Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My life with the mujaheddin: on the daunting task facing allied troops in the air or on the ground
The Times ^ | September 23 2001 | Tom Carew

Posted on 09/24/2001 8:06:51 AM PDT by Pericles

September 23 2001

Tom Carew, an SAS soldier who helped turn Afghanistan's fighters into an effective modern guerrilla force, on the daunting task facing allied troops in the air or on the ground

My life with the mujaheddin

When you're wounded and left, On Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out, To cut up your remains, Just roll on your rifle, And blow out your brains, And go to your Gawd, Like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling

One of the SAS soldiers who helped the Afghan guerrillas to become a better fighting force

We were there to assess the Afghan fighting capability and to retrieve Soviet equipment. It was 1980, the Russians had just invaded and the Afghans were fighting a superpower with the same tactics they had used against the British before the first world war. Watching them fight was like watching an old western: the Russian cowboys would come into a valley and down would stream the Afghan Indians. My task was to teach the Afghans modern guerrilla tactics. Without them, they would be exterminated.

I tried to go without preconceptions, but it was hard. Before leaving Britain, everyone told me to be careful. The Afghans are barbaric, they'll chop you up, they said.

My boss at MI6 gave me a Flashman novel about a cowardly British officer in the first British Afghan war of 1839-42. It was full of knife-wielding maniacs who carved up British soldiers. After a few months adjusting, however, I found the Afghans to be very pleasant. We got along. I respected their bravery; they respected the way I instructed them.

I had much more difficulty coping with the terrain. When I arrived in Peshawar, an Afghan military leader warned me: "I hope you are fit, my men march very quickly." No problem, I thought, I was used to marching. But my God: up, up, up we went. We entered the Hindu Kush mountains and started climbing. Above 10,000ft the oxygen started to thin and my concentration to lapse. The Afghans were used to it. There was only one thing we had over them: most of them couldn't swim, which made crossing lakes and streams tricky.

As fighting terrain, Afghanistan is a nightmare. It's a natural fortress. You can't get far with vehicles - you get bogged down, and the passes are too steep. Laden infantry troops could take five days to reach a beleaguered outpost, a journey that would take a helicopter 20 minutes.

The Russians, consequently, had an awful time. It's one thing to put in your infantry, but you've got to keep them within range of your artillery. With difficult mountain passes, this is almost impossible.

None of this matters to the Afghans: they have it all organised, moving from one village to the next, where they have stocks of food. This is how they have fought and won wars for 200 years, with little bases all over the place and holes in the ground where everything is buried. This allows them to carry as little as possible and to cover ground much faster than a western force could.

We didn't use tents, we lived in caves or slept rough. Most of the army carried just a weapon, three magazines of ammunition and some nan bread, all wrapped in a shawl on their back. No western soldier could carry heavy equipment and keep up with them.

For a foreign army, establishing a supply route would be very difficult. To try to carry food and water up those mountains, some of which are 13,000ft high, would be madness. You have to carry bottled water and each gallon weighs 10lb. On some days, we were going through two to three gallons. A soldier in those hills is going to burn 4,000-5,000 calories a day. You need high-calorie rations and the Afghans can live on a lot less.

And, of course, there is the weather. Towards the end of this month, winter starts setting in. It begins with rain, then it freezes, then it snows. By mid-October the snow will be up to neck height. A journey that takes three days in summer will take 10 days in winter - and of course in snow you leave tracks. The freezing conditions rule out helicopter support, and the mist in the valleys invites crashes.

The Afghan fighters know the mountains as well as a Welsh farmer knows his hills. I heard someone suggest last week that the ground could be covered by putting in a series of four-man teams. That idea is ridiculous. The Hindu Kush is a vast expanse. What can a four-man team do that you can't do with a satellite? Never mind a needle in a haystack; it's like a needle in Wembley stadium.

Besides, a western taskforce will stick out like a sore thumb. Most of the Afghan fighters wear sandals soled with old car-tyre treads - the ones I was given to wear were crippling. This means a western bootprint is instantly trackable.

Once identified, the Russian soldiers were sitting targets. We trained the Afghans in "shoot and scoot"; they would lay a little ambush, let rip and disappear. They picked it up quickly. Before long, they had learnt to let the Russian convoys get halfway up a pass and then blow a hole through their middle. The lucky ones died instantly. The unlucky ones were chopped to pieces in the aftermath. In the Hindu Kush, don't expect to appeal to the Geneva convention.

Other training procedures we put them through included marksmanship, tactical movement, training with weapons, anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans had been keen we teach them urban terrorism tactics too - car bombing and so on - so that they could strike at Russians in major towns. Personally, I wasn't prepared to do that, although I realised that eventually they would find someone who was.

The Taliban don't have much in the way of weapons. When I arrived, all they had were old 303s, sniper rifles, and some bolt-action guns. They weren't used to semi-automatics, very few had Kalashnikovs, only those they had captured from the Soviets or that had been presented to them by the many deserters from the Afghan puppet regime's conscript army.

Now, of course, they are more sophisticated, but a lot of weapons won't have been upgraded since the Russian war. They might have a few Stingers left - one of the best shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles. But whether they're serviceable is debatable: weapons maintenance is virtually zero, many left to lie around in the heat and dust so they were rusting beyond use.

They do have a lot of old ZSU-23s, one of Saddam Hussein's favourite weapons. It's a three-barrel, 50-calibre machinegun, usually arranged in groups of two, three or four. It has a range of about 4,000 yards, so if you're coming in on a helicopter and have four of these blasting away at you from the back of Toyota pick-ups, it's devastating.

Then there are the landmines. In the early 1980s the Afghans cleared a buffer zone between Pakistan and Afghanistan - an area equal to four days' walk - then put in observation posts on the high ground and mined it all. Everything that entered the area was obliterated and it is possible that the ground is still mined.

As for the composition of the army, back in the 1980s most of the men were 17-24 years old. In some ways, the Afghan soldiers were no different from young men everywhere and there was great camaraderie. One thing that struck me, though, was their discipline and motivation: they never complained, they got on with it.

As time went by I began to realise that this stemmed from their respect for their commander: there was no officer-soldier gap, they all mucked in together, but their respect was absolute. Their discipline was hardly ever relaxed - they might occasionally smoke opium (much of which was being cultivated and smuggled to fund the war), but for religious reasons they wouldn't drink. They would get up at first light for prayers and cover some distance before the sun came up. They would stop five times a day for prayer, although never during battle - fortunately the Koran says that in combat you are excused prayers. But they always prayed afterwards.

They were devout Muslims, but not fanatics. At night sentries would call out every 30 minutes "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) - this would give away our position, but then I imagine the Soviets had the same problem with their Afghan soldiers.

In terms of their efficiency as an army, their biggest problem was the mullah influence. Because of the doctrine that it is a great honour to die in a holy war - that from the moment you enrol as a soldier you are in fact dead, that every day is borrowed time until you die in glory and take your seat at Allah's right hand - they were fearless and took risks that western soldiers perhaps would not.

It is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely that Bin Laden is hiding in the mountains. He must have a base from where he can communicate. He can't communicate from inside the Hindu Kush. He is more likely to be on the northwest frontier of Pakistan, a heavily populated area that the West will be loath to attack. Besides, he will want to be somewhere where he can see CNN coverage of the attack on America. Most of the Afghan military leaders I encountered operated from the comfort of Peshawar in Pakistan. They didn't take part in any fighting, because they wanted to be around when it was over to reap the benefits.

If it comes to a ground war, I believe the western forces will have a very slim chance of victory. The last army to win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great's.

The Afghans are a formidable enemy and one of the legacies of the war with Russia was their need to increase the production of opium to pay for it. Afghanistan is now one of the most important sources of raw material for the narcotics trade, and the money has been going into somebody's pocket. I should know: I saw it being grown, smoked and transported.

The other terrible legacy of that war was the military knowhow we gave them: we in the West pointed them in the right direction and, with a little bit of training, they went a long way.

Tom Carew served in 16 Parachute Brigade and 22 SAS Regiment. Since leaving the army he has worked for the US Defence Intelligence Agency and the US Drug Enforcement Administration. He is also the author of Jihad! The Secret War in Afghanistan. A version of this article appeared in The Guardian


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
The Americans had been keen we teach them urban terrorism tactics too - car bombing and so on - so that they could strike at Russians in major towns. Personally, I wasn't prepared to do that, although I realised that eventually they would find someone who was.

The other terrible legacy of that war was the military knowhow we gave them: we in the West pointed them in the right direction and, with a little bit of training, they went a long way.

Time to make up for our mistakes and clean house there.

1 posted on 09/24/2001 8:06:51 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pericles
The Americans had been keen we teach them urban terrorism tactics too - car bombing and so on - so that they could strike at Russians in major towns.

This is patently untrue. A CIA official who helped train the Afghans during the 80's said the CIA specifically told them not to use car bombs or truck bombs because "there's no numbers in it."

2 posted on 09/24/2001 8:24:36 AM PDT by Heisenburger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
And just how should we do that?

"If it comes to a ground war, I believe the western forces will have a very slim chance of victory. The last army to win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great's."

Our problem is compunded by the fact that Afghanistan is surrounded on all sides by enemies of our country. Even Pakistan cannot be counted on when the chips are down.

3 posted on 09/24/2001 8:29:09 AM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
re : Time to make up for our mistakes and clean house there.

Both us and the Soviets fought a proxy war all over the world, if only we had not armed the Afghanistan’s, if only the Soviets had not invaded, if only we could all be nice to each other.

We did what we had to do because the circumstances at the time demanded it.

Afghanistan tamed the Soviets taste for expansion, if Afghanistan had been a walk over where next.

When the Soviets withdrew we lost interest, countries in a destitute state without a credible form of government are easy meat for fanatics and extremists

Tony

4 posted on 09/24/2001 8:31:36 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixierat22
re : And just how should we do that?

By using both covert and overt means.

The Talibans power base is very shaky , mainly supported and funded by Pakistan Intelligence, and Arab mercenaries.

There are more than enough potential allies in that region who want to see the end of the Taliban. This also includes many Afghanistan’s groups

Tony

5 posted on 09/24/2001 8:35:17 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Beyond guerilla tactics the Taliban are not much of a conventional force in Afghanistan. They have trouble against the Northern Alliance whom they outnumber 10 to 1. Since the Taliban have no sympathizers within the Northern Alliances quilt works of warlords they resort to the tactics of brawling amatuers, frontal assualts against fixed defenses.

As long as we are there to kill the terror network and not occupy and nation build we will win this war, big time.

6 posted on 09/24/2001 8:44:22 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heisenburger, dixierat22, tonycavanagh
Beyond guerilla tactics the Taliban are not much of a conventional force in Afghanistan. They have trouble against the Northern Alliance whom they outnumber 10 to 1. Since the Taliban have no sympathizers within the Northern Alliances quilt works of warlords they resort to the tactics of brawling amatuers, frontal assualts against fixed defenses.

As long as we are there to kill the terror network and not occupy and nation build we will win this war, big time.

7 posted on 09/24/2001 8:48:45 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
To be read and not underestimated.
8 posted on 09/24/2001 8:51:31 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh, Travis McGee
The author is warning us that we should not occupy Afghanistan when he illsutrates the point about car bombs. You can debate the cold war later. Just know that if we occupy Afghanistan expect barracks to be blown up as fast as we can build them.

Alexander won in Bactria (as this land was called then) because he created 3 conditions for victory.

1) Secure bases from which to rest his troops, in our case they can be in other states away from Afghanistans fighters.

2) Flying columns. The phalanx was useless in Bactria against mobile light cavalry. The Phalanx stayed put while the Macednian and allied cavalry would ride between strong point and strong point. We can uses helicopters for the spec-op boys.

3) By driving the population into the mountains to starve the flying columns of the Greek mixed light and heavy cavalry (combined arms on horseback) broke the resistance of the Bactrian light cavalry guerillas. After some years the Bactrians cut off the head of their war lord and sent it to Alexander as a peace offering.

Lucky for us starvation and hostile local populations that already hate the Taliban will do that last bit for us, Allah willing.

9 posted on 09/24/2001 8:59:47 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
The article states truth, but leaves out an important point. While the Afghans may be fierce they are as blind as bats come nightfall. Our forces are not blind, we fight in a way that shocks and overwhelms our enemies at night. They will not be able to take waking up about to die night after night, they will forego sleep, or die trying.
10 posted on 09/24/2001 9:04:19 AM PDT by Ispy4u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
I agree, I never saw the logic of using a large number of ground troops, I am always a firm believer in getting the best use out of any local resource available

Tony

11 posted on 09/24/2001 9:04:41 AM PDT by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete,gonzo,harpseal,Squantos,pocat,nunyabidness,SLB
Formidable.
12 posted on 09/24/2001 9:06:33 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
American military doctrine is based on learning the mistakes of other nations and forces, among other things.

We can sit here and armchair quarterback this whole effort, but as in the Gulf War a lot of people will be very surprised.

13 posted on 09/24/2001 9:18:42 AM PDT by kahoutek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kahoutek
I wasn't. The best laugh I had was when I saw amphibian exercises before the offensive. With all that flat desert who would believe such a ruse. Well Sadam did but that's Sadam for you.
14 posted on 09/24/2001 9:36:49 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
My personal opinion is that we are way overestimating the enemy, as we did with Iraq. I believe we shall kick their sorry butts.
15 posted on 09/24/2001 10:12:55 AM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
What I would give for some Nan bread, and a persian melon right now. Still miss it.
16 posted on 09/24/2001 10:29:01 AM PDT by ODDITHER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Never underestimate the enemy

Napoleon

17 posted on 09/24/2001 11:24:36 AM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pericles
Truer words were never spoken. Remember, before the Gulf War, we painted the Iraqis up as being these heavy duty, bada$$, almost bigger than life killers of American youth. Forunately, we grossly overestimated them.

We need to approach these terrorists with caution.Keep in mind, they are not limited to Afghanistan. It is a world wide network.

18 posted on 09/24/2001 11:35:49 AM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
Our snake eaters are really good. I know many of them and definitely am aware of the type of training and caliber of people they are. The task you ask of them would be large. Even with local help, the difficulties would be many. A conventional ground campaign is out of the question. Conventional airstrikes would be a possibility. Any way you cut it, there are monumental risks involved.
19 posted on 09/24/2001 4:09:44 PM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kahoutek
American military doctrine is based on learning the mistakes of other nations and forces, among other things.

Well said. And hopefully, this has been learned:
Text file version: THE LIMITS OF SOVIET AIRPOWER: THE BEAR VERSUS THE MUJAHIDEEN IN AFGHANISTAN, 1979-1989
PDF file version:THE LIMITS OF SOVIET AIRPOWER: THE BEAR VERSUS THE MUJAHIDEEN IN AFGHANISTAN, 1979-1989

By : EDWARD B. WESTERMANN - A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS. SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES, AIR UNIVERSITY, MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, JUNE 1997

--------

This is an excellent paper which I surely hope has been read by our military leaders. It should also be read by Freerepublic armchair war strategists.....

20 posted on 09/24/2001 6:34:13 PM PDT by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson