WMD Forum

[rlrohrer]

One more time on Afghanistan

Beyond infantry training, I have no advanced military skills or knowledge. I have, however, prided myself on having a fairly high level of common sense. I would therefore like to, again, offer an opinion on Afghanistan. I don't support "Cut and Run"; but I also don't support "Stay and Pay"! And by the latter I mean just staying around and paying with both blood and treasure with no articulated, approved and effective plan of action!

The most important thing we have NOT done in this new age is craft a policy as to how we are going to fight wars with CIVILIANS! Like it or not the Geneva Conventions no longer apply, NATO is ineffective, and the UN is useless since many (even most) members support our enemies!

Right now we are not fighting a formal State on which we could declare war and hopefully defeat. In fact, even when we had State enemies in Korea and North Vietnam we did not bring either of those actions to a victory. Our wavering indecisiveness in Iraq was little better. So fighting wars with civilians is even more problematic -- exponentially true. Before we ever get involved in any more of these actions we need Congressional approval (better yet a Declaration of War); an overarching military strategy as to how we are going to fight civilians; a sound tactical plan; and an expressed strategic objective that everyone, including the media and the general public, can understand and support. "War on Terror" is too nebulous and unending. It may be unending on the planet BUT should not be in specific AO's.

We have been doing the same unworkable thing over and over for years and expecting a positive result. Commanders should not be putting small units in vehicles and traveling up and down known enemy roads where the enemy can apparently "plant" IED's at will, day or night; especially when this continues to be our number one source of casualties. Neither should troops have been ordered into a jungle for years, while spraying chemicals on foliage, and them, trying to see supply lines that could have been blown up at their source. I know hindsight is easy but common sense works too!!

How many really capable supply roads, or even donkey trails are there into Taliban sanctuaries? They don't have air supply; and there is no foliage canopy! How many troops do we have in country? How many control points would we need to establish? We have satellites and surveillance drones. How long can they last with NO supplies? Better yet, how many, and where are, their sources of supply. I doubt the Taliban could continue to be a threat if they were under complete siege! We should use this winter to turn them into freezing cannibals!

We have some who want to send in more troops, hobbled with ROE, and then, I suppose, just keep driving up and down the roads. Others suggest deploying troops deep into the mountains. I don't buy either, and we just had an example of our inability or unwillingness to protect Marines with air support. The report was there were civilians with the enemy. We later learned children were the enemy ammo runners. We have Flag officers worried about the "Moral High Ground" while we plant Marines in it!!

And now we have further compromised National security on OUR border: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54514 A sort of front yard fight with the back door wide open. "Stuck on Stupid!" My bottom line is, as far as the Taliban hiding in remote mountains, they present less of an existential threat to America than all the terrorists we have already allowed to infiltrate right here. And the FBI knows exactly where they are! One camp is right here in North Carolina! Between where I live and Camp LeJeune!

From my perspective continuing what we are doing, or leaving altogether makes less sense than what I have been suggesting for several years now! Starving out the enemy and after appropriate warning, KILLING anyone -- man, woman or child -- who tries to reach them! Civilian combatants -- surrounded by Civilian non combatants -- we need to get our minds around this or admit it is an insoluble conundrum we are not willing to address. That equals a no win situation and a very bad investment.

These civilian non combatants are the Taliban's infrastructure, just as surely as civilians in Haiphong were all those years ago! And again, if we are not going to kill civilians we are not going to win now either. With our present mentality we would have tried to win WWII with no air power or naval gun fire; or any use of high angle of fire weapons or artillery. We would have saved a lot of civilians, killed a lot of Americans, and lost the war. PERIOD! I know these are tough calls but war is a tough business. If we can't, or won't, make the tough calls then we need to come up with some other approach than a feigned military one! And when you listen to these radio calls asking for permission to engage, it proves the whole thing is just a "mother may I" game!

Oh, and one more thing. To make a SIEGE work, the warning would also apply to all those acting as any and all sources of supply, to include agricultural and livestock production! And obviously this would apply to any husbandry in known Taliban areas. Wherever the sources, smoking holes would need to appear quickly. Afraid to do this? Then we should not be engaged in this effort!

And back to where I started. If we will not kill civilians in a war with civilians, as well as their suppliers and shields, then we damn well better just leave! And as far as constantly turning our war fighters into Nation builders, this is just a lousy use of manpower and capital! I would rather move an entire arm of our Liberal State Department to Kabul! Hillary can duck as she runs under fire to and from her chopper! This would also be a good place for Obama's Civilian Corps, larger and more well funded than our military! Between the two of them they could protect each other, win hearts and minds, and build schools and Malls.
_________________
Put America First!
Bob Rohrer
www.BobRohrer.com