# Afghanistan Combatant Commander



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2010)

Inspired by the bullshit going on with General McCrystal and other bullshit going on with the war efforts in Afghanistan, I wanted to open the topic of if you were the “Combatant Commander” thread.

Here is the basic poop:

Your new CnC BHO has tasked you as the Afghanistan Combatant Commander. CnC wants your battle plan to carry out the war efforts with the following out come.

1.	Destroy TB/AQ.
2.	Established Afghan security forces.
3.	Build solid pro USA relationship with Afghan Gov.
4.	Exit Afghanistan by 2011.

Basic format is what type of doctrine you would use (i.e. COIN, CT, FID est.) How you would adjust the doctrine to fit the strategic objectives. What type of forces you would use to carry out the operational and tactical objectives (i.e. Type of SOF, type of Conventional, or what mixture of the two). What type of civilian assets would you incorporate into your battle plan? How would you meet each objective in your plan and more overly meet the objective of exiting Afghanistan by 2011.


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2010)

Dear CnC,

The four tasks you have assigned me are impossible to achieve, by myself or anyone else.
I therefore submit my resignation forthwith.

Respectively yours

Gen "Kill'm All" Pardus




:2c:


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2010)

*General Faces Unease Among His Own Troops, Too*



> Riding shotgun in an armored vehicle as it passed through the heat and confusion of southern Afghanistan  this month, an Army sergeant spoke into his headset, summarizing a sentiment often heard in the field this year.
> 
> “I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?pagewanted=2


My :2c: will be later...


----------



## AWP (Jun 23, 2010)

You can do 1,2, and 3 or you can do #4, but you can't have both.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 23, 2010)

Scary.  One of those things that has set the American Army apart since WW2 has been our ability to rain death down on our foes using indirect means like CAS, NGF, and artillery.  If we're stopping the guys in the field from using these, it'll change a lot of things about the way we fight.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 23, 2010)

Since none of my deployments have taken me to Afghanistan, I can't really weigh in with an in-depth opinion on the current state of the ROE.  However, to see my brothers-in-arms being hamstrung like this profoundly angers me.  

Having some small familiarity with COIN, I can understand why some of the rules are in place.  Some, not all.  To include the office of the Afghan president would be a smart move, if the Afghan president weren't such a crackpot, with a major drug lord for a brother.  As it looks to me, letting Karzai have as much say as he has had in establishing the ROE has been the same as letting the fox set the rules on how the hen house is guarded, only on an exponentially larger scale.  US troops are the "hens" this time, and they are paying the price.  

My question... how much of the ROE has been established while consulting with Karzai's minions, vs. having been established with an actual understanding of tribal beliefs and alliances?    *Question is not meant to hijack the thread.  Any enlightenment can be shared via PM.*


----------



## 7point62 (Jun 23, 2010)

Is McChrystal setting the ROE or is the White House and Karzai? I know it's natural for troops to blame the CG, but how much of this is politically orchestrated from above...and beyond his control? In my experience the ROE was directed by command but dictated by nervous politicians. Will McChrystal's replacement come in and _loosen_ those restrictions? I doubt it. If anything, any new CG is going to be harder pressed under the Administration's thumb. 

And the New York Times giving vent to complaints about a restrictive ROE? It has always been the first to headline civilian casualties.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 23, 2010)

I'd re-open the burger king and starbucks.  
Make the FOBBIT's happy.
Reduce pesence patrols.
Declare victory.
Come home and write a tell all book.


----------



## 7point62 (Jun 23, 2010)

It depends on how much of a sycophant I am willing to become. I mean, if they ask me how much of a sycophant I am, all I can ask is how much of a sycophant do they want me to be?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2010)

First and foremost I would explain how the 2011 withdraw plan would inherently make the over all success of the mission messy as well as an iffy outcome. With limiting the amount of time for a complex operation with hard to accomplish objectives, you are asking for a half assed job over a long term quality outcome. I would request the ability to maintain a small amount of SOF (No US foot print) forces in Afghanistan until 2020, with a 10 year operational budget plan.

My over all doctrine would be a mix of CT, FID, COIN & UW. I would develop separate regional command structures with commanders who specialize in the particular doctrine need in that region. I would assign minimal SOF forces that specialize in the regional doctrine requirement (i.e. UW region would have ODA’s; COIN region would have CA/PSYOP ect.). I would reduce US military presence to extremely minimal forces, getting rid of massive supply/logistical needy units and reducing the amount of enemy target of opportunity units.

I would use major conventional light units as a QRF type force, pre stationed in Kuwait. I would use these units as a fast strike force on rapid call out for regional commanders. Allowing my regional commanders to quickly (24 hours) plus up and reduce their forces as needed. These forces would be utilized to attack the enemy and withdraw, limiting their needs for massive logistical support and vulnerability to become targets of opportunity.

I would also utilize SOF and conventional reconnaissance and surveillance units along the border regions, with ability to use air support and QRF forces to interdict border crossings and attack enemy movement. I would use every available Intel, recon, scout (eyes on) type unit in the US military for this mission.

I would ask to have the Pakistani military to assist in building, training and equipping the Afghan security forces. I would reduce the amount of US influence in the Afghan security structure and attempt to make it more regional specific (i.e. weapons, tactics and force structure). I would ask for DOD and DOS funding to persuade the Pakistanis as well as bring in special advisors to insure that the funding is being utilized correctly (i.e. the training is taking place, equipment is being issued and maintained). 

I would also look to bring in civilian assets from other countries within the region to help improve the afghan government and infrastructure. I would look to assist the Afghan government in their efforts while keeping a low USA involvement visibility.
I would issue orders to my regional commanders to apply focus on destroying the enemy and ingraining the methods and strategies into the Afghan counter parts. I would allow these forces to push the fight hard and fast until 2011, where I would win lose or fail cut the conventional asset cord and redirect those forces.

In other words I would push for a SOF war, with large scale CT/AT operations conducted by SOF/Conventional forces. I would put my forces on the hunt and turn the heat up, with the understanding that the CT/AT will stop by 2011. Removing the massive forces from Afghanistan, reducing the visible US involvement and reducing the unneeded logistics, budgeting and US death toll. 

My thoughts from my perfect little world, if I was General for a day!


----------



## car (Jun 23, 2010)

7point62 said:


> Is McChrystal setting the ROE or is the White House and Karzai? I know it's natural for troops to blame the CG, but how much of this is politically orchestrated from above...and beyond his control? In my experience the ROE was directed by command but dictated by nervous politicians. Will McChrystal's replacement come in and _loosen_ those restrictions? I doubt it. If anything, any new CG is going to be harder pressed under the Administration's thumb.
> 
> And the New York Times giving vent to complaints about a restrictive ROE? It has always been the first to headline civilian casualties.


 
So.....Petraeus has been named as Mac's replacement. I think he understands COIN (since that still seems to be the watch word) and will do well.

But, wait....isn't GEN Petraeus already the CENTCOM CG? Isn't Afghanistan already in his AO? So, the administration wants a guy who has responsibility for operations in the largest MACOM on the planet to take personal responsibility for the Stan? Isn't that why there are other GO's under his command?


----------



## Headshot (Jun 23, 2010)

I would use 1,2, and 3 to turn the place into a giant parking lot to park the vehicles and aircraft on while executing 4.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 23, 2010)

car said:


> So.....Petraeus has been named as Mac's replacement. I think he understands COIN (since that still seems to be the watch word) and will do well.
> 
> But, wait....isn't GEN Petraeus already the CENTCOM CG? Isn't Afghanistan already in his AO? So, the administration wants a guy who has responsibility for operations in the largest MACOM on the planet to take personal responsibility for the Stan? Isn't that why there are other GO's under his command?


 
I was thinking the same thing and questioning why the Interim tag wasn't mentioned.


----------



## car (Jun 23, 2010)

OK - here's a greybeard's opinon.......

Don't have to teach them how to fight - they're better at it than we are.

Focus on tribal/familial loyalties and find a "common cause." This takes a long time, as you long tabbers know, and the American public (ergo American politicians) have no patience - lack of forethought. But it must be done. If you can't figger out the way the tribal leaders (therefore, the tribes) think, then you're pissing into the wind. If you can find a common goal between the tribes, then you have a stepping stone from which to start.

Establishing Afghan security forces - FID mission. Duh. Not sexy, but very complicated. Has to be done, and has to be done with vigor!

The relationship between our government and the Afghan government will last, and be as strong, as the Afghan governemnt wishes it to last. Our government (current administration) has no balls.

2011 - That's a wet dream.


----------



## Smurf (Jun 23, 2010)

*Gen. McChrystal Relieved*

"Gen. Stanley McChrystal, under fire for comments made in a Rolling Stone profile, has resigned as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus, presently head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the operation in Afghanistan, has been nominated to take over the position but must first face Senate confirmation hearings.

The changes, announced by the president Wednesday afternoon, appeared to receive bipartisan support in Congress. They followed a morning meeting at the White House between McChrystal and Obama to discuss the general's incendiary remarks." 

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0.../06/23/mcchrystal-obama-meet-outcome-unclear/


----------



## 7point62 (Jun 23, 2010)

car said:


> So.....Petraeus has been named as Mac's replacement. I think he understands COIN (since that still seems to be the watch word) and will do well.
> 
> But, wait....isn't GEN Petraeus already the CENTCOM CG? Isn't Afghanistan already in his AO? So, the administration wants a guy who has responsibility for operations in the largest MACOM on the planet to take personal responsibility for the Stan? Isn't that why there are other GO's under his command?


 
This is exactly why Petraeus never entered my mind as a potential replacement for Mac.


----------



## LibraryLady (Jun 23, 2010)

Whoops!

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/showthread.php?25971-Gen-McChrystal-Recalled-To-Explain-Remarks

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/showthread.php?25979-General-Faces-Unease-Among-His-Own-Troops-Too

LL


----------



## car (Jun 23, 2010)

Merged all threads about McCrystals v. Obama


----------



## JBS (Jun 23, 2010)

You are an Afghani.  You are not a part of the Taliban, but you've seen their rise to power, and their brutality.  You've also seen the Americans come.  You've seen quite a bit of death and destruction, and for the most part tried to stay far away from the heat, since it came down.



You hear the Americans are leaving in 2011.  It is presently the middle of 2010.  


You can choose to side with the foreigners who are leaving in 6 to 12 months, and bet the house on the Americans, or you can lay low, and start gradually looking the other way and eventually supporting the Taliban who live there, with you, and who aren't going anywhere ever.

This is the scenario that some people put together once the talk of a "withdrawal date" as a fixed time frame started to circulate.


----------



## 7point62 (Jun 26, 2010)

Hahahaha, the absolute worst thing you could ever do to fuck up any COIN operation is announce your departure date. Might as well just GTFO right now.


----------



## Electric Eye (Dec 18, 2010)

Rolling Stone is such a tool.

The “firing” of Four Star General Stanley McChrystal is widely reported that he and/or his subordinates made many inappropriate remarks towards or against the administration and the flunkies on Capitol Hill. Vice-President Joe “Bite Me”? C’mon, they made fun of Vice President Dan Quayle for years; Joe Biden is a freaking train wreck.

Anyway, ya’ll know that when your boss is an incompetent, incapable, miserable jerk and that you don’t want to work for the slob, you just want to quit. But, if you quit, you forfeit all benefits. However, if you get fired, you can draw unemployment benefits that continue to grow and increase the federal deficit.

The same applies to General McChrystal. He could have stood up and said that those for whom he works are clueless fools and submitted his resignation, but he’d then be viewed in history as a General that quit during a significant conflict. However, by allowing Rolling Stone to print a “devastating expose” in which he or his subordinates make disparaging remarks about the clones in Washington and then allowing the Washington goons and the sycophant media express their indignation and outrage for being exposed as the worthless oxygen thieves that they really are, General McChrystal gets to retire with the knowledge that he didn’t quit, but that poorly placed stuffed shirts “forced” him to retire. He no longer works for a tool, he gets to enjoy his retirement, and he will historically be compared to General McArthur as a Wartime General that was “fired” by a President.

It was intentional, and Rolling Stone was the dupe.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 19, 2010)

Electric Eye said:


> ...
> 
> It was intentional, and Rolling Stone was the dupe.




I have heard this argument before, and it is reasonable, but I don't think it's accurate.

While going out the way he did allowed GEN McChrystal to get out of the war and to retain his fourth start (which I'm assuming he wouldn't have been allowed to do had he just quit), I don't think what happened was intentional.  A lot of very senior officers engage the media as part of their overall strategic mindset.  Sometimes it works, sometimes there are disastrous consequences like what happened with GEN McChrystal and with the commander of SOCOM a few years back.

Moreover, I just don't see GEN McChrystal wanting to go out the way he did.  Getting relieved in a time of war is a humiliating experience.  There are many other ways he would have extricated himself from that position had he wanted to, that wouldn't have put himself or more importantly his troops and the war effort in Afghanistan through this type of experience.

I have an enormous amount of respect for GEN McChrystal and would be very disappointed if he were ever to come out and say "yeah I did it on purpose just so I'd be able to get out of Afghanistan."


----------



## Scotth (Dec 19, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> I have heard this argument before, and it is reasonable, but I don't think it's accurate.
> 
> While going out the way he did allowed GEN McChrystal to get out of the war and to retain his fourth start (which I'm assuming he wouldn't have been allowed to do had he just quit), I don't think what happened was intentional. A lot of very senior officers engage the media as part of their overall strategic mindset. Sometimes it works, sometimes there are disastrous consequences like what happened with GEN McChrystal and with the commander of SOCOM a few years back.
> 
> ...



Absolutely the same way I see the issues.  There are many ways to resign/retire that doesn't involve getting relieved of command.  Plus the worse of the comments came from his staff for which he took responsibility for there actions.  I think the biggest mistake was the length and amount of access they gave the guy.  I think the reporter was there so long and hung out with the leadership outside the work place that he became just one of the "boys".

People in the military and the civilian world always talk shit about there incompetant bosses.  These guys made the mistake of doing it infront of a reporter.


----------

