Posted on 02/27/2010 10:49:37 AM PST by HokieMom
THE Taliban have found a way to beat American airpower. And they have managed this remarkable feat with American help.
The consequences of this development are front and center in the current offensive in Marja, Afghanistan, where air support to American and Afghan forces has been all but grounded by concerns about civilian casualties.
American and NATO military leaders — worried by Taliban propaganda claiming that air strikes have killed an inordinate number of civilians, and persuaded by “hearts and minds” enthusiasts that the key to winning the war is the Afghan population’s goodwill — have largely relinquished the strategic advantage of American air dominance. Last July, the commander of Western forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued a directive that air strikes (and long-range artillery fire) be authorized only under “very limited and prescribed conditions.”
So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim.
In Marja, American and Afghan troops have shown great skill in routing the Taliban occupiers. But news reports indicate that our troops under heavy attack have had to wait an hour or more for air support, so that insurgents could be positively identified. “We didn’t come to Marja to destroy it, or to hurt civilians,” a Marine officer told reporters after waiting 90 minutes before the Cobra helicopters he had requested showed up with their Hellfire missiles. He’s right that the goal is not to kill bystanders or destroy towns, but an overemphasis on civilian protection is now putting American troops on the defensive in what is intended to be a major offensive.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We would be talking a very different story right now.
That has my vote.
That part of the world needed a demonstration project.
We failed to deliver.
A tactical nuke would have sent a message, in a place like Mecca or Medina.
Afghanistan? Not much.
I’d be a wasted effort.
I’d = It’d.
Whoops!
Well, that’s true...but when they’re being effective because we’re the ones giving them the advantage, I think somebody has to stand up and say something about it.
The current ROE is integral to current COIN doctrine. To change the ROE, you need to switch to hi intensity conflict. This will not be done.
Er, that’s what she’s saying. We are so concerned about civilian casualties that the current ROE and tactics make us give up our big advantage.
Hi-intensity conflict is not appropriate for the area.
Her point is that this is war, it’s ugly, and civilian lives are going to be lost no matter what, so we should go for it. Why drag it out when we could win quickly?
BTW, what is your definition of "win?"
Killing the enemy and making their leaders surrender. Is there some other definition?
Her whole point is that the “kill civilians = make enemies” chant is wrong, since you will end up killing civilans anyway, although perhaps in a more drawn out way, but you will also risk losing your advantage if you drag it out. That’s one of the facts of war, like it or not.
But now that I realize that your position is the same as Bambi’s (”we’re not looking for victory”), I guess I understand where you’re coming from and why you didn’t like her analysis.
My older son, the Soldier, left for Afghanistan today. My younger son, the Marine, will probably end up there as well.
Dear Lord, we pray that You would be a shield around those serving in harm’s way. Keep them safe, grant them victory over the enemy, and give their families peace knowing they are in the palm of Your hand. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
I recommend that you read...start with Henry Liddell Hart's book Strategy: The Indirect Approach for a historical perspective; The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual [With Forewords by General David H. Petraeus and Lt. General James F. Amos and by Lt. Colonel John A. Nagl]; and FM 3-24.
To suggest that Nobama is formulating COIN doctrine only reveals how certifiably ignorant you are.
“Is it possible that our military superiority is so overwhelming that we actually can fight nice wars now?”
The capacity of the United States to fight a war “Full Bore” is more frighteneing than most people realize. WE can kill with UNBELIEVABLE efficiency and speed.
However, a huge amout of the money spent on weapons and the training spent on our military is to keep FROM killing innocents.
Think about it this way. Take a B2 bomber. You can load it with 80 conventional, 500-lb bombs. These bombs can all be GPS programmable, independantly targeted.
One bombing run, by an “invisible” bomber and 80 discreet targets can be eliminated. One pass over Manhattan could eliminate every bridge out of Manhattan, maybe even all teh tunnell entrances. One pass, the island is isolated.
The Us Military has capabilites that, if fully unleashed, would pretty much shock the rest of the world.
By we don’t unleadh them because they kill so easily. Our present day mode of operation is to conquer without killing. That is hard.
McChrystal is retarded and licks obambi butt daily. He should be replaced by the Commandant of the Marine Corps who instead of kissing obambi butt KICKS IT.
It is hard to believe the scumbag NY Times published this.
Color me very surprised.
(( ping ))
In a short while Generals Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and others will be posthumously tried for war crimes as they gave the orders to stage the D-Day landings that caused thousands of civilian deaths in the ill-advised attempt to drive the NAZIS from occupied Europe.
Then will come the trial of Nimitz, LeMay, and MacArthur for committing the same heinous crimes in the Pacific.
The concern for those poor civilians caught in the fighting in Afghanistan will be counted in the additional deaths of young AMERICANS.
Years ago, in other wars, American officers were concerned about the welfare of their troops...FIRST.
///////////////////
EXACTLY
If we had fought the moslems after 9/11 like we fought the Tojo Japanese and the Nazi Germans. This entire Islamic Terror would have been over in one year tops.
INSTEAD it keeps on going .....and instead of Unconditional Surrender from Iran Syria Iraq Afghanistan Libya. ...we have nothing to show for it. Iraq is still a country where the Constitution states ....
NO LAW SHALL CONTRADICT ISLAM.
Where they still consider US = INFIDELS
What the hell did we spend all that money and all that BLOOD?
The PC Pentagon Brains think that this lovey dovey war making is sucessfull because we have not loss. They are afraid of the word WIN.
And the nail in their and our coffin will be TIME. Time is not on our side. Everyday that passes, moslems gain more technology....and with a President named Barach HUEISSAN OBAMA, our technology is being placed on hold, and in the case of NASA, stopped dead in its tracks.
Time is not our friend.
And worse than just ceding an advantage, the enemy is getting more and more proficient at using the ROE against us. For example, Taliban fighters will empty a rifle from a house, drop the weapon and walk out unarmed, knowing that they will not be fired upon, then go around the corner to another stockpile of rifles and take up a new position with a fresh rifle and full mags. It's sick.
It’s the NYTimes. They are not publishing anything to help us achieve victory truthful or not. They know Americans don’t like it when the military has to fight with one hand tied behind them.
It’s intended to demorialize everyone, and loose support for the WOT. Just one more way to try to turn this into Vietnam, and make it appear we are losing, and need to quit. Always be skeptical of anything you read in the NYT. They are not our friends.
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.