| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| US rethinks tiny, remote but vital Afghan outposts |
| 2010-04-25 |
| COMBAT OUTPOST SPERA: US troops were strapping on their gear for a 3:30 am patrol along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan when word came to stand down: Soldiers were hearing heavy radio chatter among insurgents, raising suspicions of a coming attack. Within 20 minutes the shooting had started, continuing steadily for two hours while militants attacked tiny Combat Outpost Spera from three sides with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Troops from the 101st Airborne Division fought back with rifles, heavy machine guns, and grenade launchers until the insurgents faded away at dawn. The March 29 battle was typical of those at tiny bases known as combat outposts, or COPs, which are being re-evaluated as more emphasis is being placed on using forces to defend population centres. Last week's withdrawal from the Korengal Valley, the scene of some of the war's most intense fighting, underscored the new policy, and was tacit admission that maintaining remote, difficult-to-defend outposts was not the best use of resources. Still, the soldiers at COP Spera - where it will be maintained or abandoned is not yet clear - believe the post is important in disrupting insurgent operations and cross-border infiltration in the eastern province of Khost. “It's important for the local people, all my guys understand that,' said 1st Sgt Jason Scapanski of Foley, Minnesota. “Securing this area also secures the local people and if we can bring stability into this area we can start to work on the schools and the clinics that they're asking for.' While plans to move troops away from remote outposts have long been in the works, they were hastened by an attack in October on COP Keating north of Khost that left eight American soldiers dead. A year before, nine Americans were killed at an outpost near Wanat. Both posts were given up, and insurgents trumpeted the US pullbacks as defeat, with their fighters shown in videos swarming through the abandoned bases. Command Sgt Maj Michael T Hall, the top enlisted man among international troops in Afghanistan, says “that's to be expected but won't affect the goal of deploying limited resources in the most effective way'. “We don't and never will have enough troops to control the entire country,' Hall said. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 This might apply to Afghanistan in general. Never forget. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-25 22:33 |
| #8 At a certain point you have to make a decision to not project that you can not cover well enough with assets on hand or expose it to greater threat because the mission is that critical. Thus 'rethink'. This might apply to Afghanistan in general. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-04-25 15:17 |
| #7 ...anyone. The object is to deliver ordnance on target. How it gets there isn't important. What is important is logistics of getting it there. Fire bases are good, but have a large log tail to sustain let alone keep enough of what its suppose to deliver on hand. You're literally dealing with the end of the world as far as the means to project the amount needed on hand with stuff being trucked, trained, flown, or portered through Pakland and the various Stans which may or may not open at the moment, along with the Russian owning part of the business as well. It appears they're reaching the point of diminishing returns in that just to get something someplace it consumes all the resources just to arrive. There is only so much lift available into country and then out to the edge. At a certain point you have to make a decision to not project that you can not cover well enough with assets on hand or expose it to greater threat because the mission is that critical. Thus 'rethink'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-25 14:43 |
| #6 as in real estate: location location location. The worst COP attacks have been when they were established in low areas with high ground for the insurgent's use in attacking Exactly, unless you're trying to lay down a cunning trap. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-04-25 13:20 |
| #5 My guess us that they had a designated civilian (aka unarmed terrorist) with them at that base. Its the best insurance against attack money can buy. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-04-25 11:51 |
| #4 with their fighters shown in videos swarming through the abandoned bases. And to CSM Hall I might ask..... knowing that you were pulling out and "what was to be expected," did you have no grids for the COP's, no preplanned fires and air strikes available to disrupt the filming and vaporize the swarming vermin? Yet another missed opportunity. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-25 11:22 |
| #3 as in real estate: location location location. The worst COP attacks have been when they were established in low areas with high ground for the insurgent's use in attacking |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-04-25 11:14 |
| #2 You would think that the concept of a firebase would have been refined in Vietnam. Khe Sanh anyone. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-04-25 11:06 |
| #1 This is why outposts are always supposed to be covered with heavy artillery support. Highly surgical attacks with very precise munitions have their purposes, but there are times when an area fire for effect is the cat's pajamas. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-04-25 07:43 |