Preview: Golf Company
October 8, 2009 2:25 PM
Brigadier General John Nicholson, a specialist in counterinsurgency, talks to Scott Pelley on the long road ahead in Afghanistan. 60 Minutes, Sunday, July 18, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Recent Segments
-
Taking down a cartel, Why are glasses expensive?, Lionel Messi 43:27 June 16, 2013
-
Lionel Messi and the ascent of Barca soccer 13:23 June 16, 2013
-
Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? 13:01 June 16, 2013
-
Taking down Colombia's "super cartel" 13:03 June 16, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
-
Soccer academy La Masia: A model for the U.S.?
June 16, 2013
-
Drug traffickers' vehicle of choice
June 16, 2013
-
Summer Series: My favorite 60 Minutes story
June 16, 2013
- 1
- 2
- Next »
See all 18 CommentsIf we pull out of Afghanistan and Iran, you have to ask yourself exactly what military presence will remain in the Middle East? Strategically our presence in this region, given the current strategy regarding terrorism, would be a key factor. You also have to ask yourself when, if ever, would it be a good time to abandon an established base of operations and established supply line to that region.
The answer is most likely "Dig in and get comfortable." When we hear about pulling out of Iran and Afghanistan what we're probably in store for is a gradual scaling down of troops until we have a small but ready fighting force capable of warding off instability in the region while protecting US interests.
I guess he didn't say when,though.So much for campaign lies!
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!
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!
Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani?s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don?t get it. It?s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.
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!
The Marines were exonerated at a Court of Inquiry in 2008. The three-member panel concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the level of force was unjustified. The court recommended every Marine in the convoy be awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and an injured sergeant receive the Purple Heart.
Within 15 minutes of the Marines being attacked by a suicide bomber and ambushed, the first team of Military Police arrived on the scene; they saw no injured people or dead bodies other than the body parts of the suicide bomber.
No bodies were recovered; there were no autopsies, no forensic evidence.
The families of three Taliban, who the Marines testified were shooting at the convoy were paid solitia payments by Col Nicholson.
He?s the guy who made the classic ?I am embarrassed to be an American? speech:
?So I stand before you today, deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people. We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan, but the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people. This was a terrible, terrible mistake, and my nation grieves with you for your loss and suffering. We humbly and respectfully ask for your forgiveness.?
Nicholson said officials went to great lengths to trace down all who might have been injured. ?We defaulted to the higher number ? but feel that each of these people were in fact involved in the incident.?
(Yes, they were involved in the incident -- shooting at our troops.)
<http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28460>
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_marsoc_jones_070516/
Nicholson holds the record of the highest casualty count of any field officer in the war.
Brian Williams reports on an interview Jim Maceda had with Col. Nicholson in 2006 that Nicholson?s unit had lost 45 men and 350 wounded, the highest U.S. toll in the war.
Why, in heavens name, is this man, who lost 45 men and 350 wounded ? the highest U.S. toll in the war -- in charge of troops in Afghanistan? In charge of anyone for that matter?
IN IRAQ..WE FOUGHT MOSTLY FORMER IRAQI ARMY TYPES WHO WERE STRIPPED OF ALL DIGNITY WHEN THE BUSH PEOPLE SOUGHT TO DISBAND THE ENTIRE IRAQI ARMY AND THE MINISTRIES WHO MAINTAINED SOME SEMBLANCE OF GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATION. THE SONS OF IRAQ AND THE KEYSTONE TO THE "COUNTERINSURGENCY" STRATEGY IN IRAQ WAS BASICALLY REHIRING THOSE DISPLACE IRAQI SOLDIERS AND PAYING THEM WITH TAXPAYER MONEY NOT TO SHOOT US SOLDIERS OR MARINES. WE SHALL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT INITIATIVE IS EXHAUSTED AFTER US FORCES DEPART TOTALLY.
THAT SAID, ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE AN EXPERT ON AFGHANISTAN AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CULTURAL, LINGUISTIC, IDEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS METRICS IS A FOOL.
SE AFGHANISTAN/2003
IRAQ/2005
- 1
- 2
- Next »
See all 18 Comments