Terrorist commando raid KO's Harriers in Afghanistan

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Soviets absolutely did not go after the safe havens in Pakistan. It's very hard to defeat an insurgency that has safe havens. Drone strikes are ok for attrition but are not decisive on their own.

[JonS]

Villages that are sympathetic to the Taliban: annihilated. Safe havens in Pakistan: invaded and destroyed. Not saying we should, only that we could.

The Romans had a process for putting down insurrections that they called vastatio, which translates to "devastation". As they marched they burnt crops and killed all the animals. Hostile settlements that capitulated were left untouched on condition that they supply hostages for the Romans to keep to unsure the town's continued good behavior. Settlements that resisted were wiped out. The process was continued until the rebels lost their will or ability to resist. It was quite effective.

[Vanir Ausf B]

LOL, really? I wouldn't have guessed. As I alluded to earlier, we signed those conventions of our own free will, not because we had to.

And for the last time, there is a difference between could and should.

[JonS]

Well, I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I mean, you could fire 192 Tridents, each with 8 x 475kt nuclear warheads, at Afghanistan. The weapons exist, and targetting them is just a matter of entering a lat-long.

But that's not going to happen, is it? So why bother bringing it up?

Don't you think that talking about the plausible is a little more useful than engaging in "Rawr! I've got a huge dick an' I'ma slap you in the face with it!" fantasy posturing?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know if talking about slapping them with our huge cock is much more fanciful than talking about the UN running the country for the next 40 years. But it is at least more entertaining.

[JonS]

Ah. Right. In that case ...

Are we entertained yet?

[Vanir Ausf B]

You're the only one talking nukes.

[ZPB II]

It is on these rare occasions that the Taliban manage to accomplish something of military significance that I pause to wonder at the vast disparity between what passes for success to them and for us.

Imagine, if you will, that the US or any other NATO country sent in a team of 15 commandos to strike a Taliban or al-Qaeda training base. They blow up a few buildings and kill a couple of bad guys, but in the end all 15 commandos are killed or captured. It would be considered a minor disaster. There would be calls for investigations. Bigduke6 would be making predictions on how the Pentagon will put a positive spin on the defeat. But when the Taliban do it people talk like its the ****ing Battle of Isandlwana.

You do realize that it is this kind of arrogance that has lead to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes, failures. The US was bled heavily in these places, how much damage was done is left to be seen. Expensive military blunders that greatly reduced the diplomatic influence that the US wields on the world arena while accomplishing...umm...

The bit about going Roman on Afghanistan has me thinking this has got to be trolling of some kind.

What do you think the purpose of the war is? To kill people and blow stuff up? Is the United States in dire need of enemies and wants to make more?

Soldiers should fight for peace, not for war.

The West currently has a glass jaw in terms of casualty-sensitivity. There is a reason for this. The Western society is a modern one that doesn't treat people as cannon fodder. It weirds me out to read this kind of war fantasy. I get the mental image of a person shouting "WE HAVE SO MUCH FIREPOWER THAT WE CAN KILL EVERYONE AND BLOW EVERYTHING UP IF WE WANTED HAHAHAHA THAT'D BE SO COOL"

But I guess that's not so weird when it comes from someone who glorifies unfortunate events in history, such as entering foreign territory and killing people so you can claim it as your own. You know, like what happened to Native Americans. (atleast I get the feel of glorification when you talk about bumps in the road...)

Hubris brings down empires. You should know, seeing how eager you are to use the Romans as an example. I do not understand why one would want to underestimate his opponent, as far as I know history is full of examples on what happens as a result.

You do not live in a vacuum. If you play fantasy war where you nuke countries into submission, I'll introduce the scenario where the world is shocked at the barbaric and destructive US horde. Russia, China, the EU, India and Pakistan unite under a single banner for the sake of mankind and declare war on this psychotic and rampaging nation.

Do tell how this fantasy war will proceed? Does the righteous corporate USA have enough nuclear capability to take on the world and come out as a winner?

Your violent and xenophobic reaction to the failure that is the US involvement in Afghanistan leads me to believe you are afraid. The mighty war machine grinded to a halt on the dusty mountains, the technological edge blunted by the jihadist approach to warfare...

But hey, the resistance in Afghanistan is militarily insignificant. It's a cakewalk out there...What a joke.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You do realize that it is this kind of arrogance that has lead to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, no, I don't. With regard to Afghanistan our reason for going in there was to take out al-Qaeda and push the Taliban out of power. We've had significant success with that. Our failures have mostly been in the nation building arena. I don't think we should ever have gotten into that. I blame mission creep as well as the strategic mistake of diverting resources to invade Iraq. I don't think arrogance has much to do with it.

As for Iraq, there was certainly no shortage of arrogance among those who advocated that adventure*, but it was arrogance of a very different kind than you are mistakenly attributing to me. You see, they saw Iraq as a hearts-and-minds campaign, the very same type of strategy I have been poo-pooing in this thread. They thought we would be "greeted as liberators". Now to be fair, the initial invasion pretty much was a cakewalk. But we stuck around for the "transitional period" aka nation building, and got sucked unto the resulting civil war. Despite all of that we basically won the war. It was a Pyrrhic victory to be sure since what we got from it was nowhere near the cost in blood and treasure and whatnot, but we did in fact remove Saddam and replace him with a sometimes friendly government -- albeit not nearly as pliable as invasion advocates had hoped -- and we did basically crush the insurgency. The failure was in not solving the political issues that lay beneath the civil war, although that was something we really couldn't do for the Iraqis. Consequently, and predictably, things are going pear-shaped again now that we have left.

*Does not include me. I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, which I could prove with numerous examples if the General forum posts from that far back still existed. I did support going into Afghanistan, but there is no contradiction in that since the two wars were entered into for different reasons.

Yes, failures. The US was bled heavily in these places, how much damage was done is left to be seen. Expensive military blunders that greatly reduced the diplomatic influence that the US wields on the world arena while accomplishing...umm...

I would like to think we have given BFC copious amounts of weapon performance data for their modern games.

What do you think the purpose of the war is? To kill people and blow stuff up? Is the United States in dire need of enemies and wants to make more?

War is politics by different means, but it almost always involves some amount of killing and blowing stuff up. Pointing out that our military is really quite good at killing and blowing stuff up, and that hearts-and-minds campaigns don't play to that strength, isn't arrogance. It's just a statement of fact. Or do you disagree? I get the impression that you don't, but are for some reason annoyed that I said it anyways.

Soldiers should fight for peace, not for war.

I'm all in favor of ****ing for virginity.

The West currently has a glass jaw in terms of casualty-sensitivity. There is a reason for this. The Western society is a modern one that doesn't treat people as cannon fodder. It weirds me out to read this kind of war fantasy. I get the mental image of a person shouting "WE HAVE SO MUCH FIREPOWER THAT WE CAN KILL EVERYONE AND BLOW EVERYTHING UP IF WE WANTED HAHAHAHA THAT'D BE SO COOL"

It weirds me out to read of your mental images of me.

But I guess that's not so weird when it comes from someone who glorifies unfortunate events in history, such as entering foreign territory and killing people so you can claim it as your own. You know, like what happened to Native Americans. (atleast I get the feel of glorification when you talk about bumps in the road...)

I don't think what I said glorified anything at all. It was a statement of historical fact.

Hubris brings down empires. You should know, seeing how eager you are to use the Romans as an example. I do not understand why one would want to underestimate his opponent, as far as I know history is full of examples on what happens as a result.

I don't think hubris had much to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It was probably more a combination of economic and demographic factors, combined with its unstable political structure. The late Empire was not expansionist, and was really more in a defensive posture militarily. Moreover, I think the case could be made that had it not been for their hubris, and their fierce patriotism, Rome would never have had an empire to begin with. Most of the Empire's territory was not ceded to it willingly.

If you play fantasy war where you nuke countries into submission, I'll introduce the scenario where the world is shocked at the barbaric and destructive US horde. Russia, China, the EU, India and Pakistan unite under a single banner for the sake of mankind and declare war on this psychotic and rampaging nation.

If BFC ever make such a game I would be honered to be your first PBEM opponent.

Do tell how this fantasy war will proceed? Does the righteous corporate USA have enough nuclear capability to take on the world and come out as a winner?

Umm, probably not. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. I never advocated nuking anyone.

Ever played Defcon? I hear it's fun.

Your violent and xenophobic reaction to the failure that is the US involvement in Afghanistan leads me to believe you are afraid. The mighty war machine grinded to a halt on the dusty mountains, the technological edge blunted by the jihadist approach to warfare...

"Violent" and "xenophobic" are accurate descriptors of the Taliban. I am not xenophobic at all, but I won't hesitate to label the Taliban a bunch of ****bags. Because that's what they are. Do you disagree? Do you admire their misogynistic, medieval outlook on the world? Do you feel they are misunderstood? Do you view them as some sort of freedom fighters?

But hey, the resistance in Afghanistan is militarily insignificant. It's a cakewalk out there...What a joke.

I hope you had as much fun writing that post as i did replying to it. You are, after all, a pleasure beast

[Dietrich]

*clears throat* If I may be so bold as to refer back to the topic of this thread...

If insurgents can score a propaganda victory and cost their enemy hundreds of millions of dollars in hard-to-replace equipment for the loss of only 15 lives (however much those 15 may have been the Taliban equivalent of SEALs and thereby far less disposable than the run-o'-the-mill RPG-wielder)… actually, I'm not sure where I was going with that. Guess I'm just taken aback.

Isn't Camp Bastion supposed to be one of the safest places in Afghanistan (for a military base, that is)? I'd be interested to know how they're going to beef up security in and around Camp Bastion. If VMA-211 got kinda sorta crippled by just 15 crafty insurgents, I wonder what the Devil Dogs over at Camp Leatherneck are gonna be up to in the coming days/weeks.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Presumably repairing holes in fences.

[ZPB II]

To Vanir Ausf B,

The thing is, war is always fought in the real world. There is little room to speculate or say "but if you disregard this and consider only this, we would have won."

What I mean by arrogance is the same thing that causes most traffic accidents to happen on familiar roads. Overconfidence, underestimating certain factors, being lulled into a false sense of security. It's the routine that kills you.

Going into Iraq and Afghanistan, the US assumed things. Now, I know what they say about hindsight, but...Assuming you could simply park an army tailored for a Cold War slugfest into a hostile country and be greeted as liberators was about as naive as it gets. So many people ended up paying for the politicians and lobbyists lack of insight with their blood.

I don't know what I can say about fundamentalism and especially fundamentalism of that certain religion. One needs to be tact and diplomatic on this forum and I don't think I can express my thoughts in such a fashion. But this is a civilian opinion and it has no room in military thinking. When you start to think of your opponent as a demon, it will cloud your judgement and in the end this will result in loss of life. A military mind will always respect his opponent and never underestimate.

I had fun writing. I did the inflammatory tone to juxtapose what I perceived as quite outlandish statements.

I do admit that I felt a slight tinge of, I don't know. Hhmm.

Let's just say that there are Finnish peacekeepers in Afghanistan right now trying to do the nation building thing. I was quite close to sending the application papers and possibly ending up there myself. I'm an idealistic fool, but the world needs them. The American Gung-Ho attitude is extremely dangerous to the health and well-being of these men and women. I hope you understand my view, that there are real people with their lives on the line as they try to build a nation. I'm not saying your post is relevant to this, but the opinion and attitude in general. The attitude of might makes right, shoot first ask later...this kind of thing inflames the situation and increases the risk.

I also know some nice Afghans so reading that...well...you know...

No hard feelings, man.

[Redwolf]

As you know, you go to war with the Marine Corps aviation you have, not the Marine Corp aviation you might want or wish to have at a later time.

And frankly, why not Harriers? Do they suck at CAS or something?

The result is that the US lost a significant portion of it's vertical liftoff CAS capable aircraft.

Given the delay in that particular F-35 variant this sucks, plain and simple. These airplanes were wasted. Hopefully we can buy a couple more from the Brits.

[Wicky]

IIRC Harriers if they can, to maximise fuel load & weapons load, perform STOF rolling take offs

I think we flogged em all for peanuts to the US already :-(

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18115

[Bigduke6]

Oh I'm sure he's viewing things in a different way. I just happen to think it's a kinda ****ed up way to view things. Those 15 commandos were almost certainly hand-picked fighters who had a level of training that is uncommon among the Taliban. Yeah, you can make the argument that they still got good bang for their buck. But how often does that happen? Every dog has its day, and it seems like only a few times per year we see them kill more people at a time than you can count on one hand or blow up something expensive.

I know. We also no longer allow ourselves to win wars by crushing the enemy with overwhelming force, which happens to be what our military is best at. That is very considerate of us, but it makes everything so much harder, and perversely also increases our own casualties.

I disagree. 15 young men motivated by jihad, and mentally and physically capable of doing the training to perform a one-way raid against people thought by them to be infidel invaders, are not a rare commodity in Afghanistan. It is a simple matter of reconnaissance, identification of ways to make the raid given the limited resources at hand, and training.

I'm certainly not going to argue that 6-8 destroyed aircraft and 3 trashed fuel dumps, and whatever else that got done that is not being made public or has not yet been made public, will halt the NATO war effort. However, anyway you cut it, 180 million dollars in a single night is a painful dent.

But I would call the raid much more significant because as far as I know this is the first time the Taliban managed actually go get onto an airfield and conduct a successful raid against an air base. Sure they'd mortared before but get on base and kill people and blow planes up?

They'd already managed ambushes of platoon-size elements and inflicting casualties against company-sized elements. Whether NATO likes it or not, that's a step up the insurgency capacity ladder for the Taliban.

I certainly call it a Taliban success because, again, whether NATO likes it or not, Taliban fighters are expendable and as nearly as I can tell they are fine with that. The NATO position that the Taliban is wasteful of human life and so incapable of prosecuting a war is stupid. As Gunnergoz points out, the war is over which side can demonstrate it is more resilient, and more capable of enforcing its will over large portions of Afghanistan.

If the Taliban is up against a force capable of deploying laser-guided munitions and just about everything else in the NATO inventory up to nuclear devices, and the Taliban has its act together enough to pull off a raid like this, then like it or not, that is a powerful demonstration of organization and will.

Deep breath and [rant]

NATO led by the US is not even in the same ball park, heck, not in the same league when it comes to will. As old Vanir points out, the Americans and their friends won't kill people on general grounds they might be insurgents, they won't go after safe havens in a meaningful way, they won't mobilize their economies, they won't draft young men, and the only way they are capable of maintaining forces in field, and preventing the NATO nation civilizations from pulling the cash plug, is by making the top military priority prevention of blue casualties.

NATO people don't like to look at things this way, but then, their opinion doesn't matter so much. What does matter is which side is going to outlast the other. NATO has said it is, for the most part, pulling the troops out in 2014. I think it was yesterday they announced, they were reducing joint patrols with the ANA, because of what NATO calls "green on blue incidents".

That euphemism means, of course, the insurgency has figured out how to infiltrate its own people into the ANA or convert ANA members to the insurgency, which in and of itself is a logical and somewhat impressive achievement, but they have managed to increase the threat perceived by NATO from the ANA to such an exent, that NATO must consciously step back from its long-term goal of handing over the country's security to the Afghans. That is a patent NATO failure. It is a sign the Taliban is winning, and even if NATO spokespeople deny it there is no way to change what the Afghans see in their country.

For those like Vanir who perhaps yearn for going in and "crushing the enemy with overwhelming military force", I would point out that's been tried, the US overran Afghanistan in what was it, a several months during 2001-2. All the way to the Pakistan border, lightning campaign, rah rah special forces, Rumsfeld is a genius. Remember?

Professional militaries are very hierarchical organizations and there is a real danger in them for large groups of the members to decide that Our Assumptions = Correct Assumptions. One of the most dangerous and incorrect assumptions, that has been driving US policy for years, is that correct application of military force will necessarily, and always, enforce the political result desired by US policy. A parallel and similarly insidious assmumption is, possession of overwhelming military force equals the real capacity to deploy useful military force.

In Afghanistan, indeed just as in Vietnam, US forces are shackled because they are fighting a war not supported by the population. By this I mean the US population. It is possible to point fingers and blame politicians and whine about, couldn't we just make an incursion into Pakistan's Tribal Areas just once, but the bottom line is the US population lacks the desire and will to green light the use of much military force in Afghanistan. This has been abundantly clear to the Taliban from Day 1, and that has made their top strategic goal to be simply existing as a viable organization until such time as the war becomes so intolerable to the US population, that they force the military to quit.

Demonstrations of viability, therefore, are like gold to the Taliban.

It is another question of course, whether it was a smart idea to get involved in a war where to win all the other guy has to do is not go away, when from the get-go most of the tools of war are not available options to your side.

And another thing. We complain about safe havens, but sometimes I really lose patience. The Taliban are largely Pathans, so are Pakistan's tribal areas, it is one of the great smuggling regions of history, the great part of the Pathans are Muslims and rural, and Pakistan is nuclear capable. What genius in the Pentagon or the White House decided: Hey, let's invade, if an insurgency crops up we can deal with it! There probably won't be any safe havens! And if there are safe havens, no worries, we're the only superpower! We'll just wipe those safe havens out!

How many more professional soldiers and lower-level policy makers saw this debacle coming, or taking place, and just kept their mouths shut? It's got to be a lot, twelve years is a lot of TDY and field assignments.

[/rant]

There, I feel better.

[Vanir Ausf B]

They'd already managed ambushes of platoon-size elements and inflicting casualties against company-sized elements. Whether NATO likes it or not, that's a step up the insurgency capacity ladder for the Taliban.

It's a one-off. By-in-large I don't think the Taliban has massively grown in capability recently.

http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx

I certainly call it a Taliban success because, again, whether NATO likes it or not, Taliban fighters are expendable and as nearly as I can tell they are fine with that. The NATO position that the Taliban is wasteful of human life and so incapable of prosecuting a war is stupid. As Gunnergoz points out, the war is over which side can demonstrate it is more resilient, and more capable of enforcing its will over large portions of Afghanistan.

NATO people don't like to look at things this way, but then, their opinion doesn't matter so much. What does matter is which side is going to outlast the other. NATO has said it is, for the most part, pulling the troops out in 2014.

True. The bar for Taliban success is very low. They only need to avoid annihilation while inflicting a small but steady trickle of casualties to remind everyone they are still there. It does not take much skill to do that, just determination. And I grant that they do have it in spades.

I think it was yesterday they announced, they were reducing joint patrols with the ANA, because of what NATO calls "green on blue incidents".

That euphemism means, of course, the insurgency has figured out how to infiltrate its own people into the ANA or convert ANA members to the insurgency, which in and of itself is a logical and somewhat impressive achievement, but they have managed to increase the threat perceived by NATO from the ANA to such an exent, that NATO must consciously step back from its long-term goal of handing over the country's security to the Afghans. That is a patent NATO failure. It is a sign the Taliban is winning, and even if NATO spokespeople deny it there is no way to change what the Afghans see in their country.

When you are rapidly growing an organization in a country where corruption is rampant and record keeping and even literacy is the exception rather than the rule sneaking in some bad apples is not hard, and probably is not even possible to prevent. Also, investigations have shown that many if not most of the green on blue incidents are perpetrated by individuals who are not affiliation with the Taliban, but who are instead motivated by personal grievances.

For those like Vanir who perhaps yearn for going in and "crushing the enemy with overwhelming military force", I would point out that's been tried, the US overran Afghanistan in what was it, a several months during 2001-2. All the way to the Pakistan border, lightning campaign, rah rah special forces, Rumsfeld is a genius. Remember?

I am on record as thinking this is not a good idea. But it is not true that we already did it. The number of troops we had in Afghanistan in 2001-2 was a small fraction of what are there now. IIRC at the time of the Battle of Tora Bora we only had about 5000 troops on the ground in the whole country.

And another thing. We complain about safe havens, but sometimes I really lose patience. The Taliban are largely Pathans, so are Pakistan's tribal areas, it is one of the great smuggling regions of history, the great part of the Pathans are Muslims and rural, and Pakistan is nuclear capable. What genius in the Pentagon or the White House decided: Hey, let's invade, if an insurgency crops up we can deal with it! There probably won't be any safe havens! And if there are safe havens, no worries, we're the only superpower! We'll just wipe those safe havens out!

I am hardly a fan of the geniuses who were running the White House and Pentagon back then, but I think it could be reasonably argued that 9/11 created an imperative that could not be ignored.

[/rant]

There, I feel better.

I'm here to help.

[ZPB II]

Yet another quality post by BD6, bravo.

I'd like to add some words to a couple of points. I think there are some gross perception errors.

First, painting with a broad brush and assuming that there is a single entity faction called the Taliban and every member is a generic peasant with an AK. The tribal militia "doctrine" if one might call it that, is quite an effective thing. There are some rather hardcore mujahideen fighters in the country.

Second, having the mindset that you think in lines drawn on a map. It's a western way to think. The planners neglected such things as culture, religion and ethnic groups.

Third, in the world we live in, if the US will use overwhelming force it will trigger a jihad on a scale reminescent of days that are not all that long past. The current mujahideen are well aware of this fact. Considering the current state of economics and politics, I don't think a jihad of this scale is going to improve things much...Atleast not in our lifetime.

[Vanir Ausf B]

First, painting with a broad brush and assuming that there is a single entity faction called the Taliban and every member is a generic peasant with an AK. The tribal militia "doctrine" if one might call it that, is quite an effective thing. There are some rather hardcore mujahideen fighters in the country.

Well there are obviously some Taliban who are quite capable, albeit 15 fewer than last week. I would think they would be somewhat more prevalent among the Pakistani Taliban than the Afghan Taliban. Foreign jihadis are typically the hardest of the hardcore. Back when they were running the place and had something like a regular army the Taliban had a brigade of al-Qaeda trained foreigners that they used like Soviet NKVD.

Third, in the world we live in, if the US will use overwhelming force it will trigger a jihad on a scale reminescent of days that are not all that long past. The current mujahideen are well aware of this fact. Considering the current state of economics and politics, I don't think a jihad of this scale is going to improve things much...Atleast not in our lifetime.

You are probably right. For now I think we should limit ourselves to posting obnoxious videos on Youtube.

No hard feelings, man.

No hard feelings here either, but your man-crush on BD6 is putting a strain on our relationship.

[Bigduke6]

No hard feelings here either, but your man-crush on BD6 is putting a strain on our relationship.

Heh. Who says I am a man?

As to this -

When you are rapidly growing an organization in a country where corruption is rampant and record keeping and even literacy is the exception rather than the rule sneaking in some bad apples is not hard, and probably is not even possible to prevent. Also, investigations have shown that many if not most of the green on blue incidents are perpetrated by individuals who are not affiliation with the Taliban, but who are instead motivated by personal grievances.

I would say first and foremost, Afghanistan's endemic corruption, lack of education, and minimal government records on citizens were not, and indeed have never been secrets. Why, then, invade the place? Why has the US and NATO pretended for something like a decade or a half decade or whatever it is, that in the absence of these things, a viable local security force can be created? Or that, in the absence of the creation of that force, security can be maintained by NATO forces, given the rules of engagement and boots-on-ground limits those NATO forces have? The ANA isn't Tinkerbell, its effectiveness does not depend on how much we believe in it.

I would also point out that, in Vietnam, we heard much of the same song-and-dance: gotta be patient, it takes time to build civil society, they've been so corrupt for so long we can't expect to turn these people into law-abiding Scandinavians overnight.

Meanwhile the Communist Vietnamese put together a nice ruthless organization with selflessness and sacrifice and honesty and even self-criticism base values at every level of the structure, and corruption if present was so minor that compared to the Dieu regime, the Communists seemed serious about law and order like, I dunno, like Republican suburban residents with a barrio next door.

Is it really credible that the Taliban are a bunch of disorganized, unprofessional, unmotivated and uneducated bums, just like the Afghans willing to work for NATO seem to be? Is creation of a movement where law and order and discipline are valued, really beyond Afghan tribesmen and city-dwelling who believe they are fighting a jihad?

Is it credible that only very few of those Afghans working for NATO are doing so out of purely personal motivation, i.e., the infidels have lots of money and might as well collect some of it from them while they're here? It would be good to be sure there are only a very few of them, because if, in contrast, there are a lot of them, then the moment NATO stops paying - and this can happen not just if the money stops, but if it gets routed through the corrupt Karzai regime - then a whole bunch of NATO-trained Afghans are going to switch sides, and reasonably so, they're not getting paid any more.

I'm not going to make any predictions, but I will say this: Military people coming from countries where rule of law prevails, and who do not as a rule speak Dari or Pathan, will not be the best judges of the personal inclinations of an Afghan citizen recruited to serve in the ANA.

Which brings me to green on blue. It's all very well and good to say, well, actually it was local grievances rather than a Taliban operation when some ANA service member turns his weapon on his former NATO buddies.

But I have to ask myself, what does that say about the relationship between the NATO trainers and the ANA trainees? Are we to believe the NATO trainers just accidentally made some mortal insult out of the blue and set the guy off? Or are we to believe there was tension and antagonism between trainers and and trainees simmering for some time, and somehow the trainers and their superiors didn't notice?

And even if that tension was there, and for some reason there were good reasons the NATO people didn't notice it, are we to believe the Taliban really lacks people intelligent enough to identify and exploit rifts between NATO and ANA soldiers? And therefore, that we should accept the NATO version of events, you know, what the NATO investigators tell us, which is that these green-on-blue incidents are just sort of local misunderstandings which have little to do with the insurgency and the Taliban?

I am far from assigning everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan to a nefarious Taliban central council sitting on rugs and sipping tea and pulling strings from a secret hide out in the Tribal Territories. But still, more and more, I am having even more trouble believing the US/NATO service members or their commanders have any idea at all of what they are doing. They can say whatever they want, but if they reduce joint operations with the ANA because they're afraid the Afghans NATO trained might just attack their teachers, then the word for that is failure.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Heh. Who says I am a man?

No one explicitly, but I did notice your forum name is not Bigduchess6.

I would say first and foremost, Afghanistan's endemic corruption, lack of education, and minimal government records on citizens were not, and indeed have never been secrets. Why, then, invade the place?

Um, 9/11? Just a guess.

Why has the US and NATO pretended for something like a decade or a half decade or whatever it is, that in the absence of these things, a viable local security force can be created? Or that, in the absence of the creation of that force, security can be maintained by NATO forces, given the rules of engagement and boots-on-ground limits those NATO forces have? The ANA isn't Tinkerbell, its effectiveness does not depend on how much we believe in it.

Maybe because having removed the effective government they felt a sense of responsibility to replace it with something better? Or perhaps they worried that if they pulled out right away things would soon go right back to how they had been? Again, just a guess.

And therefore, that we should accept the NATO version of events, you know, what the NATO investigators tell us, which is that these green-on-blue incidents are just sort of local misunderstandings which have little to do with the insurgency and the Taliban?

I think they would know better than you. And I think we get that you don't believe anything NATO says that doesn't fit your narrative. But no one said ALL the green on blue incidents are motivated by personal grievances.

I am far from assigning everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan to a nefarious Taliban central council sitting on rugs and sipping tea and pulling strings from a secret hide out in the Tribal Territories. But still, more and more, I am having even more trouble believing the US/NATO service members or their commanders have any idea at all of what they are doing. They can say whatever they want, but if they reduce joint operations with the ANA because they're afraid the Afghans NATO trained might just attack their teachers, then the word for that is failure.

I'm a bit unclear on exactly why you think we are failing. Is it because you think the task was impossible to begin with, or is it because the US/NATO forces are incompetent?

[Redwolf]

Actually it is no secret at all that the Taliban were much better at enforcing laws than any other Afghan government before them, and that classic corruption in their ranks was much lower, too. Just look at what happened to drug farming before, during and after their rule.

The problem is that we didn't like their objectives, which were directed against us (actively via supporting terrorism), that we did not rate their laws as fair and in line with human rights (in particular toward women) and that although Afghanistan was stable as such under their rule they would destabilize neighbor countries, namely Pakistan and a couple former Soviet republics.

[Bigduke6]

Vanir,

I would say first and foremost, Afghanistan's endemic corruption, lack of education, and minimal government records on citizens were not, and indeed have never been secrets. Why, then, invade the place?

Um, 9/11? Just a guess.

I see your point, my apologies, I wasn't being clear. The 9/11 terror attacks are certainly an emotionally fufilling justification. But what I'm asking is, what in the world posessed the people in charge to conclude that since those attacks took place, Afghanistan had suddenly become ripe grounds for the installation of a (relatively) modern state, with infidels (in the minds of most of the Afghans) doing the installing?

To me that is a losing proposition from the get-go. To me, 9/11 is not a good reason to invade Afghanistan unless you plan to leave again in a couple of weeks. The place can't be made stable unless a major nation or coalition decides to fight a long-term war there and, necessarily, kill a lot of people on both sides. By a lot I mean, probably 1,000s. Maybe tens of thousands. Far more than any major nation can handle, without mobilization. Certainly more than the US population was willing to accept in 2002, and far, far more than they will tolerate today.

So you may have gathered, in my personal opinion I disagree with you about 9/11 being a valid casus belli for a long-term invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. But there are other opinions out there.

I think they would know better than you. And I think we get that you don't believe anything NATO says that doesn't fit your narrative. But no one said ALL the green on blue incidents are motivated by personal grievances.

Well, maybe they do know better. But I have no vested interest in making NATO look good, nor do I have a vested interest in painting the ANA, and NATO's training of it, in the very best light. Any one speaking officially for NATO either does, or is taking orders from some one who does.

I would submit that makes NATO more inherently inclined towards a narrative on the ANA than I am. I'm just a guy writing on wargaming forum, expecting most of whomever reads what I write will be other wargamers. There a real insurgency in progress, not a game, and for us wargamers it's a compelling question - how effective are the insurgents and how effective are the, er, non-insurgents? Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out who's winning, or more recently, when is the game clock running out.

But I would also wonder, when does a "narrative" become "getting it right?" Surely it must happen sometimes.

Certainly, there are more than few members of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, who are far more critical of the ANA, than the NATO spokesmen. Does that mean that all that noise from the troops we keep hearing about the ANA being somewhere between Keystone cops and useless, is also a "narrative"?

I guess that's possible. But I think it's also possible, NATO is facing the reality that it is unable to provide security itself and it is unable to field enough loyal Afghan forces to provide security itself, and that is defeat staring NATO in its face. Organized militaries are usually very bad at realizing when they're beaten, and worse at admitting it.

Certainly, I'm not saying I think the Taliban is in the end zone, but yes I am impressed that the insurgents have managed to break into a pretty well-fortified base and do the homework (collect intelligence, figure out a raid plan, pay off the right guards, whatever it was) so that they could pull off this airfield attack. Their leaders are hunted by UAVs, they have to smuggle just about every bit of cash and weaponry they use, pretty much every electronic communication they transmit gets sucked in and read by the opposition, and still they pull it off. I'm not saying they're great guys I want to marry to my daughters, but give credit where credit is due. Despise your enemy at your own risk, etc. etc.

Add to that this week's NATO decision not, unless I think a Brigadier general signs off on it, to allow NATO troops to operate jointly with the ANA. Some one correct me if I've got the precise policy wrong but that's the general idea, don't allow joint operations unless some one with some serious ability to ruin field grade NATO officer careers, signs off on the op.

So if you ask why I think failure is taking place, impossible task or NATO incompetency, I would say my answer is "yes". It is inconceivable to me that among all those professional officers in the NATO forces, none of them have heard the "graveyard of empires" song and dance. But if they have, even just a minority of them, why do they soldier on? Why not stand up, risk the career, and say "This is stupid, it can't work, we're wasting taxpayer money and what's more the lives of the soldiers whose lives we swore not to waste." Is it really possible that, these days, military professionalism = shut up and don't rock the boat?

Sure, I know, maybe they really believe they're winning. But how can they do that, when the Taliban controls entire regions, can break into airbases and blow things up, and the force NATO has trained to secure the country, the ANA, can't be trusted with weapons?

Yet they say the security turnover program is going well and the troops will leave in 2014 and basically things will be hunky dory. Based on what I'm seeing, that's either ignorance or deceit, and either way making such utterences, in my book, is not a sign of military competence.

[JonS]

I'm not saying I think the Taliban is in the end zone, but yes I am impressed that the insurgents have managed to break into a pretty well-fortified base and do the homework (collect intelligence, figure out a raid plan, pay off the right guards, whatever it was) so that they could pull off this airfield attack. Their leaders are hunted by UAVs, they have to smuggle just about every bit of cash and weaponry they use, pretty much every electronic communication they transmit gets sucked in and read by the opposition, and still they pull it off. I'm not saying they're great guys I want to marry to my daughters, but give credit where credit is due. Despise your enemy at your own risk, etc. etc.

On the other hand, the last decade(+) has shown that the 9/11 plot was spectacularly lucky to succeed. But that's the way it goes - every now and then the enemy gets a lucky break. It's possible that, instead of being a marker of generally improved capabilities, the raid on Bastion was 'just' another outrageously lucky aligning of the stars which is unlikely to be repeated for another decade.

Which is kind of a weasely way of saying "who knows?"

Is there some kind of trend that this event is part of, or is it just an outlier. The rate of Coalition military fatal casualties, for example, have declined somewhat since the highpoint of 2009/11. Is that indicative of anything in terms of Taliban capabilities, or just a reduced tempo and aggressiveness on the part of NATO? Does it say antyhing about the attack on Bastion? Dunno.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Exactly. Like I said before, at this point it's a one-off. Anyone who pays attention to Afghanistan knows that attacks on NATO bases are not rare events. Successful attacks on NATO bases are rare events. Most of the time they do little more than kill an ANA gate guard or 2. Let's wait and see if this becomes a pattern before we decide the Taliban has recently grown longer fangs.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm going to address your points slightly out of order, if you don't mind. Or even if you do

Well, maybe they do know better. But I have no vested interest in making NATO look good, nor do I have a vested interest in painting the ANA, and NATO's training of it, in the very best light. Any one speaking officially for NATO either does, or is taking orders from some one who does.

I would submit that makes NATO more inherently inclined towards a narrative on the ANA than I am. I'm just a guy writing on wargaming forum, expecting most of whomever reads what I write will be other wargamers.

I don't find the report that most, not all, but most of the incidents are motivated by personal grievance difficult to believe on its face. Men in that part of the world are highly protective of their personal dignity and honor, which is fine but can become a problem when you are trying to instill military discipline on them. They also tend to react violently to perceived slights, as anyone who has been watching the news in the past few days can understand. I find the idea that you are a more accurate source of information on the subject than NATO amusing. Not being involved in a conflict does not mean you are a dispassionate observer, it just means you're an observer. If you can provide something that is not purely speculative I'm willing to listen.

I see your point, my apologies, I wasn't being clear. The 9/11 terror attacks are certainly an emotionally fufilling justification. But what I'm asking is, what in the world posessed the people in charge to conclude that since those attacks took place, Afghanistan had suddenly become ripe grounds for the installation of a (relatively) modern state, with infidels (in the minds of most of the Afghans) doing the installing?

To me that is a losing proposition from the get-go. To me, 9/11 is not a good reason to invade Afghanistan unless you plan to leave again in a couple of weeks.

That's assuming that creating a modern state was the primary reason. It was not. There are plenty of failed states around the world, but we are not invading all of them and we did not invade Afghanistan because of an overwhelming desire to improve it's sewage treatment systems. We went there because the organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks -- and many others previously and subsequently -- was there.

So if you ask why I think failure is taking place, impossible task or NATO incompetency, I would say my answer is "yes". It is inconceivable to me that among all those professional officers in the NATO forces, none of them have heard the "graveyard of empires" song and dance. But if they have, even just a minority of them, why do they soldier on? Why not stand up, risk the career, and say "This is stupid, it can't work, we're wasting taxpayer money and what's more the lives of the soldiers whose lives we swore not to waste." Is it really possible that, these days, military professionalism = shut up and don't rock the boat?

You are focusing exclusively on the nation building aspect in order to frame the larger narrative from the most negative perspective. My guess is that the professional officers in the NATO forces have a more nuanced view of the situation than you appear to. You freely toss around words such as "beaten", "defeated" and "failure" in relation to the NATO efforts, but the political and military situation is too complex to be characterized by absolute declarations of total victory or abject defeat.

As mentioned above, Afghanistan was not invaded in order to transform it into some kind of south central Asian version of Las Vegas. We were primary concerned with destroying al-Qaida*, or at least destroying al-Qaida'a ability to continue carrying out attacks on us (and by "us" I mean the West in general, not just the United States). In that we have been largely successful.

* (There was actually internal debate about whether we should target the Taliban at all, or if we should attempt to target just al-Qaida and leave the Taliban in power. In was eventually decided that the two organizations were too closely integrated to effectively separate one from the other and that the Taliban would probably choose to fight us either way.)

Right now it seems likely that Afghanistan in the near future is looking at effective partition between the Pashtun areas dominated by the Taliban and the rest of the country run by the corrupt government. That is less than ideal, but I think we can live with it. After all, we're not there to conquer the place (it would have been in some ways far simpler if we had been). We've been able to effectively attrit the remnants of al-Qaida in Pakistan from over the border, and if the Taliban are foolish enough to let them back in Afghanistan in significant force I don't see any reason we can't do the same there as long as we maintain access to near-by bases.

That isn't a win, exactly, but it's not really a defeat either. In fact, I feel confident stating that no matter what happens from here on out it is very unlikely we are going to be "beaten" or "defeated" because to a significant degree we have already won. Now you could certainly argue that from a purely cost/benefit analysts perspective it would have been wiser to call it good enough and left years ago, and I wouldn't disagree with that.