1 / 19

The British military campaign in Afghanistan

The British military campaign in Afghanistan. THEO FARRELL DEPT OF WAR STUDIES KING’S COLLEGE LONDON. ISAF takes over. British task forces, 2006-2006. 16 bde: May–Oct 2006 3 cdo: Oct 2006–April 07 12 Mech: April–Oct 2007 52 bde: Oct 2007–April 2008 16 bde: April–Oct 2008.

Samuel
Télécharger la présentation

The British military campaign in Afghanistan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The British military campaign in Afghanistan THEO FARRELL DEPT OF WAR STUDIES KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

  2. ISAF takes over

  3. British task forces, 2006-2006 • 16 bde: May–Oct 2006 • 3 cdo: Oct 2006–April 07 • 12 Mech: April–Oct 2007 • 52 bde: Oct 2007–April 2008 • 16 bde: April–Oct 2008

  4. British brigades in Helmand • 16 bde: ‘inkspot’ to platoon house • 3 cdo: offensive using MOGs • 12 Mech: big sweeps to clear green zone • 52 bde: ‘clear, hold, build’ • 16 bde: protecting population and developing GIROA

  5. 16x: break-in battle • Force cap (3,150 + 1500) • Losing momentum: parcel delivery • Pressure to deploy North • POR: “undoubtedly contributed to attrition of Taliban forces” • But fixed and kinetic

  6. 16x: break-in battle • Force cap (3,150 + 1500) • Losing momentum: parcel delivery • Pressure to deploy North • POR: “undoubtedly contributed to attrition of Taliban forces” • But fixed and kinetic

  7. 3x: advance to ambush • Main effort = reconstruction of ADZ • Main LOO = security • Security LOO = “dynamic unpredictability” • “Tread softly”: 537 to 821 engagements • Keeping the Taliban at bay: 45% reduction in attacks

  8. 12x: mowing the lawn • Return to original plan: inkspot strategy • Clearing the green zone: 5 TF ops • Failure to hold • Escalation: 821 to 1,096 engagements

  9. The Green Zone

  10. 12x: mowing the lawn • Return to original plan: inkspot strategy • Clearing the green zone: 5 TF ops • Failure to hold • Escalation: 821 to 1,096 engagements

  11. 52x: people are the prize • CONOPs = clear, hold, build • COG = local population (not EF) • Persistent presence: committing FOBs • Resourcing influence: NKETs and TCAF • Approach to battle: taking MSQ

  12. Tactical Conflict Assessment Framework • Have there been changes in the village population, and why? • What are the most important problems facing the village? • Who do you believe can solve your problems? • What should be done first?

  13. 16x: go deep not broad • CONOPS: protect the population, promote GIROA, undermine Taliban influence • Creating CMMH • Kajaki Damn op

  14. More favourable context • New Taliban tactics • Growing ANA capabilities • Increased resources

  15. Better resourced campaign • 16 bde (mid 2006): 3,150 • 3 cdo (2006-07): 5,200 • 12 Mech (mid 2007): 6,500 • 52 bde (2007-08): 7,750 • 16 bde (mid 2008): 8,530

  16. Characteristics of British approach • Slow learner • Cracking-on: make do attitude • Discontinuity of command

  17. The long haul • Natural cycle: wearing down the Taliban • Building up GIROA capacity • Learning to be Comprehensive • Sustainable victory

More Related