Afghan Taliban already outnumbered 12-1
BRUSSELS – There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn’t led to anything close to victory.
Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed.
The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow.
Many question need for more troops
The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops. With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops.
Full Story Here:
Afghan Taliban already outnumbered 12-1
I have an idea regarding a way to get all of this BS in Afghanistan settled. It’s kind of complicated, so pay real close attention.
Let’s take the gloves off. Let our troops DO what it is they are sent to do and remove these ridiculous ROEs (Rules of Engagement) that are getting them maimed and killed.
“The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens,” said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam.
“But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths.”
Enemies are kinda funny that way, and unless they are really stupid, they will do whatever it takes to attain their goal and achieve victory. The Taliban is going to fight the U.S. and NATO forces in a manner that suits them, not us. Anyone that has ever studied strategy and tactics knows, if at all possible, you always engage your enemy at a time and place of your choice, with superior forces, and from the battle position of your choice. In other words, hit them from the high ground. Anyone that’s ever served, and many that haven’t know exactly what I am talking about.
That’s NOT how it’s working out for us in Afghanistan.
We are saddled with ROEs that our enemies are not burdened with. We are forced to fight in the most civilized manner possible. We are forced to account for every round of ammo spent. Our pilots have to engage in the most precise bombing runs imaginable. The Afghan government goes absolutely berserk if our air forces drop a bomb on a Taliban target and there is ANY, and I do mean ANY collateral damage incurred. Collateral damage being the unintended deaths of those believed, at some point in time, to NOT be Taliban, or Taliban supporters.
The Taliban, much like al-Qaida in Iraq, is more than well aware of the rules our troops are forced to fight under, and they use those rules against us in any way they can.
I can offer no hard evidence, but it is said, highly suspected actually, that the Taliban *seeds* a bombing site with bodies that are obviously civilian in order to turn the tide of the MEDIA war. It’s called propaganda and the Taliban are masters at it’s use.
I was never FOR the so-called surge in Iraq. I felt that we had ample troops to attain ANY goal we set for ourselves, IF those troops were actually allowed to DO the job they were intended to do. I feel exactly the same way regarding Afghanistan. We have ample troops, but we have a guy in the White House that is more concerned with world opinion, and how HE is going to look on the world stage, than he is the lives of American service men and women.
If Gen. Stanley McChrystal says he needs more troops to get the job done, well, that’s his assessment. So, suppose Obama were to actually give McChrystal those troops? Suppose we were to suddenly have a 15 to 1 ratio of good guys to bad guys? Suppose we sent in so many troops that we had a 20 to 1 ratio? What then?
We have air support, lots of it. We have, according to this article, a 12 to 1 ration, good guys to bad, and we’re still not getting the job done. 12 to 1 ration? For crying out loud. Those kind of odds and we can’t pull off a win against a bunch of Taliban guerrilla fighters?
Oh, and one little reminder. This build up of American troops that McChrystal wants to employ, that was tried a while back in Afghanistan. The Soviet army kept on sending in men, tanks, air support, everything they had, and they couldn’t beat the Mujahideen because they were being well supplied by the CIA. And those efforts BROKE the OLD Soviet Union.
Boys and girls, today that shoe is on the other foot. We are the ones fighting the Taliban, they are what once was the Mujahideen, new name, different faces. And WE trained them in all the ways needed to defeat a HUGE modern army fighting, or should I say, attempting to fight a conventional war. We taught them how to kick OUR asses, and now they are being well supplied by *other* powers in their hemisphere as they now use those same tactics to take us apart.
Did we learn nothing from our own lessons? Did we learn NOTHING from Vietnam or any other engagement since?