Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Afghan strategy may be a repeat of Vietnam

I pulled this from today:

"President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability."

One of the reasons the United States lost in Vietnam was because we controlled the cities and villages, yet we did not control the countryside. The enemy was able to ‘melt away’ into the countryside and we could not force continued engagement that would wipe them out. Historically speaking, this is a typical problem of a conventional army facing irregular forces. Iraq was different.

In Iraq, the desert allowed the U.S. to wipe out the enemy. The desert is one of the most ideal environments for mechanized forces to operate within. The enemy could not ‘melt away’ into the countryside. This allowed us to isolate the battlefield and inflict maximum damage upon the enemy without taking much in the way of losses. The enemy could not disengage. The mismatch of conventional forces firepower against an irregular force who could not ‘melt away’ could only end with victory on the battlefield for the conventional forces.

This is a major reason why the ‘surge’ worked. I see that President Obama and his advisers are either not drawing the same lessons from Vietnam and Iraq, or else are unaware of their significance.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Afghanistan and Iraq

One day is not enough to see how the war is going. However, the news today is not good. In Afghanistan, 3 helicopters were destroyed, two in a mid-air collision and the other possibly by hostile fire. Two attacks in Iraq have left at least 155 dead, making this the worse attacks in years.

As a general rule it is unwise to jump to any conclusions. Seeing as the U.S. is scaling back and withdrawing from Iraq, it is clear that the war in Iraq continues. The fighting in Afghanistan has been increasing for the past few months so heavier losses can be expected. The overall concern here is that our strategic posture is shifting to a defensive one and the pressure from our enemies appears to be increasing.

I have been expecting something along these lines. As our emphasis shifts to using the civilian police and FBI for internal defense from the use of our military to wage offensive warfare, we can expect our enemy to regain the initiative by increased activity. This shift of the U.S. to a defensive posture is not completed, so we can expect this trend to continue. In addition, we can expect our enemy to become more active in areas where he has been less active and in new areas where he had not been active before. This process will most likely take at least another year or two before it becomes more obvious.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Internal terrorist threat "A 27-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with conspiring with others to carry out terror attacks against shoppers in U.S. malls and against U.S. military in Iraq."

NEW YORK - A Queens imam has been indicted on charges that he lied to federal agents about an Afghan immigrant who was later charged with plotting a bomb attack in New York City.


Have you noticed how it appears that we are seeing more internal (United States) terrorist threat arrests in the past few months? It seems that I am seeing terror threat arrests on an almost daily or at least a weekly basis. It can only be a matter of time before one of these threats is successful. Offensive warfare is unpleasant. Defensive warfare is far worse. I expect this trend to continue to accelerate as our national emphasis upon a defensive strategy begins to take effect.

Our police and FBI are doing well. However, they cannot hold the enemy off. Only our military has that capability, and with our shifting to the strategic defensive we can expect to see the war begin to go against us. If you live near a major city, it is a good idea to prepare an emergency kit. The possibility of your needing it is increasing.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Pakistan offensive

Pakistan is conducting an offensive to drive the Taliban out. Historically, irregular troops have always had difficulty standing up to conventional forces in straight up fights. The lack of training, inferior firepower and in most cases, inferior numbers add up to avoiding a stand-up fight and adopting hit and run tactics.

Pakistan is fighting against political Islam. The Taliban wants to run things its way, which is much more in the way of the teachings of the Koran than the way the Pakistani government runs things. I have seen a report that if successful, we will have basically won the war on terror. The war itself will begin to wind down and fade away. NOT!

The number of supporters of political Islam that are spread throughout the world is far too large to not have organized terror groups recover and re-deploy. Many of these Islamic political terror groups are not directly impacted by the war in Pakistan at all. Many are being supported by other governments(such as Syria and Iran) whose bases are not being negatively impacted at all.
A victory in Pakistan will help in our ‘war against terrorism’, but in no way can this war be considered to be over. It will just enter a new phase.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Iran helping in Iraq

I pulled this from; (click on English and scroll down) the article was titled
"Speaker stresses Iran’s support for Iraq." (10/12/09)

Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani assured that Iran will do its best to help resolve problems in the neighboring Iraq.

"The Islamic Iran will spare no efforts to help the Iraqi nation in removing the existing problems," Larijani said at a meeting with Head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) Ammar al-Hakim here in Tehran Saturday night.

The Iranian parliament speaker further reminded that the Shiite religious leadership plays a significant role in leading Iraq out of the cumbersome conditions dominating the country at present.


The existing problem he wants to ‘remove’ is the U.S. (Western) influence that has been established within Iraq. He wants to help lead Iraq "out of the cumbersome conditions dominating the country at present". You know, the ideology of personal freedom and democracy.
The obligation to remove ‘occupiers’ of Islamic ‘land’ is still in full force. Iran is at war against us, only Iran is smart enough to know that they cannot be overt about it. To ignore this as the United States has done for more than 30 years now is to only put off the eventual day of reckoning. Once again, time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group is able to deploy an effective weapon of mass destruction. I do not see any percentage in one of these Islamic groups NOT deploying a WMD if and when they get their hands on one. Once this occurs, then the little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will become insignificant by comparison.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Irans support of Islamic terrorist organizations

Iran supports all sorts of Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizballah and Islamic Jihad.

The moral obligation to kill the 'occupiers' of Muslim land is one of the historically stronger ‘laws’ of Islam. This is only one of the reasons why we are at war. I like to use an example:
A bunch of Muslims seize a Catholic church in Chicago, IL. The Catholic Church owns the land, but they do NOT send an army to kick the 'occupiers' out. The United States government sends in the army.

Clearly, Iran feels that they need to enforce this Islamic law. In addition, Muslim ‘land’ and ‘waters’ are permanent. Another ‘authentic’ Islamic law is that the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Once someone or something becomes Muslim, it cannot revert back.

I am guessing that many who believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake either do not understand or underestimate the importance of these ‘laws’ within the Islamic world.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Afghanistan is low on President Obama’s to do list

The post that I re-posted earlier this week discussed a request by the leading U.S. general in Afghanistan asking for additional troops. Please note that the original post was July 8th. At that time, the request had already been public for at least a few days, if not longer. The President’s attention was focused upon the health care bill that he wanted passed before the August recess.

I am pleased that President Obama is now directing his attention to the war. My concern has always been that he would rank the war a low priority. It has been more than 3 months since our leading general has made his request. Our President is going to focus upon the problem and will decide to either fullfill that request or enact some other option within the next few WEEKS. I guess he is finally getting around to it.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Afghanistan is combat

Afghanistan is one place where the U.S. can militarily engage those who back the ideology of those who attacked us on 9/11. (Political Islam) However, Iraq and the desert are a much more desirable place for us to engage the armed forces of our enemies. Now that we are drawing down U.S. military activity in Iraq, the ONLY place where we are actively engaging the enemy with our armed forces is now Afghanistan. To draw this down would be a major mistake.

The enemy could not support the attrition in Iraq and has shifted back to Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is still going on, but not at a level that will substantially injure our enemies. Our enemy can support more combat than what is combined with the greater level of combat occurring in Afghanistan today and the reduced level in Iraq. I expect greater trouble elsewhere as our enemy adjusts.

Afghanistan is NOT Iraq

I Posted this on 7/8/09. I thought a repeat post is in order.

U.S. commander: More troops are needed. Surprise. Throughout history, just about ALL commanders say that they need more troops. In this case, I believe that he is referring to more Afghan units, although I am certain that he would accept more U.S. soldiers. (Note - General Grant was one of the few exceptions to this general rule as he cut back on the artillery the army of the Potomac brought with it when it engaged the Army of Northern Virginia in 1864. He believed that too much would hinder his movements, as was subsequently shown.)

Even if everything else were the same, just the terrain alone would require far more troops per capita in Afghanistan than Iraq. Everything else is not the same and in many cases aggravates the need for more units, both combat and support. I doubt that we will obtain anywhere near the same level of support from the Afghan population that we obtained in Iraq, although this is yet to be determined.

The ‘surge’ required the better part of a year before it became obvious that we were making positive progress. I expect Afghanistan to take longer, although I am not so certain that the outcome will be as decisive as the result was in Iraq.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Rule of law and the war against Islamic terrorists

The strategy of the United States government fighting terrorists today is that of using the ‘rule of law’ to establish law and order and stability. The front line is shifting to the police and FBI. The military will be downplayed, as our focus will be shifted onto law enforcement. The main problem here is that our enemy has a ‘rule of law’ that is inherently hostile to that of our own. What we are asking of our enemies is to adopt a similar ‘rule of law’ to our own. This is NOT going to happen voluntarily.

As mentioned in my last post, people will defend their way of life through organized violence. (Up to and including organized warfare) The way of life that has been established under Islamic law has to change in order to rid the world of most if not all, of the international Islamic terrorists. It is the Islamic terrorists who are attempting to force this legal system upon the rest of the world. Change of this sort will NOT occur naturally. Even within our own country, it took the most costly war in our history (Not even close) to resolve that the way of life of the slave owner society could no longer be tolerated. History has demonstrated time and again that change of this type will not occur without violence and warfare. So the choice really boils down to this:

Do we adopt the legal ways of our enemies, or do they adopt ours? Please note that they have the same options and we can expect the same answer. I say that they MUST adopt the international definitions of the responsibilities of the nation-state and separation of church and state that this requires. This requires the Islamic ‘rule of law’ to change drastically, and it must change today. To do anything else is not to pursue the war at the root causes. If the root causes of ANY problem are not addressed, the problem will only become larger as time goes on. Dealing with this problem will require offensive, preemptive warfare to enforce. In other words, the government of Syria and Iran will have to change. As shown by their actions, Syria and Iran believe in political Islam as they are directly supporting organizations that are violently fighting for enforcement of the concepts that are so hostile to us. Eventually, many other Islamic governments may have to follow, but this would be an important start. Please note that I find this to be very unlikely. Far more likely will be ineffective action and a continuing slow increase in Islamic terrorist capability.