Comments on: MATVs Not Best for COIN Ops

By: Djohn

Djohn — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:25:36 +0000

I have to agree with Rhyno. The South Africans have some damm good MRAP style of vehicles and they are easy to swap a damaged axel and so on. But with the NIH (not invinted here) syndrome the US has.They will not give it a chance. I was a Combat Advisor and being on the ground is great but you can also get killed pretty quick. It would be good to be able to get out too.

By: schlappy

schlappy — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:33:06 +0000

No disrespect to the Col., but I think this is clearly one of those “well, duh” type articles.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:45:11 +0000

The S. Africans have a load of vehicles that are mine resistant and all-terrain. Look at thier tanks, APC’s etc. Its OK to copy off people who KNOW wat they are doing.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:43:02 +0000

Wat a bunch of happy horse shat. You wanna get guys killed coz of this? My God…

By: mark

mark — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:52:05 +0000

By open, maybe something like the Ramta
RBY MK-1 is what he met.

By: Gabriel Vermeulen

Gabriel Vermeulen — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:30:46 +0000

This vehicle look much like the South Africa Mamba. If it has the same structural strenght and ability to withstand landmine blasts and IED’s, it will be good for the protection of the troops. If there is holes for every soldier to shoot from like the Mamba, it can be used as buckup for the troops doing foot patrols.

The Angolan war was COIN all the way. The development of the vehicles used in that war, started at the beginning of the war. It was developed and proven in battle.

By: solomon

solomon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:06:25 +0000

No what I mean is that hearts and minds has migrated into women’s issues and cultural change instead of realizing that they are different. The truth of the matter is quite simple. It is a masculine, and by western standards, backwards culture. To attempt to police them as we would a western nation involved in a civil war is wrong. Have you ever wondered about the history of the modern day COIN strategy? I contend its very roots lay in the backdrop of the American civil war. With that in mind, would you attempt to use modern COIN strategies to stop that conflict? No because the issues would remain and you would have an occupying force. Pacifist wanted more discussion, negotiation etc…that just pushes the problem to a future day of reckoning. Sorry but the Marine Corps style of COIN would have worked but taken many years to accomplish and would have required that the entire military be oriented toward war in SE Asia when a peer competitor was building and equipping for a conflict. It was an untenable philosophy. Sorry but this dawg don’t hunt.…time to get real, get tribal and get out.

By: A. Friend

A. Friend — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:13:48 +0000

>this push to win the hearts of these cultures is a mistake

I could not disagree more. We cannot and will not be able to affect positive change in these areas without hearts and minds. Not unless you’d rather one of the two alternatives which include pulling out in defeat or genocide.

In Vietnam the Marine Corps did a version of COIN styled on Enclave building where they would capture, hold and secure territory before moving on. The Army, at the time, was more interested in killing gurrillas than winning hearts and minds. However the Marine method meant more enemy kills and fewer civilian kills over time. Fewer civilian kills meant fewer future enemies.

An argument against COIN would be the amount of manpower it requires. COIN is meant to be local. Afghanistan is huge (magnified by the difficulty crossing the mountains). It has a large population. Going by the COIN manual the force needed for the doctrine to be effective is greater than 600,000.

When you say that they respect rough, up-close violence it sounds like you are suggesting we should use that firepower on the civilian population because, you explain, they are primative and just don’t get the talky-talk nature of COIN. Well, I find that disturbing and wrong.

The Afghans don’t want to be victimized by the Taliban or Al Qaida. Yet they are victim to them both from their weapons and tactics but also their propaganda. Everytime we kill someone not of the insurgency we make that propaganda more powerful.

How does this all relate to this vehicle? It sounds to me like they want to use it like a police car and roll into an area with the windows down and chat with people. While I think talking to people is important I think keeping soldiers safe is more important.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:26:53 +0000

Maybe they think bicycles would better to you know, hang with the locals? Or maybe skate boards for hanging ten with the locals?

By: solomon

solomon — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:16:53 +0000

This hearts and minds thinking will get our people killed. Primitive societies (sorry to the PC crowd but these are tribal communities) respect martial attributes. Firepower, rough-up close violence and this push to win the hearts of these cultures is a mistake. Feminization of the military. Wanna now when the last time we tried variations on these themes? VIETNAM! First we fought the war for the south, then we tried to win hearts and minds, and finally we wanted to allow the Vietimization of the war. It all failed. Now look at what we’re doing. Early on we tried to fight for the Afghans, next we’re trying to win hearts and minds…and later this year we’re trying to get the Afghans to get more involved in the war. Same war different location, same results. We’re so F*c*ed with our current leadership, I’m actually getting mad.

By: Ahem

Ahem — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:49:14 +0000

»Hmmm. Not that I am a counterinsurgency expert but it seems that a frequent interaction between the locals and the Americans involves gunfire. With that being the case, an enclosed vehicle sounds good.

Yea, that struck me as a bit odd. Presumably, the M-ATVs have doors so if they come upon folks who aren’t shooting at them they can, ya know, get out.

By: Charles D Phillips, LtCol, USAF (Ret)

Charles D Phillips, LtCol, USAF (Ret) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:05:26 +0000

Hmmm. Not that I am a counterinsurgency expert but it seems that a frequent interaction between the locals and the Americans involves gunfire. With that being the case, an enclosed vehicle sounds good. The troops appear to do a lot of foot patrols, maybe the armored vehicle could follow them to provide backup.