• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"A U.S. think tank takes a hard look at our war effort"

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
I looked around, hopefully this isn't a re-post.  What do you guys make of this?
 
I'd surmise that the OP is talking about this:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/16/f-vp-stewart.html
 
First, I think it's funny that anyone from CBC* could write,
outsiders can set aside those deep and natural ties of affection for our soldiers that sometimes cloud one's vision.

Second, although the report was written by Carl Forsberg (BA), when you say "Institute for the Study of War," you're saying Kimberly Kagan (PhD); ISW's founder and president. While I personally respect some of her earlier work, a quick scan of anything she's written recently shows her to have become a one-trick pony:
- The Surge: a Military History (Encounter Books, 2009), "Don't Short-Circuit the Surge" (Wall Street Journal), "How to Surge the Taliban" (The New York Times)...

So when you combine a CBC "journalist" ('woe is me; Canada's being picked on'), with a situating-the-estimate "think-tank" ('McChrystal's a fan of the surge, so everything will be OK now'), you're bound to get some loopy opinions.


Me? I preferred reading the ISW report, and forming my own opintions. It's available >>here<< -- free, no less -- but there's a lot of pages for some.  ;)



* I know Brian Stewart is "retired" from CBC, but his bio still says "he continues to write a regular column for CBCNews.ca on international affairs and will be contributing to CBC documentary reports." If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
Journeyman said:
Me? I preferred reading the ISW report, and forming my own opintions. It's available >>here<< -- free, no less -- but there's a lot of pages for some.  ;)

Thanks for your thoughts and the link.
I employed the usual tactic, read the first page and the conclusion.  :nod:
 
I downloaded and read the whole thing a couple of times. It is padded a bit with the background on the area including tribal demographics. These are useful to devlop an understanding of the complicated tribal dynamics, but do not necessarily advance the argument.

In my opinion, the paper is wise after the event and fails to propose a viable alternate course of action. It seems to me that our battle group fought in the Panjway (sp?) because that was where the enemy were. The following summer (2007) there was a preemptive operation to disrupt the Taliban buildup north of Kandahar in the "belly button" area that seems to have been overlooked. We could not be everywhere and in fact, instead of trying to be strong everywhere, we were forced by circumstances to be weak everywhere. Was that playing into the enemy's hands? Perhaps, but what were the viable alternatives? More likely, we were staving off disaster, perhaps by the narrowest of margins, until the "US cavalry" arrived. That is how history may view it; time will tell.
 
I noted how they commented on the few infantry we have in the AOR.

However, what about these force multipliers
1. Tanks. Canada was the only NATO originally to send in hard chargin MBT.
2. Special Operations. I am sure when you deliver a blow to enemy vital "ground" such as their leadership or major IED caches, I am pretty sure you hamstring them at  least a little.
3. Psy Ops, HUMINT, CIMIC, INT, these attachments IMO help both gather info and influence the effect in our AOR.

However they have brought up good points to consider IMO.
 
I agree with much of what the report says. I dont however see how the CBC article is getting some of their conclusions from this paper. Biggest set back of the war? I dont think so. It was common knowledge, at least in the Panjwaii COP's in 2008 that what we were doing was not working, and that we were being outmaneuvered. I think our strategy in Zhari/Panjwaii had a lot potential, if we had the numbers. Which is what the paper basically states. I dont see to many suprises in it.
 
Ditto. One line in the CBC report that raised my eyebrows:

``When they arrived in 2006, the Canadians replaced a much stronger U.S. force.``

Really? That`s not my recollection of the comparative strength of TF Bayonet vs. TF Orion. Although others on this forum may be better informed as to the total number of ``boots on the ground`` of both organizations, I thought if anything that the Cdn BG was at least as big, if not bigger than the US BG they replaced. And we had LAV3`s ...
 
Back
Top