Counter Strategy: the Afghan War example

For every strategy there is a counter strategy, or at least the best counter strategy should exist that will allow an optimal outcome with a range of probabilities and risks that create the best opportunity for victory.

In the Afghan war, much like American strategy in WWII, mine was to create what was necessary to counter the difficulties faced by the war effort. For instance:

1. Supply lines were exposed to terrorist attacks in Pakistani territory where NATO could not defend them, because they had no troops present which made fuel costs rise to $500 a gallon for the US military.

My counter strategy was this:

- create an alternate supply line through the north: this included a logistics base in Russia, a Chinese built railroad into Afghanistan from the north, as well as the New Silk Road component of China connecting to Afghanistan through the Afghan Wakhan corridor and engaging China economically to protect mining sites with private security while ensuring an end of terrorist manpower flow into Afghanistan from East Turkmenistan (aka Xinjiang that holds 3 million of them in re-education camps).

- create grid independent self sufficiency on NATO bases by deploying renewable powered solutions

- change US energy policy to all of the above and become world's number one oil and gas producer, thus any high price of fuel would be transferred to a global market and shared by world's consumers of hydrocarbon products,

- make energy consumption in US military cheaper and resilient to hydrocarbon price fluctuations: this with compact fusion (kind of like the Manhattan project, not yet operational), the Great Green Fleet, aviation bio-fuels, etc.

There was more, but you get the point.

2. US patrol engaging Taliban who hid behind structures and walls, unable to get kills and air strikes taking too long to get there:

- I proposed and got the XM-25 designed, built and deployed to resolve this.
- fielded a number of high tech solutions with drones which would do same.
- changed strategy according to the "Mount and Blade" game of defending outposts and cities

it worked great. US fatalities are so low that it is safer for Americans in Afghanistan than for pedestrians in Aspen.

The Taliban attacked fortified camps and outposts... and thus got systematically slaughtered... try breaching the castle wall in Mount and Blade and you'll get the idea.

So what is the proper counter strategy for the Taliban? It's easy: don't attack American outposts and camps at all... attack Americans when they are off base and aren't wearing body armor. Basically the Taliban would have to change their strategy from war fighting to HUNTING Americans until they get a kill rate of about 200 a month. Terrorist attacks don't work. Those who perpetrate these terrorist attacks against civilian soft targets to intimidate, never get to repeat them: they get caught or killed.

The Taliban strategy to attack civilian convoy supply lines in Pakistan was correct, but they never adjusted to my "Mount and Blade castle defense strategy". The tactics that the Taliban should be pursuing are Mafia style assassinations of Americans... not terrorist attacks. Those who develop the BEST SKILLS and get highest kill rates, would get to fight on and produce better results as well as train others. Sniper attacks work too. I think the Taliban should study the tactics of the French and Polish insurgencies in WWII, manned with professional soldiers and the sniper tactics of the Finns when deferring Soviet aggression in the Winter War... winter being the key here: it is a GREAT ADVANTAGE, yet for the Taliban it's a vacation from fighting. Why?