You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Tata & Prince: Precedent for Syria, Afghanistan pullout lies with WWII-era Flying Tigers
2019-01-21
[FOX] President Trump is right to continue his drive to remove combat troops from Syria and Afghanistan and can cite the success of the privatized Flying Tigers in World War II as a way of finding economy of force during transition operations.

U.S. troops have been carrying the lion’s share of these fights and have mostly accomplished the original missions of each. In Syria, ISIS is largely defeated, save rogue terrorists that will continue to attempt asymmetric attacks. In Afghanistan, Coalition forces have trained and equipped 175,000 Afghan National Army and 150,000 Afghan National Police Forces that can secure their country.

To be sure, we maintain strategic interests in each of the regions. In Syria, we need to deny an Iranian land bridge to Israel and the Mediterranean Sea. In Afghanistan we need to ensure the Afghan government can deny sanctuary to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to prevent planning of attacks against the homeland.

Other threats, though, loom on the horizon, and the United States can husband its military forces, reduce operational costs, and prepare for future combat by employing private Military Mentor Teams (MMT), Aviation Support Units (ASU), and Governance Support Elements (GSE). We can do this first in Syria with an economy of force and then review the lessons learned as we transition into Afghanistan.

The private force will be almost entirely former military and law enforcement from multiple countries. Veterans serving again ensures experienced combat-seasoned personnel will be coaching, teaching, and mentoring indigenous forces. The historical case study for this common-sense, cost-saving action that bolsters our alliances and ensures achievement of our enduring strategic interests is the Flying Tigers in the pre-World War II era.
Posted by:Besoeker

#8  Study the Congo war 60-68. Mobutu and Lumumba. The Maoist "Simbas". The Nigerians/Congolese vs Biafra.

Or if you like fiction, watch the Wild Geese, while listening to Roland the headless Thompson gunner.
Posted by: Glolush Whusotch4899   2019-01-21 13:08  

#7  HIMMM. "Flying Tigers in the pre-World War II era". I am only familiar with WW11 and post. My uncle went on to Pam Am as a pilot and helped with the air lift out of Castro's Cuba. He never talked much about it but he was never asked as I recall. I envied him I must say. He and his small family traveled the world. Portugal sounded interesting. Mentioned the loading of sardines on the backs of burros spilling many and gathering then up lastly so as not to waste. Yep, poop and all.
Posted by: Dale   2019-01-21 11:07  

#6  Whoops. 1, 1, 2? Reminds me of a joke I heard. "There are only three kinds of people in this world: Those can can count and those who can't."
Posted by: JohnQC   2019-01-21 09:52  

#5  “In Afghanistan, Coalition forces have trained and equipped 175,000 Afghan National Army and 150,000 Afghan National Police Forces that can secure their country.”

If they are capable, why don’t the Aghans take care of the security of their country?

“The move makes sense in every respect. The U.S. has invested nearly $1 trillion in Afghanistan since the war’s inception and has another $50 billion on tap for 2019. The privatized force can do the job about 85 percent cheaper with the prospect of being more effective.”

A privatized mercenary force is 85% cheaper and has the prospect of being more effective. The operative phrase is prospect of being more effective.

What recent experiences can be pointed to that support that idea? Africa? Weapons and Warfare.

There are some attractive features of mercenary forces: cost (already mentioned), latitude in recruiting a combat-experienced army, and keeping the force free from social engineering “engineers.” The U.S. can use the money saved for building a wall, building infrastructure and reducing the debt.

On the other hand:

1. Recruiting combat-experienced mercenaries might be a problem as fewer and fewer Americans have combat experience. That leaves recruiting mercenaries from other armies which can be problematic.

1.What happens when mercenaries break laws? Who is on the hook for that?
2.There are likely to be support, logistics and intelligence issues.
3.What happens when the SHTF. Does the U.S. intervene? Not so easy to drop forces into a gone-south situation.
Posted by: JohnQC   2019-01-21 09:49  

#4  Renault: My dear Ricky, I suspect that under that cynical shell, you're at heart a sentimentalist...Oh, laugh if you will, but I happen to be familiar with your record. Let me point out just two items. In 1935, you ran guns to Ethiopia. In 1936, you fought in Spain on the Loyalists' side.

Rick: And got well paid for it on both occasions.

Renault: The winning side would have paid you much better.

Rick: Maybe.
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-01-21 08:53  

#3  "A mercenary captain is either a capable man or not..."
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-01-21 08:48  

#2  Oh, boy mercenaries have such a great reputation!

If we can't justify the job with national troops, we shouldn't be doing whatever the hell it is.

The Flying Tigers were am attempt to get around Congress. They're nothing to brag about.
Posted by: Herb McCoy    2019-01-21 08:45  

#1  We may soon begin to learn there are limitations to the capabilities of Private Military Companies (PMCs).
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-01-21 07:06  

00:00