How To Beat The Taliban
October 11, 2009 5:20 PM
Lt. Colonel Christian Cabaniss believes the Taliban can be defeated on the battlefield but that won't be enough to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Lets don't talk about Iraq.
Lets get creative about all this. Lets scale our forces back and use special forces and UAVs at high altitudes, I don't know Globo hawk comes to mind seeing as it can stay in the air for such a long time. Gather intelligence without stirring up the hornets nest, you know the boring work stuff. Then after another eight years we may know what the goals of the Taliban is...or develop a strategy for eliminating or halting the Taliban's pro western death stance to at least a lets tolerate the western world stance.
Really who does this? This is like your the guy across the street dumping crap in your yard, but then you go after the guy behind you.
Stop being brain washed! Count'em 2 illegal wars.
In case you didn't know, there was a failed terrorist attack this last week. Are you saying that we should accept our women and children getting bombed instead of our troops? This issue needs resolved, one way or another.
Imagine if you have 100 people willing to attack. Would you rather attack a military post of 70 soldiers or would you rather attack a post with 200 soldiers? It?s common sense. Having more troops, you have more eyes, more guns, and much more efficiency than otherwise. If a post was attacked, the threat would be eliminated quicker, and therefore, there will be fewer casualties. Here is a story about a recent attack on our troops: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33207216/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.
As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we?re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.
Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of ?Second, Do no (more) harm!? The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we?re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?
Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.
Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.
Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.
Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:
Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.
Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr
Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr
Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr
Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr
These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ?vanquished? 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.
Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years
Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.
Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don?t, they don?t. DUH!
Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they?ll own it.
Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.
WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!
So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!