Restrepo or rather not?

[Rickredline]

After seeing the movie 'RESTREPO' and actual footage during that units time in Afghanistan, I really think the brass should rather refrain from allowing that to be available to the world. In my opinion it parades the vulnerablility of those troops to enemy action. If those Afghans see what effect their actions are having .....it will bolster their efforts! This is probably why they have held out so long anyway? Any comments?

 

[Waylander]

Well, the West considers itself to be a free society.
Restricting reports from warzones to dog and pony shows is IMO not compatible with that idea. People have a right to get a look at the realities of this conflict.

We all send these men and women into harms way by electing a government which does it for us. So ultimately we are responsible for these adventures.

I am not judging the importance of individual oversea engagements but the public should at least have the chance to use independent journalists and writers for informing themselves about these conflicts.

Bringing ourselves down to a level of official propaganda reports being the only source of information is bringing us down to a level with nations I don't want to be compared with.

 

[Feanor]

I thought it was an excellent film that demonstrated the strength and resolve of the Army, much more so then their vulnerability.

 

[Waylander]

Not to forget that the local insurgents have all the time they want to look down into the camps with binos from the surrounding hills.
They don't need the movie or book to judge the defenses and the troops manning them.

 

[Bonza]

Waylander and Feanor hit it on the head, so apologies for the one-liner, but I'm just going to say I agree with them 100%.

 

[Chino]

Overall, after watching the movie I can't help but feel that US presence is but a small, and temporary inconvenience.

After the US leave, they'll go back to murdering each other, planting opium and harboring terrorists.

 

[Chino]

Well, the West considers itself to be a free society.
Restricting reports from warzones to dog and pony shows is IMO not compatible with that idea. People have a right to get a look at the realities of this conflict.

We all send these men and women into harms way by electing a government which does it for us. So ultimately we are responsible for these adventures.

I am not judging the importance of individual oversea engagements but the public should at least have the chance to use independent journalists and writers for informing themselves about these conflicts.

Bringing ourselves down to a level of official propaganda reports being the only source of information is bringing us down to a level with nations I don't want to be compared with.

I agree on the one hand - example, if the public knew how the British general staff in WW1 were wasting lives, and somehow manages to make some changes, it would've been great.

But then, WW1, WW2, Korea or even GW1 are "simple" wars, ones where somebody invaded somebody else so off-to-the-rescue we go etc. OTOH A'stan - like VN - are "dirty wars" and hardly poster boys for winning public opinions.

And, furthermore, the military is not a "free society".

Sending the military is usually the last desperate resort. You must then let the military do what the military must do.

If you are sensitive to public opinions, or keen to keep everything open to the public, you'd be better off NOT sending men to war (unless you are under attack). War is nasty. You'd be giving the public too much credit for thinking that they can deal with war facts while sipping lattes in aircon comfort.

"How many enemy tanks destroyed? None. How many schools demolished? Several. Oh dear..."

Civilians, especially a "free-thinking" one like the West, do not have stomach for foreign military expeditions... Especially those that by nature do not deliver easily consumable results for the public. Like VN, like A'stan.

Public opinion lost the war for the US military in VN.

 

[Waylander]

Sure the public often decides everything but realistic but that's the price we have to pay.

And I have the Feeling that if the war is justified the population of most mature western countries knows and feels this. On the other hand in a somewhat immature country like Germany this might be a bit more difficult.

If the majority if the population feels that a conflict has gone on the wrong track or was wrong right from the beginning than there may be some truth in it.

 

[Rickredline]

Immature Germany???

Probably the country that knows the most about the costs and pains of war...yes...is GERMANY! In this regard they are very mature. My original point was not that public opinion is important or should be considered...but simply that an element of encouragement can be derived from that footage by the portion of the public that IS the enemy! What happened to the practice of delaying the dissemination of possibly influencial information....at least till the conflict is over. Maybe this is a way to help pay for the war...or at least that units costs?.....It should net a good coupla million bucks at least.

 

[Waylander]

The generation in Germany which knows total war personally dies away these days.

I have no problem with the Germans being very shy of using military forces. It only becomes weird in situations where the people say that something should be done but at the same time won't participate.

And what does the insurgents really gain from such a movie which they can't get first hand as they are living in that hellhole of a valley?

 

[Rickredline]

they gain...

they gain info on things such as fortification details which enables them to apply ordinance for the purpose of breaching said fortification, layouts that can be used to pinpoint positions of stores, sleeping area.....armaments and placements thereof in detail....backup response times, and also very importantly the possible erosion of the will to be there if made evident to the enemy WILL encourage attacks......those yank soldiers were SO happy to be going away from there it was obvious they were not keen to be there!
The army I served in spent most of its time chasing the enemy, forcing contact after contact, changing strategies to avoid the enemy 'learning' our methods and occupying the terrain that in this case would have been used to attack those forward bases. It seemed like the US was very 'out of place' on patrols and suffered most casualties there. To an ex soldier it seemed like the US is making very heavy going of this....no wonder they hav'nt won....they hav'nt done anything in terms of this sort of warefare that would precipitate a win ultimately...other than occupy space and hope the afghans die of old age. All this said with respect to the combatants there.

 

[Rickredline]

gains....again

And what does the insurgents really gain from such a movie which they can't get first hand as they are living in that hellhole of a valley?[/QUOTE]

The other thing is that whatever they gain..even if very little...is at the expense of the footsoldier and at no risk to themselves at all.

 

[STURM]

After seeing the movie 'RESTREPO' and actual footage during that units time in Afghanistan, I really think the brass should rather refrain from allowing that to be available to the world. In my opinion it parades the vulnerablility of those troops to enemy action. If those Afghans see what effect their actions are having .....it will bolster their efforts! This is probably why they have held out so long anyway? Any comments?

I very much doubt if the documentary would have provided the insurgents with any intelligence that would have made a difference. Ross Kemp did a documentary of his time in Afghanistan with the British army about a couple of years ago, which also showed bases, certain operating patterns, etc.

they gain info on things such as fortification details which enables them to apply ordinance for the purpose of breaching said fortification, layouts that can be used to pinpoint positions of stores, sleeping areathe afghans die of old age. All this said with respect to the combatants there.

I would imagine that the insurgents would already have had a pretty good idea of the lay-out of the base and position of buildings, having been based in the area almost on a permanent basis and having access to the high areas surrounding the base. Whether they were able to use any of the info to their advantage or whether it improved the accuracy of their indirect weapons is another story.

The question that comes to my mind is whether the base actually contributed to restricting insurgent activity in the area and preventing them from having access to the local population.

 

[Waylander]

They can look into these FOBs and fire bases from the hills around. They get detailed descriptions of the interior from the locals which enter these bases. They get the response time by just firing some potshots into the camps and having a look.

They now know that the soldiers were damn bored when they where not mowing insurgents down with .50cals, grenade launchers and GPMGs.

They don't need the movie or the book to assess the frequenzy and determination of the patrols. They just have to have some eyes on the patrols.

As for them not being active enough. There is just so much you can do with a limited amount of manpower even when you have plenty of fixed wing, rotary and artillery support.

Apart from dumping some 50k troops into these valleys one can't control it. And even then stands the question of what to do. Search and destroy missions in the villages? That's not going to win the COIN operation.

 

[Rickredline]

They can win......with a change of tactic.

They can win that conflict easily. They need to institute fire and movement drills when they have contact and also have hot persuit teams to take over if the patrols cannot. These Afghans pin them down ..... and thats where they stay.The strategy requires training, training ,training and guts. The Af's stay in that area because the are not persued during the firefight and therefore have re-goup time as soon as THEY disengage.Given that your soldiers are in only as good shape as your enemy ( they should be in better ) the enemy cannot break contact then. Its a basic of COIN warfare. Sure the patrol may be taxed...but then you must have a mobile fireforce tasked with persue&kill that is only a reaction force not patrolling...that can assist. There is no need for big numbers...the enemy is not at the point of contact en-masse. Put specialist insurgent teams in the Af area's.The patrols should last at least two maybe three weeks per patrol. The funniest was that the US PL/CL acknowledged AF held territory beyond the '62'.........the easiest COIN operations are fought with prior knowledge of where to find your enemy. A big mortar tube in the saddle between the two hilltops opposite Restrepo will probably render that base to rubble with 10 bombs......that you can see clearly from the footage taken from the base...there will be a good chance of escaping unscathed too.

 

[STURM]

They can win that conflict easily. They need to institute fire and movement drills when they have contact and also have hot persuit teams to take over if the patrols cannot. These Afghans pin them down ..... and thats where they stay.The strategy requires training, training ,training and guts.

I'm no expert and I don't claim to be but I think it's a bit more complicated than you described. The reason IMO the conflict has lasted this long is not because U.S. tactics in the field or at a tactical level need to be refined, certainly not at the level of ''fire and movement'' you mentioned. At this stage of the conflict, U.S. field tactics are not the problem. The problem is whether the military effort conducted in parallel with other efforts, namely political and social - winning over the locals, providing them with a better alternative than an Afghanistan ruled by the Talebs, as well as limiting insurgent movement and denying them access to local support - is working.

Winning on the battlefield against the insurgents in one thing but what about the non-military - political and economic - aspects which are equally or even more important in all counter insurgency campaigns? Like in Vietnam or in a host of other conflicts where insurgents faced a conventional, technologicaly superior army, the insurgents might lose most if not all their tactical engagements and have a much higher bodycount but can can still achieve their political objectives by virtue of just existing, knowing their presence ties foreign forces and outlasting them.

 

[Rickredline]

They can win......with a change of tactic.

In my opinion it is actually rather simple when YOU are getting the kills. I have forwarded this movie to two other commanders in two similar units to mine with a request for constructive evaluation. I look forward to posting their comments. Their credentials are similar to mine...ie extended tours in counter insurgency operations over period of years in foreign country against 'superpower' backed/trained/advised/supported insurgents that outclass these Af's any day.
I promise not to alter their comments in any way!

 

[Gremlin29]

I have to agree with Rickredline regarding the release of Restrepo for many of the reasons mentioned. Ultimately I believe the movie doesn't balance well between what we give up by releasing it, and what is gained. Unfortunately the US has allowed warfare to become a spectator sport, I believe the price of admission should be far steeper than the monthly fee from Netflix. One can not experience war from the safety and comfort of their computer and somehow have a credible grasp as to what's going on from the micro level on up to the strategic position.

Lastly, and I by no means have anything insightful to say regarding the tactical prowess of the soldiers involved however it is worth pointing out that the troops fight the way they are trained and we (the US) has become risk adverse to the point of retardation. Reflective safety belts in a combat zone pretty much sums it up.

 

[RubiconNZ]

British journalist Tim Hetherington dies in Libya

Well one way or another there won't be anything quite like Restrepo again,
the Photo journalist Tim Hetherington was killed in Libya yesterday.

BBC has the news.

He had recently tweeted on the indiscriminate shelling by Gadaffi forces in Mistrata, he was killed and 3 other journalists were wounded.

Like the movie or not it, Tim Hetherington was a real talent, RIP.

 

[STURM]

Wasn't the documentary also made by Sebastian Junger? In the late 90's Junger visited the Northern Alliance at the Panhjsir valley for a National Geographic documentary. Anyone here seen it?