Restrictive Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan

[Cincinnatus]

Have ya'll seen this? New article on restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Anybody with personal experience with this?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...105202284.html

[bkb0000]

if we spent 1/10th the effort on perforating the hearts and minds as we do to "winning" them, this war might be won.

till then, we're just gonna continue to be nothing more than target practice for towlieban and alkayda.

[Cincinnatus]

if we spent 1/10th the effort on perforating the hearts and minds as we do to "winning" them, this war might be won.

till then, we're just gonna continue to be nothing more than target practice for towlieban and alkayda.

Reminds me of a quote from Vietnam "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

[TehLlama]

I really am a believer in making some sacrifices in order to win over the local populace.

Not shooting obvious bad guys that terrorize the local populace isn't the way to win the populace. Trying to turn a war into something that isn't - just means you end up in a war on the other guy's terms.

[120mm]

First, the ROE as reported by this article (I mean, they asked a SPC medic, after all, and I'm sure that dude's an expert) is not correct.

Second, overly restrictive ROE is mainly the product of O-5s and O-6s who don't understand it, so they "just say no" to cover their moronic asses.

Third, from 2001 to 2009, ISAF/the US did somewhere between "jack" and "shit" to actually conduct COIN in Afghanistan. Random development products, desultory patrols, battalion sweeps and cowering on the FOB does NOT equal conducting COIN. Despite that, immediately starting in 2009, the political and some of the military types started shouting "COIN doesn't work, we need to start murdering more Afghans!"

Fourth, yeah... the populace thinks we're pussies for not killing more identified INS. The problem is, you have to start killing them to get the populace to give them over. But you can't identify them unless the populace tells you who they are. And the populace won't tell you who they are if you don't hang around and deal with the fallout killing some, but not all of the INS causes.

So... You have to get serious about COIN to conduct effective CT. And that means development and security assistance. Combined with that, you have to learn what forms of corruption you tolerate and which forms you do not.

[Belmont31R]

Ret LTC Allen West did a speech, and made a great point. We are trying to build up Afghanistan before its secure. All these "COIN" ops of building schools and infastructure won't do the job for us if they get blown up, and the locals involved in the projects are found executed for working with us. Then no one wants anything to do with us depsite us bending over backwards to improve their country.



Sorta like rebuilding Japan or Germany before they surrendered. It would have hindered our ability to defeat them, and created a huge cluster**** like we have now.


Im still not entirely convinced of COIN's ability to win wars like this. Society building is fine but you have to defeat the enemy first, and since we are the outsiders it doesnt work. The Taliban know the locals better than we do, they know the language, customs, they look the same, ect.


So in essence I think all this touchy feely shit is exactly that...shit...until we get some kind of security inside the country, and we don't have enough troops there to do that. So instead we try to do the touchy feely shit in unsecured areas, and then wonder why its not working. Think about it from the Afghans point of view. You have all these Talibans in your village, and always watching what you are doing. Americans come, and say they are going to build a school. WTF do you do? Let them build it, and then you have to answer to the Taliban. Tell the Americans you don't want them there, and then you are viewed as a hostile village. These people may live like they are in the stone age but they can put 2 and 2 together. We don't have enough troops to secure an area, the ANA is nearly worthless from everything Ive read except for maybe a few units specially trained, and the Taliban have control of everything outside of direct eye sight, and even that gets contested.


Don't forget our enemies there have Pakistan as a safe haven. They can get medical treatment, equipment, men, food, rest, ect. Until that border is sealed off we are going to be facing the same shit every year with no end in sight. This is another reason for the failed security before we can build up their country. You have to remember that border is more or less a modern invention, and doesn't have anything to do with the demographics on the ground.

[Cincinnatus]

Good info so far. I was not aware how little COIN had actually been practiced despite how much it has been preached in military circles of late. Whether it works or not when actually tried, not applying it is a sure way to ensure it won't work. I am reminded of the Army's Search and Destroy efforts in Vietnam versus the Marine Corps's pacification or "inkblot" strategy. There too, COIN was not actually given the resources it needed to work. Whether COIN is the right strategy/methdology or not, and even if it is a poor one, even a poor strategy heavily reinforced is better than a poor one given too little gas to cook with.

[m4fun]

Good Discussion. You would think we would learn from the past. Influence needs to be respected. Third world(violent time influence wars) have these guys realizing we are there...for now...a little at a time...and will be gone some time later with the bad guys ready to fill in the voild when we are gone(and reminding them all the time)

[120mm]

Ret LTC Allen West did a speech, and made a great point. We are trying to build up Afghanistan before its secure. All these "COIN" ops of building schools and infastructure won't do the job for us if they get blown up, and the locals involved in the projects are found executed for working with us. Then no one wants anything to do with us depsite us bending over backwards to improve their country.

Except the blown up schools is not happening with any regularity, even in insurgent dominated areas. What is happening is that people are buying into insurgent and anti-Afghan war propaganda.

In effect, our bad I/O is doing the insurgents' work for them.

What is more corrosive than the Taliban, is the NGOs and UN hiring all the teachers away from villages at exorbitant wages.

Sorta like rebuilding Japan or Germany before they surrendered. It would have hindered our ability to defeat them, and created a huge cluster**** like we have now.

Apples and oranges. Japan and Germany both had western-style governments that retained control over their countries even in defeat. The only reason we are even thinking of Afghanistan is that "bad things" come out of cluster****s in geo-strategic locations. Which means Afghanistan is strategic, and will continue to be strategic whether we succeed there or not.

Im still not entirely convinced of COIN's ability to win wars like this. Society building is fine but you have to defeat the enemy first, and since we are the outsiders it doesnt work. The Taliban know the locals better than we do, they know the language, customs, they look the same, ect.

"Defeating the enemy" is not COIN. And your latter statement is not strictly true. In most of Afghanistan, the Taliban are just as foreign as we are. And they only "look the same" to 'murricans.

So in essence I think all this touchy feely shit is exactly that...shit...until we get some kind of security inside the country, and we don't have enough troops there to do that. So instead we try to do the touchy feely shit in unsecured areas, and then wonder why its not working. Think about it from the Afghans point of view. You have all these Talibans in your village, and always watching what you are doing. Americans come, and say they are going to build a school. WTF do you do? Let them build it, and then you have to answer to the Taliban. Tell the Americans you don't want them there, and then you are viewed as a hostile village. These people may live like they are in the stone age but they can put 2 and 2 together. We don't have enough troops to secure an area, the ANA is nearly worthless from everything Ive read except for maybe a few units specially trained, and the Taliban have control of everything outside of direct eye sight, and even that gets contested.

The ANA are pretty good actually, by Central Asian standards. Thus the difference between "everything you've read" vice "everything I've seen". The problem is that the ANA are used too often as police, and the ANP are used too often as soldiers, and that brings up a leadership problem in both the ISAF/US and Afghan so-called "leadership chain". I think we are are worst enemy here, as we disobey T.E. Lawrence's law about "allowing the Arab to do for himself tolerably rather than doing it for him perfectly". We dis-incentivize leadership by teaching Afghans a very flawed version of how the US Army does business.

Don't forget our enemies there have Pakistan as a safe haven. They can get medical treatment, equipment, men, food, rest, ect. Until that border is sealed off we are going to be facing the same shit every year with no end in sight. This is another reason for the failed security before we can build up their country. You have to remember that border is more or less a modern invention, and doesn't have anything to do with the demographics on the ground.

Yes to Pakistan being somewhat of a "safe haven". Though that is not strictly true, either. Pakistan is barely ruled, itself, and imo should be the main effort, but it will take a very clever and nuanced effort to solve, and should best be done without shining too much light upon how it is accomplished. I am no big believer in "every American's right" to know how that particular sausage is made.

While the border does divide "Pashtunistan" in two, it isn't completely false based on demographics. The Durand line does follow a geographic AND demographic division. It does follow the 2 major brands of Pashtuns, ethnically. They differ significantly in language and physiology.

A COIN victory in Afghanistan is Taliban forming a viable political party and running against whoever is in charge. And sometimes winning, in certain parts of the country. If your goal is to "kill all the bad guys", we will fail, just like each and every one before us. Alexander figured this shit out after failing for a while, btw.

[Belmont31R]

Except the blown up schools is not happening with any regularity, even in insurgent dominated areas. What is happening is that people are buying into insurgent and anti-Afghan war propaganda.

In effect, our bad I/O is doing the insurgents' work for them.

What is more corrosive than the Taliban, is the NGOs and UN hiring all the teachers away from villages at exorbitant wages.



Apples and oranges. Japan and Germany both had western-style governments that retained control over their countries even in defeat. The only reason we are even thinking of Afghanistan is that "bad things" come out of cluster****s in geo-strategic locations. Which means Afghanistan is strategic, and will continue to be strategic whether we succeed there or not.



"Defeating the enemy" is not COIN. And your latter statement is not strictly true. In most of Afghanistan, the Taliban are just as foreign as we are. And they only "look the same" to 'murricans.



The ANA are pretty good actually, by Central Asian standards. Thus the difference between "everything you've read" vice "everything I've seen". The problem is that the ANA are used too often as police, and the ANP are used too often as soldiers, and that brings up a leadership problem in both the ISAF/US and Afghan so-called "leadership chain". I think we are are worst enemy here, as we disobey T.E. Lawrence's law about "allowing the Arab to do for himself tolerably rather than doing it for him perfectly". We dis-incentivize leadership by teaching Afghans a very flawed version of how the US Army does business.



Yes to Pakistan being somewhat of a "safe haven". Though that is not strictly true, either. Pakistan is barely ruled, itself, and imo should be the main effort, but it will take a very clever and nuanced effort to solve, and should best be done without shining too much light upon how it is accomplished. I am no big believer in "every American's right" to know how that particular sausage is made.

While the border does divide "Pashtunistan" in two, it isn't completely false based on demographics. The Durand line does follow a geographic AND demographic division. It does follow the 2 major brands of Pashtuns, ethnically. They differ significantly in language and physiology.

A COIN victory in Afghanistan is Taliban forming a viable political party and running against whoever is in charge. And sometimes winning, in certain parts of the country. If your goal is to "kill all the bad guys", we will fail, just like each and every one before us. Alexander figured this shit out after failing for a while, btw.

Sure Japan and Germany were different. I was just illustrating the point that you can't build a society up BEFORE you have security. Right now we don't have security in the vast majority of the country.


Blowing schools up was more of a saying than a fact. Just pointing out if as soon as we leave the area the Taliban comes in, and threatens the villagers with death if they participate.


We are never going to kill all the bag guys. Thats not what I said. My really only main thought here is we need security more than we need the touchy feel good things because those touchy feel good things don't work if we don't have a secure area to work with.


Ive been hearing people talk about how great COIN is for years, and now that its not working people are complaining it wasn't implemented properly. Its war not a painting. I also have my doubts an independent Afghanistan is any real benefit to our security. At this rate it will be another decade if we are lucky before there is any semblance of that, and what will that accomplish? Just as no one has really fully conquered the country no one has been able to fully control it. Not even the Taliban. So there is nothing preventing it from being used as a safe haven in the future. Pakistan is a far more advanced country, and they can't even stop parts of their own land from being controlled by extremists.


Even Iraq, which was a huge success, is not even a unified country, and more or less controlled by different groups based on geography.