Feral Jundi

Monday, April 26, 2010

Strategy: The Defense Of Farms And Ranches

Filed under: Strategy — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:10 AM

   This is a good little post on a subject you don’t hear much about, yet is pretty important to today’s ranchers and farmers along the border with Mexico, or to farmers who are caught in the middle of conflicts throughout the world.  If you look at farms and ranches as a strategic asset of a nation, as do many nations throughout the world do, then defending such places becomes pretty important.  The food of a country comes from these farms, as does the vitality of the economy of some countries.  If an enemy is attacking farms, or soldiers from other wars are crossing a border and raiding farms in order to survive or smuggle weapons or drugs, then that is a direct threat to a nation’s vital resource and citizens. It must be addressed, if a country cares about protecting this economic asset.

   One of the big problems with defending farms and ranches, is the size of the operation.  Ideally a government would help in the defense of these businesses, but for some nations, it just isn’t feasible.  Cost might be a factor, or a lack of manpower might be another factor.  Even politics can limit how much help these farmers and ranchers can get (like with the Mexico/U.S. immigration problem, and the politics that surround that)

   All of that aside, the farmer or rancher still has to protect their land and business (and their lives), and that task becomes increasingly more challenging when that farm is located in a war zone.  Think of the farmers in Iraq or Afghanistan whom have had to deal with the war, and grow food or raise animals at the same time?  Or think about what the Rhodesian farmers had to deal with when it came to cattle thieves and ‘terrs’ attacking farms for food or loot? They implemented Bright Light operations, along with using range detectives, as part of their farm defense strategies. Their solutions to the problems were very interesting to say the least.

    The Israelis had a similar problem when trying to defend their farms, and the Haganah was their answer. I even talked about US ranchers and farmers dealing with thieves, indians and competitors during the Range Wars in the US back in the 1800’s.  All of these historical incidents required protecting farms and ranches, and there just isn’t a lot out there for farmers and ranchers to refer to for the defense.

   The latest drug war in Mexico spilling over the border and impacting farms and ranches in the US is also another reason why we should talk about this.  When ranchers are getting killed by armed thugs along the border, and the US is not providing enough man power or resources to protect these farms and ranches, well then discussions about the defense of farms becomes pretty relevant.

   Farms and Ranches are also a target for terrorism, and biowarfare attacks against food and livestock is a concern.  It takes planning and resources to ensure these vital national assets are getting the protection they need.  There are also problems with drugs on farms, with individuals trying to grow marijuana on crop and range lands, with the hopes that the farmer will not notice or worse yet, turn a blind eye because they fear the growers/criminals.

   So with that said, let me start off the conversation with a fascinating post at the Small Wars Council about the subject.  I provided a link, so if you would like to further research or contact the author of the original post, you can do so.  Also I would like to thank Cannoneer #4 for bringing this stuff up to my attention, and he has an excellent blog post about such things.

    I know one thing, having tracking skills along with some kind of combat arms background, would be a big help in the defense of these farms and ranches. Especially if farmers start contracting range detectives for such a thing. If the readership has any more resources for the defense of farms and ranches, go ahead and post that in the comments section or I will add it as an edit. –Matt

—————————————————————–

A Farmer At War

By Trevor Grundy and Bernard Miller

—————————————————————–

Rhodesian Farmers Defensive Arrangements

(from the Small Wars Council forum)

 I knew many Rhodesian farmers and have visited many farmsteads over the years. At every farm, defensive arrangements were made up to suit their particular situation and infrastructure. The following would be a general overview:

 1. Most farmers fitted hand-grenade grills to the outside of all windows. Doors leading outside were likewise security grilled.

 2. Many farmers built thick walls about a meter in front of bedroom windows to stop bullets, but particularly to deal with RPG 7`s. Beds were never placed against the outside walls of a farmhouse.

 3. It was usual to have a designated safe room within the farmhouse that could be defended until support arrived. Sometimes this was a central corridor that allowed the farmer to move into other rooms to attack those outside through the windows. In the loft or ceiling over the safe room, some farmers laid sand bags to deal with possible mortar attack.

4. Every farmhouse in a given area was linked by a radio system called “Agric Alert”. This allowed radio contact with other farmers who formed their own defence units, usually under the umbrella of PATU (Police Anti-Terrorist Unit), which would react to a call from one of their neighbours for assistance. Another means of alarm raising was the use of a signal rocket – The Agric-Alert system was not done away with after the war, such was the lack of trust in Mugabe`s promises. It performed admirably as well when dealing with criminal activity such as stock theft. The alert system arranged for all farmers to check in with each other at a given time in the morning and evening as a means of monitoring their status.

(more…)

Mexico: Cartels Take It Up A Notch And Focus Their War On Authorities

    Public Safety Secretary Minerva Bautista was among the wounded but was recovering from non-life-threatening injuries, according to the state attorney general’s office. She was traveling in a bullet-resistant sport utility vehicle.

   State Attorney General Jesus Montejano told the local Milenio television station that the attackers used assault rifles, grenades, a grenade launcher and a powerful .50-caliber sniper rifle whose rounds are capable of penetrating bullet-resistant materials.

  “In the ambush, they used concentrated fire from these types of weapons, forcing her and her escort to crash into a trailer truck that they had pulled across the road,” Montejano said.

***** 

   I posted three stories here, that are pretty telling of where Mexico is at with their war against the cartels.  There are two ways to read this.  Either the cartels are threatened more by the government and authorities, or the cartels are thinking in terms of taking the fight out of the authorities so they can continue to eradicate their competition.  So is the government a threat, or are they just getting in the way?  Interesting stuff, and this first article below goes into the various angles on this.

   My personal thoughts on it, is that the cartels will do whatever they need to do in order to win control over the drug markets.  If law enforcement or government officials directly or indirectly help their competitors, they will do what they can to remove that element of the equation.  Because I really think that if the cartels were purely focused on combatting the government, we would see way more deaths of officials.  The death toll figures support this as well, with most of the deaths in the war being members of the drug cartels. But this could change, and we will see how this goes.

   None the less, these are still attacks on the state.  And when the cartels start using .50 caliber sniper rifles (see second story below), grenade launchers, and assault rifles against armored motorcades in well coordinated ambushes, I tend to take notice.  Unfortunately, the next level will probably be more usage of IED’s in these ambushes and all of the rules of Iraq and Afghanistan will apply to this latest evolution of the drug war.

   The third story is another disturbing tale about cartels purposely attacking law enforcement.  Seven officers killed is pretty bad, and that indicates to me that the cartels have absolutely no fear or respect for law enforcement.  They are just obstacles that need to be removed, so they can focus on the bigger war of gaining territory for their drug operations. Thanks to Doug and others for sending me these stories. –Matt

——————————————————————

Body Guards

An injured bodyguard of Mexico’s Michoacan state’s public safety secretary walks with help from a police officer after being wounded during a shootout in Morelia, Mexico, early Saturday. A fellow bodyguard lies dead. 

Mexico says cartels turning attacks on authorities

By MARK STEVENSONThe Associated PressSunday, April 25, 2010

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s drug cartels have changed tactics and are turning more attacks on authorities, rather than focusing their fire on rivals gangs, the country’s top security official said Sunday.

Interior Secretary Fernandez Gomez-Mont said at a news conference that two back-to-back, bloody ambushes of government convoys – both blamed on cartels – represent a new tactic.

“In the last few weeks the dynamics of the violence have changed. The criminals have decided to directly confront and attack the authorities,” Gomez-Mont said.

“They are trying to direct their fire power at what they fear most at this moment, which is the authorities,” he said.

Officials here have long said that more than 90 percent of the death toll in Mexico’s wave of drug violence – which has claimed more than 22,700 lives since a government crackdown began in December 2006 – are victims of disputes between rival gangs.

Mexican drug gangs have been known to target security officials. The nation’s acting federal police chief was shot dead in May 2008 in an attack attributed to drug traffickers lashing back at President Felipe Calderon’s offensive against organized crime.

But such high-profile attacks were rare in comparison to inter-gang warfare. But after the large-scale attacks on officials Friday and Saturday, “casualties among the authorities are beginning to increase in this battle,” Gomez-Mont said.

On Saturday, gunmen armed with assault rifles and grenades attacked a convoy carrying the top security official of the western state of Michoacan, in what appeared to be a carefully planned ambush.

The official survived with non-life-threatening wounds – she was traveling in a bullet-resistant SUV – but two of her bodyguards and two passers-by were killed. Of the other nine people wounded, most were bystanders, including two girls ages 2 and 12.

(more…)

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Publications: RAND–How Insurgencies End, By Ben Connable

The RAND study found:

Modern insurgencies last approximately 10 years and the government’s chances of winning increase slightly over time.

Withdrawal of state sponsorship cripples an insurgency and typically leads to its defeat, while inconsistent or impartial support to either side generally presages defeat.

Pseudo-democracies do not often succeed against insurgencies and are rarely successful in fully democratizing. 

*****

   This first story and introduction from RAND is a run down of the conclusions of the study.  What I like about studies like this, is that they draw upon a wide array of past insurgencies, and it tries to find patterns and consensus. That is good, and we should be learning from these insurgencies.

   The last point up top in the quote, is the one I am concerned with. Can we do this with a weak government?  Or can we do business with the tribes and local leadership of cities and towns until we get a good government in place?  The article below points out that it is possible to do this without a strong government, but it certainly does not help the effort.  Check it out. –Matt

——————————————————————

Study highlights problems for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan

Ben Arnoldy

April 23, 2010

NEW DELHI — While current U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan broadly conforms to historical best practices, the Taliban have a number of advantages that have produced insurgent success in the past, according to a new study of 89 past and ongoing insurgencies worldwide.

The factors that favor the Taliban include receiving sanctuary and support in another country, learning to be more discriminating in their attacks and fighting a government that’s weak and reliant on direct external support.

The historical trends suggest that the Taliban’s Achilles heel would be the loss of their Pakistani sanctuary, while the principal American vulnerability is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s weak pseudo democracy.

The study, said the author, cannot be predictive, but it can help the U.S. address or exploit these vulnerabilities.

“A lot of the things being done in the current (U.S. military) plan are along the lines of successful things we’ve seen in the study,” said Ben Connable, the lead author of “How Insurgencies End,” published by the RAND Corp. in Washington.

(more…)

Arizona: Governor Brewer Signs Immigration Bill With Teeth

Filed under: Arizona,Law Enforcement — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 2:32 AM

   Finally, someone has the courage in a position of leadership to do something effective to stop illegal immigration.  I salute Governor Brewer and the state of Arizona, and I wish law enforcement there all the best in their efforts to enforce this new law.

   What is also great about this bill, is that it is forcing the federal government to take a look at what is going on with a state, and react. If they try to stop it, then the feds will look weak on this.  Maybe finally this will shake things up enough for the government to actually do what is necessary on the border. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Gov. Brewer signs controversial immigration bill

By Matt York

Apr 23, 2010

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer today signed a controversial immigration bill into state law, advancing a politically charged debate that is already having reverberations in Washington.

“Respect for the rule of law means respect for every law,” said Brewer, a Republican. “People across America are watching Arizona.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer added. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Brewer’s decision came just hours after President Obama called the proposal “misguided.” At a naturalization ceremony for new U.S. citizens today, Obama pressed Congress to revamp federal immigration policy or face the possibility of “irresponsibility by others.”

The law, which will take effect in 90 days, will make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The measure would require migrants to produce papers verifying their status when asked to do so by a police officer, according to a story in The Arizona Republic.

(more…)

Afghanistan: The Taliban Fear Contractors

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:52 AM

    The attacks “are not about armed confrontation. They are about subversion of the government,” said Terrence K. Kelly, a senior researcher at the Washington-based RAND Corporation who has studied how rebuilding efforts work in war zones. America’s strategy counts on development work to increase the legitimacy and reach of the Karzai government. With these attacks the Taliban can “turn off the delivery of services — which makes the government look bad,” he said.

    USAID insists it will not scale back its work in Afghanistan because of the attacks, according to Rebecca Black, the agency’s deputy mission director for Afghanistan.

*****

    Break guerillas’ moral-mental-physical hold over the population, destroy their cohesion, and bring about their collapse via political initiative that demonstrates moral legitimacy and vitality of government and by relentless military operations that emphasize stealth/fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of overall effort.

     *If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides! -Page 108, Patterns of Conflict, Col. John Boyd

*****

   They must fear us, if they feel it is necessary to attack us. They know that we are out in the towns of Afghanistan, connecting with the people, and winning them over with jobs and support.  And when we say we are doing this in the name of the Afghan government, and people see the fruits of this labor, well then that makes the government look good.  Happy people, happy government, and sad sad sad Taliban. lol  It also makes the Taliban’s shadow government sad, because now they have to contend with the goodwill the contractors are spreading.

   So what does this mean?  From a strategist point of view, and from a COIN point of view, my people (contractors) are actually connecting with the Afghans and making an impact.  We are the civilian face of the war effort, and the Taliban fear us. They must, if they are purposely trying to attack us–I thought we didn’t matter?

   It also means that we should be doing more of it.  If the Taliban fear what we are doing, then I say increase the effort and further support the various programs that we are involved with out there. Focus on the programs that make the Afghan government look good, and makes the Taliban shadow government look frivolous and pathetic. Keep connecting with the people and providing them with jobs and purpose.

   Now on to another factor of these attacks.  Because the US and ISAF militaries are so hung up on living on the big box FOBs and commuting to work, the Taliban and their shadow government is pushing around the population and terrorizing them into doing what they want.  That is what shadow governments do–they undermine the current government with the idea of making them look illegitimate or ineffectual.  That shadow government will do everything it can to either win over the population, or impose their will on the population.  In order to stop that shadow government, you need to provide a ‘big stick’ in the area that will put the smack down on these guys. You also have to be better at influencing the people than the shadow government. It also helps that the current government is legitimate and not corrupt in the eyes of the people.

   And that is a big problem.  Crazy Karzai and his clown posse is not helping things at all, and in turn, the people have no respect for the government. It will also hurt the troops and police morale, both of the Afghans and of the Coalition.  No one likes working for a loser.

   Ideally, if you can’t change Karzai’s tune, then he should be voted out by the people. Unfortunately, Karzai is rigging the voting booths, and that simple act of screwing with the electoral process is to me the one area that needs to be fixed.  Why would people vote to change out a leader, if they cannot trust that their vote is being counted?  If we are in this war for the long haul, the goal should be to clamp down on election fraud and use every bit of muscle we can to ensure that it is fair. In fact, we should be planning for the next election, and learn from past efforts of worthless elections. We can also use a big stick to beat down this shadow government in the meantime.

   We must get the troops out into the population centers. (FOBs equals few and large, COP’s equals many and small-New Rules of War)  Do it Ramadi style, and convoy right into the worst parts of these towns and cities, and move right on in with a well supported platoon or company. Pick a city block, pay the owners of the block and homes really well, and then walk the beat like a cop.  The image the people should have, is a troop presence, mixed with an Afghan police presence, all with the expressed desire of protecting the people and pushing out this shadow government and enemy forces.  This would be the big stick in these areas, and with this kind of presence, they could also protect the various contractors out there that are trying to get aid out to the people. Clear, hold, build.

    We must protect and serve the people, and to do that, we need to get out there and live where they live.  Or troops can continue to commute to their job site, and protect the people when it is convenient.  Meanwhile, the contractors outside the wire, will continue to be the focus of the Taliban, and the Taliban shadow government will continue to do what they want. Ideally, we must have sound leadership in the Afghan government as well or something the people can respect. Boyd made a point on emphasizing this as well. (see quote up top)

   I would also like to say that I am not alone in this thinking.  Tim from Free Range International has an excellent post on the same subject and I highly recommend his blog to further your research on the matter.-Matt

——————————————————————

Attacks against contractors surging in Afghanistan

By NOOR KHAN and TIM SULLIVAN

April 24, 2010

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The message, very often, is sent with bloodshed.

A suicide bombing last week on a fortified Kandahar guesthouse shared by Western contracting companies killed four Afghans and injured several Americans. An Afghan engineer was shot dead in March as he helped inspect a school not far from the Pakistan border. An Afghan woman who worked for a U.S.-based consulting firm was shot by motorbike-riding gunmen as she headed home in this southern city.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress