Does Petraeus Mean a Return of Afghanistan Air War?

[Pakman3000]

General David Petraeus may have been the editor-in-chief of the military’s counterinsurgency manual. But it was General Stanley McChrystal who put in place some of the book’s most radical precepts about limiting the use of force. Now that Petraeus has replaced McChrystal as the front-line commander in Afghanistan, we’ll see if he rolls back McChrystal-style counterinsurgency in favor of something more like what Petraeus practiced in Iraq.

When McChrystal took over as Afghanistan’s top general, he put limits on night raids, and curbed pursuits into populated villages. Most famously and dramatically, McChrystal severely restricted the use of air power — America’s biggest technological advantage in the war.

The bombs were causing too many civilian casualties, he reasoned. And as the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual noted, “an airstrike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory.”

The manual added: “Some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot.”

To get an airstrike approved in advance, ground commanders under McChrystal needed to provide multiple sources of intelligence showing that there were no civilians around, proof that there was no other way to go after a target, and a plan to justify the bombing to the locals. Not surprisingly, these requirements rarely came together.

The only bombs that got dropped were those used to protect “troops in contact” — forces in a firefight. And those airstrike requests were granted only after careful consideration.

Battlefield pleas were even turned down when there were no innocents in the area, because of the harm to civilian property. Over all, the number of “munitions expenditures” dropped in half as soon as McChrystal issued his new directive.

The trend line went in the opposite direction, after Petraeus took over the Iraq war in January 2007. Under his leadership, special-operations raids were common. The lethal Task Force ODIN allegedly had a hand in 2,400 insurgents’ deaths. And during 2007, Air Force pilots flew 1,447 sorties that involved dropping munitions. The year before, they flew just 229 of those sorties — about 15 percent of of 2007’s total.

Iraq then was much more violent place than Afghanistan is today. And it demanded a more violent response, the commander believed. As Petraeus told me at the time, the COIN manual “doesn’t say that the best weapons don’t shoot. It says sometimes the best weapons don’t shoot. Sometimes the best weapons do shoot.”

McChrystal’s strict guidelines triggered all kinds of grumbling from frontline troops, who felt hampered in their ability to fight the Taliban. Whether or not Petraeus eases those restrictions is one of many questions to be answered, as McChrystal’s version of COIN gives way to the Petraeus practice.

Read More: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06 ... z0ro1c1efC

[DaddyDietrich]

just think of all the live that could have been saved if the troops were given air support. fire fights that lasted more then 24 hours should be more then enough proof for a air strike. by not doing that it puts troops on the line for what a hut made of clay and water. i understand what the consequences are but if you don't use air support it hinders our mission. During my time so far in the army, I have always placed the mission first. IF something happens then I deal with it, and take what ever happens on my shoulders. I am glad General Petraeus replaced him. Maybe he can make the changes in Afghanistan as he did in Iraq. I haven't deployed yet so maybe I'm just talking out my ass, but I have loss plenty of buddies in the marines and in the army because they didn't have any time of air support from copters and planes. and i am sure that the troops that go out there on the patrols, that once they realize that they don't have air support they do stupid crap in battle that would cost them even more, compaired to troops who go out there with support from the ground and air. hopeful things will change around for the war. its not like it vietnam where most of the bombing killed our own people due to mistakes. as a tax payer and a fellow soldier i would rather have my taxes that i pay every month from my pay check to go help the troops then support some business that would give two shits about me and give me high rates just to get a car.

this is why i stay put of the politics of the military. now everthing i said is my opinion.

[Guest]

Dad (Damn..that just sounds weird..LOL) you have some good points. I feel we should just bomb the shit out of them. As far as civilians being killed...ITS WAR. Shit Happens!!!!! Back in 91 when I deployed to the Gulf there really wasn't the resists at all on the ground like there is today. I understand different time, different places, and more Urbanized door kickin'. The thing is if we would just bomb the hell out off them like we did back in 91...Maybe we wouldn't have as much resistants. This could go for Iraq also. Damn we have one helluva Air Force and tons of Technology just since 91. Lets use it and a alot of it. Bombs a way and get our Bros and Sisters back home. We can then start concentrating on things that need to be addressed in our own country. things that would be #1 on my list would be closing down our borders and stop letting all this freaks in our Country. I know I sound kind of racial but, I am not. I am just sick of the freaks getting the rights that we do.Anyway I am down complaining... And thats all my opinion!!!! I am sure we are going to have a great discussion on this one.

[squidfamily1]

Air support for troops on the ground is a given, but whenever we hit a village as a tactical strike and have civilian casualties it's counter productive. The only way we're going to get our guys home is if we get the populations of these countries backing their own governments. If we give these guys any reason to incite anti american sentiment it just sets the timeline back further.
Petraeus seems to have his shit together. Petraeus has shown an uncanny ability to deal with this type of warfare and I, personally, am heartened to know that he will now be active in this theatre.
I have two brothers in country, one with Xe (Blackwater) and one still in the military. Contrary to the article, my brother in the military has air support every time he goes out.
Hopefully Petraeus can close the gap on where we're falling short and expedite their return home.

[Amiable Horde]

I hope to hell the policy changes as well, but we all know that the military is becoming more industrialized and business like everyday. Politics is the name of the game and it hurts our guys.

Why not strike a known location of enemies before sending our guys in just to shake em up, if not take out the target? Oh, and please don't get your pride involved in the matter that your team or whatever level your may be at can get the job done just as well if not better, because that's not the point.

The point is, the military in general, the cost of a Soldier is a certain %. The cost of munition, fuel, and the equipment is %. Depending on the situation the evaluation of which % < % is the out weighted one.

Now don't get me wrong, there are more factors than that, to include number of enemies, geographics, and ability of the element in the fight.

Not every military member sees this to be true, and of course they are right. The price of an explosive should never outweigh the price of a Soldier, marine, etc.

But as a business, costs must be cut. and sometimes the wrong cuts are made.

[Guest]

Why not strike a known location of enemies before sending our guys in just to shake em up, if not take out the target? Oh, and please don't get your pride involved in the matter that your team or whatever level your may be at can get the job done just as well if not better, because that's not the point.

Very well put. That is more like what I was trying to say but, I have a hard time explaining it in writing.

[squidfamily1]

i don't think the expense was the issue. more about collateral damage and "winning hearts and minds"

[Amiable Horde]

i don't think the expense was the issue. more about collateral damage and "winning hearts and minds"

and your "right" to a point, but i've seen the game played... yes it is about "winning over the hearts and minds" mainly so we don't create more bin laden's and saddam's. A boy who loses mommy or daddy becomes a hellion in his later years. Yes collateral damage is another factor included in decisions, but finances also plays a big part; more than you would like to accept.

[squidfamily1]

i don't think the expense was the issue. more about collateral damage and "winning hearts and minds"

and your "right" to a point, but i've seen the game played... yes it is about "winning over the hearts and minds" mainly so we don't create more bin laden's and saddam's. A boy who loses mommy or daddy becomes a hellion in his later years. Yes collateral damage is another factor included in decisions, but finances also plays a big part; more than you would like to accept.

i can surely accept the expense. My brother is over their 9 months a year making high 6 figures with Xe. we're obviously not worried about paying them. I think anyone would be hard pressed to say it's expense rather than the politics of the situation.

[indyred99]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...t-source-says/

A source says it'll be one of the first things done. We will see in the coming weeks.

I know there was a topic about the air war coming back but this is a webpage showing possible changes.

Found on drudgereport.com

[Guest]

Yes, bring on the Air War. Bomb the hell out of them.