Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

MIDDLE EAST CRAZINESS UPDATE

Toyota Wars II - Analysis of the war emerging in Libya; how Gadaffi outflanked the rebels and NATO in a throwback to the high-speed Battles of the Technicals with Chad in the eighties, with graphics.




ARAB LEAGUE TO ASK UN TO IMPOSE NO-FLY ZONE OVER GAZA

Gaza ceasefire brokered by UN official Robert Serry who acts as intermediary between Hamas and Jerusalem.



Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa plans to present the proposal to the UN Security Council.




KORAN BURNING - IN IRAN



(Washington Times) — Two anonymous young men in Iran, one Iranian and one Afghan, have burned a Koran in protest. This seven-and-a-half minute long video shows the two men, their faces obscured, holding the Muslim holy book and reading prepared statements. They say that Arabs have foisted this book and their homelands and because of it they have gone backwards for 1400 years. They say they dislike the Koran and want it to disappear, adding “Viva freedom!”

Afterwards they stand the Koran on a flat rock, douse it alcohol and light it. One of them hoots and laughs. The book burns fiercely, and after a few moments one of them sprays more alcohol into the flames. The video ends with them warming their hands over the blazing book.


.

Friday, April 1, 2011

THE LIBYA THING

So what exactly are we going to call this thing? Used to be we had heroic names for wars:

THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR . . . . . . THE WHISKEY REBELLION . . .

. . . THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR . . . . . . THE BOXER REBELLION . . . . . .


Somewhere between World War II (a.k.a. THE BIG ONE) and Vietnam I guess we just ran out of names, sort of like modern car companies with their meaningless Prius and Altimas.


Back when everything was real.


There was a bit of hope there for awhile when they called my generation's Big One THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR but that was too cool for the current Occupier of the Whitehouse - in one of his first official acts Barry Soetero downgraded our Great and Glorious Patriotic War to the pragmatic "Overseas Contingency Operations" . . .


. . . how Zen-like . . . how PC . . . how lacking in macho and crotch-o . . . the antithesis of everything a war is supposed to be all about.


Somewhere along the line, even cool names for campaigns - OPERATION OVERLORD - the Allied invasion of Normandy in World War II . . . OPERATION POWER PACK - the U.S. invasion and occupation of Dominican Republic 1965-66. . . OPERATION URGENT FURY the United States intervention in Grenada, 1983 . . . political correctness took over and the Panama Invasion of 1989- the largest Airborne invasion in history was dubbed OPERATION JUST CAUSE - and just as quickly re-named "OPERATION JUST BECAUSE" by the sarcastic G.I.'s who participated in the combat jump.


Eighty-Deuce Bustin' Loose!


For a brief moment of time there OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN had some promise . . . the name ain't so bad; a cross between Homer's great adventures of Ulysses and ZULU DAWN. Of course that was too heroic, it could never last. How intriguing that the minute the Canadians are nominally put in charge its re-flagged OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR . . . sounds like some kind of United Nations birth control campaign . . .


Of course I say "nominally" because everybody knows NATO is an American club; if it wasn't for the United States, the Soviet Union would still be going strong and the F-4 Phantom would be the state-of-the-art European fighter.


Never mind the name, this thing has been wrong and disingenuous from the start. Under the Constitution, the President of the United States has the power to commit U.S. military forces - but only when U.S. national interests are threatened.


THIS is how a President sends Americans into harms way.


For this Libya business, Obama should have gone to Congress . . . instead he went to the United Nations . . . doesn't pass the smell test and worse - a dangerous move toward downgrading United States sovereignty and prestige on the world stage.


Hello, Rio! AlĂ´, Cidade Maravilhosa!


From lack of threat to our national interest it was a quick step to total lack of anything resembling a plan, let alone an overall objective - this led me to exclaim that what we have here is not a war; it is a series of war-like actions.


Certainly it has the parts and pieces of a war - things are being broken and people are being killed - but to what end? What is our over-arching national strategic objective? Well . . . lemme see here . . . we don't have one ! ! !


THIS IS NOT A WAR . . .


. . . we haven't had one since 1945. A war is more than just killing things and breaking people . . . in war the theoretical objective is to defeat the enemy population's will to wage war - Clauswitz. The concept of War is naturally associated with words like "Capture the Flag," "Victory" and "Unconditional Surrender."


What are we doing in Libya? Somebody? Anybody?


OK it's for oil - I'm okay with that.



"Oil is the lifeblood of Democracy" - Churchill. Or are we there because France can't handle any more Muslims? TO HELL WITH THAT - let the Froggies deal with their matters themselves; we could use a couple fighter wings of F-18s down on the Arizona border to deal with our own illegal immigrant situation.


OK let's back up and throw some analysis on this thing because we've been at it for a couple weeks now and people are getting hurt . . . this one-man state ("L'etat c'est moi!") Gadhafi is an international bad guy and an overall pig . . . not that we have any shortage of THOSE these days . . . Kim Jong Il anybody? Hugo Chavez? Achmedinnijad? These are the shitheads, the haters, guys who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell if you put them in the dock at the Hague . . . never mind THOSE pigs - right now the Libyan rebels won the PR war; they are the cause celebre du jour ergo Barack appeases his social conscience and enhances his stature with the amongst nations of the Third World at the same time.


We don't have a plan and we don't have a stated objective but what's that to stop us? We've got . . . MISSION CREEP! "No boots on the ground" quickly morphed in to Special Operations painting targets with lasers, staging assets for CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue), and providing support to the CIA in their mission borrowed from NASA; "Muslim Outreach."


This is doctrinal, of course, and totally predictable. It's also mission creep; does OPERATION RESTORE HOPE ring any bells? This was the yawn-fest code-name for the U.S. food-parcel handout mission into Somalia - which quickly evolved into the heaviest combat operations for U.S. forces since Vietnam, some twenty-odd years earlier.




By conveniently announcing to the world that our mission does not involve regime-change, this telegraphs to Muamar the Mad that all he has to do is hang in there and take the punishment from the sky - sooner or later the round-eyes will exit stage left and anyway, surrender is not an option; he saw what happened to his buddy Saddam.



POLITICS ENDS AT THE WATERS EDGE DEPT.


Linnane's First Principle of Warfare states: "When you find yourself involved in a war, you must commit to certain victory in as short a time as possible with every resource available; to do anything else equals criminal negligence."


We de-humanize our enemies; it makes them easier to kill.


Americans are in harms way - we pray for them, we wish them Godspeed in this honorable fight against a bona-fide bad guy, Gadhafi Duck, and we certainly hope this thing ends quickly, and honorably.


And it must; "We will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground," the president said, and called the strikes "limited military" intervention.


Pronouncements like these are from the "We'll bring the boys home by Christmas" genre -


. . . and we all know how THAT worked out in 1914.



. . . SEAN LINNANE SENDS




Today's bird HERE



.

Monday, March 1, 2010

THE MEANING OF MARJAH


February 16, 2010 | 2119 GMT

By Kamran Bokhari, Peter Zeihan and Nathan Hughes

On Feb. 13, some 6,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers and Afghan National Army (ANA) troops launched a sustained assault on the town of Marjah in Helmand province. Until this latest offensive, the U.S. and NATO effort in Afghanistan had been constrained by other considerations, most notably Iraq. Western forces viewed the Afghan conflict as a matter of holding the line or pursuing targets of opportunity. But now, armed with larger forces and a new strategy, the war — the real war — has begun. The most recent offensive — dubbed Operation Moshtarak (“Moshtarak” is Dari for “together”) — is the largest joint U.S.-NATO-Afghan operation in history. It also is the first major offensive conducted by the first units deployed as part of the surge of 30,000 troops promised by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The United States originally entered Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. In those days of fear and fury, American goals could be simply stated: A non-state actor — al Qaeda — had attacked the American homeland and needed to be destroyed. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan at the invitation of a near-state actor — the Taliban, which at the time were Afghanistan’s de facto governing force. Since the Taliban were unwilling to hand al Qaeda over, the United States attacked. By the end of the year, al Qaeda had relocated to neighboring Pakistan and the Taliban retreated into the arid, mountainous countryside in their southern heartland and began waging a guerrilla conflict. In time, American attention became split between searching for al Qaeda and clashing with the Taliban over control of Afghanistan.

But from the earliest days following 9/11, the White House was eyeing Iraq, and with the Taliban having largely declined combat in the initial invasion, the path seemed clear. The U.S. military and diplomatic focus was shifted, and as the years wore on, the conflict absorbed more and more U.S. troops, even as other issues — a resurgent Russia and a defiant Iran — began to demand American attention. All of this and more consumed American bandwidth, and the Afghan conflict melted into the background. The United States maintained its Afghan force in what could accurately be described as a holding action as the bulk of its forces operated elsewhere. That has more or less been the state of affairs for eight years.

That has changed with the series of offensive operations that most recently culminated at Marjah.



Why Marjah? The key is the geography of Afghanistan and the nature of the conflict itself. Most of Afghanistan is custom-made for a guerrilla war. Much of the country is mountainous, encouraging local identities and militias, as well as complicating the task of any foreign military force. The country’s aridity discourages dense population centers, making it very easy for irregular combatants to melt into the countryside. Afghanistan lacks navigable rivers or ports, drastically reducing the region’s likelihood of developing commerce. No commerce to tax means fewer resources to fund a meaningful government or military and encourages the smuggling of every good imaginable — and that smuggling provides the perfect funding for guerrillas.

Rooting out insurgents is no simple task. It requires three things:

1. Massively superior numbers so that occupiers can limit the zones to which the insurgents have easy access.
2. The support of the locals in order to limit the places that the guerillas can disappear into.
3. Superior intelligence so that the fight can be consistently taken to the insurgents rather than vice versa.

Without those three things — and American-led forces in Afghanistan lack all three — the insurgents can simply take the fight to the occupiers, retreat to rearm and regroup and return again shortly thereafter.

But the insurgents hardly hold all the cards. Guerrilla forces are by their very nature irregular. Their capacity to organize and strike is quite limited, and while they can turn a region into a hellish morass for an opponent, they have great difficulty holding territory — particularly territory that a regular force chooses to contest. Should they mass into a force that could achieve a major battlefield victory, a regular force — which is by definition better-funded, -trained, -organized and -armed — will almost always smash the irregulars. As such, the default guerrilla tactic is to attrit and harass the occupier into giving up and going home. The guerrillas always decline combat in the face of a superior military force only to come back and fight at a time and place of their choosing. Time is always on the guerrilla’s side if the regular force is not a local one.

But while the guerrillas don’t require basing locations that are as large or as formalized as those required by regular forces, they are still bound by basic economics. They need resources — money, men and weapons — to operate. The larger these locations are, the better economies of scale they can achieve and the more effectively they can fight their war.

Marjah is perhaps the quintessential example of a good location from which to base. It is in a region sympathetic to the Taliban; Helmand province is part of the Taliban’s heartland. Marjah is very close to Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second city, the religious center of the local brand of Islam, the birthplace of the Taliban, and due to the presence of American forces, an excellent target. Helmand alone produces more heroin than any country on the planet, and Marjah is at the center of that trade. By some estimates, this center alone supplies the Taliban with a monthly income of $200,000. And it is defensible: The farmland is crisscrossed with irrigation canals and dotted with mud-brick compounds — and, given time to prepare, a veritable plague of IEDs.

Simply put, regardless of the Taliban’s strategic or tactical goals, Marjah is a critical node in their operations.
The American Strategy

Though operations have approached Marjah in the past, it has not been something NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ever has tried to hold. The British, Canadian and Danish troops holding the line in the country’s restive south had their hands full enough. Despite Marjah’s importance to the Taliban, ISAF forces were too few to engage the Taliban everywhere (and they remain as such). But American priorities started changing about two years ago. The surge of forces into Iraq changed the position of many a player in the country. Those changes allowed a reshaping of the Iraq conflict that laid the groundwork for the current “stability” and American withdrawal. At the same time, the Taliban began to resurge in a big way. Since then the Bush and then Obama administrations inched toward applying a similar strategy to Afghanistan, a strategy that focuses less on battlefield success and more on altering the parameters of the country itself.

As the Obama administration’s strategy has begun to take shape, it has started thinking about endgames. A decades-long occupation and pacification of Afghanistan is simply not in the cards. A withdrawal is, but only a withdrawal where the security free-for-all that allowed al Qaeda to thrive will not return. And this is where Marjah comes in.

Denying the Taliban control of poppy farming communities like Marjah and the key population centers along the Helmand River Valley — and areas like them around the country — is the first goal of the American strategy. The fewer key population centers the Taliban can count on, the more dispersed — and militarily inefficient — their forces will be. This will hardly destroy the Taliban, but destruction isn’t the goal. The Taliban are not simply a militant Islamist force. At times they are a flag of convenience for businessmen or thugs; they can even be, simply, the least-bad alternative for villagers desperate for basic security and civil services. In many parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban are not only pervasive but also the sole option for governance and civil authority.

So destruction of what is in essence part of the local cultural and political fabric is not an American goal. Instead, the goal is to prevent the Taliban from mounting large-scale operations that could overwhelm any particular location. Remember, the Americans do not wish to pacify Afghanistan; the Americans wish to leave Afghanistan in a form that will not cause the United States severe problems down the road. In effect, achieving the first goal simply aims to shape the ground for a shot at achieving the second.

That second goal is to establish a domestic authority that can stand up to the Taliban in the long run. Most of the surge of forces into Afghanistan is not designed to battle the Taliban now but to secure the population and train the Afghan security forces to battle the Taliban later. To do this, the Taliban must be weak enough in a formal military sense to be unable to launch massive or coordinated attacks. Capturing key population centers along the Helmand River Valley is the first step in a strategy designed to create the breathing room necessary to create a replacement force, preferably a replacement force that provides Afghans with a viable alternative to the Taliban.

That is no small task. In recent years, in places where the official government has been corrupt, inept or defunct, the Taliban have in many cases stepped in to provide basic governance and civil authority. And this is why even the Americans are publicly flirting with holding talks with certain factions of the Taliban in hopes that at least some of the fighters can be dissuaded from battling the Americans (assisting with the first goal) and perhaps even joining the nascent Afghan government (assisting with the second).

The bottom line is that this battle does not mark the turning of the tide of the war. Instead, it is part of the application of a new strategy that accurately takes into account Afghanistan’s geography and all the weaknesses and challenges that geography poses. Marjah marks the first time the United States has applied a plan not to hold the line, but actually to reshape the country. We are not saying that the strategy will bear fruit. Afghanistan is a corrupt mess populated by citizens who are far more comfortable thinking and acting locally and tribally than nationally. In such a place indigenous guerrillas will always hold the advantage. No one has ever attempted this sort of national restructuring in Afghanistan, and the Americans are attempting to do so in a short period on a shoestring budget.

At the time of this writing, this first step appears to be going well for American-NATO-Afghan forces. Casualties have been light and most of Marjah already has been secured. But do not read this as a massive battlefield success. The assault required weeks of obvious preparation, and very few Taliban fighters chose to remain and contest the territory against the more numerous and better armed attackers. The American challenge lies not so much in assaulting or capturing Marjah but in continuing to deny it to the Taliban. If the Americans cannot actually hold places like Marjah, then they are simply engaging in an exhausting and reactive strategy of chasing a dispersed and mobile target.

A “government-in-a-box” of civilian administrators is already poised to move into Marjah to step into the vacuum left by the Taliban. We obviously have major doubts about how effective this box government can be at building up civil authority in a town that has been governed by the Taliban for most of the last decade. Yet what happens in Marjah and places like it in the coming months will be the foundation upon which the success or failure of this effort will be built. But assessing that process is simply impossible, because the only measure that matters cannot be judged until the Afghans are left to themselves.



This report is republished with permission of
STRATFOR


.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

UPDATE AFGHANISTAN: GEN STANLEY McCHRYSTAL



STORMBRINGER already alerted on how General McChrystal’s politically correct instincts resulted in the Pat Tillman Silver star fiasco.

So what’s the deal with McChrystal’s initial command guidance to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan?

NEW US BATTLE RULE: NO FIGHTING NEAR AFGHAN HOMES

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday . . .
. . . McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."


General Stanley McChrystal has just broken a combination of Rules No 2 and No 3 of Sean Linnane’s 3 Rules of Leadership:

#1 Never Lie to the Troops

#2 Never tell a man to do anything you’re not willing to do yourself.

#3 Never Give an Order you know won’t be obeyed.


McChrystal's command guidance forces combat commanders and NCOs to modify their behavior, to seek loopholes – in military planning terms, this General Officer guidance is known as an artificial constraint.

General McChrystal's order basically outlines tactical guidance for the enemy: if you were the Taliban, where would you initiate all contact from now on?

This order will cause our forces to hesitate under fire, and in combat hesitation is fatal.

Essentially, we've just instituted the same self-imposed "no-fire" zones that assisted our Communist enemies in Vietnam.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence," and not the number of militants killed.


I agree with one aspect of this sentence: in war, body count math is not a measure of victory.