C
couchcommander
Guest
Hey All,
Been a while. Question has popped into my head over the last little while, especially with Canada taking charge of the multi-national brigade in Kandahar. I apologize if it's been asked before, or if it's presently being discussed (search turned up nothing specific..). But onto the question!
From media reports of action in Afghanistan, it appears that in the vast majority of cases where contact was made with insurgents, especially if they have successfully ambushed a Canadian patrol, the immediate response is some type of suppressive fire (many times, it appears from the media reports this isn't even done), and then withdraw from the area to the safety of a base (or just out of the kill zone). The most recent incident that made headlines is an example of this http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/28/canada-afghan-command.html
Though this is not always the case, and indeed there has been published reports of troops moving to occupy the firing positions, even this response seemed, from the reports, to be slow and lack any real imperative to hunt down and arrest or kill the insurgents. In the case of the RPG ambush that the m777's responded to that happened north of Kandahar on the 20th, I understand that the position was later occupied, but it seemed from the report that this was some time later, and further an officer (I forget who exactly) was quoted as remarking "we have a good idea where they went to", but it appeared (and given the shoddy reporting coming out of there I cannot be at all certain on this), that no attempt was made to follow up on this other than possibly reporting it to the local authorities. The story can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582149/posts (don't mind the freerepublic address, it's just where google found the story first). Of course there are many more questions that are raised by this report as well, most notably that if this was a known firing position, why was it not reconnoitered before a base was set up below it (or was it? you never know with newsreports), etc... but that is not my point right now.
Anywho, there are many more examples of insurgents ambushing patrols, then the patrol either using suppressive fire, or no fire, and then immediately returning to base (at least from media reports). Notable exceptions to this are of course if a vehicle is disabled. Given that one of the hardest parts of counter insurgency operations is finding the enemy, why are we not pursuing them when they decide to show their face for us, or, more appropriately, what is the rationale behind this doctrine (or is the reporting just false or misleading)?
I won't presume to tell you guys how do your job, far from it (I've gotten into some pretty interesting flame wars on that front before... something which I wish to avoid). As a curious observer I am just confused by this, and would appreciate it if it was explained to me.
Been a while. Question has popped into my head over the last little while, especially with Canada taking charge of the multi-national brigade in Kandahar. I apologize if it's been asked before, or if it's presently being discussed (search turned up nothing specific..). But onto the question!
From media reports of action in Afghanistan, it appears that in the vast majority of cases where contact was made with insurgents, especially if they have successfully ambushed a Canadian patrol, the immediate response is some type of suppressive fire (many times, it appears from the media reports this isn't even done), and then withdraw from the area to the safety of a base (or just out of the kill zone). The most recent incident that made headlines is an example of this http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/28/canada-afghan-command.html
Though this is not always the case, and indeed there has been published reports of troops moving to occupy the firing positions, even this response seemed, from the reports, to be slow and lack any real imperative to hunt down and arrest or kill the insurgents. In the case of the RPG ambush that the m777's responded to that happened north of Kandahar on the 20th, I understand that the position was later occupied, but it seemed from the report that this was some time later, and further an officer (I forget who exactly) was quoted as remarking "we have a good idea where they went to", but it appeared (and given the shoddy reporting coming out of there I cannot be at all certain on this), that no attempt was made to follow up on this other than possibly reporting it to the local authorities. The story can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582149/posts (don't mind the freerepublic address, it's just where google found the story first). Of course there are many more questions that are raised by this report as well, most notably that if this was a known firing position, why was it not reconnoitered before a base was set up below it (or was it? you never know with newsreports), etc... but that is not my point right now.
Anywho, there are many more examples of insurgents ambushing patrols, then the patrol either using suppressive fire, or no fire, and then immediately returning to base (at least from media reports). Notable exceptions to this are of course if a vehicle is disabled. Given that one of the hardest parts of counter insurgency operations is finding the enemy, why are we not pursuing them when they decide to show their face for us, or, more appropriately, what is the rationale behind this doctrine (or is the reporting just false or misleading)?
I won't presume to tell you guys how do your job, far from it (I've gotten into some pretty interesting flame wars on that front before... something which I wish to avoid). As a curious observer I am just confused by this, and would appreciate it if it was explained to me.
