War on Terrorism and Capturing Ossama bin Laden

[tomahawk6]

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=102761

NATO wants Indian troops to operate in Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: NATO - the US led western military alliance, wants Indian troops for its missions in volatile regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo, according to newspaper reports.

NATO officials here at Brussels, its headquarters, said Indian troops would be part of a wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states.

The alliance does not expect Indian troops for its missions overnight but as a consequence of a protracted engagement that will drive policy change in New Delhi and reforms within NATO.

Beginnings have been made at two levels. NATO headquarters has briefed Indian diplomats here. Its secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Schaffer has met defence minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Pakistan’s support in the U.S. lead War Against Terror (WoT) however has been conditional. General Musharraf’s Regime seemed to have made it clear that an Indian presence in Afghanistan would have to be avoided.

General Musharraf however comes under increasing pressure for not doing enough against the Taliban and Al Qaeda based in Pakistan. North Afghan leaders and on the ground U.S. and NATO officers based sections of the Pakistani establishment for aiding the anti-government insurgency in Afghanistan.

Five years on both the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Taliban head Mullah Omar roam free, apparently within Pakistan’s tribal regions in the west along the border with Afghanistan.

 

[n21]

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=102761

NATO wants Indian troops to operate in Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: NATO - the US led western military alliance, wants Indian troops for its missions in volatile regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo, according to newspaper reports.

NATO officials here at Brussels, its headquarters, said Indian troops would be part of a wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states.

The alliance does not expect Indian troops for its missions overnight but as a consequence of a protracted engagement that will drive policy change in New Delhi and reforms within NATO.

Beginnings have been made at two levels. NATO headquarters has briefed Indian diplomats here. Its secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Schaffer has met defence minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Pakistan’s support in the U.S. lead War Against Terror (WoT) however has been conditional. General Musharraf’s Regime seemed to have made it clear that an Indian presence in Afghanistan would have to be avoided.

General Musharraf however comes under increasing pressure for not doing enough against the Taliban and Al Qaeda based in Pakistan. North Afghan leaders and on the ground U.S. and NATO officers based sections of the Pakistani establishment for aiding the anti-government insurgency in Afghanistan.

Five years on both the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Taliban head Mullah Omar roam free, apparently within Pakistan’s tribal regions in the west along the border with Afghanistan.

I see this more of an if u dont do this,we wil do this strategy for pakistan by NATO.
But then Indian troops in Afghanistan would not be a option the Indian government would consider.India already had it's Vietnam in SriLanka.
There could some undercover crack units.Full flegde presence would make the Pakistan more than happy to let the Taliban have as much fun they want in Afghanistan.

 

[rabirizvi]

robsta83, its mostly the hyped media driven impression. Even after bombing of afghanistan the religious parties (joined together)could only win elections in one province which had borders with afghanistan because people living in that province have relatives on the other side of border so they felt hurt and all.tell u wat, afta almost 5yrs of their government in that province they have lost the popularity, as little progress has been made in developing the area and they know they cant play with the emotions of the ppl of NWFP on afghanistan.

 

[RubiconNZ]

robsta83, its mostly the hyped media driven impression. Even after bombing of afghanistan the religious parties (joined together)could only win elections in one province which had borders with afghanistan because people living in that province have relatives on the other side of border so they felt hurt and all.tell u wat, afta almost 5yrs of their government in that province they have lost the popularity, as little progress has been made in developing the area and they know they cant play with the emotions of the ppl of NWFP on afghanistan.

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the response as it is always better to get good sense of perspective espescially from those who have first hand knowledge.

In terms of media hype I suppose it shouldn't supprise me,
Ta for the good info about the provincial gov to always to good to learn new stuff
Cheers Mate

 

[FutureTank]

The fighting politicians

This is a funny kind of World we are living in. NATO was formed to defend all its members from aggression. Its charter does not specify USSR or WP, and in any case these no longer exist.

The US is a member of NATO and so is Spain and UK. All were attacked by a group which received support and shelter by the Taliban.
The Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time of the first attacks.
Seems to me the NATO is obligated to take action.

Now what kind of BS are we talking about here?

We have a history of the Soviet Army's attempt to occupy the country with about 250,000 troops (150,000 in Afghanistan, 100,000 supporting across the border, and not counting nominally government troops), and failed after years. Was it because the Soviet Army had bad equipment of its soldiers were not motivated? If the answer is required, I suggest contacting the many Russian Afghan veterans now available online.

Rather the answer is much simpler and old as history itself. Quite simply in order to bring stability in a country one needs to do some basic tasks to control population. These are in the order of priority:
1. Control and eliminate border incursions.
2. Establish control and safe passage over national transit-ways.
3. Establish control and conduct census of national population, including issue of identification.
4. Implement political representation
5. Implement tax collection
6. Implement revenue administration and distribution of resources.

Notice how only the first task is of a military nature in any country though in most the border guards are not even in the regular military force as a general rule.

How many troops are required to achieve this first and very important task? Has anyone ever done the math?
Depends on terrain of course, and Afghanistan is not blessed with the most surveillance friendly terrain. I would suggest a platoon per dominating high-point. Afghanistan has a 5,529km border. Assuming a defensible high-point at every 3km, this would require 1843 platoons, or about 154 4-company battalions. That is about 39 4-battalion brigades. Yes, 13 divisions. While the infantry component of the border force would be just over 55,000 troops, the total for the 13 divisions alone would be 195,000 troops (15,000 per division).

13 infantry divisions at 3 per Corps represent 4 Corps and an independent division, probably the one looking after the 76km Chinese border.
Each Corps support contingent would be about another 10,000 troops for a total of 40,000, with two Corps per Army Corps. Each Army Corps come its higher echelon troops of probably another 7,000, and the overall Theatre Commander would have another 3,000 support staff.
195,000+40,000+14,000+3,000=252,000 NATO troops, which just happens to be what the Soviets had committed, but not in the way I suggested. The Soviet troops were tasked with interior control for the most part.

So much for border control!
Now for interior control.
Straight from Wikipedia (probably as good a source as any given circumstances)
The following are ten largest cities of Afghanistan. The populations given are those “calculated” for 2006 taken from another website.

Kabul - 3,120,963
Kandahar (Qandahar) - 401,395
Mazari Sharif - 314,915
Herat - 278,209
Jalalabad - 208,960
Kunduz - 166,824
Ghazni - 149,998
Bamyan - 131,233
Balkh - 126,553
Baghlan - 111,902
For a total of 5,010,952
From a total 2005 estimate population of 29,863,000.

There is a rather mundane statistical rule which is derived in part from historical occupations by military forces, and in part by current strength of police forces. Roughly speaking it calls for 1 police or soldier for every 100 civilians being occupied in urban areas, and 2 per 100 in rural areas. Afghanistan having a predominantly rural population would require far more then the 50,000 police currently being planned. Afghanistan has 34 provinces. The number of police and troops required to secure Afghanistan's interior population is 497,000, while for securing the urban areas would require another 50,000. This last group can be integrated with the Afghan 50,000 police in training to give them confidence and experience before letting them loose on their own.
Meanwhile the 497,000 need not all come from NATO. 250,000 will do. These troops would have quite a job to do however, because they would also have to recruit and train the future Afghan Army of 250,000. Once trained, these can be sent off to replace the NATO troops on the borders while the Afghan cops in the cities can be halved, and the rest let loose in the country.

This will importantly achieve several things. It will separate the power of the military and the judiciary in habitually corrupt society, and it will remove the police from corruption-predisposed environment and place them into areas where they are unrelated to the local inhabitants, and therefore are likely to be mistrusted as cops should be

Of course there are already two NATO Army Corps looking after the borders, so another two will be required. This may seem insurmountable as a task, requiring an equivalent of 32 divisions from NATO in total.
However it needs to be noted that even without the Greek and Turkish forces, and excluding US troops or any troops of the countries of former Warsaw Pact or USSR, the NATO disposes of 26 divisions and 11 independent brigades for a total of 29 divisions and 1 brigade. To make up the total, only one brigade from Greece, Turkey and the USA are required. While the Western and Central European NATO member forces are serving in Afghanistan, new member states can be relocated to their training facilities and their training enhanced and brought to NATO standards so they can be rotated with the first deployment in Afghanistan.

This deployment has several advantages. European NATO troops will gain operational experience. However they will be deployed ostensibly as border guards and internal security troops with a primary task of training Afghan counterparts.
This would remove from the US troops the burdens of these two functions, and allow them to use more mobile and aggressive tactics to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The interaction between so many Europeans and Afghanis is also likely to foster greater interaction and hopefully appreciation of desired standards of social development. With half a million NATO troops in Afghanistan I would suggest the war there would end within 6-9 months.

This is known as a fully committed war strategy. Nothing less then would be expected if NATO was fighting Warsaw Pact in the last century.

The other advantage of this strategy is that Iraq could become a major logistic route for NATO, bringing with it at once a sense of security as well as some measure of wealth. The rest of the route will be through the Central Asian states which is likely to have a very positive effect on their development also.

Would this be expensive? Not really. Most of the logistics can be accomplished via rail except for the crossing of the Bosporus, or alternatively the route can be made through Eastern Europe via Hungary, Bulgaria and Ukraine to remove any chance of terrorist attacks on logistics in Turkey.

This would require political commitment and will to implement, and I think of all the NATO leaders only Angela Markel would have the ‘balls’.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Waylander]

You want to send all 29 active NATO (excluding Greece, Turkey and former WarPac) Divisions to A-stan? :unknown
You are aware of the fact that not even nearly all of these units are at operational strenght and full manned?
Or are of the fact that you would strip these countries of all units?
This is not a real proposal isn't it?

Unthinkable does not even touches this idea.

 

[FutureTank]

Exactly which part of war does not apply to NATO charter?
And does anyone have a better proposal for making Afghanistan a democratic and manageable state?

May I remind you that the outcomes of Cold War gone hot were also unthinkable and which is partly why the Soviet Union is no more. Do you think it was an easier decision to reform the USSR for the Politburo then it would be for the Afghani governement which currently can't put its foot outside Kabul?

I say that if one is going to fight a f****** war, one may as well go all the way. It seems to me that the proposed arrival of 29 NATO active divisions (regardless of readiness) are likely to grab Taliban's attention by the proverbial balls :nutkick

It seems to me that right now the Taliban thinks NATO is not serious, and not me. Don't forget, they had seen the Soviet Army OUT of the country, and they WERE serious, deploying half the forces I suggested.

By the way, I did not suggest sending all Greek and Turkish units, which is clearly not going to be accepted by them, and the ex-Warsaw Pact troops would be sent in in the closing phase of deployment when the country is relatively manageable, but will add to the sense of them contributing, and to their integration into NATO.

And what is the problem with this suggestion? Its not like moving 500,000 troops has never been done before. In fact in 91 that many participated in the Kuwait liberation, and half came via air and sea. This time they will come by rail.

Or maybe you think Iraq will not repeat in Afghanistan?

Cheers
Greg

 

[Waylander]

Remember that the allied countries in '91 had much bigger armies than now and no participant there stripped his whole country of its armed forces.

This idea is just not doable. I really don't know how you ever could think of sending all NATO troops to A-stan.
BTW this would mean a lot more than 500.000 soldiers.

 

[Grand Danois]

• Iraq is not a NATO charter obligation.
  
  
• 29 divs requires logistics, logistics, logistics. Work smarter - not harder.
  
  
• Military force doesn't win this one - it just creates the environment to change the fabric of Afghan society. But we suck at that part. However we don't need 29 divs for this.
  
  
• If the threat is to be annihilated by mil force only - go nuclear. Quicker, easier, cheaper.

 

[FutureTank]

Dear Waylander,
You are the Defense Professional/Analyst here with rank of LtCol! So surely you can argue much better then me on alternatives to NOT sending a massive force to Afghanistan?

Thinking of this strategy was easy for me, and in a moment it will be to you also. Just close your eyes and imagine Taliban returning to govern Afghanistan. As I see it, its 500,000 now, or 5,000,000 in 5 years time.

More then 500,000, but not by much. There is already a sizeable force there, and it seems to me that if NATO sends 500,000 troops East, a few thousand more will not matter so much.
However you can humour me and point to errors in my calculations.

Grand Danois,
I was not talking about Iraq, but only suggested that inadequate strategy in Afghanistan would evolve into a scenario similar to Iraq.

Yes, I know 29 divisions require logistics. However not that much logistics. You are confused by comparing NATO logistic needs with that of USA. US logistics are complex because their theatre is not connected to their bases in Germany by a land line of communication. NATO will use methods of logistics first employed in 1871 - rail. I think they will cope.

Change in the social environment is what wars are all about GD. First prerequisite to victory is a sense of safety for the population. There is likely to be very little fighting once the borders are secured, and any Taliban in Afghanistan will not be able to evade out of engagements or regroup, never mind intimidate the civilian population.

I’ll ignore the reference to nuclear weapons.

To both of you, you ignore everythiong past the number of divisions I wrote. You also ignore the fct that any strategy needs to satisfy long term sustainable goals. Is current strategy expected to do so?


Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

And its 32 divisions, not 29.

 

[Grand Danois]

Establishing railway lines etc for supporting -29- 32 NATO divs in Central Asia is a huge project - it'll take decades to establish.

The mil part of the Afghanistan solution is not perfect, but on track. And I get the sense of that the what to do with the 'fabric' part is setting in.

 

[FutureTank]

and one independent brigade

 

[FutureTank]

Establishing railway lines etc for supporting 29 NATO divs in Central Asia is a huge project - it'll take decades to establish..

Ok, I think you missed the Cold War!!!
The rail lines running from Central Asian FORMER SOVIET republics run through Ukraine, Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary. These were built to handle shipping of Soviet reinforcements in case of war in Europe. They were built to handle way more then 32 NATO divisions! There is still a completely equipped railways troops division in storage in Ukraine. Other countries mentioned have their own railway troops.

The mil part of the Afghanistan solution is not perfect, but on track. And I get the sense of what to do with the 'fabric' part is setting in.

Oh really? Could have fooled me. NATO has just agreed to send more troops. Does that sound familiar?

Cheers
Greg

 

[Grand Danois]

Ok, I think you missed the Cold War!!!
The rail lines running from Central Asian FORMER SOVIET republics run through Ukraine, Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary. These were built to handle shipping of Soviet reinforcements in case of war in Europe. They were built to handle way more then 32 NATO divisions! There is still a completely equipped railways troops division in storage in Ukraine. Other countries mentioned have their own railway troops.

Doesn't take you to Afghanistan, Central Asia.

Oh really? Could have fooled me. NATO has just agreed to send more troops. Does that sound familiar?

Cheers
Greg

Read what I wrote once more..

Btw. When you have assembled and supported that 32 div army, then the Talibs just sit tight and wait for it to leave. Then they proceed with their work. We are back at the fabric of society. And that can be done with ~35.000 troops.

 

[FutureTank]

Doesn't take you to Afghanistan, Central Asia.


Read what I wrote once more...

Give me a clue please

Btw. When you have assembled and supported that 32 div army [Theatre Command, then the Talibs just sit tight and wait for it to leave. Then they proceed with their work. We are back at the fabric of society. And that can be done with ~35.000 troops.

Have you ever filled a ballon with water when you were a child? Revisit the expereince. The baloon resists, but expands. Eventually though it bursts.

Covering the whole country will not allow Taliban to sit and wait. They will have to move. If they move, they can be engaged.
How long will they need to wait. Let's say the Taliban manages to get out of Afghanistan and 'evade' Pakistani troops. So they wait for 6 months, a year. By this time Afghani border troops are trained and disassociated from their Islamist thinking and associated more with their nationalistic ideals. With society safe and hopefully prospering in the interior, the Taliban message is unlikely to be able to offer them much of an alternative. Currently the alternative is not only religion based, bit one more basic - personal safety.

Now the issue of 35,000 troops. I would love for you to explain to me how this is likely to happen.

Here is an article on the UK contingent, one of the largest.
How many British troops are in Afghanistan?

There are currently 5,500 troops deployed in the country, with that figure rising to 5,800 in October. Of those already in Afghanistan, 1,300 are in Kabul and 4,200 are in the southern province of Helmand.


Which units are involved?

In February 2006, an advance party of 850 personnel from 39 Regiment, Royal Engineers and 42 Commando, Royal Marines, with three Chinook helicopters, went to the southern province of Helmand.

The main deployment of troops which followed is based around units from the 16th Air Assault Brigade, including the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.

It is backed by:


Eight Apache attack helicopters from 9 Regiment, Army Air Corps
Four Lynx light helicopters, also from 9 Regiment
Six Chinook support helicopters from 27 Squadron, RAF
Scimitar and Spartan armoured vehicles from the Household Cavalry Regiment
A battery of 105mm Light Guns from the 7th Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery
Some 320 engineers from 28 Regiment, Royal Engineers, are working on local infrastructure projects.

Troops from 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines are protecting the engineers. An infantry company from Second Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and two platoons from First Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, are also acting as force protection.

There are also six Harrier jump jets based in Kandahar. Other units are serving in the force's headquarters.


The extra troops, being sent to Afghanistan between July and October, mean more support helicopters are being sent to Afghanistan, as well as another Lockheed C130 Hercules transport plane.

Where are they stationed?

The bulk of British troops are in Helmand but there are also about 1,000 personnel at the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) headquarters in the capital, Kabul, plus 300 more assigned to support and training duties in Kabul.

Why are they there?

They are there to help train Afghan security forces, facilitate reconstruction, and provide security.

In Helmand, the emphasis is also on counter-narcotics, as the province is the "largest single source of opium in Afghanistan".


Helmand is the 'largest single source of opium' in Afghanistan

As 90% of heroin comes from Afghanistan, so hitting the trade at its source is seen as key.

But over the last few months, the situation in the north of the province has turned increasingly violent, with British troops involved in fierce firefights against the Taleban and anti-coalition militia (ACM).

Troops have been involved in clashes in the towns of Sangin, Musa Qaleh, Kajaki and Nawzad.

The level of Taleban resistance has been significant, but British military officials insist they have won every clash.

Are British troops operating alone?

No, they are part of the Nato-led Isaf force, which is a United Nations-mandated organisation.


The three-year mission will cost £1bn



Nato took over command and coordination of Isaf in August 2003.

The Isaf mission is currently under the control of Briton Lt Gen David Richards, who took over in May. There are currently 31,000 Isaf troops in Afghanistan.

These are being backed by 28,600 Afghan troops and also 30,200 Afghan policemen - all of whom are described as "fully equipped and trained" by the MoD.

What areas does Nato control?

Nato has troops across Afghanistan.

It took over total control of Afghan security in the eastern provinces, which had been under the control of US, in October.

Prior to that, Isaf already commanded troops in the north, west and south of Afghanistan, as well as Kabul.

Nato's expanded role brought 14 provinces under its control.

The 37-nation Isaf said the US would retain control of some 8,000 of its troops for their "counter-terrorism" role and for training Afghan police and soldiers.

How much influence does the Taleban have in Helmand?

There are reported to be several hundred Taleban fighters on the ground in the area and it is thought there has been plenty of recruiting going on among the local population.

This is primarily done among disaffected youths or through paying people to join their ranks. One explanation is that people feel the Afghan government has not offered them enough help or security.

Another factor is that the conservative views held in southern Afghanistan are in line with what motivated the Taleban - which was formed in that region.

Note that 14 of the 34 provinces are under control. These provinces include those with the 10 largest population centres, and bordering China.
20 provinces to go 5 years on.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Grand Danois]

Re railroads. Checked with a map. It is as expected. Siberia - Europe doesn't come anywhere near Afghanistan.

The Central Asian network is dendritic, converging towards Europe. This means you can concentrate in Europe, but not just anywhere on the network. There isn't the same log capability at any node in the net. Basically, you can shift 1-3 divs from Termes (the terminus if you wish to go to Afghanistan by train) to Europe, but you can't ship or support 32 divs from Europe to Termes.

When you get off the Europe-Siberia oriented rail net, you are cutting against the grain of the net. It's a 4.500 km trip from Berlin, with the last 1.200 km on a single two track railroad, some of it in the mountains. You are waaaay down the dendritic order of the rail net.

Re the Taliban. They will not be sitting round for you to hunt down nor will they move. They will melt away awaiting your departure.

Re Nationalism vs conservative religion. You can't indoctrinate such things. You do it by changing the rules of the game. There is a NATO thread active elsewhere on it.

Re resources. They need to be cost effective and enough to be enough. There is almost enough. This is sorta 4GW. You don't win by numbers, but by changing the rules of the game.

Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

In 1945 the Soviet Army shipped the better part of two Fronts from Berlin to Mongolia. Are you saying NATO are not capable of going half the distance in 2006?

I'll look for the thread on changing national perceptions.

Ok, I look forward to seeing the changed rules work. US Army has been talking of changing rules for years. Not being verys successful in Iraq.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Waylander]

Dear Waylander,
You are the Defense Professional/Analyst here with rank of LtCol! So surely you can argue much better then me on alternatives to NOT sending a massive force to Afghanistan?

There is no need for talking like this.
I never asked for the Defense Professional/Analyst. Someday I loked at my profile and saw it. Nothing more. This didn't change my behaviour and it doesn't make me more intelligent than others.
The rank is due to the fact that I am active here for nearly a year with some nice discussions which made the posts rise.
With 2 posts and as a junior member I would also not agree with you.


Now back to topic.
I don't think that any western country is able to provide support for such an operation. Many western countries are operating at the edge of what they are able to support on oversea missions.
Our camps in Kunduz and Mazar-E-Sharif cannot be supported from Kabul or Termez properly if the fighting rises up and the weather in winter turns bad. Not by roads and not by helicopter.
And you want to support 32 Divisions?
And I say it again. Every country would have to increase the military budget in a way you would never get support for by your own population. Not nearly all units are at full strength, properly trained and equipped with enough material. Not to talk of conscriptors serving in some armies which cannot be send to oversea missions.

I agree that there are more troops needed for the south. But as Grand Danois said not at that level. Some thousands more.
With these forces it should be possible to protect the elemental points and so make it possible for NGOs, local construction teams and non fighting troops to win the population.
If you just rely on pure force by military power this is going to end in a desaster.

 

[sammo]

There is no need for talking like this.
I never asked for the Defense Professional/Analyst. Someday I loked at my profile and saw it. Nothing more. This didn't change my behaviour and it doesn't make me more intelligent than others.
The rank is due to the fact that I am active here for nearly a year with some nice discussions which made the posts rise.
With 2 posts and as a junior member I would also not agree with you.


Now back to topic.
I don't think that any western country is able to provide support for such an operation. Many western countries are operating at the edge of what they are able to support on oversea missions.
Our camps in Kunduz and Mazar-E-Sharif cannot be supported from Kabul or Termez properly if the fighting rises up and the weather in winter turns bad. Not by roads and not by helicopter.
And you want to support 32 Divisions?
And I say it again. Every country would have to increase the military budget in a way you would never get support for by your own population. Not nearly all units are at full strength, properly trained and equipped with enough material. Not to talk of conscriptors serving in some armies which cannot be send to oversea missions.

I agree that there are more troops needed for the south. But as Grand Danois said not at that level. Some thousands more.
With these forces it should be possible to protect the elemental points and so make it possible for NGOs, local construction teams and non fighting troops to win the population.
If you just rely on pure force by military power this is going to end in a desaster.

i agree it will just end up in more blood being lost :unknown