Feral Jundi

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Military News: U.S. Troop Funds Diverted to Pet Projects

Filed under: Afghanistan,Iraq,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:01 PM

   Thanks to Doug for passing on this story.  If this doesn’t make your blood boil, I don’t know what would. –Matt

—————————————————————–

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

October 15, 2009

Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance “a disgrace.”

“The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines,” he said in a statement.

(more…)

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Military News: U.S, Afghan Troops Beat Back Bold Enemy Assault in Nuristan

   This is the question to ask. Did we kill hundreds of Taliban, or did eight of our own die?  Do you call this a success or a failure?  I mean in wars, people die, and battles often require an investment in blood.  So did we get a return on investment in this battle?  That is what I want to hear about.

   What a fight I tell you, and my heart goes out to the friends and families of the fallen.  I am sure this attack will be studied just like the Wanat attack, and we will be making adjustments if needed.  Or not.  War is a dirty and deadly business, and sometimes stuff like this happens and soldiers die.  I am not going to comment on what they did right or wrong, just emphasize that we must learn from the incident. There are always lessons to be learned.

    But back to the reporting on this. One thing I would like to hear from the MSM one of these days, is how many Taliban we killed in skirmishes like this. I want the Taliban to be sick to their stomaches from all the death of their fellow jihadists, when they read reports like this.  I want them to know, that they just lost a lot of folks because of this attack.  The Taliban are only motivated and empowered, when the MSM reports on this as some kind of tragic loss on our side.        Reportage seems to always emphasize how many we lost, and it never focuses on what was gained in these types of incidents.  We could have killed hundreds in this skirmish, yet I am told to focus on something else.

     Don’t get me wrong though, because every death on the Afghan and Coalition side is tragic. It’s just in a war we should also try to promote what we are doing right, and say ‘hey, that was one hell of a fight boys, good job’.  That is the least we could do, to honor the deaths who fell in that battle.

   The other angle on this one is the defense of a base.  This attack emphasizes the importance of having your defenses well thought out and properly resourced.  Don’t be a marshmallow eater, and take the easy way out on preparing the defense.  If you apply Kaizen to your defense, and continue to spitball ideas on how to repel the various types of attacks out there, then you are in the right. Your defense should be hardened, flexible, random, surprising, and show constant vigilance and strength. Your defense should only enhance your OODA, not hinder it. You must always look at your defense through the eyes of the enemy, and think how you would attack your position. You should also be studying other attacks in that region, and learn all you can from these in order to adjust your own defenses. Lot’s to think about, and this latest attack must be studied over and over in order to gain any lessons learned.-Matt

P.S. – I think Bill over at Long War Journal had a far better treatment of what happened, and has a far better title for the incident: US, Afghan Troops Beat Back Bold Enemy Assault in Eastern Afghanistan

——————————————————————

8 US troops killed in fierce Afghan fighting

By ROBERT H. REID and RAHIM FAIEZ (AP)

October 4, 2009

KABUL — Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

(more…)

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Afghanistan: Lack of Troops + Lack of Afghan Police and Military + High Security Demand = Using Security Contractors?

   I would like to put this out there that this industry is ready to pounce on whatever the war effort requires.  If you need more security for your civilian surge, then hot damn, the security contracting industry will jump on it and meet your needs.  If you need to secure convoys and guard routes up in the north, then security contractors could totally do that.  If you need to train up thousands of Afghan police and military, then security contractors can totally do that as well.  Whatever the war effort needs, it could be solved by utilizing the free market power of the security contracting industry.  With just one caveat though.

     The government must take responsibility for contracting those services. You must manage these contracts by providing the necessary man power to watch the companies, and you must write smart contracts that give the companies everything they need to accomplish the mission yet still makes it easy to control them.  This is not a difficult concept to understand, and each contract should be treated with the utmost respect and care.  Give the contract what it needs to be successful, by applying quality control measures and some Kaizen. Be like the worried home owner, watching over the building of their house, and the government will do just fine with managing these contracts.

     The deal is that we have been doing these jobs in the war for awhile, and the only reason they have faltered is because of the lack of oversight by the government.  This lack of oversight allows the environment necessary for poor management to happen within the companies.

     And what really kills me is that we have seen an increase of security contractors in Afghanistan this year, so this post is completely relevant to the discussion about what is possible. Once there is good leadership on the government’s part, the companies will fall in line. We have a chance to do this right, but it takes real effort and an application of lessons learned to get it done.  The pay off will be mission accomplishment and victory, and that would be something we could all be proud of and celebrate.   –Matt

——————————————————————

Taliban grab foothold in north

By Jonathan S. Landay

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

Monday, Aug. 31 2009

BAGHLAN-I-JADID, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents have taken over parts of two

northern provinces from which they were driven in 2001, threatening to disrupt

NATO’s new supply route from Central Asia and expand a war that has largely

(more…)

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Industry Talk: Afghanistan Contractors Outnumber Troops

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 8:22 AM

     As soon as I get a copy of the census, we will see how much security contractor use has risen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That is the statistic I like tracking, and I love to dangle that in the face of the anti-contractors out there.

    But overall, nothing shocking in this article.  We all knew we would be playing a big role in the surge, and we will continue to do so regardless of the little thanks we receive.  Maybe one day, someone in a position of power will recognize the fact that we were crucial to the war effort.

     One note in particular is that somehow the defense planners, congress, and President Obama are all still supporting the concept of contracting in this war, despite the pressure from the main stream media.  So what does that mean if both President Bush (a Republican) and President Obama (a Democrat), became reliant on the use of contractors for their specific wartime goals?  Does this mean that security contractors and contractors in general are legitimate forces, or do we become illegitimate as soon as the war is over and the historians start cranking out the books?

     Gosh, I certainly feel legitimate, regardless of what the MSM might have to say about it.  And here are the numbers….. lol –Matt

—————————————————————–

WSJ

Afghanistan Contractors Outnumber Troops

Despite Surge in U.S. Deployments, More Civilians Are Posted in War Zone; Reliance Echoes the Controversy in Iraq

By AUGUST COLE

August 22, 2009

Even as U.S. troops surge to new highs in Afghanistan they are outnumbered by military contractors working alongside them, according to a Defense Department census due to be distributed to Congress — illustrating how hard it is for the U.S. to wean itself from the large numbers of war-zone contractors that proved controversial in Iraq.

The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned 68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of contractors to increase more.

(more…)

Monday, March 9, 2009

Afghanistan: Coalition Deaths From IED Attacks Soar

Filed under: Afghanistan — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:36 PM

Coalition deaths from IED attacks soar in Afghanistan

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

03/08/2009

WASHINGTON — Makeshift bomb attacks in Afghanistan killed three times as many coalition troops in the first two months of 2009 compared with the same period last year. The increase points to a strengthening insurgency and potentially more violence as warmer weather arrives along with intensified fighting.

The bombs, called improvised explosive devices, killed 32 coalition troops in January and February, compared with 10 during the same period in 2008. During the same time, 96 troops were wounded, a 146% increase from the 39 early last year, according to data from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. The numbers are final for January and preliminary for February.

Militants also appear to be using more sophisticated and powerful bombs, accounting for greater casualties, said Charles McMinn, deputy research manager for HMS, a counter-IED consulting firm that provides information to the Pentagon. Last week, a roadside bomb killed three Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

“It’s a reflection of the increased activity of the Taliban,” Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said of the militants who ruled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda until ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001. “They’re adopting the tactics used by insurgents in Iraq.”

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress