Why the CF need combat help at Kandahar
Our battle group of some 1,000 troops just isn't enough to try to extend security over considerable areas of the province (note video and audio at link):
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Secret military statistics show that Taliban attacks have decreased in Kandahar's core districts in the past year, illustrating the success of Canada's new strategy of pulling back its troops into the heart of the province, a top military commander says.
Insurgent ambushes have fallen in four of Kandahar's 17 districts as the latest rotation of troops has focused on protecting the vital zone around the provincial capital, said Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, although he did not give specific numbers.
The assertion that Canadian forces have created a bright spot amid the darkening security picture in southern Afghanistan represents the military's first detailed response to several academic reports in recent months that have described NATO as losing the war.
Gen. Gauthier, commander of all Canadian forces overseas, invited reporters for an unusually open discussion [good on him - MC] in Kandahar during the weekend, taking questions for nearly an hour in an attempt to show that his troops are making progress.
"In relation to where we're focused, I think we are winning," he said.
Geographic focus was a key part of the general's assessment. While saying that security has improved in the districts of Panjwai, Zhari, Spin Boldak and Kandahar city, he repeatedly declined to comment about the provincial situation as a whole [emphasis added]...
...control of the central districts once again looked shaky by the summer of 2007, as Taliban overran police outposts, and Gen. Gauthier said with the latest rotation of soldiers, mostly from Quebec, the decision was made in August to focus on a few central areas.
That decision was partly aimed at "managing risk" of casualties among the Canadian troops [now why might that be? just wondering], he said, but was also intended to protect the districts where 75 per cent of the province's population lives.
"Afghans will be better off, in those areas where we're focused," Gen. Gauthier said. "You can only do so much with the troops that you have. You've got to make those tough decisions. You've got to take Kandahar and bite it off, one bite at a time, and that's effectively what we've done here."
In places just beyond the Canadians' zone of control, the Taliban have established a parallel court system, enforced curfews, and mounted road checkpoints.
But Gen. Gauthier described his troops in a dilemma similar to that faced by a hospital triage nurse, deciding which patients require the most urgent attention: "You have to prioritize," he said...
The most recent rotation of Canadian troops has recaptured the outposts lost by ANAP [Afghan National Auxiliary Police] last year. The new Afghan forces guarding those positions have a stronger system of Canadian mentors, he said, and it's unlikely that the Taliban will retake the outposts when the heaviest part of the fighting season starts in late May.
"Now, we have police in the same places," Gen. Gauthier said. "They're there, and they haven't come under serious attack, and the question will be, where are they in the May-to-September time frame?"
This year will likely see a decrease in violence in the districts where Canadian forces are concentrated, he added. He did not make predictions about the rest of Kandahar province.
"There is a finish line somewhere down the road," he said. "We are moving toward that finish line."
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 3:28 p.m.
3 Comments:
Where in hell are folks getting the idea that we're losing in Af-stan???
(Rhetorical question-I think we all know where and why the public are getting repeatedly fed this falsehood.)
Whenever NATO or ISAF combat forces have engaged Taliban forces, the Taliban have been slaughtered. To my knowledge, we the good guys haven't lost a single battle of any consequence.
Moreover, for the last year or so, any Taliban holding or taking medium or top leadership positions (and their limited number of expert IED/bomb-making technical experts)had better have their life insurance paid up. The ISAF strategy of going after the leadership and IED/bomb experts is wise and has been very effective.
In Af-stan, the Taliban are only safe singly or in very small numbers. Besides NATO and ISAF ground forces, They never know when or where they're being tracked by aircraft or UAVs, ready to drop a smart bomb or shoot a Hellfire missile up their ass. They're only really safe when they're over the border, in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
AL Qaeda has already worn out it's welcome there with it's brutality and the Taliban are to some extent doing likewise. Only lots of drug money from opium is keeping what's left of the Taliban afloat.
Af-stan is a big country, very roughly 1,200 km X 500 km., nearly the same size as Alberta. Even just Southeast Af-stan, where all the combat action is taking place, is roughly the size of Newfoundland or New York State. What NATO and ISAF need are more combat troops and helicopter assets.
However, it appears only the Anglophone nations, plus a few other European nations of limited military assets are willing to do their duty.
(And as another commenter recently wrote in a thread here, "When did French, German or Italian armed forces EVER fight for the defense or liberation of other people?" Good question. Other than a few French in the Korean War and a few German Special Forces fighting BRIEFLY in Af-stan, until the German leftards found out and raised hell about it, causing their removal,I'd have to say "Never, to my knowledge.")
As for reinforcements:
The new French President has made noises about sending a combat battalion to the combat area of Af-stan. I'll believe it when I see French combat boots on the ground in the combat zone of SE Af-stan.
The Aussies are sending some more forces and two Aussie CH-47s were flown in this last weekend to augment ISAF helicopter forces in the combat zone.
The US is sending another Marine MAU (Marine Amphibious Unit, basically a heavily reinforced infantry battalion with it's own support troops, plus gunship and support helicopters.)
As we're now definitely winning in Iraq (much to the chagrin of Al Qaeda and the Democrats), we'll be drawing down more combat forces from Iraq over the next year or so. Perhaps in another year after some needed time at home for these troops, we'll see some of these very experienced US Army and Marines in Af-stan. Then we could really do an ISAF/NATO "surge".
Meanwhile, as I see it, we're certainly not losing. We are in fact steadily, incrementally moving towards victory.
It took the US 5 years to get to this very good point in Iraq. It took the British a good 10 years to crush the Communist insurgency in Malaya. What NATO, ISAF and the Afghan people have accomplished in just 6 years is incredible. Patient persistence and fortitude are what's needed now. We're getting there, steadily and incrementally.
(Sorry for my windbaggery but I feel strongly about this!)
Dave: The idea that we're losing comes from the fact that after a very few years of, mostly very limited, combat, we have not triumphed completely (cf the cartoon at "There's no place like home").
Which is not how counterinsurgency (aka "guerrilla") wars work. As I posted before, for many Canadians suffering some thirty fatalities a year (few recently from "combat", most from IEDS, some from other causes) seems to be magical point at which all is lost. A mindset I cannot fathom unless the underlying view is that combat has to be very fast, very successful, and very, very, very casualty free. AKA a dream world. Also, in the Canadian case, such combat when done in concert with Bushitler, is somehow intrinsically wrong (ignoring the UNSC authorizations of which most Canadians are ignorantly unaware).
As for the French, they certainly did their bit in Indo-China, and later in Algeria where they actually won militarily but for political reasons (de Gaulle and I won't criticize his decision) withdrew. Though the French have the historical good sense to realize there is such a thing as raison d'état.
Sorry for the rant, er, windbaggery :),
Mark
Ottawa
"When did French [...] armed forces EVER fight for the defense or liberation of other people?"
How about WW II, fighting for Polonia?
Post a Comment
<< Home