Petraeus - Re-visiting NATO ROE in Afghanistan

[SeanNewman]

Retention...recruiting...equipment...funding...our wounded...veterans affairs...and so on.  Most importantly, the morale of the soldiers who will have to revert back to a non-war army.

There is no problem with recruiting and no problem with funding.  I will grant you that the bills for post-Afghanistan veterans are going to be enormous, both for physical and mental injuries, and nobody doubts that.

However, ask anyone who served until the 90s and then got out how much they would have complained about our current budgets.

Ask them if they'd mind flying into Afghanistan on our C17s, then driving around in our LAVs and Leopard 2A6s, or pulling the lanyards on M777s or doing an airmobile op on our Chinooks.  And while they're there they can take advantage of being the best-equipped soldiers in the world in terms of PPE, small arms, ammunition, and STANO.

Oh, we also make twice as much now and don't pay taxes.  All of those issues help retention, and if someone wants to get out after everything above I say "Get the _____ out".

As for your final point, everyone at the top has already stated the Army will not sit idle post-Afghanistan and Canada should be fully prepared to have soldiers in action for a long time, wherever it may be.  Units are already being warned off to have their troops ready to go for 2012.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

and if someone wants to get out after everything above I say "Get the _____ out".

And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the fuck up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the fuck out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.

Normally I would have sent you a PM to express this, but as this is all on the boards, I thought this the appropriate venue for push back.

My two cents worth - take it or leave it.

 

[rampage800]

And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the frig up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the frig out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.

This could possibly be the best information on this entire thread forum, well said !!!

 

[Teeps74]

When attempting to win over political/public support for this or any future mission, it is certainly defeatist to come out and say, "We can not win...".

COIN demands knowledge on ALL fronts, military and political... And an acceptance that an insurgency will not be won over night. Nor even in a year or two. This insurgency has been fomenting for the past 30 years. The locals are bruised and battered, and because most of us have now given departure dates, they are likely going to take the side (grudgingly) of those who will remain. The locals ARE the Centre of Gravity in this situation. Fail to gain the local support (or at least keep the locals uncommitted), and you may as well stay in KAF, and maintain the airhead.

We could win in Afghanistan. Saying we can't is a sure fire prophecy tho.

Last point, before I withdraw. We have all spilt blood sweat and tears in that country. We have all buried our friends and family as a result of that place. We have seen our subordinates, peers and superiors come back messed up. We are all going to take this subject very sensitively... Walking into the room and swinging a sledgehammer about saying, "I'm right, you're wrong!" is exactly the wrong tact. This thread is filled with plenty of that... And so, with rising blood pressure, I withdraw.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Haha, that's hilarious that you had a one word reply and edited it.

Did you originally write "no" and then have a bad day?

LOLZZZ!!!!!1111
You really find that "Hilarious"?.
You gotta get out more.

I wrote a longer reply talking about how the Taliban aren't cowards for using IEDs anymore than we're cowards for dropping bombs from remote controlled airplanes. The notion of fighting fairly is stupid, we need to fight to win.
When we hold someone,  detainees get 3 square meals a day that some of their peers would murder for (Better fed than some Canadians, too). maybe some sleep dep.
What happens when they cross the Taliban?  they're worm food. 
I'm not suggesting murdering people but they need top think crossing NATO forces is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Cut out the niceties. Theres people in Afghanistan who have the desire to and are capable of attacking us.  We tell the people that crap is unacceptable and were going after them, they can help us or try and stay out of the way.

I edited the comment because I felt it rude to jump wholly into the convo with Kiwi when he was addressing teeps.

Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?

 

[GAP]

from his previous comments he's a REMF...

 

[Kiwi99]

Petamocto, sure, right now there are no problems with recruiting and yes we have world class kit.  But how many of those men and women join today to fight in Afghanistan tomorrow?  With no war the recruit numbers will fall, of this I am sure.  And our world class it will deteriorate over time.  With no battle to fight there is no need for kit, as seen by the politicians.  The Canadian public may agree to a UN mission somewhere, but no Government that wants to remain the Government is going to commit CF troops to another war zone.

You obviously have not grasped the issue that is facing the CF over the next five years.  I suggest that you speak with your peers and subordinates to hear their impression of what the future holds.  Although I have a sneaky suspicion that they will be wrong and you will be right.

And you really should answer Apollos question in order to maintain any semblance of credibility.

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry to interupt the bunfight - for those of 3-24:

Getting out into the communities.  Do Afghans want us there?

Secure the populace from the insurgency - how do you secure a populace from itself?

Look up the term Intifada - the British experience of 1839-1842, 1878-1880, and 1919 serve as good examples.  What does this mean for pop-centric COIN theory?

 

[SeanNewman]

Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?

Most of my time dealing with the locals was in regards to their damage compensation (when we would run their car off the road, drive through their field, knock down their wall, etc).  And it was quite often.

PPCLI Guy,

Since you have publicly called me out, I will publicly defend myself.  Implying that I do not listen to Sgts is flat out wrong and I don't care if you're a Colonel or not: I call BS.  Every single task I have ever completed has only been after an in depth quest for knowledge and experience from anyone I worked with.

Just because I think that this Sgt is wrong doesn't mean I don't like Sgts or value their input.

Further, since my post was not read properly, I was not saying "Get the ____ out" to him, but those people who still want to get out of the Army even though there are so many reasons to stay in.  I was attacking them, not him, so your VP-brethren defence of him was for naught because I wasn't saying anything bad to him.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And I say that any Junior Officer that lacks the common courtesy and common sense to shut the fuck up and listen to the opinion of a Sr NCO should get the fuck out.  You don't have to agree with said opinion, but you DO have to listen - politely, respectfully, and without ego - and this is especially true in an Internet situation, when you are allowing tempers to rise in the "ether" that I trust you would have the common sense not to if you were in the smoking area.

Normally I would have sent you a PM to express this, but as this is all on the boards, I thought this the appropriate venue for push back.

My two cents worth - take it or leave it.

Thank you, PPCLI Guy, for saying that. As a retired senior officer I was remiss in not stepping in earlier to remind him of the realities of commissioned service; it should not have to be left, here in these social fora, for senior serving officers to step up, publicly, but I agree you had no choice.

Regards

ERC

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

1.  I have invested a great deal of my time in winning this thing.

2.  Solely to see the part at the end when he says "Orders end" and then gives his motivation to the platoon, which I want to see for entertainment: "Gents, we've been at these VFFA and the 1 PGD a long time, and I have to be honest when I say that I don't think we can take 'em".

Looks like you did indeed slag Kiwi.  You can disagree with him, but why do you have to attack him personally by literally putting words in his mouth?  Adding the bit about your being at his future leadership courses in the previous post is also offside.

Lets leave accusations of "defeatist talk" for other IA organizations.

Cheers

 

[vonGarvin]

Secure the populace from the insurgency - how do you secure a populace from itself?

I know it's getting rather tiresome that I keep posting pics of H-Bombs, but....

"H-Bomb" of another sort.  ;D

Anyway, not to protect that populace from itself, but to protect us from them.  And I don't mean all Afghans.  I mean Pashtuns.  Not all, but make it clear: if village 'x' decides to join the other side, then village 'x' will be labelled enemy and will be eradicated.  One IED = Light out.  Or lights on.  Whichever.

 

[Jammer]

Just curious Petamocto, when you were over in afghanistan how much time did you spend outside the wire and dealing with the locals?
[/quote]

Not much...Oh yes it's KAF...very nice.

 

[Good2Golf]

Petamocto, some food for thought, and feel free to take it or leave it as you see fit, but a very wise Sr. NCO whom I respect greatly once told me, "Sir, may I suggest you not be too firmly attached to your position [opinion], so that when it falls, you do too..."  Good words then, and just as applicable these days as they were when I benefited from them the first time.


There are times when it is okay to pause for a moment, hoist the situation around you aboard, and accept without shame that you might have been too closely tied emotionally to an issue such that your conduct was less than exemplary.

2 more ¢ paid forward from a wise old soldier...

Cheers
G2G

 

[Kiwi99]

All,

regardless of personal feelings and opinions, regardless of experiance in Afghanistan or lack of, time to get this tread back on track. 

The use of firepower and the damage it causes is a double edged sword.  It needs to be discussed in depth.  We all have our own opinions on it.  Those of us who have needed it in very dire circumstances care not if there is collateral damage at the time.  I am quite sure that anybody pinned down would accept anything in order to reduce the enemies volume of fire.  Those who have not experianced such a thing are able to look at it from a more political standpoint, winning the populace, negative effects etc.  Somewhere in there is middle ground.  But the guy who goes out looking for a fight, ie, a combat patrol, may not look as hard if he has a feeling he wont get support if he gets brewed up because of where he is or who is around him.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kiwi, your point is very valid, as exemplified by the changing sentiment/frustration of some of the US troops to GEN McChrystal's tightening ROE in the latter part of his command.  The context of supporting fires within the tactical / operational / strategic framework is not a simple one, that's for sure.  Having been present at a number of (then BG) McChrystal's briefs to his CG at the time (then LG) Eikenberry, I am certain that he very clearly understood the complexity of the kinetic/non-kinetic/effects issue within the larger context...as does, I believe, GEN Patreaus.  I am equally convinced, however, that both men had different slants on the overall common theme of kintetic effects to support the empowerment of the Afghan's own security forces and government at large.

Cheers
G2G

 

[Infanteer]

Further, since my post was not read properly,

You realize you say this too often.

 

[armyvern]

Thank you PPCLI Guy (the PPCLI) and Mr. Campbell (Retd, The RCR). ~ Although I think the claim of the original comment being responded to by PPCLI Guy as "caused by Regimental Affiliation" is purely out to lunch.

Well said; and I truely appreciate the non-PC version of the "STFU" recommendations. Perhaps now someone will learn from it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Most of my time dealing with the locals was in regards to their damage compensation (when we would run their car off the road, drive through their field, knock down their wall, etc).  And it was quite often.

I don't envy that. for a few months I was dealing with kinda the same thing, except sometimes it's them showing up with their injured twisted up family members in the back of a car begging for medical care.

When they want something (more so for monitary compensation)  they're your best friend, love NATO, screw the taliban and will tell you what they think you wanna hear. 
To really see what "the people" think and want you gotta catch them when their guard is down.  I was pretty shocked when I started hearing more and more how they would make comments like "atleast when the Taliban were here we had power".  Of course they don't see the reason why they don't have power is because the Taliban is ruining shit in their bid for power. They just see that their quality of life was mostly better then they were here.



Kiwi we're not going to loose the war. It's not a win/loose ww2 kind of senario where our enemies will put their guns down and their hands up.
Are we going to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan? No way. The west doesn't have the resolve for that (yet). 

We're  "winning" because Taliban bombs aren't ripping through bus's in downtown Toronto or Taliban suicide bombers aren't lighting themselves up in the Market in Ottawa.    Left to their own it's only a matter of time before they do.

 

[Kiwi99]

Apollo, I have to disagree on your last point about bombs in buses etc.  Bevause that isnt happening is by no means an indicator of winning.  It is simply an indicator of their patience and resolve.  Sooner or later the general public and security services are going to get lax again, people will start to demand that some of the security barries are removed, that you dont need to be searched before boarding an aircraft etc.  That is when the enemy will strike.  So to say we are winning because their are no explosions in down town Toronto is actually false.  To say we are at a stalemate would be more appropriatte. And in a stalemate one side always breaks before the other.  Unfortunatley, history has shown that they will not be the first to crack.