Why are we having a difficult time winning in Iraq and Afghanistan?

2015-10-30T23:05:58-04:00

I am not going to give my opinion now, so I do not persuade opinion.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 30 at 2015 11:15 PM

2015-10-30T23:15:59-04:00

Our Values, beliefs and cultural values compared to the Pashtuwali beliefs and cultural norms.....are just different.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 31 at 2015 2:04 AM

2015-10-31T02:04:16-04:00

Lack of resolve and staying power on the part of our civilian leadership.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 3:40 AM

2015-10-31T03:40:45-04:00

First, we need to define what winning looks like. Do that and it gets a whole lot easier to attain.
What we do have is a series of Lines of Effort - with very nebulous benchmarks and subjective measures of effectiveness. Whole mind-numbing slide decks to report PMESII-PT pie graphs that no one understands, but it sure looks groovy. Dumping money into the economy with no coherent strategy to leverage and exploit the effects.

Guess I'll play armchair General for a minute.
The objective in today's Iraq should be to make the Islamic State's position untenable so that they suffer attrition and the Iraqi Army can dislodge and ultimately destroy them. To do this, I would (ironically) suggest we take a page from the insurgent's handbook. IS is attempting to hold vast amounts of territory with a very small force that is primarily operating in the cities. Their lines of communication are long and unpatrolled. Sounds a lot like the US situation in 2003. So like what happened to us, I would disrupt through hit and run tactics using supported SF elements in order to fragment and isolate each IS-held town, then as resources get scarce, the local population should start getting antsy. The IA could then assault a weakened garrison and secure cities in a leapfrog manner. There needs to be a significant economic stranglehold put on smuggled oil, their main revenue stream besides shaking down the locals for "protection money". We should be able to have success choking off reinforcement attempts from Syria, and that will give the Air Force some targets to service.

For Afghanistan, the mission should be to deny the country as a safe haven for terrorist organizations to train, plan, and execute attacks against the USA and our allies. In order to accomplish that, I think a two pronged strategy is needed.
1. Deny resources. The number one fund source for TB and HQN forces in Afghanistan is narcotics. The number two source is graft from US and UN projects. Both of those are vulnerable to attack. To get after the narcotics, the best way in my opinion would be to interdict it while it is being transported, not in the fields. It is fairly predictable when Opium will be harvested, so this would be a full-court press for about 60-90 days a year. Key places where it is vulnerable to intercept are in the routes to border crossings, the crossings themselves, and at sea. Denied opium money, the TB ceases to be a strategic threat.
2. Get them where they live. Mind-boggling to me, we have been largely ceding most of the countryside to the TB, and concentrating on the cities. Basically what this has accomplished is make large tracts of the country safe for the TB to build a shadow government in, and bringing the battle into the cities. I would propose that we get after them where they live, and make it very uncomfortable for them to operate too far away for fear of CF troops operating in their rear areas. Take the fight to them, and I'll bet that they rethink their objectives.

This is somewhat simplistic to prevent sprawl, but the solutions are very different from what we are doing now.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 31 at 2015 3:46 AM

2015-10-31T03:46:34-04:00

Our Government and our society...
Both place personal agendas and restrictions on our military that ensures we do not completely defeat any enemy...

Response by PO1 Todd Cousins made Oct 31 at 2015 4:23 AM

2015-10-31T04:23:33-04:00

The thing to remember here is we still have occupation forces in Germany and Japan from WWII and in Korea. It is unrealistic to think we can invade a place that is as different in social atmosphere as can be from us and be done in a couple of years.

Response by Cpl Dave D made Oct 31 at 2015 6:17 AM

2015-10-31T06:17:21-04:00

We did exactly as we said we would do. Remove a brutal dictator, remove wmds (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0) and establish a democratic government. Iraq had a powerful military with modern day equipment, plenty of training and a $90 billion surplus. The new government convinced us that they had it under control. Sounds like a win for me. But now that they have lost control all of the sudden we failed? Now they want us back.
When I was in Iraq, we worked with Iraqi army everyday. When they would get to their post they would hang all of their gear, flak, Kevlar and ak on the wall then lay down on some sandbags and pass out for the 4 hour shift. Not all of them but most.
There are videos and witness accounts all over the Internet that show Iraqi soldiers leaving a fortified position, armed with M4s and full body armor. Surrendering to men in civilian attire holding an ak. After they are disarmed and their body armor is removed they are executed. There is no will to fight. I don't have an actual reason for why that is. I have ideas but nothing set in stone. Maybe it's because we came into country as oppressors instead of liberators. Maybe they don't know of any other type of life. Maybe they're tired of fighting. Regardless, the US took their country back and handed it to them on a silver platter. What they do with it after that is up to them.
What do we do now? Establish and maintain a permanent American presence? Keep out of any conflicts and let them take care if it themselves? I don't know. I'm just a former enlisted pog.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 31 at 2015 7:20 AM

2015-10-31T07:20:29-04:00

With Iraq and A'stan the issue goes way back to the US anti-soviet policies. This is where our alignment with certain parties begins to create friction. In the case with Iraq Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim and in A'stan the mujahedeen battling a Soviet-backed government in Kabul. The current problems are long in the making. Both of these relationships resulted in war. when Qasim pulled out of the Baghdad Pact regime change efforts where put into motion and in A'stan when the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) asked for the the Soviet Union to aid the government. In Iraq this led to the rise of the Saddam and the anti-communist Baath Party. This put into motion the Iraq and Iran war. As well there where similar efforts in Iran to keep the Soviets at bay that resulted in the Iranian Revolution. All of this is preceded by the British and French influence in the region. All of this is over the strategic importance of oil. While the anti-soviet measures may be considered a success the policies which brought this about have greatly destabilized the region and in our wake ISIS and the Taliban filled the void. What may have prevented this is a SOFA in the likes of Germany, Japan, and Korea after the Gulf War as well in A'stan.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 8:51 AM

2015-10-31T08:51:00-04:00

I am not sure we ever really wanted to win. Knee jerk reations to events do not work, neither does telling our "enemy" we are leaving on a specific day.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 31 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-10-31T12:46:08-04:00

Because we are not at full disposal to do so. Instead this administration has one hand and leg tied behind our backs.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 31 at 2015 4:04 PM

2015-10-31T16:04:55-04:00

I want to say thank you folks for all the great inputs.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-10-31T18:29:46-04:00

That is really a hard question to respond to as in the first place one should define winning. We outgunned them all and if we had wanted to do a scorched earth to these areas we could have brought the smoke. BUT if you are referring to the "hearts and minds" part then that was something the folks doing the advising should have been more schooled on. As my experience from multiple deployments indicated that the regular civilian didn't know what to do with this new found "freedom" and we were at fault especially in Iraq with not knowing how to fill the power vacuum we created by disbanding the army and political machine.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 1 at 2015 12:26 PM

2015-11-01T12:26:17-05:00

Alexander the Great couldn't defeat the Afghans.