SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: skinowski who wrote (228928)11/21/2007 8:23:03 PM
From: unclewest  Respond to of 793931
 
UW, I'd like to ask you a question ...

Skinowski,
In her book "Masters of Chaos", Linda Robinson outlined the winning strategy and tactics for Afghanistan. It was working beautifully and in text book fashion while SF was in charge and conventional forces were not yet deployed.
Since then, we have turned Afghan over to the NATO ISAF or International Security Assistance Force, and that strategy has been discarded.

This year we have endured our largest losses in Afghanistan so far...I believe the total is 101 GIs (maybe higher but not much)...but NATO continues to take a larger role and US losses may drop.

I do not believe STRATFOR's suggestion to operate from remote bases deserves even a mild glance. The key is to identify and work closely with the friendly population 24/7 and train and equip them to provide their own security. Our Special Forces had that going until our conventional army took over and blew it.

NATO took over from them and is doing no better than our own conventional forces.

The key to winning in Afghan lies not in numbers of conventional US or NATO troops. The solution is in the strategy and tactics. A double, triple, or quadruple from current NATO force size will not be sufficient unless they get very very close to the Afghan people. And that is beyond the comprehension of current soldiers and commanders stationed in Afghan who think their mission is to kill Afghans.
uw