Michael Yon: President Obama Fumbled Afghanistan

[symple19]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/30/michael-yon-president-obama-fumbled-afghanistan/


I cannot speak about the economy, education or healthcare, but I can speak about Afghanistan. Obama cannot be faulted that Afghanistan is stone-aged, or that our military strategy was wrecked when he took office. It was. The bus was in a ditch. Obama showed up with a wrecker, promising to yank it out. Today the wrecker is in the ditch atop the bus.

[symple19]

Our young troops are something to be proud of, and if you saw them in action you would be amazed at their courage and professionalism. The mess we shoved them into is a national shame. We provided about half the troops required for the stated strategy, then began pulling them out against a domestic political deadline that has nothing to do with the war. The surge has been a complete waste of effort.

[symple19]

At least 30% of Afghan trainees must be replaced annually due to desertions and endemic corruption. Training Afghans to replace Coalition forces is not working. As we draw down, the enemy will be able to focus on fewer troops. Hollow Afghan units will collapse, and corrupt Afghan politicians will finally abscond to Dubai. We should cut our losses and remove the bulk of our force.
Although Obama needs to go home, this is no guarantee that Romney will do better. If Romney is elected, he will need a bigger wrecker. He is guaranteed the same honest chance that Obama received. Nothing less, nothing more.

[RandomGuy]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/30/michael-yon-president-obama-fumbled-afghanistan/

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204796

Already posted and destroyed. Sorry. It doesn't say what you think it says, and he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, it's still on the front page.

Lazy drive-by.

[symple19]

My bad

And I didn't give my position about it, now did I?

Wrap yourself back up in your blue banner and carry on

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, you didn't give a position. Lazy.

[RandomGuy]

My bad

And I didn't give my position about it, now did I?

Wrap yourself back up in your blue banner and carry on

Still haven't read the other thread, I see.

Feel free to weigh in your considered opinion there. Your criticism would have more weight if you had bothered to venture anything, and read the part where I took both the criticism seriously and took Obama to task. (shrugs)

As it is: Lazeee.

[symple19]

Yeah, you didn't give a position. Lazy.

I think we should leave. Now. Yesterday.

If you follow Yon's blog, as I do, you'd know exactly where he's coming from. He's made a living of attacking the strategies of both administrations and their Generals, as well as those of other countries (Brits).

I think our last two president's have 'fumbled' Afghanistan. What Yon has repeatedly pointed out is that if you're going to do it, do it right or get the fuck out.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm

There's the post about medevacs, and he's exactly right

The guy is the only war correspondent I know of who goes in and reports the truth. If there's any bias at all, it's toward the soldiers and the ordeals that he shares with them on a regular basis.

Do I take everything he says as gospel? No. Do I respect him more than literally every other journalist/blogger/correspondent that has reported on either of our last two wars? Yes.

And lol Darrin posting this in the first place as simply an attack on Obama. I'm an Iraq vet so I'm more concerned with our people dying needlessly in a corrupt state whose people don't even want us there anymore (if they ever did in the first place)

[symple19]

Not enough troops? check

propping up corrupt government? check

trying some hearts and minds bullshit this late in the game? check

continuing to operate after the original stated goal was achieved? check

(in many cases) poorly equipped troops? check

continuing many of the failed strategies of Bush? check

Yeah, Obama's administration has fumbled. Other than OBL, his admin has achieved nothing

[RandomGuy]

I'm more concerned with our people dying needlessly in a corrupt state whose people don't even want us there anymore (if they ever did in the first place)

You do understand we didn't invade Afghanistan because they wanted us to, right?

[LnGrrrR]

Symple, regarding the medevacs, is he really saying that they shouldn't have the Red Cross symbol? That they should fly without it?

[RandomGuy]

I'm an Iraq vet



trying some hearts and minds bullshit this late in the game? check

FM3-24
MCWP 3-33.5

If you have never read it, it makes for good reading.

(written/developed by a young and upcoming colonel)

[LnGrrrR]

Other than OBL, his admin has achieved nothing

That's kind of like saying, "Other than killing and eating other people, Dahmer wasn't such a bad guy"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FM3-24
MCWP 3-33.5

If you have never read it, it makes for good reading.

(written/developed by a young and upcoming colonel)

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

The story behind it is actually kind of fascinating, if one hasn't heard it already.

They gave a young colonel (rank just below general, and where they figure out who gets to general and who needs to GTFO) a mandate to figure out what went wrong in Vietnam, and update US counterinsurgency doctrine. Dude talked to anybody and everybody, assembled a bunch of eggheads, and did so.

Colonel Patreus was then called on to put it into action as a general.

Which is funny, because the author of the OP critisizes the doctrine, but calls for the guy who wrote it to be put back in charge.

Meaning, the guy who wrote the article in the OP is an idiot.

(note who wrote the forward)
DAVID H. PETRAEUS JAMES F. AMOS
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army
Commander
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center



In 2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. In a campaign chronicled in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson of The Washington Post in the book In the Company of Soldiers, Petraeus led his division through fierce fighting south of Baghdad, in Karbala, Hilla and Najaf. Following the fall of Baghdad, the division conducted the longest heliborne assault on record in order to reach Ninawa Province, where it would spend much of 2003. The 1st Brigade was responsible for the area south of Mosul, the 2nd Brigade for the city itself, and the 3rd Brigade for the region stretching toward the Syrian border. An often-repeated story of Petraeus' time with the 101st is his asking of embedded Washington Post reporter Rick Atkinson to "Tell me how this ends,"[45] an anecdote he and other journalists have used to portray Petraeus as an early recognizer of the difficulties that would follow the fall of Baghdad.[46][47][48][49][50][51]

In Mosul, a city of nearly two million people, Petraeus and the 101st employed classic counterinsurgency methods to build security and stability, including conducting targeted kinetic operations and using force judiciously, jump-starting the economy, building local security forces, staging elections for the city council within weeks of their arrival, overseeing a program of public works, reinvigorating the political process,[52][53][54] and launching 4,500 reconstruction projects in Iraq.[55] This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in nations such as Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized," according to Michael Gordon of The New York Times.[56] Some Iraqis gave Petraeus the nickname 'King David',[52][57] which was later adopted by some of his colleagues.[58][59][60] Newsweek has stated that "It's widely accepted that no force worked harder to win Iraqi hearts and minds than the 101st Air Assault Division led by Petraeus."

What I find delicious is that the doctrine focuses hugely on "soft power" over hard power. Ballots over bullets.

It is the kind of thing a Democrat would come up with, and a Republican would hate.

Which is probably why it works, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

One should read as a corollary,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon%27s_New_Map

This was the guy who provided the intellectual background that allowed a guy like Patreaus to rise to the top, and his thinking is VERY influential among leadership in the military at the moment.

Here is a TED talk by the guy (very much in favor of going into Iraq, by the way, for what I think were the right reasons, but question the timing)

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[symple19]

You do understand we didn't invade Afghanistan because they wanted us to, right?

You're trying really hard, RG. Remember the Northern Alliance and all the other Warlords who directly benefited from our invasion? I don't think it's a stretch to say that there were certain elements who wanted us there initially

[symple19]

Symple, regarding the medevacs, is he really saying that they shouldn't have the Red Cross symbol? That they should fly without it?

Read the article for yourself and figure it out on your own

[LnGrrrR]

Read the article for yourself and figure it out on your own

Then the answer must be "Yes, he's an idiot."


Despite sustained national coverage of the MEDEVAC issue and direct appeals to the White House and Obama’s chosen Secretary of Defense, our helicopters still fly over Islamic Afghanistan wearing Red Crosses, which signals that the helicopters are unarmed, has caused unforgivable delays removing wounded troops from the battlefield.

Thats a basic law of LOAC right there. Not putting signs on our helicopters would allow them to be shot at.

[symple19]

Furthermore, RG, your smug attempt by throwing the counterinsurgency FM out there is noted, but notice I said, "late in the game."

There really wasn't a concerted effort to follow one clear strategy from the outset, whether it be Petreaus' way or anyone else. Afghanistan was put on the backburner for many years where we lost the opportunity to maintain the initial momentum we had after running the Taliban back into the boonies.

If we had implemented more of DP's ideas after they proved so successful in Iraq, we may have been in a better position than that which we find ourselves currently...But I doubt it. Realities on the ground, geography, lack of infrastructure, tribal divisions, language, all would have made it much more difficult to do what we did in Iraq. We've always been 100-150 K (or more) light in terms of boots on the ground and I always thought we should have rolled into the Pakistani tribal regions and cleaned that shit up as well.

Fact is, there isn't anything left to do other than pull out and watch Karzai and his awful government collapse while the Taliban move back in and take over. It's not going to be pretty either.

[RandomGuy]

Read the article for yourself and figure it out on your own


our helicopters still fly over Islamic Afghanistan wearing Red Crosses, which signals that the helicopters are unarmed, has caused unforgivable delays removing wounded troops from the battlefield.

Your article, you support what the guy is saying, your burden. Quit being lazy, and connect the dots, because I have a hard time seeing the basis of this claim, and I browsed through the 2011 memo.

[RandomGuy]

You're trying really hard, RG. Remember the Northern Alliance and all the other Warlords who directly benefited from our invasion? I don't think it's a stretch to say that there were certain elements who wanted us there initially

Indeed there were.

That isn't why we invaded Afghanistan. Those people would have welcomed us on September 10, 2001, as well. (Hint hint)

[RandomGuy]

Furthermore, RG, your smug attempt by throwing the counterinsurgency FM out there is noted, but notice I said, "late in the game."

There really wasn't a concerted effort to follow one clear strategy from the outset, whether it be Petreaus' way or anyone else. Afghanistan was put on the backburner for many years where we lost the opportunity to maintain the initial momentum we had after running the Taliban back into the boonies.

If we had implemented more of DP's ideas after they proved so successful in Iraq, we may have been in a better position than that which we find ourselves currently...But I doubt it. Realities on the ground, geography, lack of infrastructure, tribal divisions, language, all would have made it much more difficult to do what we did in Iraq. We've always been 100-150 K (or more) light in terms of boots on the ground and I always thought we should have rolled into the Pakistani tribal regions and cleaned that shit up as well.

Fact is, there isn't anything left to do other than pull out and watch Karzai and his awful government collapse while the Taliban move back in and take over. It's not going to be pretty either.

I agree. Iraq was a huge, bizarre, unnecessary diversion of resources from Afghanistan.

LOL "rolling into Pakistan".

What makes Pakistan different than Iraq or Afghanistan? (hint, it rhymes with mooclear meapons)

[LnGrrrR]

And yes technically I know they don't follow LOAC already, but that doesn't stop us from doing so. If we stop putting up medical signs we effectively can't complain when they get shot at.

[RandomGuy]

Furthermore, RG, your smug attempt by throwing the counterinsurgency FM out there is noted, but notice I said, "late in the game."

"smug"

I am less concerned about personal ego than having enough knowledge to be able to form opinions about the efficacy of policies and strategies.

I posted it less to be smug, than to point out there is a policy/strategy framework, and a good one, IMO. I encourage everybody to read it, because it provides a great deal of perspective and context.

[symple19]

Then the answer must be "Yes, he's an idiot."



Thats a basic law of LOAC right there. Not putting signs on our helicopters would allow them to be shot at.

:lmao

Do you really think a big fucking red cross stops people from shooting at our dustoff choppers?!?

[RandomGuy]

Fact is, there isn't anything left to do other than pull out and watch Karzai and his awful government collapse while the Taliban move back in and take over. It's not going to be pretty either.

Also something I agree with.

I would not be so sure about "the Taliban" toppling Karzai, whatever "the Taliban" means. It isn't quit as clearly unified as many think, and represents a rather large umbrella of groups that, once a common enemy is removed, are as likely to fight each other as the Mayor of Kabul, IMO.

Once we leave, it will be up to China and India to figure out how stable they want Afghanistan, and how much they should act as a counterweight to Pakistan's influence, or Iran's for that matter.

We need to be having some serious, high-level pow-wows about that with them, if we aren't already.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Do you really think a big fucking red cross stops people from shooting at our dustoff choppers?!?


He was being sarcastic, by my reading.


Cross or no cross they are going to shoot at helicopters. I don't see how changing that will improve evac times. Your article doesn't explain how, or even show any expert claiming this, it just breezily waves that claim out in the wind.

I would simply like to see the basis of that claim. No more, no less.

[symple19]

I agree. Iraq was a huge, bizarre, unnecessary diversion of resources from Afghanistan.

LOL "rolling into Pakistan".

What makes Pakistan different than Iraq or Afghanistan? (hint, it rhymes with mooclear meapons)

And what do nukes have to do with anything? The Pakis let us drone motherfuckers with impunity and put up what amounts to some diplomatic wrangling when we chopper in and kill OBL. What makes you think they would do anything of substance if we made a major incursion (while threatening to cut of all/most of our aid, which is all they care about anyway)?

[RandomGuy]

And what do nukes have to do with anything? The Pakis let us drone motherfuckers with impunity and put up what amounts to some diplomatic wrangling when we chopper in and kill OBL. What makes you think they would do anything of substance if we made a major incursion (while threatening to cut of all/most of our aid, which is all they care about anyway)?

Really?

You are going with "airstrikes, and putting large combat formations of ground troops onto a nation's sovereign territory long enough to "clean out" an area would elicit the same exact same reaction from the Pakistani government" ???

You seriously think the reaction would be the same?

[symple19]

He was being sarcastic, by my reading.


Cross or no cross they are going to shoot at helicopters. I don't see how changing that will improve evac times. Your article doesn't explain how, or even show any expert claiming this, it just breezily waves that claim out in the wind.

I would simply like to see the basis of that claim. No more, no less.

It's more than whether or not there are crosses painted on the choppers. It's the doctrine which states a dustoff must have an escort since the Medevacs aren't armed. If there isn't an escort available, then the chopper sits around until that escort becomes available. Meanwhile, men die.

Take off the crosses, throw a .50 or a minigun in the door, and you will improve response times immensely when there aren't any escorts available.

[RandomGuy]

It's more than whether or not there are crosses painted on the choppers. It's the doctrine which states a dustoff must have an escort since the Medevacs aren't armed. If there isn't an escort available, then the chopper sits around until that escort becomes available. Meanwhile, men die.

Take off the crosses, throw a .50 or a minigun in the door, and you will improve response times immensely when there aren't any escorts available.

That is all I needed. Thank you.

If that fixes the problem, and does improve response times, then we should do it, if there are no other concerns.

[symple19]

Really?

You are going with "airstrikes, and putting large combat formations of ground troops onto a nation's sovereign territory long enough to "clean out" an area would elicit the same exact same reaction from the Pakistani government" ???

You seriously think the reaction would be the same?

http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1c/1000x500px-LL-1c63b5c4_picard-facepalm.jpg

No, I don't. It wouldn't be the same but I don't think it would be anything we couldn't live with, either. Do you know for sure they would do anything drastically different? Of course not, nobody does since it's a hypothetical. I certainly think we could have worked that out much earlier in the game. Of course there would be threats and back-channel negotiating to go along with it, but I don't think they would be averse to us going in and doing their dirty work for them. We also could have set it up so that we could chase those fuckers over the border when they do their hit and run antics. It's not nearly as far-fetched as you're making it. Of course, in-the-box thinking such as yours is the norm and we all see what that's done for us

[symple19]

dp

[symple19]

It's fair to note that the Obama admin isn't at fault for the Medevac situation. That's a problem for the brass to work out.

[symple19]

That's kind of like saying, "Other than killing and eating other people, Dahmer wasn't such a bad guy"

Needed to address this one as well. I'm talking specifically about Afghanistan and not his entire foreign/domestic policy. If there is another resounding success in-theater, please, enlighten me

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And what do nukes have to do with anything? The Pakis let us drone motherfuckers with impunity and put up what amounts to some diplomatic wrangling when we chopper in and kill OBL. What makes you think they would do anything of substance if we made a major incursion (while threatening to cut of all/most of our aid, which is all they care about anyway)?

You have no familiarity with the history of the Pakistani intelligence services. It's a running joke how they respond to us diplomatically and what they run on state television. You don't invade countries with nuclear weapons on a lark. The state would no longer care about the aid as the invasion would itself undermine their power. Maybe it's hard to figure out or something but it seems obvious to me.

[symple19]

You have no familiarity with the history of the Pakistani intelligence services. It's a running joke how they respond to us diplomatically and what they run on state television. You don't invade countries with nuclear weapons on a lark. The state would no longer care about the aid as the invasion would itself undermine their power. Maybe it's hard to figure out or something but it seems obvious to me.

There are elements of the ISI which are probably still helping those in the region who oppose. So? what else is new. They've been playing people off one another for a long time, and I'm sure they're clever enough to turn one of our incursions into something from which they can gain. Again, I said there would have to be talks to iron out details, but I definitely think it would have been doable early on. As things are now, it's not going to happen, and nor should it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The story behind it is actually kind of fascinating, if one hasn't heard it already.

They gave a young colonel (rank just below general, and where they figure out who gets to general and who needs to GTFO) a mandate to figure out what went wrong in Vietnam, and update US counterinsurgency doctrine. Dude talked to anybody and everybody, assembled a bunch of eggheads, and did so.

Colonel Patreus was then called on to put it into action as a general.

Which is funny, because the author of the OP critisizes the doctrine, but calls for the guy who wrote it to be put back in charge.

Meaning, the guy who wrote the article in the OP is an idiot.

(note who wrote the forward)
DAVID H. PETRAEUS JAMES F. AMOS
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army
Commander
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center




What I find delicious is that the doctrine focuses hugely on "soft power" over hard power. Ballots over bullets.

It is the kind of thing a Democrat would come up with, and a Republican would hate.

Which is probably why it works, IMO.

There has been a lot of good things coming out of the Pentagon over the last 10 years after the clusterfuck that was the occupation of Iraq. Lots of changes in training, equipment, etc as they have come to understand that their missions are just glorified policework in many cases.

i have read multiple reports on plans to change the military structure from the giant behemoth to fight a large scale landwar against Russia and China and to a fast reaction force that can deploy anywhere lightning fast and for all intents in purpose be an occupation force. The main thrust has been as you say soft power and a shift of focus from big tanks and guns to something more focused on the individual. Half of the reports that I read were about how the typical soldier was not trained to even approximately handle the mission that they were assigned. Assault school doesn't help a guy walk a beat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are elements of the ISI which are probably still helping those in the region who oppose. So? what else is new. They've been playing people off one another for a long time, and I'm sure they're clever enough to turn one of our incursions into something from which they can gain. Again, I said there would have to be talks to iron out details, but I definitely think it would have been doable early on. As things are now, it's not going to happen, and nor should it.

There is no way the Pakistani's will allow the US to perform army land operations on their own soil. They just nailed that guy tot he wall for helping us find OBL indirectly.

[boutons_deux]

Pakistan parents killed daughter for eyeing boy

A Pakistani couple accused of killing their 15-year-old daughter by pouring acid on her carried out the attack because she sullied the family's honor by looking at a boy, the couple said in an interview broadcast Monday by the BBC.

The girl's death underlines the problem of so-called "honor killings" in Pakistan where women are often killed for marrying or having relationships not approved by their families or because they are perceived to have somehow dishonored their family.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41687/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8ik2qCwT&full=true#display (http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41687/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8ik2qCwT&full=true#display)

A prime example of why USA or any Western country is stupid to screw around promoting democracy in these backward, Muslim, tribally and ethnicially riven countries-in-name-only.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. It wouldn't be the same but I don't think it would be anything we couldn't live with, either. Do you know for sure they would do anything drastically different? Of course not, nobody does since it's a hypothetical. I certainly think we could have worked that out much earlier in the game. Of course there would be threats and back-channel negotiating to go along with it, but I don't think they would be averse to us going in and doing their dirty work for them. We also could have set it up so that we could chase those fuckers over the border when they do their hit and run antics. It's not nearly as far-fetched as you're making it. Of course, in-the-box thinking such as yours is the norm and we all see what that's done for us

I don't mind entertaining out of the box ideas, hell, I put a few of them out there, to be sure.

This though... is not feasible in any realistic scenario.

No Pakistani government, no matter how much arm-twisting, would have signed off on something like that.

If it had, it would have been quite possibly violently deposed, and replaced with something far, far scarier than the Taliban, i.e. religious nutjobs with a genuine nuclear arsenal. The Pakistani government is bad enough now.

Your idea here is far fetched, simply because of the rather deep well of rabid anti-Americanism that runs through Pakistan. That anti-Americanism is a nasty, poisonous well, that runs far deeper than I think many, including you, in the west appreciate. If we had followed this course of action, we would have played into Al Qaeda's hands by invading a THIRD muslim country, over the wishes of that government.

It is sad that some Americans, even after the rather visceral proof of 9-11, still underestimate how deep that well is, and what drives it. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Don't take my word for it, do some reading on what Pakistanis actually think.

[RandomGuy]

There has been a lot of good things coming out of the Pentagon over the last 10 years after the clusterfuck that was the occupation of Iraq. Lots of changes in training, equipment, etc as they have come to understand that their missions are just glorified policework in many cases.

i have read multiple reports on plans to change the military structure from the giant behemoth to fight a large scale landwar against Russia and China and to a fast reaction force that can deploy anywhere lightning fast and for all intents in purpose be an occupation force. The main thrust has been as you say soft power and a shift of focus from big tanks and guns to something more focused on the individual. Half of the reports that I read were about how the typical soldier was not trained to even approximately handle the mission that they were assigned. Assault school doesn't help a guy walk a beat.

That is the doctrine behind "The Pentagons New Map" to a T.

You should read it, I would strongly recommend it, given his influence on junior, soon-to-be-senior leadership in the military.

I watched a presentation on CPAN by Barnett around 2002-ish, and the guy put into solid words and ideas a lot of the things I had vaguely formed about the way our military is formed and used up until then. The guy has it pretty much spot on.

[RandomGuy]

It's fair to note that the Obama admin isn't at fault for the Medevac situation. That's a problem for the brass to work out.

I agree.

It was a systemic problem that existed long before Obama came to office, and is just now being understood in enough depth to do something about, much like the TBI and PTSD problems.

That said, it *is* fully Obama's responsibility to do something about those problems now, and definitely the next president, whoever wins the election this week.

We should be throwing money at this problem, and any president should be ramming it home with all the righteous anger at his/her disposal. It would be something both parties could agree on, and would be a good place to build up some sorely needed goodwill.

[boutons_deux]

"We should be throwing money at this problem"

automatic Repug response (who blocked the Vets Jobs bill): "We're broke"

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao

Do you really think a big fucking red cross stops people from shooting at our dustoff choppers?!?

Not at all. That doesn't mean we stop using LOAC though. I don't think that al Qaeda is following Geneva conventions either.

Simply put, if you don't use the markings you don't get the benefit of LOAC. But if he wants that, why not go all out and arm the medical troops and ships? Why say just to remove the cross when you could argue for arming them up? Of course, they'd be legal targets then but they would be if they didn't have the sign anyways.

edit: I didn't see a mention of arming the medical helicopters, which is why I didn't know why he wanted to remove the crosses. Tactically it makes sense, but you'd have to make sure to accommodate gunners on the helicopters in place of an extra medic.