War on Terrorism and Capturing Ossama bin Laden

[Grand Danois]

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?

Yes. On an existing railnet dimensioned for it. And they didn't support it from Mongolia.

Russsian divs where among the least demanding to shift/support during ww2.

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

The US Army is not stupid in Iraq, but there are other cards to play in Afghanistan.

 

[FutureTank]

There is no need for talking like this.
With 2 posts and as a junior member I would also not agree with you..

Ok, sorry. Didn't mean to be stroppy. I wonder if the professional analyst is just something one gets with the number of posts. Not really looking for a 'rank'

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 overseas missions.

However the reality is that they are at war. It may be a 'phoney war' for some, but a war it is.

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?.

Yes. 32 divisions come with substantially greater infrastructure building capability then the current equivalent of 2.

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 conscripts serving in some armies which cannot be send to overseas missions..

So it’s not that you don't agree with me. You just accepted that the political decision to escalate deployments can not be made. The argument for this as I see it is that the civizens of NATO are just not scared enough.

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..

As I understand it there are only two ways to fight an insurgency (which is what this seems to me is becoming): counter-insurgency and massive retaliation. We have the Soviet experience to go by in this case. The Soviets used a combination of urban centre control and counter-insurgency warfare to defeat Afghan combat factions. One Afghan veteran site says that
"not one mission performed by airborne [and air assault] troops went without substantial climbs". These troops undertook the vast bulk of offensive action, and there were close to two divisions of them in Afghanistan for years. True they faced far more opposition then NATO, but the indicator is there. If Taliban are able to claim success against NATO they will be able to recruit with abandon and their strength will escalate more rapidly then NATO is able to train Afghan forces.
If, and I REALLY hope I'm wrong, NATO chooses to EVER leave Afghanistan with Taliban in position to retake the country, eventually they will have to fight Taliban at the gates of Europe. Maybe not next year, not in 5 years, but eventually...7 years, 10 years, 15 years. This is Islam.

If you just rely on pure force by military power this is going to end in a disaster.

Yes, I think if anything this has been THE singular lesson of Iraq. It seems that defence planning in future should come with environmental, social, political, and economic strategies, tactics and 'troops' in addition to the military components. What I really fail to understand is how this failed to register in Pentagon where there are still some Vietnam era veterans. Had they never heard of the Marshall Plan? Had no-one read about the post-war occupation of Japan?

In any case, I would agree with you on the ability to defeat Taliban now ONLY if the infusion of extra troops is for very aggressive counter-insurgency warfare on scale of at least what the Soviets were doing, but obviously with enhanced technology available today. I am sceptical this is going to happen. If it does happen, the deployment is still likely to stretch for years. I wonder what the public opinion will be like in 3 years time.

 

[Waylander]

The rank Lt.Col. comes with the amount of posts.
The title Defense Professional/Analyst comes when you serve(d) in the armed forces or in the defense industry.

You cannot take the political will aside.

For example if the german population and politicians wanted to we could call for total defense, raise over one million soldiers in a short time (The benefits of a conscriptors army), go for total militarization of our industry and move for A-stan.
But this is as unrealistic as your idea of sending the whole NATO to A-stan.

 

[FutureTank]

You cannot take the political will aside.

For example if the german population and politicians wanted to we could call for total defense, raise over one million soldiers in a short time (The benefits of a conscriptors army), go for total militarization of our industry and move for A-stan.
But this is as unrealistic as your idea of sending the whole NATO to A-stan.

Its not realistic because the German people are not angry or scared enough now. If taliban was to conduct a sustained terror campaign in Germany, raising 12 divisions would not be beyong German display of political will.
I think the Taliban know this.

 

[FutureTank]

Yes. On an existing railnet dimensioned for it. And they didn't support it from Mongolia.
Russian divs where among the least demanding to shift/support during ww2.
I'll look for the thread on changing national perceptions.
The US Army is not stupid in Iraq, but there are other cards to play in Afghanistan.

No, I didn't imply the US Army is 'stupid', just that changing rules is not so simple.

I honestly think that if there was the political will in NATO to really fight a war in Afghaniston that would secure fundamental change in Afghanistan that would completely preclude return of Taliban EVER, the deployment of this massive force would be accomplished relatively painlessly and sustained for the duration suggested.

Time will tell, but I am highly sceptical that the current strategy and methods would accomplish same results.

 

[Grand Danois]

No, I didn't imply the US Army is 'stupid', just that changing rules is not so simple.

I didn't intend to do a strawman. I was hedging myself.

I honestly think that if there was the political will in NATO to really fight a war in Afghaniston that would secure fundamental change in Afghanistan that would completely preclude return of Taliban EVER, the deployment of this massive force would be accomplished relatively painlessly and sustained for the duration suggested.

Taliban or the worldview it represents has been around in this area for the past 200 years. Al Qaeda is a ideologically more a child of the Pakistani-Afghani border areas than of Saudi Wahabbism - though related. So they have been around before Israel became a state and before the US became a superpower.

What makes it a problem all of a sudden is that globalisation set in in the 20th century, and the conservative vorldview of these areas now has to be coped with by the entire global community.

Time will tell, but I am highly sceptical that the current strategy and methods would accomplish same results.

Well, killing of piles of Talib and AQ certainly has a high feel-good factor attached to it. However to achieve success with an element of permancy to it, the approach has to be multifaceted. I noted from your earlier posts that you are aware of that. And I agree to that this is the element to be sceptical about - as the policies wrt Afghanistan on these aspects lacks comprehensiveness. But the realisation of this is setting in, and one can only hope for the best outcome.

 

[FutureTank]

Mountain troops

Is this the appropriate thread to ask how many of Europe's specialist mountain troops are deployed in Afghanistan, and what prevents at least these formations and units from deploying for offensive activities?
This was a major issue for Soviets in Afghanistan in that specialist mountain divisions had been disbanded, and they found that troop fittness not withstanding, the skills were lost to a significant degree and had to be relearned from old manuals and interviewing veterans.

 

[Waylander]

We have mountain troops there sometimes but our light infantry capabilities are so laughable that we need every boot on the ground for rotation. So all kinds of infantry is send there.
So we have experienced soldiers who make the plans for operations there and if you are lucky there are also mountain troops in the contingent. If not you have to use retrained artillery guys. (What a situation, what a shame)

 

[FutureTank]

We have mountain troops there sometimes but our light infantry capabilities are so laughable

I don't understand.
Of course I know the 10th US Mountain division is rotated through Afghanistan. However German, France, and Italy have specialist Alpine units of brigade to division is size. Further, Austria and Switzerland also have them not to mention Hungary, Turkey and Spain. I also believe Norway had a battalion trained for arctic mountain warfare in the Cold War days (so cold cold environment training )

It seems to me that with availability of air support infantry is all the light infantry needs even if they lack good light mountain artillery equipment. All they need are light mortars and maybe RRs aside from the usual infantry weapons.

 

[Waylander]

The 10th mountains are not real mountain troops. They are "not more" than normal light infantry.

Of course we have our three btls of real mountain infantry with good experience and capabilities which are top in the world.
But the problem remains that we generally have not enough boots on the ground so these units are also in the normal rotation for the oversea missions.
It is just not possible to have mountain troops attached to ISAF all the time. They also need a rest, need training at home, personal exchanges, etc.

 

[FutureTank]

The 10th mountains are not real mountain troops. They are "not more" than normal light infantry.

Of course we have our three btls of real mountain infantry with good experience and capabilities which are top in the world.
But the problem remains that we generally have not enough boots on the ground so these units are also in the normal rotation for the oversea missions.
It is just not possible to have mountain troops attached to ISAF all the time. They also need a rest, need training at home, personal exchanges, etc.

The 10th no longer conducts mountain warfare training? When did this happen?

Is it not even possible to rotate a battalion in Afghanistan?!

 

[eckherl]

The 10th no longer conducts mountain warfare training? When did this happen?

Is it not even possible to rotate a battalion in Afghanistan?!

Waylander is correct - they are light infantry.

 

[FutureTank]

I'm aware they are light infantry, but they are still designated Mountain. As recently as 2003 I belive they were still condicting brigade mountain training, so I'm just surprised that they are not to be considered so specialist any more.

 

[Waylander]

The official designation of it is 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry).
It is more fixed on rapid deployment and reaction with the structure being standard for a light infantry unit. This is their main task since their rebuild in 1984 and integration into a Airborn Corps.
Due to tradition and home fort they sometimes train in harsh conditions but this is nevertheless not comparable with the day by day mountain warfare training done by for example the Alpine units of the european countries.
There are real high altitude units, special equipment like the BV-206, more skiing and climbing and even the use of mules which make true mountain troops out of it.

As for deploying a whole btl permanently to A-stan.
This would mean that all of our three btls are permanently attached to A-stan if you remember the rule that for every soldier oversea you have one preparing for deployment and one who just came back and reintegrates.
This is not the best solution of you want to retain the abilities by training in your homecountry.

 

[FutureTank]

raise a fourth battalion?

 

[Waylander]

Hahahaha. nfloorl:
With a Bundeswehr being nearly bancrupt?

We just raised a new airmobile infantry regiment which is everything you can expect in the next years if it comes to light infantry.

 

[FutureTank]

 

[eckherl]

Yes - the 10th Mountain Div does conduct a small amount of what we call rock climbing, but they are part of our light infantry structure. A while back they were even considering making the division a second in air assault class, but this for some reason did not pan out.

 

[FutureTank]

 

[eckherl]

Okay - the term rock climbing means that they may go out on occasion and practice repelling and climbing over mountains, setting up base camps and t of the practice war fighting with MILES. They maybe go out 2 weeks out of the year for this type of training.