The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Leadership Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NATO Not Ready For Prime Time
SYSOP    8/23/2008 5:35:30 AM
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

sjdoc    If the English-speaking NATO naions...   8/23/2008 9:17:28 AM
--
...have been able to demonstrate a training and operations template that works, why not offer the non-Anglophone NATO military forces the opportunity to "piggyback" on the already-established U.S., Canadian, British, and Australian training establishments?  This would certainly prove both faster and less expensive than spinning up French, German, Italian, and Benelux-based systems, and contribute to commonalty of equipment, methodology, and tactical doctrine in combat.
 
The Poles and the Georgians have also had some recent experience in the Middle East, too.  I notice that they're not mentioned in recent news or in this article.  How have they approached preparations for deployment and "lessons learned" while they were in-theater?
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       8/23/2008 1:39:54 PM
The attitude appears to be complacency - heck, why spend the money on your military when Americans, Australians, British, and Canadians are the "policemen of the world"?  Guaranteed that if NATO had nations with military members chomping at the bit (well trained) to do their job, we would have seen a different response to the aggression by the Soviets, oops, I mean, Russians.  This NATO business needs to have members who must meet strict qualifications according to their capacities (tested annually) to remain members.  Failure = suspension.  The political side of NATO means nothing when faced with aggressive foes.  It is like the UN (Useless Nations) who can't agree on sending humanitarian aid to countries destroyed by a natural disaster - utterly worthless and costly group of nobodies.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/23/2008 1:43:07 PM
By attacking Georgia Russia has shown Europe that they need some defenses.
 
Even an idiot knows you cannot keep pissing on someone (the USA) that you depend on to defend you, and that their fellow EU members are as likely to sell them out as help them.  So the Europeans have a choice between investing significantly more in their own defense or becoming compliant little lap-dogs.
 
Any bets on which way they go?
 
Quote    Reply

cerbere       8/23/2008 4:00:40 PM
I think that the article above and the comment are just plain wrong, you can train as much as you want nothing can prepare for an ambush, second according to the guys who were under fire the 2 first casualties were the second in command (stayed in the back while 22 guys were going to recon on foot) and the radio, that might explain the slow answer from support plus the time to get there as well reinforcements did left 25 mn after the start of the ambush, third still according to the wounded and others members of the patrol the talibans knew everything in the convoy who, what and where; wondering if we are shooting at the right guys here ... to sum up and according to the guy who wrote this article the US troops in Somalia should not have had any casualties or barely as they are "train" to deal against ambush while the others nations (as everybody knows) doesn't ... he might want to take off whatever he have on his eyes so he can see the world how it is not how he want it to be.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/23/2008 4:07:35 PM

I think that the article above and the comment are just plain wrong, you can train as much as you want nothing can prepare for an ambush,

I have been thinking the same thing - the strategypage articles have been a joke.  It doesn't matter if your in the SAS, if you walk into the kill area of a well concealed ambush, every man in that kill area will almost certainly become a casualty.  In the past entire battalions have been destroyed in this manner.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Yimmy et al.   8/24/2008 8:48:14 AM
I thought this would degenerate, quickly, into "We're NOT doodie heads!"  So the French only had ONE radio and the 2 IC is out of action and the unit is crippled?  What was the OC doing?
 
An ambush means nothing, true and we weren't there and don't know the terrain and the enemy...still I look at, Iraq or Afghanistan and see US Rangers being ambushed, they may kill an incipient millionaire with friendly fire, but they didn't lose ten troops in the process.  And Sarkozy goes to Afghanistan to console the troops...dude...does the senior national leadership have to turn up any times there's a set-back?
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       8/24/2008 9:32:29 AM
French Paras are centainly a bad example of "European pussy troops".  They have been deployed in Africa (Ivory coast)  and various other hotspots, and are quite well equipped.  I think it was more the slow response by the headquarters in Kabul and good preparation by the Taliban that got them killed, not the individual skills of the french paratroopers, or inexperience, like the article suggests.
 
Quote    Reply

SOP919F3       8/24/2008 3:58:16 PM
... to sum up and according to the guy who wrote this article the US troops in Somalia should not have had any casualties or barely as they are "train" to deal against ambush while the others nations (as everybody knows) doesn't ...
This is a poor comparison.  The Mogadishu defeat was due to President Clinton's pathetic role as commander in chief  and the UN's decision at nation building (we were just delivering pizza to the starving Somalis back then).
 
History oversimplified, but to the point:
 
1). UN makes an effort at nation building which pissed off Aideed, the recognized leader of the Habr Gidr, a large and powerful clan planted deep in Somalia's past.  Aideed becomes a thorn in the side of the UN.
 
2). The U.N. had decided to shut down Aideed's radio station, which broadcast anti-UN propaganda.
 
3). The Pakistani peace keepers had entered the radio station, looking for weapons. (Bad move) As they were leaving, crowds gathered thinking the station was under attack. The Pakistanis were brutally killed by the Habr Gidr.
 
4).The U.N. decided to kill a lot of Habr Gidr clansman to teach them a lesson. On July 12, months before the Ranger raid, in an incident unremarked in all the Black Hawk Down hype, U.S. and U.N. forces attacked a Habr Gidr clan meeting. The meeting included clan elders, intellectuals, poets. It was held at the house of Aideed's self-styled "defense" minister, but included Habr Gidr members who planned to argue against Aideed's anti-U.N. stance. Indeed, the meeting had been called to consider Adm. Jonathan Howe's "peace initiative".  Bam!  The UN and Clinton attacks the very people who were trying to help with peace!  The attack was a slaughter. A half-dozen Cobras pumped sixteen TOW missiles and two thousand rounds of cannon fire into the house with deadly accuracy. First they blew away the stairwell to prevent anyone from escaping. ? A video taken just after the attack showed the mangled bodies literally blown apart in the attack—the religious leaders, the elders, even the women in their colorful wrap dresses who were always on hand to serve the tea.
 
5). Somali crowds, enraged by the attack, immediately turned on four Western journalists who had gone to cover it, killing them. This July 12 massacre caused the entire Habr Gidr clan—and some other clans—to rally behind Aideed (which helps explain why during the Oct 3rd raid the whole city seems to surround and attack the US Rangers)
 
6). Another bloody battle followed in September, in which women and children were killed, apparently disturbed President Clinton, who launched a muddled peace initiative designed to somehow include Aideed in negotiations. But the "get-Aideed" orders to the Rangers were never revoked—resulting in the Oct. 3 raid.
 
7). October 3 1993:
The assault force composed of nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles and 160 men sent in against a whole town made angry by UN and  US Politicians' actions. The result: Killed were 18 US servicemen and up to 700 Somali militiamen.   Shortly after the battle, the Clinton administration and, specifically, the late Les Aspin, Clinton's first defense secretary, were criticized heavily by military experts because the American force had been sent in to a known Aidid stronghold without proper air and armor support. Commanders for the mission had requested Bradley armored personnel carriers for their men, but Aspin and the Pentagon refused the requestEvery Ranger who was there (at the battle) knew that it was absurd not to have tanks or armored personnel carriers and other air support denied them for political reasons.

Summary:
This failure, (like Vietnam), was not the result of an ill trained military, but having the wrong leaders in place making poor decisions and then backing out once things didn't go the way planned (like as if war ever does).  If the military is sent in to perform a job the political leaders decide needed accomplished, they should be given the PROPER support and overwhelming air cover.  Otherwise we should stay the hell out of the UN's aspirations.  Can't stomach death and destruction?  Don't call on your military.  Just sit there and watch (i.e. Rwanda) as people perish.
 
 
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"
~Rodney King, LA Riots, 1 May 1992
 (No Rodney, not while evil freely lurks and you drive drunk at 100 mph)
 
 
Quote    Reply

exhelodrvr       8/25/2008 3:11:17 PM
"you can train as much as you want nothing can prepare for an ambush,"
 
Not true at all. There are specific tactics used to respond to an ambush, and specific tactics used to counter the tactics used by the Taliban. The amount of training, and the nature of it (i.e. realism level) plays a huge role in whether or not individuals survive their first encounter(s) of actual combat. Once that occurs, the survival rate goes up noticeably.
 
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    Very disrespecful   8/25/2008 4:15:34 PM

This is the second article where SP has been very disrespecful to the French soldiers who were in that ambush.
 
The other one is Hidden Battles And Secret Victories
h*tp://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20080822.aspx
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    Very disrespecful   8/25/2008 4:46:29 PM

This is the second article where SP has been very disrespecful to the French soldiers who were in that ambush.
 
The other one is Hidden Battles And Secret Victories
h*tp://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20080822.aspx
 
Quote    Reply

SapperRet.    NATO   8/25/2008 4:55:19 PM
NATO is a bad joke. We should ignore it. The allied troops are mostly just in the way. We shouldn't ask for any cooperation in the GWOT beyond police and spec ops. I read in the WSJ today that Georgia, Ukraine and Poland spend very little on defense and are vastly overmatched by Russia. Do they really expect Russia to believe the US will go to war to defend them? If Georgia or Ukraine were allied with Germany and France, how would that help? Much of Europe is dependent on Russian natural gas and won't do anything against Russia. I don't see why the US shouldn't ignore Russia's current and next moves. If they recovered their old empire, it wouldn't be so very bad. They would have yet more impoverished, rebellious subjects.
 
In the US, people greatly overestimate the value of our European "allies". If they are with us or not, the difference is minimal.
 
Regarding all the posts about the ambush of the French troops - I'm an old soldier. Training helps - experience ain't everything (although French Paratroopers probably do have some combat experience). Remember all the blather about the "battle hardened" Iraqi Army versus the untried volunteer Army in the Gulf War?
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       8/28/2008 9:36:37 PM

This is the second article where SP has been very disrespecful to the French soldiers who were in that ambush.
This article is actually standing up for these French soldiers if you read this correctly.  It is the lack of leadership that created the circumstance which would have gotten any soldier from any country killed (not just French).  I'm just not sure that the French value their soldiers enough to make sure this does not happen again - and that is where the problem lies.
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    About reading   8/29/2008 6:25:53 PM
Hurlbee,
This article is actually standing up for these French soldiers if you read this correctly. 
 
Every single person can read "correctly" the 2 articles I mentioned as they think is better and made their own conclusions. I mean every body will have his/her own opinion.
 
However, I have strong doubts about the issues that SP tries to indicate as problems with the French Troops. Just two points,

1. And then there's the recent ambush of a French patrol, which resulted in ten French paratroopers killed. Most of the casualties occurred because the troops had not practiced dealing with ambushes, and the way the Taliban operate.

Where is the evidence? In addition to what other posters have been saying about fighting in an ambush.
 
If you read the article below you will see that 9 of 10 deads were in the first hit and they were killed inside their armour car. Credit to the Talibans they made a perfect attack.
 
2. The Taliban are taking advantage of the unwillingness of many NATO (FRENCH) contingents to fight. Groups of Taliban gunmen are being sent to the vicinity of Kabul, where many of these less warlike NATO operate, and have launched attacks.

The description of tha battle I read is totally different to what SP is saying. I do not see any unwillingness, specially after fighting in the ambush with the backup of A-10 and helicopters. Just read below,

Taliban Kills 10 French Soldiers in 'Complex' Ambush (Bumped and Updated)

By David Axe EmailAugust 19, 2008 | 3:00:00 PMCategories: Agony of A-Stan  

460frenchsoldiers_792734c 100 Taliban fighters used mines, rockets and gunfire to stage a "complex" ambush of a French and Afghan convoy east of Kabul on Monday, killing 10 French soldiers. It was the worst combat-related loss of life for the French military since a suicide bombing in Lebanon in 1983.

The attack comes at a time when France is considering boosting its 3,000-strong contingent in eastern Afghanistan. "My determination remains intact," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

A French-language AFP report described an hours-long battle following the initial attack, during which the French were reinforced by NATO ground troops, the wounded were evacuated by air and air attacks killed five Taliban and 15 civilians, the latter according to a Taliban spokesman. A total of 13 30 Taliban reportedly died.

Updated 16:49 EST: The ambush was perhaps triggered when French troops nearly stumbled upon a senior Taliban leader, Defense News reports. Nine of the French soldiers died in the opening salvo; the tenth died when his armored car (pictured above) overturned. The French-Afghan patrol also included an American Special Forces air-controller team that helped call in A-10s and OH-58D Kiowa choppers; French choppers carried out the casualties.The irregular [Taliban] fighters showed "a capability of maneuver," successively attacking the support base and a second section of the joint patrol, which consisted of about 100 soldiers, [French General Jean-Louis] Georgelin said.


 I hope that the above article can help to illustrate why I found very unfair the SP conclusions independently about the issues of leadership.  Finally, It is interesting but the French Troops got the backup from the Americans A-10 because there were an US soldiers there, specially when they needed and not after hours as SP indicated.
Have a nice weekend. 

 

 
Quote    Reply

maruben    About reading CORRECTION   8/30/2008 9:41:40 AM
 
 
 
Hurlbee,
This article is actually standing up for these French soldiers if you read this correctly. 
 
Every single person can read "correctly" the 2 articles I mentioned as they think is better and make their own conclusions. I mean every body will have his/her own opinion.
 
I will sugges to read both article of SP about the ambush.
1. NATO Not Ready For Prime Time
2. Hidden Battles And Secret Victories

 
However, I have strong doubts about the issues that SP tries to indicate as problems with the French Troops. Just two points,

1. And then there's the recent ambush of a French patrol, which resulted in ten French paratroopers killed. Most of the casualties occurred because the troops had not practiced dealing with ambushes, and the way the Taliban operate.

In addition to what other posters have been saying about fighting in an ambush. Where is the evidence of  the lack of practice? Was their training cut short in France or in Afghanistan?
 
If you read the article below you will see that 9 of 10 deads were in the first hit and they were the other killed inside their armour car. Credit to the Talibans they made a perfect attack and ambush. The ambush was a complex and well executed attack in a different operating way that impressed the French General.

Under those circumstances the French Troop fought, evacuated the casualties, made killing and got out. It seems they do practice and know how to deal with the unexpectedness.
 
2. The Taliban are taking advantage of the unwillingness of many NATO (FRENCH) contingents to fight. Groups of Taliban gunmen are being sent to the vicinity of Kabul, where many of these less warlike NATO operate, and have launched attacks.

The description of tha battle I read is totally different to what SP is saying. I do not see any unwillingness, specially after fighting in the ambush with the backup of A-10 and helicopters. Just read below,

Taliban Kills 10 French Soldiers in 'Complex' Ambush (Bumped and Updated)

By David Axe EmailAugust 19, 2008 | 3:00:00 PMCategories: Agony of A-Stan  

460frenchsoldiers_792734c 100 Taliban fighters used mines, rockets and gunfire to stage a "complex" ambush of a French and Afghan convoy east of Kabul on Monday, killing 10 French soldiers. It was the worst combat-related loss of life for the French military since a suicide bombing in Lebanon in 1983.

The attack comes at a time when France is considering boosting its 3,000-strong contingent in eastern Afghanistan. "My determination remains intact," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

A French-language AFP report described an hours-long battle following the initial attack, during which the French were reinforced by NATO ground troops, the wounded were evacuated by air and air attacks killed five Taliban and 15 civilians, the latter according to a Taliban spokesman. A total of 13 30 Taliban reportedly died.

Updated 16:49 EST: The ambush was perhaps triggered when French troops nearly stumbled upon a senior Taliban leader, Defense News reports. Nine of the French soldiers died in the opening salvo; the tenth died when his armored car (pictured above) overturned. The French-Afghan patrol also included an American Special Forces air-controller team that helped call in A-10s and OH-58D Kiowa choppers; French choppers carried out the casualties.The irregular [Taliban] fighters showed "a capability of maneuver," successively attacking the support base and a second section of the joint patrol, which consisted of about 100 soldiers, [French General Jean-Louis] Georgelin said.


I hope that the above article can help to illustrate why I found very unfair, if not disrespectful, the SP conclusions, independently about the issues of leadership that seem to be wrong as the French leadership with the coopertaion ofthe US leadership provided through the American the French aircrafts the air cover and backup.  Finally, It is interesting but the French Troops got the backup from the Americans A-10 because there were an US soldiers there with them, specially when they needed and not after hours as SP indicated. SP rushed to use the ambush to point out something that was not the case.
Have a nice weekend. 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy