# Hmmm...who to believe?  Green Berets in the field, or the Defense Department...



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 27, 2014)

_Elite Army Green Berets are knocking the performance of the Afghan National Army, telling war tales of its soldiers hiding and quitting the fight.

The Green Beret criticisms, contained in a U.S. Central Command “friendly fire” investigative file, provide a window into the flaws of a national army more than a decade in the making.

The Special Forces soldiers gave poor marks to the institution that is supposed to keep Afghanistan’s democratically elected governments in power. The security force must rebuff an expected Taliban offensive, on its own, once all American troops leave after 2016
_
This may be my favorite passage in the article:
_Gen. Campbell added: “The Afghan military is the most respected institution in Afghanistan. Every poll taken in the last two years, they’re at the very, very top.”  
_
Well if the polls say so...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...an-national-army-soldiers/?page=all#pagebreak


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2014)

This is a repeat of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,....


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 27, 2014)

The Generals will look like dumbasses when the Taliban take their country back in the spring of 2017.

Thank you Donald Rumsfeld.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2014)

Tell me if I'm wrong.

2001:
Hey, these guys suck. They won't fight and if they do it is "Insh'allah" then spray and pray a magazine.
Excuse: They have suffered under the Taliban and without a professional army. We will fix that.
Solution: Found training academy in Kabul.

2004:
Hey, these guys still suck. They won't fight and if they do it is "Insh'allah" then spray and pray a magazine.
Excuse: We don't have enough trainers and have therefore failed to provide the nascent Afghan Army with the proper guidance or funding.
Solution: Hey you conventional Army guys, here's a pointee-talkee card. Go get your FID on.

2007:
Hey, these guys still suck. They won't fight and we're getting our asses shot off.
Excuse: The surprising resurgence of the Taliban has fostered conditions which are not conducive to producing a professional army.
Solution: ISAF, you need to fight harder.

2009:
Hey, these guys still suck.
Excuse: We have failed to create conditons in which our Partners in Peace can operate.
Solution: A surge with a pop-cap.

2012:
Hey, these guys still suck.
Excuse: Really? Impossible! We surged ALL of our troops to that country. Oh, look! Election year!
Solution: none

2014: Hey, these guys still suck.
Excuse: As Afghanistan moves forward with the inauguration of a new President and Operation Resolute Support commences, we are confident that...
Solution:

2016:
F*** it and good luck

Spring 2017:
Ethic cleansing is half-off.
Excuse: The blood and sweat of our soldiers will forever be remembered by the Afghan people as a sign of our combined resolve....
Solution: Godamnitsomuch #whatdifferencedoesitmake


----------



## x SF med (Oct 27, 2014)

@Freefalling ...  you might want to add a little bitterness, irony and sarcasm to your post...  it's awfully close to being touchy-feely...


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 30, 2014)

No difference than during OND 2011. The Iraqi Army sucked ass, ran from fights, and failed to perform - the same generals were warned then and we're how ISIS has steamrolled over Iraq...


----------



## Gunz (Oct 31, 2014)

Ooh-Rah said:


> _
> The Special Forces soldiers gave poor marks to the institution that is supposed to keep [*South Vietnam's*] democratically elected governments in power. The [*ARVN*] must rebuff an expected [*NVA*] offensive, on its own, once all American troops leave after [*1972*]_


 
The generals say what the politicians want to hear and the politicians have their disengagement timelines with one eye on the next election and nobody gives a fuck what the guys on the ground have to say. Now take 200mgs of zoloft and wake me the fuck up when the recurring nightmare ends.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 31, 2014)

some dude named Santayana said something about this shit....  I believe it was something about having CRS and shit repeating itself...


----------



## Gunz (Oct 31, 2014)

But look how well our former counterparts are doing in Iraq...oh, wait...Those are _ISIS dudes _driving those M1A1s...My mistake.

In 2011, President Obama had the option and the leverage available (i.e. cutting American aid) to pressure the Iraqis to permit us to keep advisory personnel, support units, SF and SOF detachments, air power assets etc in that country past the date when all US troops were supposed to unass OIF. It would have eased the transition...and it just might have made a crucial difference in the manner in which Iraqi forces met the threat from ISIS. It might have given them the fucking 'nads to hold some ground so they wouldn't be standing there now with only half a country and their peckers in their hands.

But POTUS didn't want any of it. He got everybody the fuck out. It was the politically popular thing to do. And it was wrong. SF advisors + some warplanes + terminal guidance could have saved thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, hundreds of square miles of Iraqi territory and saved us from having to try to kill these ISIS motherfuckers _now._

The same goddam thing is going to happen in OEF. They're gonna lose half their country when we GTFO in 2016.

Santayana would say let's go back in time to the 1972 NVA Easter Offensive in Vietnam, when almost all conventional US ground troops had rotated home. But we still had support elements in place, fixed wing and rotor, arty, advisory teams, COVANs etc with their PRC-25s and they pulled the fuckin chain and rained steel down on those NVA bastards. John Ripley, the only Marine officer in the Ranger Hall of Fame, stopped the NVA tanks coming through the Hai Van Pass.

It doesn't take much. You can save the whole show with smart dudes and air power. It should have happened in Iraq, but didn't. It should happen in Afghanistan but probably won't.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 31, 2014)

Fuck Afghanistan, we should have left in 2004.

Fuck Iraq too, they are getting what they voted for.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 31, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Fuck Afghanistan, we should have left in 2004.
> 
> Fuck Iraq too, they are getting what they voted for.



I kind of agree but more along the lines of all-in Afghanistan and put aside Iraq or GTFO of Afghanistan completely and put Saddam's head on a pike.


----------



## Viper1 (Oct 31, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> You can save the whole show with smart dudes and air power.



Agreed and well said; however given inter-service rivalries, unnecessary arguments about "who does what" or "who commands who," funding vs. authorizations vs. politics, it often ends up being one or the other, instead of both. 

Smart dudes and Airpower...mutually dependent and necessary for success.  Independently, they can only do so much.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 31, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Fuck Iraq too, they are getting what they voted for.


 

I agree with you. Fuck them. They don't want us there, let em burn. The point I'm trying to make is we could've prevented a lot of the current misery had we kept some high speed assets in-country for a few more years had we wanted to. At least I think we could have.

For purely personal reasons, and from purely personal experience, I like to see some gain from expenditure. I don't want to look at ghosts the rest of my life and tell them they died in vain. I want to tell them that we did everything we could for the cause they died for. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...what the fuck good is it if we never see the job through, if the thousands of kids we sacrifice for a specific goal die either without that goal ever being achieved, or having achieved it, seeing it brought to ruin a few years after we give up? I'm sick and fuckin tired of Lost Causes. If you want to go to war, you go to the knife and take the knife to the hilt. You finish the fuckin program. There's a very profound saying in counter-insurgency warfare: Victory is spelled S-T-A-L-E-M-A-T-E. At least fight until you achieve a stable environment. Politicians--and this is the crux of my opinion--will never ever commit to any conflict that lasts more than two presidential elections. So that being said, if you accept it as a working hypothesis--the Special Forces unit at the tip of the spear that actually _knows _what the problems are and _knows _what actions need to be taken to correct them, might as well be talking into the wind when they pass advice up the chain. Above a certain level, destiny is predetermined by political whim.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 31, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Fuck Iraq too, they are getting what they voted for.


 

sorry lads, double post. Damn beer


----------



## x SF med (Oct 31, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> Agreed and well said; however given inter-service rivalries, unnecessary arguments about "who does what" or "who commands who," funding vs. authorizations vs. politics, it often ends up being one or the other, instead of both.
> 
> Smart dudes and Airpower...mutually dependent and necessary for success.  Independently, they can only do so much.



Yet another argument for keeping the A-10 Warthog and transferring it to Army and Marine control...  unless we can find a better CAS platform that works as well with troops on the ground.


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2014)

x SF med said:


> Yet another argument for keeping the A-10 Warthog and transferring it to Army and Marine control.



I thought Marines always got DOD's "hand-me-downs"?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 1, 2014)

lindy said:


> I thought Marines always got DOD's "hand-me-downs"?


 
The A10 would be a nice hand-me-down.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 1, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> The A10 would be a nice hand-me-down.


Can't land out on a carrier.


----------



## Viper1 (Nov 1, 2014)

But an A-1 Skyraider can!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Can't land out on a carrier.



Time to modify the carrier fleet, and the entire DOD thinking that takes the A-10 out of the air. Would not take much to get the A-10 on our flattops, but then I am a little too pro-military for existing DOD mindset. A little off topic, but I could not help myself.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2014)

A-10's on a carrier is a wonderful thought, but a non-starter. The plane isn't equipped for takeoffs and landings and altering carriers will never happen. To be honest, how many Marine F/A-18 squadrons deploy with a carrier? They once did, and all Marine aviators are "qualified" Naval aviators, but realistically how many deploy as part of a CAW?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 1, 2014)

Ooh-Rah said:


> _Elite Army Green Berets are knocking the performance of the Afghan National Army, telling war tales of its soldiers hiding and quitting the fight.
> 
> The Green Beret criticisms, contained in a U.S. Central Command “friendly fire” investigative file, provide a window into the flaws of a national army more than a decade in the making.
> 
> ...



Well I think he means compared to the Afghan National Police and the various security forces.  All of which are pretty dismal.  It's like being the least criminal inmate in prison.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Can't land out on a carrier.


 
Rog that, but since it'll never happen, we can chew on it a bit......and I bet it could be rigged for carrier ops. There have been a lot of crazier ideas out there...




Viper1 said:


> But an A-1 Skyraider can!


 
Now you're talkin  It'll blow-dry your hair inbound to target and drop that nape right where you want it.  Spad was The Beast.


----------



## busdriver (Nov 1, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> Smart dudes and Airpower...mutually dependent and necessary for success.  Independently, they can only do so much.


Very True

As to the A-10 argument:  There are capabilities and limitations with any weapon, which is better for FID: M-14 or M-4?  It's a stupid argument.  What makes the A-10 good at CAS isn't the aircraft.  It's the people, the aircraft just helps optimize things.  You can multi-role the weapon all you want, that doesn't mean the person wielding that weapon will be good at CAS/Interdiction/Hard Target Attack/FID/Direct Action/ Manuever Warfare/ Hostage Recovery/ Personnel Recovery/ Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery/ Force Protection/ Just continue this list with every function of the DOD.  It's about people, not things.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 1, 2014)

Just give Canada all the A-10's and spare parts.  We'll take care of the rest.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2014)

RackMaster said:


> Just give Canada all the A-10's and spare parts.  We'll take care of the rest.


 
With what budget?


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 1, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> With what budget?



No like a gift, for free...  we are saving a shit ton of money right now since the Navy had to put their row boats in dry dock.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 1, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> A-10's on a carrier is a wonderful thought, but a non-starter. The plane isn't equipped for takeoffs and landings and altering carriers will never happen. To be honest, how many Marine F/A-18 squadrons deploy with a carrier? They once did, and all Marine aviators are "qualified" Naval aviators, but realistically how many deploy as part of a CAW?



Our F/A-18 squadrons deploy on carriers pretty regularly but we have C-130s that don't deploy on ships.  Most of our aviators fly on the MEU (harriers-soon to be joint strike fighters, all helos, ospreys etc).  I think getting the A-10 would be a huge win for us.  Making the A-10 carrier compatible would be a non starter unfortunately, especially since our main sea based platform are amphib carriers which really limit our fixed wing capability.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2014)

Teufel said:


> Our F/A-18 squadrons deploy on carriers pretty regularly but we have C-130s that don't deploy on ships.  Most of our aviators fly on the MEU (harriers-soon to be joint strike fighters, all helos, ospreys etc).  I think getting the A-10 would be a huge win for us.  Making the A-10 carrier compatible would be a non starter unfortunately, especially since our main sea based platform are amphib carriers which really limit our fixed wing capability.


 
I knew a squadron per air group used to be Marine, but I thought that practice had fallen by the wayside as available carriers contracted, Prowlers excluded.


----------



## pardus (Nov 1, 2014)

busdriver said:


> Very True
> 
> As to the A-10 argument:  There are capabilities and limitations with any weapon, which is better for FID: M-14 or M-4?  It's a stupid argument.  What makes the A-10 good at CAS isn't the aircraft.  It's the people, the aircraft just helps optimize things.  You can multi-role the weapon all you want, that doesn't mean the person wielding that weapon will be good at CAS/Interdiction/Hard Target Attack/FID/Direct Action/ Manuever Warfare/ Hostage Recovery/ Personnel Recovery/ Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery/ Force Protection/ Just continue this list with every function of the DOD.  It's about people, not things.



Partially correct but no (IMO), with regards to the A-10. The A-10 is a CAS platform, to say a B-52 is just as good due to the personal is a stupid argument as far as I'm concerned.
Your concept is correct, your specific example isn't. 

My .02c


----------



## busdriver (Nov 2, 2014)

As I said, the A-10 is optimized for that role.  However CAS is the bread and butter and almost the only thing those squadrons train.  If you assigned them 4 other primary missions in addition to CAS, then they would not be as good.  There are only so many flight hours and flying days in a training cycle.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2014)

Teufel said:


> Making the A-10 carrier compatible would be a non starter unfortunately, especially since our main sea based platform are amphib carriers which really limit our fixed wing capability.


 
A long walk on a short pier...


----------



## Teufel (Nov 2, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I knew a squadron per air group used to be Marine, but I thought that practice had fallen by the wayside as available carriers contracted, Prowlers excluded.



I don't know how many squadrons go out with the carriers but I know they still do because my friend just did one a year or two ago.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 2, 2014)

SOWT said:


> The Generals will look like dumbasses when the Taliban take their country back in the spring of 2017.
> 
> Thank you Donald Rumsfeld.


 
By then all the generals that should be held responsible will be professors at Ivy League schools, part of the political power structure in the Clinton White House, or making bank with their jobs at Bechtel, Northrup Grumman, or L3.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2014)

SOWT said:


> The Generals will look like dumbasses when the Taliban take their country back in the spring of 2017.


 
If your counterparts aren't up to the task, all the enemy has to do to win is wait for you to leave.


----------

