Taliban Snipers take toll on American Military

[variablebinary]

Those SCAR-H's better get a good work out of these sons of bitches.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sharp-rise-in-army-deaths-from-small-arms-fire-prompts-inquiry-into-taliban-snipers-2006092.html


Commanders in Afghanistan are examining whether a sharp rise in troops being killed by gunfire is a sign that a better trained or equipped Taliban is targeting soldiers with snipers.

More soldiers have been killed by small arms fire in the past four months than in the whole of any previous year. While deaths by bullet accounted for just 13 per cent of those killed in combat in 2009, that figure has risen to almost 40 per cent in recent months.

Most worrying is the indication that a proportion of these were accurate single shots from sharpshooters, or even trained snipers, rather than the traditionally haphazard "spray and pray" method used by the locally recruited Taliban.

While roadside bombs continue to be the greatest killer in Afghanistan, the latest deaths could prove a disturbing indication of a change in insurgent tactics. Since the early days of the fighting in Helmand, the Taliban has retreated from fierce battles, opting for IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

Over one nine-month period, not a single UK serviceman was killed by gunfire and the focus has been on tackling the lethal devices that carpet the southern Afghan province.

Yet the deaths of Corporal Taniela Tolevu Rogoiruwai and Kingsman Ponipate Tagitaginimoce, of the 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, in Nad Ali, on Tuesday brought the total killed by small arms fire to 14 since February, out of 38 who have died in combat.

Most worryingly, five Britons were killed in a 10 day period in Sangin, raising fears of a sharpshooter who appeared to be targeting trained British snipers. On 6 March Rifleman Liam Maughan, a platoon sharpshooter with the 3rd Battalion The Rifles, was in an overwatch position in Sangin when he was killed.

British commanders are examining the increase in small arms deaths, but say it is too early to know whether this represents a significant change in enemy tactics.

American General James Conway, however, recently told the US House Armed Services Committee: "Right now, the biggest threat in Marjah is not necessarily the IEDs for our killed in action. It is the sniper that takes a long-range shot and can penetrate our protective equipment, particularly the helmet."

He said the Marine Corps was pressing the defence industry to come up with a helmet that can withstand a 7.62mm round from the AK-47 assault rifles favoured by insurgents.

Military experts suggest this latest rise in killings could be an indication of a change in both British and enemy tactics. The Taliban, aware of the focus on tackling bombs, is taking a more aggressive stance. Equally, UK forces, keen to interact with the local population, are conducting more foot patrols with the Afghan National Army and Police in outer lying areas.

Recently, Lieutenant Colonel Nick Kitson, commanding officer of 3 Rifles, wrote in The Independent that the war was being won by altering the focus from larger enclaves to smaller patrol bases among the population, from which frequent, smaller patrols could be sent.

Traditionally, troops moving into new areas will face more gunfire, but that turns to an increased level of roadside bombs once a footprint has been established and the Taliban is predominantly forced out of the area.

"The presence of troops patrolling on the ground, as opposed to vehicles, arguably makes them less vulnerable to IEDs but more vulnerable to small arms fire," explained Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan.

He continued: "It could be that they are getting more effective at countering gun fire with sniper fire. It is a cycle of tactics. They resorted to IEDs but as we counter that threat they respond to it. They are still in a situation where they are reluctant to take us on in firefights but they could be improving their sniping capability."

A senior British military spokesman, Major General Gordon Messenger, added: "It is right that there has been a slightly greater proportion of gunshot fatalities but it would be wrong to leap to conclusions that this represents a significantly changed threat at this stage. Commanders on the ground are constantly looking at the threat they face and adapting their techniques and procedures to counter that threat."

Professor Chris Bellamy, a defence expert from Cranfield University, said the deaths raised the question of whether the Taliban had succeeded in getting better weapons with telescopic or even night sights.

"The Afghans have a long history of exploiting long range, accurate small arms fire against the British in the 1890s and against the Russians in the 1980s. The late Professor John Erickson believed that the mujahideen were using Lee-Enfield rifles and that was the reason for scoring an inordinate number of kills against the Russians," said Professor Bellamy.

US Marines in Marjah and Nad Ali recently revealed that since Operation Moshtarak began, snipers or sharpshooters had hit several of their soldiers, as well as Afghans. One was killed after being hit in the neck by a bullet fired from a range of 500 to 700 yards. Meanwhile, a dead insurgent was found with an ancient but powerful Lee-Enfield rifle.

"The Taliban have got some quite experienced snipers, not many, but we know some have been trained in Iran. They have got people who are very skilled. They are not just sitting in a tree waiting for a patrol to pass. They are setting incidents, knowing the reaction will be that more troops turn up," explained Professor Michael Clarke, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute.

After the "all out war" of 2006, the Taliban learned that IEDs could be more effective but are now altering their tactics again as coalition forces counter that weapon, he said.

"They are retaliating for Operation Moshtarak. They want to prove they have not been beaten. They are transferring into an effective force. There is enough talent within Taliban ranks to keep the ragtag guerrilla force active and dangerous and they are determined to try and hit back."

[Belmont31R]

A helmet to stop 7.62? Even if it stopped the round you still have a couple thousand ft lbs of energy your head and neck have to absorb. Ouch...

[TehLlama]

OP Mushterik was working, but those gains are out the window with the 07/2011 drawdown still on the table.
I'm very glad we didn't see much of this, spray and pray was bad enough. We know they were trying, but they didn't have any trained guys near us.

[Turnkey11]

Enfields are powerful to todays rifle standards, but ancient???

[Gutshot John]

They've learned and adapted to our tactics.

It doesn't require an inordinate amount of skill/time especially when you have foreign militaries training their higher "skilled" proxies. Time to turn our snipers loose.

I'm hopeful that the confirmation of Petraeus that the 7/2011 date will be withdrawn but its time to fish or cut bait. It's almost been 10 years.

[GermanSynergy]

Enfields are powerful to todays rifle standards, but ancient???

I saw that too. If I had to make an educated guess (I've never served or worked in OEF), it can be:

-Better trained Talis
-An influx of wl trained Foreign fighters (Chechens, for example)

[parishioner]

I'm hopeful that the confirmation of Petraeus that the 7/2011 date will be withdrawn but its time to fish or cut bait. It's almost been 10 years.

This can't be said enough.

[Todd.K]

"It is the sniper that takes a long-range shot and can penetrate our protective equipment...a 7.62mm round from the AK-47."

I just thought I'd highlight the reason I don't think this is a great source of good info. They go on to talk about the number of deaths by gunfire and expect us believe it must be snipers without any details of the range and manner they were shot.

[120mm]

I'm hopeful that the confirmation of Petraeus that the 7/2011 date will be withdrawn but its time to fish or cut bait. It's almost been 10 years.

10 years in which we've done very little to actually fight the insurgency.

Up until last fall, there hasn't even been a plan.

Typically, it takes 20 years or more to defeat an insurgency.

Americans lack the attention span to win COIN.

[Failure2Stop]

"It is the sniper that takes a long-range shot and can penetrate our protective equipment...a 7.62mm round from the AK-47."

I just thought I'd highlight the reason I don't think this is a great source of good info. They go on to talk about the number of deaths by gunfire and expect us believe it must be snipers without any details of the range and manner they were shot.

I was just going to post on that.
I think it illustrates the distance between the decisionmakers and the trigger-pullers.

[armakraut]

The Afghan operation should have been a punitive expedition from the start. When we cornered the douches in Tora Bora we should have dropped a big enough nuke on the mountain, bugged out, and called it even.

The best thing we could do would be pull out and let the government cave. When the rats crawl out of the shadows and set up the fun camps again, we get a second chance at a first impression.

Afghans can generally speaking go move anywhere, the ones who stay actually dig the place. Every single country that surrounds them is better economically. Most pashtuns have at least one cousin or uncle in the USA as a first-generation immigrant, there are something like 300,000+ Afghans living here. The ones who stay just like having no government. Roving bands of religious nuts in toyotas who shoot at satellite dishes and homos is about the most government they'll ever tolerate.

[Gutshot John]

10 years in which we've done very little to actually fight the insurgency.

Up until last fall, there hasn't even been a plan.

So?


Typically, it takes 20 years or more to defeat an insurgency.

You're talking about nation-building. Can you give any examples of success? A 20 year (generational) commitment isn't realistic, especially in Afghanistan.


Americans lack the attention span to win COIN.

Then why has our leadership wasted 10 years? Americans have stuck it out through the longest war in our history and even still want to win. That said that this is a COIN is proof that we've let the enemy dictate the war. Hearts and minds be damned. Kill every mother****er you can, leave and say "don't make us come back."

I don't think it's fair to blame this on the American public. Commit to victory or get the hell out.

[Todd.K]

The best thing we could do would be pull out and let the government cave. When the rats crawl out of the shadows and set up the fun camps again, we get a second chance at a first impression.

A stable government that does not allow terrorist training camps is in our best interest. If we pull out to let them fail what do you think the attitude towards us will be next time we have to go there?

[parishioner]

A stable government that does not allow terrorist training camps is in our best interest.

Just from things I have read it sounds like establishing a stable government is somewhat difficult due to the fact that Afghanistan is still very tribal and will listen to the law of their tribe vs. a central government. I could be wrong.

We should take an honest look at the feasibility of the task and decided if its worth it.

[armakraut]

A stable government that does not allow terrorist training camps is in our best interest. If we pull out to let them fail what do you think the attitude towards us will be next time we have to go there?

It depends on what sort of government we are trying to make work.

Afghanistan has a 100+ year history of fighting the hardest against governments that instituted western reforms that had any effect on the cultural status quo. The biggest pushback has always been over womens lib. Members of the Afghan royal family themselves tried it and were strung up or deposed. By comparison aside from the shia's, Iraq is relatively secular.

[Dirk Williams]

These people won't be conquered/beat by our current methods. Perhaps from 40000 feet and unlimited buff strikes, not by how our men are stuck fighting now.

It could happen if our dogs of war were loosened and allowed to fight with sheer brutal savagery and ruthlessness which the enemy clearly understands and fears.

A friend recently sent back two enfields from Astan. These rifles were as old as the hills, when inspected internally they were in remarkably good shape and no doubt quit capable of shooting very straight.

Sniping isn't voodoo, it's constant. Even those shit heads are quit capable of learning and loading for the mission.

The same Lt Col who sent the rifles back often says we need to fight them there. If not well be fighting them here, im listening to what he's saying, I believe him.

Lots of parallels between the Mexican border and Astan as I see it.

Respectfully,
D Williams

[120mm]

So?



You're talking about nation-building. Can you give any examples of success? A 20 year (generational) commitment isn't realistic, especially in Afghanistan.

The Phillipines. For one. And note that I am not disagreeing with you about USians not being interested in a generational war.

Oh, and Germany

And Japan


Then why has our leadership wasted 10 years? Americans have stuck it out through the longest war in our history and even still want to win.

Americans have paid comparatively very little in lives and treasure toward A-stan, but STILL it inconveniences their fat, spoiled asses to actually have to hear about it on TV so that the typical ignorant 'murrican wants to nuke it until it glows. So... how many times could we get away with that until the world will justifiably hunt us down and destroy us like the mad dogs some people (even on this board) wants us to become?


That said that this is a COIN is proof that we've let the enemy dictate the war. Hearts and minds be damned. Kill every mother****er you can, leave and say "don't make us come back."

I don't think it's fair to blame this on the American public. Commit to victory or get the hell out.

Yes. The American public elects the politicians who pull off asshattery like this. I blame them. The problem is, "Killing every mother****er you can" is criminal behavior, which a moral person should not support.

[Iraqgunz]

Without violating OPSEC I will say that this concern was already being discussed while I was there. Specifically Sangin and the sniper. Some of you who saw the pics I posted of the KAC rail that was on an M4 issued to an Afghan Commando. That incident occured in the Sangin area.

The team was already stating then they didn't think it was a lucky shot. Especially considering the distances they were at.

[armakraut]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7094300.ece

[Gutshot John]

The Phillipines. For one. And note that I am not disagreeing with you about USians not being interested in a generational war.

The Phillipines was less a COIN at least in terms of how it was fought. They were simply subjugated to a superior military force which is what I'm talking about.


Oh, and Germany

And Japan


When? After WWII? Different scenarios as both had been defeated militarily. Japan did not resist occupation after MacArthur secured Hirohito's cooperation. Germany barely resisted but the Werewolves' prowess was grossly exaggerated and they received very little support post-war which is why they were gone within a year. The Taliban (as well as Iraqi insurgents) make both Germans and Japanese look like pikers.

Neither really qualifies as COIN. Certainly the US military didn't adopt a COIN strategy (they were unapologetic occupiers) which gets back to my point, we're fighting the war on THEIR terms...a surefire recipe for defeat. Werewolves weren't negotiated with, they weren't part of a negotiated solution. When they were caught...they were executed, often summarily. Inside of a year their "enthusiasm" had waned.


Americans have paid comparatively very little in lives and treasure toward A-stan, but STILL it inconveniences their fat, spoiled asses to actually have to hear about it on TV so that the typical ignorant 'murrican wants to nuke it until it glows. So... how many times could we get away with that until the world will justifiably hunt us down and destroy us like the mad dogs some people (even on this board) wants us to become?

How much of that inconvenience is due to inept political leadership? Fat spoiled asses? Nah that's not a raving generalization or anything. :rolleyes: Most Americans I know want victory, they're just tired of PC half measures.


Yes. The American public elects the politicians who pull off asshattery like this. I blame them. The problem is, "Killing every mother****er you can" is criminal behavior, which a moral person should not support.

I'm not talking about killing EVERY afghani, I'm talking about killing every talib mother****er you can. I thought the distinction was pretty clear. My fault.

Bottom line, quit mucking about and either commit to victory or get the hell out. As for "morality" I'm all in favor of it however it is antithetical to war as well as victory.

[Safetyhit]

I'm not talking about killing EVERY afghani, I'm talking about killing every talib mother****er you can. I thought the distinction was pretty clear. My fault.



It was perfectly clear. And at this point I agree 110%, either do the job effectively or get the f*ck out.

[Belmont31R]

Germany and Japan had functioning societies before the war, had infastructure, and could come back into the world anew.


Afghanistan has always been backwards, and many people are living the same, generally, as they did 200 years ago. They've never had a western style country which the Germans and Japanese did.


No Im not talking about the Holocaust and whatever they were doing in Japan. Aside from the maniac stuff like that they were pretty modern. Within 5-10 years they had fully functioning 1st world countries. Afghanistan was 3rd world before we got there, and will be 3rd world after we leave.

[RogerinTPA]

"It is the sniper that takes a long-range shot and can penetrate our protective equipment...a 7.62mm round from the AK-47."

I just thought I'd highlight the reason I don't think this is a great source of good info. They go on to talk about the number of deaths by gunfire and expect us believe it must be snipers without any details of the range and manner they were shot.

I'm betting the round being employed is most likely from a 7.62x54R (SVD,PLS or Mosin Negant), .303 enfields or even a scoped 7.62x39 SKS. Definitely not from conventional AK-47 variant, which cannot provide the degree of accuracy required.

[10MMGary]

That said that this is a COIN is proof that we've let the enemy dictate the war. Hearts and minds be damned. Kill every mother****er you can, leave and say "don't make us come back."


Wow John you stated my thoughts exactly. We will never stabilize or change that place or the various tribes. But we can certainly put enough hurt on them if we even smell trouble from that area.

[variablebinary]

Wow John you stated my thoughts exactly. We will never stabilize or change that place or the various tribes. But we can certainly put enough hurt on them if we even smell trouble from that area.

People need to get it through their skulls; there is no such thing as a PC war. Even if there was, it wouldn't be a war we can win.

[Gutshot John]

Maybe it's because I was born during and grew up in the shadow of Vietnam that thus struck me.

Have you noticed that both political and military leadership speaks about "winning hearts and minds" without a trace of irony?

Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Do we really believe they're ever going to love us?

[120mm]

The Phillipines was less a COIN at least in terms of how it was fought. They were simply subjugated to a superior military force which is what I'm talking about.

Because you are obviously not very well informed, "we" are currently fighting and winning against an insurgency, currently in the Phillipines RIGHT NOW. Using COIN.


When? After WWII? Different scenarios as both had been defeated militarily. Japan did not resist occupation after MacArthur secured Hirohito's cooperation. Germany barely resisted but the Werewolves' prowess was grossly exaggerated and they received very little support post-war which is why they were gone within a year. The Taliban (as well as Iraqi insurgents) make both Germans and Japanese look like pikers.

Neither really qualifies as COIN. Certainly the US military didn't adopt a COIN strategy (they were unapologetic occupiers) which gets back to my point, we're fighting the war on THEIR terms...a surefire recipe for defeat. Werewolves weren't negotiated with, they weren't part of a negotiated solution. When they were caught...they were executed, often summarily. Inside of a year their "enthusiasm" had waned.

Since COIN is "a political campaign fought with rifles" post-war Germany and Japan were indeed COIN. Executed brilliantly enough that folks like you don't even realize it was COIN. Almost immediately after the war, German constabulary units were formed, that patrolled jointly and civic order was reestablished. The Marshall Plan was a brilliant bit of COIN.


How much of that inconvenience is due to inept political leadership? Fat spoiled asses? Nah that's not a raving generalization or anything. :rolleyes: Most Americans I know want victory, they're just tired of PC half measures.

That would just make them ignorant and bloodthirsty.


I'm not talking about killing EVERY afghani, I'm talking about killing every talib mother****er you can. I thought the distinction was pretty clear. My fault.

"Afghani" is a form of currency. "Afghan" is a person. That's okay. You've revealed your racism and ignorance already in this thread.

The "distinction" between so-called Taliban and non-Taliban is only clear to the ignorant and simple-minded, so good luck with that.

BTW, each and every force that tried killing their way out of an insurgency has lost.


Bottom line, quit mucking about and either commit to victory or get the hell out. As for "morality" I'm all in favor of it however it is antithetical to war as well as victory.

Good luck on even defining "victory". Short of military world domination, "victory" is an empty term.

[Gutshot John]

Because you are obviously not very well informed, "we" are currently fighting and winning against an insurgency, currently in the Phillipines RIGHT NOW. Using COIN.

You're not very well informed. The Philippines has been an independent nation since after WWII. We are not engaged in COIN in the Philippines.


Since COIN is "a political campaign fought with rifles" post-war Germany and Japan were indeed COIN. Executed brilliantly enough that folks like you don't even realize it was COIN. Almost immediately after the war, German constabulary units were formed, that patrolled jointly and civic order was reestablished. The Marshall Plan was a brilliant bit of COIN.

None of the examples you provided bear even the slightest resemblance to Afghanistan or COIN. They were however traditional military victories followed by an unapologetic occupation.

The Marshall Plan applied to all of Europe, not just Germany. It was NOT COIN. A German "constabulary" does not equate to COIN, it equates to law enforcement.

Your definition of COIN (brilliantly executed or otherwise) is so broad that you might as well claim that any foreign aid we give to a previous enemy is COIN. That's a bit of a stretch.


Good luck on even defining "victory". Short of military world domination, "victory" is an empty term.

Completely goofball. We can define "victory" any way we want. That we persist in this delusion that "victory" equates to "winning hearts and minds" means we have set the bar so high that it can never be achieved.

[Safetyhit]

That would just make them ignorant and bloodthirsty.

This is your interpretation of an American who is not in favor of a politically correct war? Ignorant and bloodthirsty?



You've revealed your racism and ignorance already in this thread.

The "distinction" between so-called Taliban and non-Taliban is only clear to the ignorant and simple-minded, so good luck with that.

Not only are you terribly misinformed, your rather obnoxious at times as well. Personal attacks are frowned upon here.

Perhaps you might be better suited to continue giving advice about women as before and lay off the military history stuff.

[chadbag]

You're not very well informed. The Philippines has been an independent nation since after WWII. We are not engaged in COIN in the Philippines.



I think he is alluding to the fact that we DO have US Military in the Philippines helping to subdue "muslim insurgencies" together with the Philippine military. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with independent nations.

[RogerinTPA]

You're not very well informed. The Philippines has been an independent nation since after WWII. We are not engaged in COIN in the Philippines.
<snip>


Actually we are (There and other Pacific rim countries against groups with similar sympathetic leans toward Al Queda), with a very small footprint (Army SOF primarily, along with others) that gets very little headline, advising the Phillipean military against Abu Sayyaf, who is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. They conduct bombings, assassinations and kidnappings on a regular basis and seeks an independent Islamic province in the southern part of the country. Part of the global war on terror, and have done so for years.

[Gutshot John]

Actually we are, with a very small footprint (Army SOF primarily, along with others) that gets very little headline, advising the Phillipean military against Abu Sayyaf, who is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. They conduct bombings, assassinations and kidnappings on a regular basis and seeks an independent Islamic province in the southern part of the country. Part of the global war on terror, and have done so for years.

You can't compare Abu Sayyaf to the Taliban. There is no national interest at stake, there is no threat to the local government any more than to the US. Sure they can engage in a few terror attacks and kill some civilians and the occasional Filipino soldier but there is almost no danger that Abu Sayaf will ever beat the Philippine government. Big difference. Counter terror does not equal counter insurgency. We are not trying to stabilize the Philippine government, we are not trying to win "hearts and minds" we are helping an ally defeat terrorists in their own backyard. We don't have to convince the Filipino government to take the fight to the enemy, they are doing it on their own, if they're winning it's because the Filipinos want to win. How are they doing this? By killing them.

For an insurgency to succeed it most enjoy support (tacit or otherwise) of the majority of the population, Abu Sayaf represents a miniscule minority of Muslims in an overwhelmingly Catholic country and qualifies as nothing more than a home grown terror network which the Philippine government has little problem dealing with even without our help. How many soldiers have we lost in the Phillipines to Abu Sayaf? See the difference?

We have military advisors spread throughout the Globe, If that qualifies as a COIN than we're fighting dozens of COIN operations around the world and have for decades. That you say we've "done so for years" would seemingly disprove the assertion that it's been successful.

I don't know anyone who shares that opinion even if they did it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that we'll be successful anywhere else...which gets back to my original point.

If we have that much experience and success than why the hell are we losing in Afghanistan?

[variablebinary]

Actually we are (There and other Pacific rim countries against groups with similar sympathetic leans toward Al Queda), with a very small footprint (Army SOF primarily, along with others) that gets very little headline, advising the Phillipean military against Abu Sayyaf, who is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. They conduct bombings, assassinations and kidnappings on a regular basis and seeks an independent Islamic province in the southern part of the country. Part of the global war on terror, and have done so for years.

It's not an entirely an apples to apples comparison either, the nature of our affairs and function in the Philippines compared to Afghanistan

[RogerinTPA]

Abu Sayaf is more or less a defunct force.Most Filipinos would disagree.

For an insurgency to succeed it most enjoy support (tacit or otherwise) of the majority of the population, Abu Sayaf represents a miniscule minority of Muslims in an overwhelmingly Catholic country and qualifies as nothing more than a home grown terror network which the Philippine government has little problem dealing with. There is no danger that Abu Sayaf will ever overthrow the Philippine government. Big difference. In your opinion. Most of the time, I would agree with your civilian support statement, but it's not necessarily written in stone as to the level of support required for a G-force to remain functional or effective . There are parts of the population in the south that are sympathetic to their cause. Those in the areas in which they operate that are not, and not under the protection of the Phillipean Military, are exploited into doing so.

We have military advisors spread throughout the Globe, If that qualifies as a COIN than we're fighting dozens of COIN operations around the world and have for decades. I didn't say or imply that, you did.

I don't know anyone who shares that opinion. You should read and get out more.

If we have that much experience and success than why the hell are we losing in Afghanistan? Yes, we have the experience. Success on the other hand, is a subjective term totally dependent on who and what's defined as acceptable.

[variablebinary]

This is your interpretation of an American who is not in favor of a politically correct war? Ignorant and bloodthirsty?

Never get baited by a strawman argument

[Gutshot John]

Yes, we have the experience. Success on the other hand, is a subjective term totally dependent on who and what's defined as acceptable.

Bingo. We've set our definition of success so high that all the Taliban has an easy job of thwarting us. We're NEVER going to stabilize Afghanistan. Anything short of that means the Taliban wins. So what the hell are we doing?


Abu Sayaf is more or less a defunct force.Most Filipinos would disagree.

How many Filipinos do you know? I've got several friends and have actually spent some time there. They scoff at the idea that Abu Sayyaf represents a significant threat. You face more danger from Filipino gangsters than you do Aby Sayyaf. Comparing them to the Taliban is a stretch.


n your opinion. Most of the time, I would agree with your civilian support statement, but it's not necessarily written in stone as to the level of support required for a G-force to remain functional or effective . There are parts of the population in the south that are sympathetic to their cause. Those in the areas in which they operate that are not, and not under the protection of the Phillipean Military, are exploited into doing so.

Not just my opinion but that's ok. They were eviscerated as a fighting force about 5 years ago after the kidnapping of those Americans who were rescued not by Americans but by the Filipino military.


I didn't say or imply that, you did.

You didn't MEAN to imply that but that's the inevitable conclusion. If all it takes is American advisors to qualify as a COIN than our record is even less confidence-inspiring.


You should read and get out more.

Enlighten me oh wise one. Who thinks we're fighting dozens of insurgencies around the world and have done so for years/decades?

[RogerinTPA]

It's not an entirely an apples to apples comparison either, the nature of our affairs and function in the Philippines compared to Afghanistan

Agreed. Didn't say nor meant to imply that it was. Insurgencies/COIN can and will morph, depending on the political climate and steps taken to either contain, eliminate, ignore or aid (willingly or inadvertently) the threat that group poses toward whoever is in power, regardless of country.

[Gutshot John]

Agreed. Didn't say nor meant to imply that it was. Insurgencies/COIN can and will morph, depending on the political climate and steps taken to either contain, eliminate, ignore or aid (willingly or inadvertently) the threat that group poses toward whoever is in power, regardless of country.

Can you name one COIN that we've waged successfully? How about without popular support?

The COIN strategy is a bad joke that's been told for years. When the military starts talking about "winning hearts and minds" you can pretty much bet that we're headed for defeat.

There is a simply choice: We either commit to a victory that we can actually achieve...or we get the hell out.

[RogerinTPA]

Bingo. We've set our definition of success so high that all the Taliban has an easy job of thwarting us. We're NEVER going to stabilize Afghanistan. Anything short of that means the Taliban wins. So what the hell are we doing?



How many Filipinos do you know? I've got several friends and have actually spent some time there. Comparing them to the Taliban is a stretch. Plenty, as I am part Filipeano and have family there. Was there as recently as 2 years ago.



Not just my opinion but that's ok. They were eviscerated as a fighting force about 5 years ago after the kidnapping of those Americans who were rescued not by Americans but by the Filipino military. I ASSUME you are familiar with the following terms: regroup, rearm, reorganize and strategy change.



You didn't MEAN to imply that but that's the inevitable conclusion. If all it takes is American advisors to qualify as a COIN than our record is even less confidence-inspiring. Depends on the mission being conducted in that particular country. FID (foreign internal defense) is part of COIN. FID is carried out on many places. Under a very small foot print. And...just so you know, most of those missions won't make the evening news for obvious host nation concerns.



Enlighten me oh wise one. Who thinks we're fighting dozens of insurgencies around the world and have done so for years/decades? Wow.:rolleyes: Again, I didn't say we were.

[Gutshot John]

Wow.:rolleyes: Again, I didn't say we were.

Ok in your travels to the Phillipines how many times have you faced Abu Sayyaf? Being Filipino I'm not sure how you can compare Abu Sayyaf to the Taliban.

Sure they can regroup but if the Phillipine government is winning it's because of THEIR actions, not ours. It's because Filipinos want to win. Neither is the case in Afghanistan.


Depends on the mission being conducted in that particular country. FID (foreign internal defense) is part of COIN. FID is carried out on many places. Under a very small foot print. And...just so you know, most of those missions won't make the evening news for obvious host nation concerns.

You're proving my point...again, when have we ever walked away from a COIN successfully? You'd think we'd learn something with all that experience that would be helping us. :rolleyes:

[RogerinTPA]

Can you name one COIN that we've waged successfully? How about without popular support?Not full on US war footing, but with "advisory" support, I give you El Salvador and Honduras. They still have "issues" but are far from their 70's 80's and early 90's situation.

The COIN strategy is a bad joke that's been told for years. When the military starts talking about "winning hearts and minds" you can pretty much bet that we're headed for defeat.That's because those were poorly implemented, did not allow the folks on the ground the latitude to wage it and without complete US political support to see it through.

There is a simply choice: We either commit to a victory that we can actually achieve...or we get the hell out.

Agreed.

[Gutshot John]

Not full on US war footing, but with "advisory" support, I give you El Salvador and Honduras. They still have "issues" but are far from their 70's 80's and early 90's situation.

Not really the best examples for obvious reasons. If those were successful (and I emphasize "if") it was because the Salvadorans and Hondurans wanted them to succeed not because we did anything worthwhile. For a COIN to work in Afghanistan the Afghanis have to want it. So far they seem to prefer the Taliban to the US even though they kill more Afghanis by several orders of magnitude than we do. We're not going to win their hearts and minds they only respect ruthlessness. That's why it's called a third world shithole.


That's because those were poorly implemented, did not allow the folks on the ground the latitude to wage it and without complete US political support to see it through.

So we arguably have a 100% failure rate and now it's suddenly going to work? It's like putting sour milk back in the fridge and saying 'well it will be fresh tomorrow.' It defies common sense and points to the reasons for a lack of political support - Americans have yet to see even ONE work.

[RogerinTPA]

Ok in your travels to the Phillipines how many times have you faced Abu Sayyaf? Being Filipino I'm not sure how you can compare Abu Sayyaf to the Taliban. None, but have plenty of extended family who have. How bout yourself? Ever been to the Philippines??? I'm not trying to compare, you are.

Sure they can regroup but if the Phillipine government is winning it's because of THEIR actions, not ours.Agreed, but with our assistance. which will never make the news, giving the host nation full credit, which is also part of the small footprint and overall goal when performing such missions. It's because Filipinos want to win. Neither is the case in Afghanistan. Agree...to a degree.



You're proving my point...again, when have we ever walked away from a COIN successfully?Not sure what your point is. You keep trying to compare two completely different circumstances. My point is we are involved in the Philippines, and other places, whether you want to believe it or not. Not everything is open source, but most of it is. You'd think we'd learn something with all that experience that would be helping us. :rolleyes:Agreed, however, with political reigns placed upon the war fighter, you will always get the proverbial "soup sandwich" as the outcome.

Reply in blue.

[Gutshot John]

None, but have plenty of extended family who have. How bout yourself? Ever been to the Philippines???

Yep was there for about a month, Luzon, Leyte and even Mindinao in the South. Actually when I asked a Filipino Navy buddy about Abu Sayyaf when we were there he was pretty dismissive. He said street crime in Manila was probably a bigger problem.

Where does your family live? Luzon?


Sure they can regroup but if the Phillipine government is winning it's because of THEIR actions, not ours.Agreed, but with our assistance. which will never make the news, giving the host nation full credit, which is also part of the small footprint and overall goal when performing such missions. It's because Filipinos want to win. Neither is the case in Afghanistan. Agree...to a degree.

So they're only succeeding because of our assistance?

Militarily Abu Sayyaf is a joke. Significant numbers of the Moro themselves hate them. The Philippines have more to fear from political corruption than they do Abu Sayyaf.


My point is we are involved in the Philippines, and other places, whether you want to believe it or not. Not everything is open source, but most of it is.

I never denied we weren't involved, only that we aren't successful.

You're only proving why the Philippines is a poor comparison to Afghanistan and the sick joke that has become COIN.

[RogerinTPA]

Yep was there for about a month, Luzon, Leyte and even Mindinao in the South. Actually when I asked a Filipino Navy buddy about Abu Sayyaf when we were there he was pretty dismissive. He said street crime in Manila was probably a bigger problem.

Where does your family live? Luzon? Pretty much all over, I have a pretty extended family, but primarily from Manila and south to Mindanao.



So they're only succeeding because of our assistance? Didn't say that...I said WITH our assistance.

Militarily Abu Sayyaf is a joke. Significant numbers of the Moro themselves hate them. The Philippines have more to fear from political corruption than they do Abu Sayyaf.Agree...to a degree.



I never denied we weren't involved, only that we aren't successful. Actually you did.

You're only proving why the Philippines is a poor comparison to Afghanistan and the sick joke that has become COIN.

Never said it was. You are the one making the comparisons. Oh, forgot about Colombia...which is still ongoing.

[Gutshot John]

Didn't say that...I said WITH our assistance.


So they would be successful irrespective of our involvement? One more time an insurgency will only be defeated internally, not because of external involvement. So far you're only proving my point. So what exactly are you arguing with?


Actually you did.

No I said we've never had a successful COIN. I've never said we don't have military advisors involved in dozens of countries. I'm not the one that conflated COIN with military advisors. If the existence of US military advisors is the criteria for COIN than we're even shittier at it than I thought.


Never said it was. You are the one making the comparisons.

Incorrect I never compared the Philippines (or any other country) to Afghanistan, you did. I only said the comparison was deeply, deeply flawed. I also asked for even ONE success which so far no one has been able to provide.

Colombia? Seriously? Your definition of success is very different than mine.

[RogerinTPA]

So they would be successful irrespective of our involvement? One more time an insurgency will only be defeated internally, not because of external involvement. So far you're only proving my point. So what exactly are you arguing with? I'm not, you are.



No I said we've never had a successful COIN. I've never said we don't have military advisors involved in dozens of countries. I'm not the one that conflated COIN with military advisors. If the existence of US military advisors is the criteria for COIN than we're even shittier at it than I thought.Reread what I've previously stated.



Incorrect I never compared the Philippines (or any other country) to Afghanistan, you did.No I didn't. I never compared them to what's going on in A-Stan. Only we were there assisting with the COIN the Filipino's are conducting. You said we weren't. I only said the comparison was deeply, deeply flawed. I also asked for even ONE success which so far no one has been able to provide. The reality is one example which you are willing to accept.;)

Reply in blue.

[Gutshot John]

Forgive me I should have been more clear though I'm at a loss as to how you could have misunderstood.

Advising an ally how to fight an insurgency is not the same as fighting a COIN.

We are not engaged in a COIN in the Philippines, the Filipinos are.

We ARE engaged in a COIN in Afghanistan and losing badly. Every COIN we've ever fought, we've lost, with the possible exception of the Indian Wars of 19th century.

Of course its not on the evening news, when was the last time US servicemen fought Abu Sayyaf? When was the last time an American soldier was killed by them? Clear enough for you?

[RogerinTPA]

Forgive me I should have been more clear though I'm at a loss as to how you could have misunderstood. I didn't. You are the one extrapolating to the extream.

Advising an ally how to fight an insurgency is not the same as fighting a COIN. In your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.

We are not engaged in a COIN in the Philippines, the Filipinos are. Agree...WITH our assistance.

We ARE engaged in a COIN in Afghanistan and losing badly. Agree, because our elected officials won't unleash our military to it's fullest potential.

Clear enough for you? Please.....quick edit job you pulled there...:rolleyes:

[Gutshot John]

Please.....:rolleyes:

You are the one extrapolating to the extream.

No your words are poorly chosen.


In your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.

Militarily speaking how do you define "engage"? For me "Engagement" is WAYYYYYY different than "Advisement." I didn't think the plain meaning of words were subject to opinion.


We are not engaged in a COIN in the Philippines, the Filipinos are. Agree...WITH our assistance.

Again "assistance" is different than "engagement."

If "assistance" equated to "engagement" than our record is even worse.

"Unleashing our military to its full potential" would be to abandon COIN. Nothing would please me more.

[RogerinTPA]

No your words are poorly chosen.
No......my words interpreted poorly.


Militarily speaking how do you define "engage"? For me "Engagement" is WAYYYYYY different than "Advisement." I didn't think the plain meaning of words were subject to opinion.
I can see that you don't have a strategic intelligence background, so I'll just let you flounder.


Again "assistance" is different than "engagement." Really?????????????:rolleyes:

If "assistance" equated to "engagement" than our record is even worse.

"Unleashing our military to its full potential" would be to abandon COIN.
NO...It wouldn't.

[Gutshot John]

I can see that you don't have a strategic intelligence background, so I'll just let you flounder.


Actually you'd be wrong my Master's thesis was on military strategy (not to mention that my mentor/thesis advisor is retired Army Intelligence) but if you're representative of those with that absurd "background" it demonstrates why we're losing.

Thank you for playing. :)

[Safetyhit]

Man...it's 4th of July and bright and sunny most places in the country today guys (just got a good hour of sun in myself :)). Plus the points have been well articulated.

Not really worth it. May not be my business but just trying to help. Good to see the some regulars back to the old fashioned, well informed M4C debate, but not so much like this.

[RogerinTPA]

Actually you'd be wrong my Master's thesis was on military strategy but if you're representative of those with that absurd "background" it demonstrates why we're losing.

Your thesis is on "Strategy" and NOT Low Intensity Conflict, High Intensity Conflict, nor is it Intelligence in all that entails and it's application, which was mine.;) And thank you for your quick editing skills.:p

[Gutshot John]

Your thesis is on "Strategy" and NOT Low Intensity Conflict, High Intensity Conflict, nor is it Intelligence in all that entails and it's application, which was mine.;)

Incorrect. I dealt expressly with low-intensity conflicts such as the Indian-American wars.

One more time you don't know what you're talking about but that doesn't appear to stop you.

Keep flailing if you wish.

[RogerinTPA]

Man...it's 4th of July and bright and sunny most places in the country today guys (just got a good hour of sun in myself :)). Plus the points have been well articulated.

Not really worth it. May not be my business but just trying to help. Good to see the some regulars back to the old fashioned, well informed M4C debate, but not so much like this.

Agreed. Happy Independence Day!

[RogerinTPA]

Incorrect. I dealt expressly with low-intensity conflicts such as the Indian-American wars. Extrapolated to the current day I see.:rolleyes:

One more time you don't know what you're talking about but that doesn't appear to stop you.Nor you. You are WAY in over your head as to a full understanding of what's currently ongoing. Stick to the Native American Wars.

[Gutshot John]

Extrapolated to the current day I see.

Yes thats what historians do.

They look for patterns in the past to avoid the mistakes in the future.

I'm sure you've heard of George Santayana?

Strategy is strategy. You've either got the correct mindset or you don't.

I'd have thought a big time intel "guru" like you would know that...of course that might explain the current problems we face. Pedants rule the roost with little historic understanding.

[M4arc]

This is turning into a personal pissing contest so I'm going to lock this because I'm heading out the door and don't have time to clean it up right now.

Happy 4th!