom. I appreciate their service very much and I'd like to help the best way I know how.
    You can help by showing your support through veterans organizations, or something like that. Not posting MS Paint images of bunkers and LMTVs.

    Well call what I am trying to teach "war strategy" if that helps any but whatever we call it somebody ought to try to teach it.
    Strategy is taught by warriors. Warriors that have spent 20 years or more honing their craft.

    Well I guess you are too busy. No problem. Maybe others can find the time?
    Too busy for 500 pages of drivel? Sure am.

    Drawing down certainly.
    No. We're getting out. Care to tell me more about what MY Army is doing?
    1LT Papa Chop
    Executive Officer (25A)

    Quote Originally Posted by GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower
    “The one quality that can be developed by studious reflection and practice is the leadership of men.”

  • #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post
    No. We're getting out. Care to tell me more about what MY Army is doing?
    I am pleased to meet you Mr President.

  • #18
    The Chopping Block papachop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Sill, OK
    Posts
    2,211

    Default



    P.S. It is MY Army, as it belongs to any man that bleeds and sweats for it. I lead 27 Soldiers every day. I don't need some civilian that hasn't sacrificed telling me what we should do.
    Last edited by papachop; 08-17-2012 at 01:24 PM.
    1LT Papa Chop
    Executive Officer (25A)

    Quote Originally Posted by GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower
    “The one quality that can be developed by studious reflection and practice is the leadership of men.”

  • #19
    Short Timer CWO Sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Regular Army
    Posts
    7,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by papachop View Post


    P.S. It is MY Army, as it belongs to any man that bleeds and sweats for it. I lead 27 Soldiers every day. I don't need some civilian that hasn't sacrificed telling me what we should do.
    lol @ banstick

    Good research for your thesis Mr. Dow but you fail to discuss about COIN, the challenges at RC-East, the different factions in the country, Mr. Karzia, etc.

    I know alot about the Jingle trucks dilemma with Integration/RPAT yard issues on many FOBs due to the lack of space and descoping and our leaders are working those problems.

    Here are some pictures of an integration yard. We have excellent technology for our ECPs but your suggestion of some form of "maginot line" along highway number 1 is something that NATO/US is not going to pay for and un-realistic.



    Taliban carry out brazen attack on Pakistan base - Yahoo! News

    Last edited by CWO Sharkey; 08-18-2012 at 08:16 AM.
    Iraq/Afghanistan Veteran (OIF V & OEF X & XIII)
    101st Airborne Division & 4th Infantry Division combat vet
    Serving overseas

  • #20
    The Chopping Block papachop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Sill, OK
    Posts
    2,211
    1LT Papa Chop
    Executive Officer (25A)

    Quote Originally Posted by GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower
    “The one quality that can be developed by studious reflection and practice is the leadership of men.”

  • Closed Thread
    Page 2 of 3
    FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 2
      Last Post: 10-16-2011, 06:55 PM
    2. Knocked up soldier with incoming dead-beat dad
      By SSG_K in forum General Army Discussion
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 09-27-2011, 07:04 AM
    3. Terror Plot Stopped at Ft Hood
      By Angriff in forum Media Gallery
      Replies: 9
      Last Post: 07-29-2011, 11:04 AM
    4. Ex-Soldier Brutally Beat Boy Over Game Deletion
      By Devil Strider in forum Off Topic
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 02-19-2011, 06:50 PM
    5. The best movie of the Afghanistan War!!
      By CWO Sharkey in forum News
      Replies: 12
      Last Post: 10-31-2010, 06:51 AM

    Posting Permissions

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