We Don't need Generals in Afghanistan

[ricksfolly]

All the tapes from Afghanistan clearly show that our troops are stationed in outposts all over the country. The enemy, whoever that is, shoots at them in the dark, and disappears before our troops can hunt them down. And since the enemy has no tanks, no planes, no bases, only scattered resistance, our army can only sit back and wait.

West Point Officers who only know about conventional wars, have no place in this kind of hit and run war. So let's phase them all out, and turn it over to sergeants and other non-coms, who know how to adjust to new and different situations.

ricksfolly

 

[deltabtry]

All the tapes from Afghanistan clearly show that our troops are stationed in outposts all over the country. The enemy, whoever that is, shoots at them in the dark, and disappears before our troops can hunt them down. And since the enemy has no tanks, no planes, no bases, only scattered resistance, our army can only sit back and wait.

West Point Officers who only know about conventional wars, have no place in this kind of hit and run war. So let's phase them all out, and turn it over to sergeants and other non-coms, who know how to adjust to new and different situations.

ricksfolly

When the Russians where there and towards the end of their campaign, they found out that snipers where very effective against this kind of warfare.

 

[joe246]

why are we using regular military? this isnt a war its a counter insurgency operation. delta seals rangers and the cia need to create death squads to kill AL queda and Taliban forces

 

[samsmart]

All the tapes from Afghanistan clearly show that our troops are stationed in outposts all over the country. The enemy, whoever that is, shoots at them in the dark, and disappears before our troops can hunt them down. And since the enemy has no tanks, no planes, no bases, only scattered resistance, our army can only sit back and wait.

West Point Officers who only know about conventional wars, have no place in this kind of hit and run war. So let's phase them all out, and turn it over to sergeants and other non-coms, who know how to adjust to new and different situations.

What makes you think our West Point officers aren't being taught unconventional tactics now? What makes you think sergeants and non-commissioned officers are experts on unconventional warfare?

 

[samsmart]

why are we using regular military? this isnt a war its a counter insurgency operation. delta seals rangers and the cia need to create death squads to kill AL queda and Taliban forces

Who's going to provide logistics and support to them?

 

[joe246]

Who's going to provide logistics and support to them?

we dont need to establish bases just kill them quickly and quietly

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

we dont need to establish bases just kill them quickly and quietly

Terrible plan.

 

[Goshin]

Lotta armchair generalship going on here.


Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency. Let him do things his way, and we'll see progress.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

All the tapes from Afghanistan clearly show that our troops are stationed in outposts all over the country. The enemy, whoever that is, shoots at them in the dark, and disappears before our troops can hunt them down. And since the enemy has no tanks, no planes, no bases, only scattered resistance, our army can only sit back and wait.

West Point Officers who only know about conventional wars, have no place in this kind of hit and run war. So let's phase them all out, and turn it over to sergeants and other non-coms, who know how to adjust to new and different situations.

ricksfolly

You surely can't be discussing McChrystal and Petreus because they've both had extensive combat experience aside their schooling :shrug: Surely what they didn't learn in school they've since learned on the battle field? Surely their extensive training is quite flexible in all the areas necessary - when it's applicable to the situation.

Note - our former General, General McChrystal - did NOT attend West Point . . . and he's former :shrug: So maybe that actually says something.

 

[deltabtry]

You surely can't be discussing McChrystal and Petreus because they've both had extensive combat experience aside their schooling :shrug: Surely what they didn't learn in school they've since learned on the battle field? Surely their extensive training is quite flexible in all the areas necessary - when it's applicable to the situation.

Note - our former General, General McChrystal - did NOT attend West Point . . . and he's former :shrug: So maybe that actually says something.

BTW Auntie..I like your signature that says it all

 

[jujuman13]

What makes you think our West Point officers aren't being taught unconventional tactics now? What makes you think sergeants and non-commissioned officers are experts on unconventional warfare?

Look at the ever increasing number of deaths and other injuries on a month by month basis.
Someone somewhere is proposing that this fight be fought in a not too successful manner.
West Point officers are the officers in charge of US personel.

 

[joe246]

Lotta armchair generalship going on here.


Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency. Let him do things his way, and we'll see progress.

what you call armchair generalship i call intelligence. iraq and afghanistan are our longest wars in this countrys history. vietnam another insurgency showed how bad our generals are at it

 

[Shewter]

Look at the ever increasing number of deaths and other injuries on a month by month basis.
Someone somewhere is proposing that this fight be fought in a not too successful manner.
West Point officers are the officers in charge of US personel.

You seem to think that "Generals" are inexperienced OCS candidates who happen to stumble upon rank. Do you realize what it takes for someon to gain a star? Let alone 4? It's not like these are College students signing up and being pinned Brigade commanders and higher. Alot of the Generals you see guiding us oversees are Soldiers who have dug their claws in and climbed up the rank structure from Lower Enlisted to Non-Commission then finally to Commission. All the while, they were gaining the necessary knowledge of how the troops and their surroundings interact.

Now, LT's and CPT's may be a different story. But, when it comes to Logistics support, all that is required is the essential knowledge they learn in their Advanced Training. Their day to day includes soldier support. Not necessarily battle tactics and TRUE leadership.

Otherwise, our higher ups are actually VERY qualified. Don't think for one second that someone who has devoted their life to the Military gets to be someone of that status because of OCS.

A co. 16th ORD BN.

 

[ricksfolly]

What makes you think our West Point officers aren't being taught unconventional tactics now? What makes you think sergeants and non-commissioned officers are experts on unconventional warfare?

Non-com boots on the ground is a far better learning experience than reading maps and pin sticking from remote areas, especially since our enemy has no rules of engagement of his own and every situation is new and different.

Really, now. How does a general or colonel formulate plans and counter plans, when the enemy acts randomly?

All General Petraeus can say is, "We are in this to win, we are engaged in a contest of wills," and offers no clue about what we can win, or what giant wills he's in a contest with. One can only wonder if he's living in the past when ROE had its last hurrah.

ricksfolly

 

[samsmart]

Non-com boots on the ground is a far better learning experience than reading maps and pin sticking from remote areas, especially since our enemy has no rules of engagement of his own and every situation is new and different.

Really, now. How does a general or colonel formulate plans and counter plans, when the enemy acts randomly?

All General Petraeus can say is, "We are in this to win, we are engaged in a contest of wills," and offers no clue about what we can win, or what giant wills he's in a contest with. One can only wonder if he's living in the past when ROE had its last hurrah.

And you think commissioned officers don't learn a thing or two about actual combat in the +22 years it takes them to go from Lieutenant to Colonel or General?

You also need to learn the difference between "strategy" and "tactics."

 

[deltabtry]

And you think commissioned officers don't learn a thing or two about actual combat in the +22 years it takes them to go from Lieutenant to Colonel or General?

You also need to learn the difference between "strategy" and "tactics."

You are correct samsmart and Rick officers do learn a lot from non -comms but usually in their junior officers stage but that said combat is a learning experience everyday but strategy and tactics are always for the most part left to the officers.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

I have a question for rick: what makes you think the insurgents have no generals? The various groups definitely have top leadership which would qualify for the world general and these men do help coordinate attacks across the country. Besides that we're talking about asymmetrical warfare which means what works for one side will not work for the other. A looser chain of command might work well for insurgents but horribly for those fighting them for a variety of reasons (from logistics to rules of engagement to the need to implement COIN strategy).

Finally, you should probably consider that US military strategy tends to be based off the originally German idea of "mission tactics," which tends to emphasize flexibility and freedom of action on the lower ranks after having been given an objective but the higher ups. So non-coms already have a high degree of autonomy especially in combat.

As for joe's idea of just using special ops, no its not intelligence it is the kind of tactics that we've been using. Targeted killing of insurgents and insurgent leaders has been the order of the day since US troops arrived in the country. Special forces, aircraft, and predator drones are being and have been used. But that's not an effective means of fighting insurgency. The point of counter-insurgency is not to kill the enemy, it is to secure the populace and secure territory. These tactics have helped defeat or at least bring under control insurgencies in numerous instances from the Second Boer War (probably the original COIN strategy though a bit more brutal than modern versions), to Sri Lanka (after two decades of joe's "just kill the insurgents plan" having no results they finally switched to COIN and within a few years crushed the Tamil independence movement), to Iraq (where Petraeus' COIN strategy yield huge dividends in increasing security though the Iraqis will probably have to work a few more years before the insurgency finally dies out). To do COIN you need lots of troops and special forces, while good in any number of ways, are designed to do the kind of day-to-day ground holding and security work needed for COIN, nor are there enough of them.

 

[deltabtry]

I have a question for rick: what makes you think the insurgents have no generals? The various groups definitely have top leadership which would qualify for the world general and these men do help coordinate attacks across the country. Besides that we're talking about asymmetrical warfare which means what works for one side will not work for the other. A looser chain of command might work well for insurgents but horribly for those fighting them for a variety of reasons (from logistics to rules of engagement to the need to implement COIN strategy).

Finally, you should probably consider that US military strategy tends to be based off the originally German idea of "mission tactics," which tends to emphasize flexibility and freedom of action on the lower ranks after having been given an objective but the higher ups. So non-coms already have a high degree of autonomy especially in combat.

As for joe's idea of just using special ops, no its not intelligence it is the kind of tactics that we've been using. Targeted killing of insurgents and insurgent leaders has been the order of the day since US troops arrived in the country. Special forces, aircraft, and predator drones are being and have been used. But that's not an effective means of fighting insurgency. The point of counter-insurgency is not to kill the enemy, it is to secure the populace and secure territory. These tactics have helped defeat or at least bring under control insurgencies in numerous instances from the Second Boer War (probably the original COIN strategy though a bit more brutal than modern versions), to Sri Lanka (after two decades of joe's "just kill the insurgents plan" having no results they finally switched to COIN and within a few years crushed the Tamil independence movement), to Iraq (where Petraeus' COIN strategy yield huge dividends in increasing security though the Iraqis will probably have to work a few more years before the insurgency finally dies out). To do COIN you need lots of troops and special forces, while good in any number of ways, are designed to do the kind of day-to-day ground holding and security work needed for COIN, nor are there enough of them.

Currently a very good portion of our armored tactics was intiated by this very talented and knowlegdable General ..Rommel BTW who dispised Hitler..
YouTube - Rommel Speaking

 

[apdst]

You surely can't be discussing McChrystal and Petreus because they've both had extensive combat experience aside their schooling :shrug: Surely what they didn't learn in school they've since learned on the battle field? Surely their extensive training is quite flexible in all the areas necessary - when it's applicable to the situation.

Note - our former General, General McChrystal - did NOT attend West Point . . . and he's former :shrug: So maybe that actually says something.

Actually, McChrystal did graduate from West Point. The fact that he's the former theater commander doesn't really say anything, unless there's any real proof that McChrystal screwed the pooch; or were his hands tied by the suits-n-ties in Washington.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually, McChrystal did graduate from West Point. The fact that he's the former theater commander doesn't really say anything, unless there's any real proof that McChrystal screwed the pooch; or were his hands tied by the suits-n-ties in Washington.

You're right - he did - my bad

 

[VonDutch]

If your going to respond to my reply, answer this first, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

Besides roadside bombs (which obviously are effective since they have been used the entire time) it appears to be small casualty loses during team exchanges and a sniper is the effective "terrorist" of choice.

As far as, "why havent we won" goes, think about if a foreign nation was constantly bombing your childhood neighborhood, when you and none of your childhood friends had anything to do with it. You've seen many friends and family killed by this enemy, you are scared that you and your family are next, there is no economy, no assistance, you are trying to survive, and provide for your family. Every industry has been destroyed. In some cases local militia (guys you knew growing up) try to recruit you, your a good man so you are hesitate, but you know these guys, they offer assistance to provide for your family, they preach to you the propaganda of "defending your land" "defending your childhood neighborhood" from the foreign nation who killed/bombed/attacked/destroyed this/that. You doubt your assistance in the resistance can matter to a superpower like the US, but your recruiter says, "We did it to Russia.... and we've been doing this for 10years...."

What the hell are you doing to do?

So again, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

^We are securing the future.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Look at the ever increasing number of deaths and other injuries on a month by month basis.
Someone somewhere is proposing that this fight be fought in a not too successful manner.
West Point officers are the officers in charge of US personel.

How many deaths have occurred this past month? Five? Not a big number to decide that we are losing this war.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

How many deaths have occurred this past month? Five? Not a big number to decide that we are losing this war.

Yes, in this type of fight we're not judging success or fail by the # of casualties. . .our goal and their goal isnt' to just get rid of us all.
that's one way this war is different than others in the past.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

How many deaths have occurred this past month? Five? Not a big number to decide that we are losing this war.

It is to those soldier's families.