Military Intelligence ... or lack of it

[JoshuaS]

A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan


http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/AfghanIntel_Flynn_Jan2010_code507_voices.pdf

110897 (http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/AfghanIntel_Flynn_Jan2010_code507_voices.pdf)

[SmoothieX12]

A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan


http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/AfghanIntel_Flynn_Jan2010_code507_voices.pdf

110897 (http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/AfghanIntel_Flynn_Jan2010_code507_voices.pdf)

"The second inescapable truth asserts that merely killing insurgents usually serves to multiply enemies rather than subtract them. This counterintuitive dynamic is common in many guerrilla conflicts and is especially relevant in the revenge-****e Pashtun communities whose cooperation military forces seek to earn and maintain. The Soviets experienced this reality in the 1980s, when despite killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans, they faced a larger insurgency near the end of the war than they did at the beginning."

Above is the conclusion from the document. The premise is not just wrong--it is out of whack. I hope I do not have to explain the difference between Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1980-s and American war there today?? And yes, Russia actually helps USA there on many levels.

[Mordoror]

The premise is not just wrong--it is out of whack.

dare to explain why it is wrong ?
i don't see so much difference between the actual NATO campaign and soviet campaign in Astan
sure the global political situation was different as the last example occured during the cold war but aside that we see quite the same developments
* centralized corrupt gov not recognized in the provinces and with no authority outside the Capital
* growing insurgency at least in the surface of areas concerned
* growing drug and poppy fields and involvment of narco money
* involvment of foreign volunteers
* trans national havens and support (eyeball directed to Pakistan)

we are pretty much in the same situation that the soviet were in 80s except for the ROE, the quality of equipment and soldiers (better actually) and the volume of forces and equipment (worse actually)
there is only one difference that may not last long depending of the stance of Iran and/or Pakistan but we are not facing large scale of ManPads and AtK missiles
IED are still enough and if IRCG or Pak ISI hard core islamist cells manage to provide modern weaponery to the Taliban we will be in the same trouble than the sovs

[SmoothieX12]

dare to explain why it is wrong ?
i don't see so much difference between the actual NATO campaign and soviet campaign in Astan
sure the global political situation was different as the last example occured during the cold war but aside that we see quite the same developments
* centralized corrupt gov not recognized in the provinces and with no authority outside the Capital
* growing insurgency at least in the surface of areas concerned
* growing drug and poppy fields and involvment of narco money
* involvment of foreign volunteers
* trans national havens and support (eyeball directed to Pakistan)

we are pretty much in the same situation that the soviet were in 80s except for the ROE, the quality of equipment and soldiers (better actually) and the volume of forces and equipment (worse actually)
there is only one difference that may not last long depending of the stance of Iran and/or Pakistan but we are not facing large scale of ManPads and AtK missiles
IED are still enough and if IRCG or Pak ISI hard core islamist cells manage to provide modern weaponery to the Taliban we will be in the same trouble than the sovs

Well, how about self-evident fact that USA was fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan against USSR in 1980-s. Some certain chum Charlie Wilson just recently died and had the whole thread of eulogies on this forum. I guess another certain fellow, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski not for once bragged (the more famous is, of course, Nouvel Observateur interview) how USA played a crucial role in supplying mujaheddin with money, weapons, training etc. I am not even talking about the fact that Pakistan then was indeed a safe haven for "freedom-fighters". I believe this fact alone accounts for a vast difference between Soviet and American experiences , which, obviously can have many similarities on the tactical level but differ dramatically on the operational and, especially, strategic levels.

[Mordoror]

Well, how about self-evident fact that USA was fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan against USSR in 1980-s. Some certain chum Charlie Wilson just recently died and had the whole thread of eulogies on this forum. I guess another certain fellow, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski not for once bragged (the more famous is, of course, Nouvel Observateur interview) how USA played a crucial role in supplying mujaheddin with money, weapons, training etc. I am not even talking about the fact that Pakistan then was indeed a safe haven for "freedom-fighters". I believe this fact alone accounts for a vast difference between Soviet and American experiences , which, obviously can have many similarities on the tactical level but differ dramatically on the operational and, especially, strategic levels.

well sir, as i said i agree that the general context is really not the same and that the US help was of course one of the main reason why the sov bleeded so hard
but we are not protected from that unfortunately
Pakistan may not be the safe have it was during the 80s actually, it was relatively safe from 2001 to 2007 and may be again if the Paki gov turn its coat again
and depending of the development of the situation with Iran and China we can very well find soon or later that some chinese issued or paki issued QW2 or iranian issued SA7/SA14/Missagh could find their way in Astan
knowledge of playing a proxy war is not exclusive to US and western world

[SmoothieX12]

well sir, as i said i agree that the general context is really not the same and that the US help was of course one of the main reason why the sov bleeded so hard
but we are not protected from that unfortunately
Pakistan may not be the safe have it was during the 80s actually, it was relatively safe from 2001 to 2007 and may be again if the Paki gov turn its coat again
and depending of the development of the situation with Iran and China we can very well find soon or later that some chinese issued or paki issued QW2 or iranian issued SA7/SA14/Missagh could find their way in Astan
knowledge of playing a proxy war is not exclusive to US and western world

Agree, Soviets fought their own proxy war in Vietnam. Having said all that, however, a very important observation should be made--the issue of pacifying Afghanistan is also the issue of more than just finding the balance with the Pushtuns. USA faces today there a slightly larger problem than just merely cultural issues, which, after all were promptly assigned to Human Terrain Systems. Today it's truly civilizational issue with Islam's bloody borders (c) S.Huntington and that is why the scope of the war in Afghanistan by definition is much broader today. I would suggest to read this:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65713/nikolas-k-gvosdev/the-soviet-victory-that-never-was

[Asheren]

Its more both wars are more similiar than we would want to admit. Both were tangled in civilizational issues. First one was a part of the conflict bewen democracy and communism. Current one is tied to a conflict bewen theocracy and a secular society.

I dont think that chinese would want to support mujahedins unless relations bewen china and the west go to hell. They are riding same "infidel" cart we do. They are just a bit lower on to do list.

[SmoothieX12]

First one was a part of the conflict bewen democracy and communism.

No, it was not. It was high stakes geopolitical game for not allowing a single (super)power to control Eurasia.

[James]

Interesting article, though much of what they describe is being done in various parts of Afghanistan. I think there is something of a disconnect between information that's being gathered in the field and what is being analyzed and acted on at higher levels.

Those of you who are basing statements on what you understand about this country on stories from the media rather than personal knowledge need to understand that the media rarely reports more than the worst 10% of the situation here. This week, for instance, it's all about Marja. Can anyone tell me about the lack of fighting, or peaceful development in other provinces? Can anyone tell me about the more proactive role Paksitan has started taking against militants in the tribal areas and big cities? Many of you don't know what you don't know, and are developing opinions based on very limited or flawed information.

The biggest flaw in comparing the situation of the coalition to that of the Soviets in the 1980s is the fact that we aren't here to occupy and conquer, and the vast majority of the population knows that and wants peace. They don't really like the Taliban very much, but aren't able to resist them very well with out help from government forces - like the current situation in Marja. For a long time, a major flaw in U.S. Strategy involved the lack of forces available to secure an area after it had been cleared. It might not be apparent to many, but the situation here has changed quite a bit since the surge started and General McChrystal took over.

[SmoothieX12]

Interesting article,

The biggest flaw in comparing the situation of the coalition to that of the Soviets in the 1980s is the fact that we aren't here to occupy and conquer,

USSR wasn't there to conquer either. Occupation, however, no matter how one plays with the semantics is precisely what it was in 1980-s and that is precisely what it is today. Unless, of course, some new definition has been invented for the consumption of politically correct audience. Since You liked the article, I guess another one could be even more interesting since is written by the guy who knows a thing or two about Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12iht-edrogozin.html?ref=global

[JBH22]

What the difference btw a military intelligence like the GRU and the SVR??thxss

[SmoothieX12]

What the difference btw a military intelligence like the GRU and the SVR??thxss

GRU is Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of Defense Ministry of Russian Federation. The Service Of Foreign Intelligence (SVR) is the heir of what used to be 1st Directorate Of KGB.

[Asheren]

No, it was not. It was high stakes geopolitical game for not allowing a single (super)power to control Eurasia.

That statement is also true. But regardless of strategic and tactical reasons that ideological conflict existed somewhere in the background. US were more flexible in that matter but for both sides it was not only about establishing a friendly government but also whenever possible to make it either democracy or communism. In A-stan that conflict was much less visible because commie countries already started to crumble. Today its mostly about preventing establishing of islamic theocracy because existing ones are a breeding ground for all kinds of religious fanatics with a dream of a global caliphate. Its not that much different from all those die hard commies dreaming about making a whole wolrd a big commie paradise.

[JBH22]

GRU is Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of Defense Ministry of Russian Federation. The Service Of Foreign Intelligence (SVR) is the heir of what used to be 1st Directorate Of KGB.

well i know that, the thing is how they differ in terms of their intelligence work,thxss

[SmoothieX12]

That statement is also true. But regardless of strategic and tactical reasons that ideological conflict existed somewhere in the background. US were more flexible in that matter but for both sides it was not only about establishing a friendly government but also whenever possible to make it either democracy or communism. In A-stan that conflict was much less visible because commie countries already started to crumble. Today its mostly about preventing establishing of islamic theocracy because existing ones are a breeding ground for all kinds of religious fanatics with a dream of a global caliphate. Its not that much different from all those die hard commies dreaming about making a whole wolrd a big commie paradise.

As a former "commie" myself let me explain some very important flaws in a popular view on "commie paradise". Professionals on the "other" side, of course, knew that there was no any strategic plans on "world domination" or "commie paradise" as early as the end of.....WWII. The reason being, to put it in a plain language, the enormous and unprecedented national trauma from the war (allow me to remind You that USSR lost 27 million people in WWII, Leningrad alone during it's siege lost more than United States through all of its wars combined) and the only thing soviets cared about in 1945 was how to create a buffer of the client states around USSR as not to repeat 1941. Here is the quote from one of the greatest memoirs of the 20th century by the man who single-handedly defined the framework of the Cold War George F.Kennan:

"Nobody "won" the Cold War. It was a long and costly political rivalry fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength on the other side".

Page 186. George F. Kennan. "At A Century's Ending. Reflections 1982-1995."

[SmoothieX12]

well i know that, the thing is how they differ in terms of their intelligence work,thxss

I assume the methods are the same, with the exception of the fact that GRU is much more "militarized", for obvious reasons.

[James]

USSR wasn't there to conquer either. Occupation, however, no matter how one plays with the semantics is precisely what it was in 1980-s and that is precisely what it is today. Unless, of course, some new definition has been invented for the consumption of politically correct audience.

We're allied with the ANA and the population by and large is happy to have us here. Of course the USSR was "Allied" with Afghanistan during the 1980s, but comparing that to our current situation is absurd, just as the occupation of Eastern Europe and our presence in W. Germany are hardly comparable.


Since You liked the article, I guess another one could be even more interesting since is written by the guy who knows a thing or two about Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12iht-edrogozin.html?ref=global

I found the paper in the original post interesting. The link you posted is nothing more than an opinion piece in which a Russian fellow is trying to justify and rationalize the failure of 1979-1989. Confronting Muslim fanatics? Seriously? That's why the USSR invaded Afghanistan? :cantbeli:

[SmoothieX12]

We're allied with the ANA and the population by and large is happy to have us here. Of course the USSR was "Allied" with Afghanistan during the 1980s, but comparing that to our current situation is absurd, just as the occupation of Eastern Europe and our presence in W. Germany are hardly comparable.



I found the paper in the original post interesting. The link you posted is nothing more than an opinion piece in which a Russian fellow is trying to justify and rationalize the failure of 1979-1989. Confronting Muslim fanatics? Seriously? That's why the USSR invaded Afghanistan? :cantbeli:

Actually precisely for that reason, my dear friend. Knowing history is a good policy for not repeating it. It will take a lot of time to enlighten You on the issue of the Soviet Middle Asia and the stability of it in 1970-s but well, for person who, evidently, knows little about Zeravshan Valley or Uzbekistan with Tadjikistan, this conversation could be an exercise in futility. In regards to this pearl "population by and large is happy to have us here"(c), I can only say--check your facts for starters, better yet--learn some fundamentals of tribal culture and Islam. Uh, forgot--"the Russian Fellow" (c) is former Commander of 40-th Army General Gromov, FYI none other than Hero Of The Soviet Union Ruslan Aushev visited Pentagon recently, guess why? A hint: Aushev became the Hero Of The Soviet Union....You've guessed it....in Afghanistan.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Actually precisely for that reason, my dear friend. Knowing history is a good policy for not repeating it. It will take a lot of time to enlighten You on the issue of the Soviet Middle Asia and the stability of it in 1970-s but well, for person who, evidently, knows little about Zeravshan Valley or Uzbekistan with Tadjikistan, this conversation could be an exercise in futility. In regards to this pearl "population by and large is happy to have us here"(c), I can only say--check your facts for starters, better yet--learn some fundamentals of tribal culture and Islam. Uh, forgot--"the Russian Fellow" (c) is former Commander of 40-th Army General Gromov, FYI none other than Hero Of The Soviet Union Ruslan Aushev visited Pentagon recently, guess why? A hint: Aushev became the Hero Of The Soviet Union....You've guessed it....in Afghanistan.

1. You are far from the first russian/soviet fan boi to come here and condecendingly attempt to revise history. Their time here is invariably short.
2. The thinly veiled contempt will gain you a short stay.
3. The individual you're communicating with has spent several years in total in Afghanistan. Mostly on the ground outside the wire. He knows far more about what the people of Afghanistan think of the coalition forces from personal experience than you ever will from your documents.

[SmoothieX12]

1. You are far from the first russian/soviet fan boi to come here and condecendingly attempt to revise history. Their time here is invariably short.
2. The thinly veiled contempt will gain you a short stay.
3. The individual you're communicating with has spent several years in total in Afghanistan. Mostly on the ground outside the wire. He knows far more about what the people of Afghanistan think of the coalition forces from personal experience than you ever will from your documents.

I am 47 years old, graduate of two distinguished military institutions in USSR, two of my classmates were KIA in Afghanistan, two returned, wounded and awarded. For starters. I am not talking here what hot spots I happened to see, it's beyond the point, as for the rest, I was born in what now is Islamic country and know extremely well what and how was going on there and especially in Middle Asia. And yes, I happened to know some good American friends of mine who, guess what, spent some years in Afghanistan too....outside the wire, the stories differ drastically. My private mail is at your service, as well as for your friend on whose defense You rushed.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I'm not interested in your background, primarily due to your condecending attitude.

I don't care what you think you know second, third or fourth hand. But thank you for admitting you have no firsthand experience in Afghanistan.

I'd pay attention to his perspective over yours due to his personal experience and your lack of the same. As I would the rest of the BTDT Afghan vets here, of which there are many.

Guess what? You'd best adjust your attitude and cease dragging this thread off topic or, guess what? you'll be infracted. Again.

[SmoothieX12]

than you ever will from your documents.

BTW, wanted to ask, what documents are You talking about?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

The ones you quote in your posts......

[SmoothieX12]

I'm not interested in your background, primarily due to your condecending attitude.

I don't care what you think you know second, third or fourth hand. But thank you for admitting you have no firsthand experience in Afghanistan.

I'd pay attention to his perspective over yours due to his personal experience and your lack of the same. As I would the rest of the BTDT Afghan vets here, of which there are many.

Guess what? You'd best adjust your attitude and cease dragging this thread off topic or, guess what? you'll be infracted. Again.

The feeling is mutual. As for the perspective over why USSR entered Afghanistan I don't think so You and your friend have any.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

The feeling is mutual. As for the perspective over why USSR entered Afghanistan I don't think so You and your friend have any.

Funny that. Considering I haven't offered one.

Bye.

[Asheren]

As a former "commie" myself let me explain some very important flaws in a popular view on "commie paradise". Professionals on the "other" side, of course, knew that there was no any strategic plans on "world domination" or "commie paradise" as early as the end of.....WWII. The reason being, to put it in a plain language, the enormous and unprecedented national trauma from the war (allow me to remind You that USSR lost 27 million people in WWII, Leningrad alone during it's siege lost more than United States through all of its wars combined) and the only thing soviets cared about in 1945 was how to create a buffer of the client states around USSR as not to repeat 1941. Here is the quote from one of the greatest memoirs of the 20th century by the man who single-handedly defined the framework of the Cold War George F.Kennan:

"Nobody "won" the Cold War. It was a long and costly political rivalry fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength on the other side".

Page 186. George F. Kennan. "At A Century's Ending. Reflections 1982-1995."

Yes but if you are creating a country based on a certain ideology sooner or later propaganda will create a number of fanatics that will end in a postions of power in army or administration due to their hard work, high motivation and nearly unquestionable loyalty. It they are able to form a significant part of a nation you will be forced to put every action with an explanation that would fit in to the ideology. Sometimes you might be forced to do something just to not piss off the fanatics. Otherwise events like third indochina war would not cause such shock in the communist countries.

[James]

The feeling is mutual. As for the perspective over why USSR entered Afghanistan I don't think so You and your friend have any.

Nor is that the point of this thread. Maybe you can start a new thread about that when you come back from vacation.

Have a good one.

[Royal]

That was fun p-)


This week, for instance, it's all about Marja. Can anyone tell me about the lack of fighting, or peaceful development in other provinces? Can anyone tell me about the more proactive role Paksitan has started taking against militants in the tribal areas and big cities? Many of you don't know what you don't know, and are developing opinions based on very limited or flawed information.

From the sounds of things your old outfit is doing a pretty good job there...

Otherwise Kapisa's been interesting this last few weeks - but that's the only bit that's really crossed my radar.

How much of the recent quiet is down to the snow mate? I'm hearing (2nd hand) that its pretty bad at the moment.

[James]

I think the weather is worse farther north. I'm in Paktika, and it's unseasonably warm and dry now, though it was bitter icy cold a few weeks ago. Things usually do seem to settle down quite a bit over the winter, but here where I am it's actually more active than it was a year ago.

[Mastermind]

Fighting regular political insurgencies is apparently quite different from fighting insurgencies based on religions...especially Islamic religions.

In order for violent military action agasint the insurgency to work, you have to assume some sort of reaction to your actions by the populace concerned.

You can offer only two things....security or insecurity.

This comes down to basically saying to the farmer...."Work the way we tell you and you can grow you crops, work you fields without any fear of someone bashing you until past the harvest." However, you have to deliver the antithetical side of that message at the same time; "Work against us and we will destroy you, you crop, your family, and you livestock" (I am speaking in generalities here...city dwellers can assume the same threats agaisnt their brand of commerce)

The population has to then go home as digest the messages. In a reasonably tuned society that is motivated by economic reward, you would assume they would make the correct decisions.

However, in the case of religious based populations...they quite honestly give little concern to your threats...they are solidly based in a much higher authority with a reward/punishment system far beyond the touch of the interloper.

Of course, there are degrees of belief in any population. The job of the hard core insurgent is to reinforce the fundamental side of the equation...to force the "farmer" into cooperation with the insurgency by the same threat you hold against him with the added asset that he and the farmer have the same base in religion...they understand each other. The insurgent, supposedly, is rigidly entrenched in the belief system (or at least uses that image to impress his victims)and can carry out the most cruel and outlandish punishments for the farmer transgressing against the insurrection in the name of the all powerful "God"....in essence, he can absolutely do not wrong (in his own mind) and this makes him almost as powerful as the "God"...after all, he says he is fighting for "God" and the preservation of "His" way.

The interloper is charged with trying to offer earthly reward as an enticement and can only send the farmer on to his "God" if he resists. In that case, you have worked to the advantage of the insurrectionist. There is quite literally, nothing you can do to help the farmer or to punish him that is anywhere near the level of the offers from the insurrectionists who are quite literally doling out the "Will of God"..

There is, in short, nothing you can really accomplish of lasting value against such an insurrection as long as the insurrectionists and the "Farmers" are on the same plane. Your only true choice is to step in, crush the crop for a few years, kill a bunch of farmers, goats and insurrectionists and leave....that is, of course, when they piss you off.

It is quite important you demonstrate the power to do this at will and as often as you feel like it.

This impresses everyone with the message that the will of God is being worked through your wrath and eventually, everyone gets the message.

But, you have to be as ruthless as a God, and just abut as random in your punishment. It is important, though, you must be consistent...every time they blast down a few of your sky scraper, murder your citizens or otherwise give you any sort of grief...you have simply got to take "God" in hand and deliver "His" message.

That is why conventional means will never work against religious based idiots like the Taliban or other Islamic based bad guys.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

There is, in short, nothing you can really accomplish of lasting value against such an insurrection as long as the insurrectionists and the "Farmers" are on the same plane. Your only true choice is to step in, crush the crop for a few years, kill a bunch of farmers, goats and insurrectionists and leave....that is, of course, when they piss you off.

It is quite important you demonstrate the power to do this at will and as often as you feel like it.

This impresses everyone with the message that the will of God is being worked through your wrath and eventually, everyone gets the message.

But, you have to be as ruthless as a God, and just abut as random in your punishment. It is important, though, you must be consistent...every time they blast down a few of your sky scraper, murder your citizens or otherwise give you any sort of grief...you have simply got to take "God" in hand and deliver "His" message.

That is why conventional means will never work against religious based idiots like the Taliban or other Islamic based bad guys.

It's a hugely positive point in the greater scheme of things that you will never have any influence, much less operational control of the situation in Afghanistan.

[James]

Some in this thread have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in Afghanistan and the complexity of the effort's we're putting against the Taliban. Suffice to say some of our commanders are a lot more shrewd and calculating than most people give them credit for. I think this thing will go our way.