How U.S. Special Forces Are Losing the War in Afghanistan By Marc Garlasco

When I was picking targets for the Iraq invasion as chief of high-value targeting for the Pentagon, collateral damage was a side issue. We treated civilian deaths like a fire drill: When they happened, it was seen as a media problem to be dealt with, not a sign we might need to change our procedures. Today, however, protecting civilians is taken as seriously as killing the target. When civilians are killed, Afghanistan commanding Gen. Stanley McChrystal apologizes on Afghan national television and the military investigates. Casualties in this latest offensive in Marjah were down nearly 30 percent from previous operations as a result.

After years of constant offensive operations, the U.S. military finally understands the negative impact of dead civilians. They cause riots, they undermine confidence in the government, and they boost distrust of foreign forces -- all things that could ultimately lose the war. Yet despite general success in cutting civilian casualties, a Feb. 21 airstrike that claimed an estimated 27 Afghan civilians shows that one group in the military still needs to be reined in: Special Forces. Most civilian deaths are now caused by this one subset of the armed forces. As the rest of the armed forces change around it, Special Forces needs to catch up.

Between 2007 and 2009, the majority of civilians killed in U.S. airstrikes died when Special Forces summoned a strike to support them during what is called a TIC, or "troops in contact" -- that is, contact with the enemy. Special Forces are designed to be small, mobile units. When they come into contact with the enemy, it is often an unexpected or unequal circumstance, where they are caught off guard and find themselves outnumbered. In scenarios like that, they frequently believe they have few options other than to call in an airstrike. Knowing this, U.S. commanders have begun requiring troops to withdraw when possible rather than get into a protracted firefight that could claim civilian lives. McChrystal's latest tactical directive restricts the use of air power for the same reason.

Oddly, the Feb. 21 incident was not a TIC -- and that's what makes it so jarring. Initial reports indicate that a U.S. Special Forces helicopter was tracking a convoy of Afghan buses when it was alerted to the potential movement of Taliban forces. The information came through a signals intercept. (Hopefully the military had more than single-source intelligence; when we pulled the trigger in Iraq based only on phone calls, civilians typically paid the price.) Whatever intelligence the military did or didn't have, it turned out the trucks were carrying civilians, including women and children.

It is too early to know to what extent U.S. forces had performed a pre-strike "pattern of life" analysis, wherein they observe a target to determine if it is civilian in nature (a recent innovation and something we never did in Iraq in 2003). Nor do we know whether they completed a collateral-damage estimate. But what does seem clear is that no U.S. forces were ever directly in danger, so options other than air power should have been on the table. Special Forces could have called in to other supporting troops with the aim of capturing the enemy. The military could have followed these on-the-run Taliban to even more Taliban. Instead they chose to fire.

This wasn't the first time Special Forces have killed civilians in internationally minded territory. Back in 2007, Britain asked U.S. Special Forces to leave the part of Helmand province they patrolled because of the Americans' overreliance on airstrikes and high civilian deaths, both of which the British found to be undermining the war effort. In several of the embassies that I visited in Kabul, I heard diplomats comment that it was time to reign in the Special Forces "cowboys."

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

NORM OLSEN

10:44 PM ET

March 3, 2010

Collateral Casualties

Marc Galasco's article is a sad but welcome and long overdue acknowledgement of what those of us who have worked in the field have long known. Collateral deaths from U.S. strikes are vastly costly to our war -- and peace -- efforts and are a prime generator of insurgents. In the early years of our two current wars, DoD was more concerned with aping the collateral-casualty-heavy tactics of the Israelis, on the grounds that the Israelis were the (self-proclaimed) experts in counterinsurgency. Had those many DoD visitors to Israel and the West Bank in the run-up to the Iraq invasion stopped to chat with those American officials experienced in the conflict, they might have been prompted to ask the following question: If the Israelis are such pros at counterinsurgency, how is it that they have managed to keep the insurgency there going for 62 years?

A separate article today cited the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs calling for an enhanced role for the State Department, and for more resources for State and USAID, on the grounds that DoD is carrying too much of the load and is not equipped for many of the tasks that it has had to take on. He's right. State needs more resources, and it also needs a massive cultural change to advance into the 21st century. That said, DoD needs to recognize that State officers who have spent years in the field learning the cultures of their host nations can provide valuable insights that can save lives and advance USG interests. For example, instead of circulating to his commanders and their staffs State's Future of Iraq Project (FoIP) report, which was generated over months by some 110 State regional experts and which identified most of the potential problems that eventually arose -- Don Rumsfeld ordered it shit-canned and barred FoIP staffers from serving in the Coalition Provisional Authority.

SF RETIRED

11:53 AM ET

March 4, 2010

First off I wish to clarify to use of the term Special Forces. It has become interchangeable with Special Operations and is constantly misused in the wrong context. There is only one unit within the Department of Defense (DoD) that is called Special Forces (SF), affectionately known as the Green Beret’s. They’re an element within the U.S. Army that falls under the umbrella of the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Although since the creation of SOCOM which includes all branches of the DoD Special Operations units’, the term Special Forces has become blurred with Special Operations. This is unfortunate because many civilian and military confuse the names when describing units and certain incidents that occur involving a Special Operations mission which can be detrimental to the units that are mislabeled.

As a retired Special Forces soldier with 24 years of service, I know firsthand what consist of an SF unit and one misnomer is that SF has organic aircraft assigned as part of its war chest. To correct this there is so such animal as a Special Forces helicopter. There may be air support platforms which are assigned to support an SF mission but at the end of the day they do not belong to any Special Forces Group.

Next I want to say, the fact that only conventional military officers that have no clear idea what the Special Forces doctrine and mission consist of call SF “cowboys”. The primary mission of an SF ODA is to train, equip, advise and lead into combat foreign military unit’s to conduct Foreign Internal Defense (FID). No one knows better the culture of the country it is involved with and the impact on their actions, hence the term “Warrior Diplomat”.

There are many so called experts and arm chair quarterbacks that sit back and pass judgment on the actions of the men that are on the ground having to make a split second decision that could cost lives both civilian and the members of their team. I have seen the enemy using civilians as shields while they conduct ambushes and other types of attacks to either cause a force not to pursue or as a Psychological Operations campaign to sway public opinion in their favor if civilian casualties occur even if it is by the hands of the enemy. The enemy does not abide by any rules set forth by the Geneva Convention or moral standards by which many western societies follow.

To many times our leaders make apologies before all facts of an investigation are completed as in the case of the fuel tanker incident that claimed the lives of civilians in late 2009. Gen McCrystal immediately apologized for the action without knowing all of the facts. The Taliban had stolen fuel trucks possibly be used as Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED) and were trying to cross a river bed when one vehicle became stuck. To lighten the load so that it could be moved, the Taliban went to a nearby village and gathered support for this effort by either intimidation or the full support of local villagers. Although over 70 confirmed bodies were identified as Taliban the damage of a premature apology had already been done. After surveying the local civilians in the area the common consensus was, although there may have been some civilians killed in the incident the blow to the enemy outweighed the damage. Many said, finally something is being done to stop the Taliban.

The enemy are constantly testing and learning our tactics by intentionally placing civilians in harm’s way to observe how close they can get to our soldiers. If there is a civilian casualty then it also helps them in a Psychological Operations campaign, so they win no matter what. It is still not known why buses were speeding to an area that was conducting a major campaign. The enemy could have been testing the response to see if reinforcement could be sent by the same mode of travel. There are allot of what if’s that could be mentioned but the fact is that whoever made the call felt that it was the right thing to do at the time.

The human side of this incident is the one responsible will always wander if he did the right thing. Most of the men in Special Forces are married with children and have the highest moral compass of anyone I have ever met. To blindly think that they are machines with a cold heart is completely untrue. Because they are assigned to an SF Group for far longer than there conventional brothers, these men are involved in youth sports activities, school boards, Boy Scout Troop’s and respected members of their communities. I only wish that the majority of American’s had the traits of these individuals and acted as “Quite Professionals”.

“De Oppresso Liber” To Free the Oppressed

RBB

11:15 PM ET

If only there were any

"That said, DoD needs to recognize that State officers who have spent years in the field learning the cultures of their host nations can provide valuable insights that can save lives and advance USG interests."

Most CDRs in the field in A-Stan have a great partnership with their DoS reps -- I think your info is dated.

But I would also note that almost ZERO DoS reps (or any other members of the civilian plus up) know anything about Afghanistan when they get there.

Not saying they don't learn, but it is OJT. In fact military members who are frequently on their thirds tours, including some to Afghanistan, come in knowing a lot more about the culture, history, and politics of the host country than State Reps do.

All that being said, if you didn't know that SF operate in a high-handed, overly kinetic way, you haven't been paying attention. Same story in Iraq: unnecessary explosive breaches, kicked in doors, arrests with no evidence, only to be dropped off at the nearest landowning unit to "sort out". And guess who used to command the CENTCOM SOF forces, protecting and explaining away their actions?

ERIC_STRATTONIII

12:52 PM ET

The Article and Ducky are way off

Ducky, you are hardly qualified to distinguish what is needed on target and what is not. Explosive Breachs are designed to shock and surprse the enemy, not kill them. The fact that you think they needed "evidence" to go to those doors shows me you do not know what you are talking about in regard to how much has to be done to hit a target and what goes into it. Since 2006, Warrants are usually needed and in 2004-05, asking guys to do that at the time is just silly and not based on reality.
The writer of the article is so out of touch with reality that it is almost comical. One, no SOF unit can just call in an Air Strike without making sure no civies are around if they do it better be UBL to justify it and since 2007 they have been pretty restricted into the distance a building must have around it before they can all in a strike as is the distance of civilians from ANY CAS op. The article is totaly hogwash and I think based on a total lack of knowledge to what is acutally going on and has been going on in Afghanistan with regard to SOF Troops. The writer needs to either update his facts or go back to a TOC before he continues to write slliness that is just not the case of what is going on or how things are actually done.
FP just lost a lot of points in allowing an outdated "expert" to comment on something he knows little about for Afghanistan.

4:21 PM ET

Sorry Ducky, saw RD not RBB,

That post was directed at RBB, he does not know what he is talking about, etc..

11:21 PM ET

Clarifying

About DoS Reps -- most of them are contracted employees, and not true Foreign Service Officers. That doesn't mean they aren't good people, but don't assume they have the same level of experience and training as actual FSOs.

FLITCRAFT

10:36 AM ET

Killing civilians

Reducing the number of murders of civilians in the occupied country of Afghanistan is not something that should be entrusted to General Stan (the-death-squad-man) McChrystal, who, after all, as head of Joint Special Operations Command was in charge of that activity.

Do you really want to reduce "collateral damage"? If so, get out of Afghanistan.

BLACKSHYLD

11:28 AM ET

What then?

You think civilian casualties will end with the end of US and coalition involvement? Then you are horribly mistaken are really don't care. The Taliban isn't above slaughtering innocence and will not be inclined to show mercy to any one who even looks like they have worked with international forces.

Their civil internal problems didn't end with the Soviet Occupation, it just got worse why would now be any different?

Never mind the larger impact, Al-queda gets its safe haven back and also would be able to boast that they expelled a super power from Afghanistan. This would be a boon for recruitment because than that just proves their efforts are not futile.

There is far more to lose than to gain by withdrawing prematurely for us or the Afghans.

MOHAIR.SAM

12:36 PM ET

But we won't be blamed for their deaths ...

A continual rallying cry/recruiting tool used by al Qaeda et al. are deaths caused by American troops, justly or not. Simply by being there (and Iraq, and in Saudi, and in Yemen) we inflame Arab opinion. Which is why we should stop the bleeding, economically and militarily, and pull out.

So what if AQ or the Taleban claim victory? So did Saddam after the '91 war. Didn't have much of an effect then, and it won't now. Let 'em claim all they want. The longer we stay and continue to burn through money we have borrowed from China (and we're utter fools if we think there are no policy implications there!), the more completely we fulfill AQ's goal of bleeding us dry. They can afford to keep this insurgency going indefinitely, no matter how many times we launch surges or offensives. Simple matter is this: We can't station enough troops to cover all of Afghanistan indefinitely. They know that. So we're hoping to dampen their fighting spirit enough to get 'em to quit. They won't. It's a loser's game.

AQ and their allies already have safe havens all over the world. One more in Afghanistan won't make an appreciable difference (particularly since Pakistan's FATA serves the same function). I do hope and pray we aren't planning on invading every nation on earth that hosts Muslim extremists. On the other hand, if we do, it'll bring an end to the U.S. Imperium sooner rather than later, and if that's what it takes, so be it.

1:09 PM ET

The last I checked we are in

The last I checked we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi, and in Yemen by the request of the host nations to help with the internal problems they are experiencing. What is inflaming Arab opinion is the negative news that is published not the positive. I don’t know what information you have received weather it is from personal knowledge or second hand information but I have been to all of the countries you have mentioned by the request of those countries.

We made a huge mistake by abandoning the Afghan's once the Soviets withdrew. The country went through various sub wars between Warlord's and eventually controlled by a fanatical group called Students of Islam (Taliban). Merely sticking our heads in the sand hoping that everything will get better is a fairy tale.

The presence of American's within Muslim countries is not what is causing the problem. It is the fanatics that use this as a platform for hate. Afghan's are not Arab and many consider themselves Arian. American's are called infidels but so are the local Muslim interpreters, police and soldiers that are trying to help take back their country from invading insurgents from Pakistan (Taliban) and their sympathizers killing indiscriminately with car bombs and suicide vest in civilian market places.

1:40 PM ET

SF Retired

Don't bring the real world and reality into this topic, the author ignores as it do many posters, FLITCRAFT and others have no idea about anything really going on in those places except what they get from "Mother Jones" and "The Democratic Underground". FLIT CRAFT seems to compare selected targeting of TB and AQ leaders which leave little if any collateral damage to the Right and Left Wing Death Squads of Central and South America. Like the old saying goes, "some peole you just can't reach"

FLAK65

11:42 AM ET

Garlasco

"most recently was senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch."

So that gig is now totally over is it?

At least you still have your SS jacket that "makes your blood run cold".

Next time avoid online chats with guys who quote Mein Kampf is their signatures and you might do somewhat better.

12:57 PM ET

Garlasco is a poser and I doubt he was even picking targets for

any real SOF units, he at best worked in a fusion center that gathered intel, he did not pick targets, that is not in his lane that IS in the lane of people who actually do the job, the SOF Operators. His data and his facts are so off on Afghanistan that if he was back on AD he would be up on charges for outright lies on a report. The fact that FP let him print this blatant crap is amazing to me.

WILDTHING

1:36 PM ET

Get Out!!!

We could admit to using Afghanistan as a toy in our not so covert proxy war with the Soviet Union having Congressional approval of stingers and all that.
Admit that Carter knew he would be helping lure them to occupy the country to protect the secular feminist friendly marxist govt. admit that 30 years later they are still suffering miserably and the best they can hope for is that eventually we roll out of there like Russia did. then get ready for a return of the Russian Olympics...

1:46 PM ET

Wow

Wow, all I can say is wow.

5:45 PM ET

Kunino

The slaying was by an American pilot in an American plane, dropping an American bomb -- but at German request. This is the only correct statement within your comment. It is the commander on the ground that makes the call to have bombs dropped. If you think that pilots are dropping bombs on their own authority you are sadly mistaken.

The Coalition is comprised of several countries for example: Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Mongolia, Korea and of course America. It is in fact the Americans that have the majority of forces and support available in Afghanistan but many if the allies are providing valuable forces in the fight against the Taliban.

Furthermore the enemy are not a unified military that wear uniforms and distinguish themselves as a military force, rather wear civilian clothing, drive civilian vehicles as an un-conventional guerrilla element. We are not at war with a nation's military that can be easily identified. Maybe you should travel to these areas of the world and see for yourself rather spout off this nonsense of misinformation.

SEANROSSI

9:48 PM ET

lousy HVT chief in 2003 gets a forum in 2010?

I'm not sure GARLASCO and the morons at DIA's HVT cell hit a single legit target in 2003 --- they did kill scores of civilians -- missed Saddam several times, missed chemical ali, missed RG commanders left and right.

I think he could give some solid advice for NOT conducting kinetic targeting from remote fusion centers against targets that have would have dubious effect on the enemy's center of gravity.

I don't think he has much to add to current operations and the role of kinetic strikes in counterinsurgency ops in AFG. It's a shame Foreign Policy saw fit to allow him to comment on an operation that he knows little of; outside of press reports and his 2007 dip circuit run in Kabul....give me a break.

This guy was a lousy intelligence officer and targeteer; too bad you gave him a forum because the topic of kinetics is relevant and timely.

2:39 PM ET

March 5, 2010

FP should ashamed for posting Garlasco's nonsense

Garlasco has not been in the loop for over 5 years, has a bone to pick considering who he worked for (HRW), implies he picked HVT targets when that is not the way the system works and then seeks to lecture the SOF Troops on how they go about CAS when he obviously knows nothing about the ROEs or use of CAS since they have gotten more restrictive every year. CAS, since at least 2007', is hardly used in any shape or form that he says the platform is used but no matter, he seems to make things up as he goes. Mr. Garlasco is either borderline telling lies to advance a cause, going off old info that does not tie into OEF and todays battle or he is truly just one of the most ignorant and self loving writers I have seen for FP so far.

SFMEDIC

10:35 AM ET

March 9, 2010

Mr. Garlasco enjoy your life as a Sheep.

"ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS"
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Mr. Garlasco, I was in the Helmand in 2007. It was not civilian that were being killed. Unless you call 75 armed men attacking an SF team with small arms, IED's, machine guns and RPGs civilians! This was a very common occurrence in the Helmand. The British thought that the SF personnel were too aggressive. Well now, we wouldn't want to be aggressive in war would we? Or defend ourselves from the civilians that were working hard to kill US soldiers? In this safe place, since 2007 the Helmand has grown increasing more violent. Have you noticed the major push by the US Marines in the Helmand? Do you think that those who chose to stay and fight in Operation Moshtarak were innocent civilians? Do you really believe it when the Taliban says that we killed civilians? Why don’t you go speak with them about all of the civilians that they kill? No matter what you type and print, there are enemy in Afghanistan.

USAF-USN-USSF CIV CONTRACTOR 8-06-PRESENT

11:31 PM ET

March 13, 2010

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Has anyone forgotten how we got where we are in the Middle East? It started a very LONG time ago. Green Berets, AFSOC, SEALs and SOPD-D do the best with the resources they have available. Yes, mistakes are made. It's WAR. Bad things happen to good people who are simply at the wrong place and time, period. I've worked alongside each above listed element. Are they aggressive in defense of their brothers in arms when things get dicey? Yep! That's what they LIVE and endured fierce training for. The debate should be about who's qualified to weather the strategy at the top levels of both military and govt (CIA), not the men who put it on the line daily. "Cowboys"... I'm sort of fond of that term, maybe "Silent Cowboys" would gel with our PsyOps cadre? I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's getting worse with IEDs and that's what I work with. Night suppression ops worked for a short time until the rats got tired of being picked off 2 or 3 at the time as they almost completed an IED setup. WAR is about evolution, yes we need to evolve our strategy and tactics, but isn't it better than stateside attacks?... I hope we are all on the same side here in this forum... It's a bitter pill to swallow when women and children die. Do you want it going on in our streets, if we aren't aggressive enough over there? By the way, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but has anyone thought about having to use our 2nd Ammendment Rights here for Homeland Security?... I guess we would ALL be Cowboys, or dead... I'm sure there's no shortage of hunters who are tired of killing deer, elk, moose and bears in this country anyway. I think we should ramp up the SFOF to about 75,000 and get done with the worst of it sooner, than later. Yes, there are that many badasses in this country who would get the job done. WAR is never over anyway, it's just a matter of moving on. You gentlemen know what other threats we face. We will continue to train warriors and shed blood, until God gets fed up with it and puts an end to it all. Yes, I'm a Christian and not ashamed of it in any way shape or form. Thanks for your services to our great nation... 'Fratres Usque Ad Aram Fideles'... Knights Templar motto, as well as Kappa Alpha Order, which Im honored to be a member of. God Bless you all!

1:43 PM ET

March 14, 2010

Just To Follow Up On A Few Thoughts

The USA has endured many ups and downs, largely because of political policy or correctness, if I may. Some say get out... Then what, rely on Natural Selection to thin the heard?... Any which way from Sunday that we look at it, yes it's akin to all the other wars we've fought since 1776... Alot of brave and courageous men and women have given their lives so we can sit back a debate who is right?!... OK, say we back down and bow out... What happens next?, any great ideas?... Retrain SF, SOPs as cashiers for WalMart or tire retred tecnicians... My point is they chose their career and then were selected through one of the best vetting systems around... A high degree of Danger! We've always learned how to better approach new ops, from mistakes made during prior engagements. We've been failed countless numbers of times by men in suits (civ govt) and military commanders, not by the men on the line... Never! Never do they drop weapons and run away when they've been setup for slaughter by poor intel and lack of upper brass planning. They stand and fight until they run out of ammo and have to use enemy weapons or hand to hand combat... Go in theater and get some of what's going down under your belt, then come back home and sit at your computer and critique their actions of what's still called a battlefield, gentlemen. Some of you have been there before and you know it's like 5th Grade PE class, right?... Yeah, that's it. Author this and author that, but the only authentic people involved are planning ops to defend you and I... Right Now!... Welcome to The Jungle... Don't be afraid to volunteer for duty, they will give waivers to anyone with a heart of courage, go ahead... Take the leap the SF and SOPs have... Hell, then you will know who YOU are!!! I bet you would unload a clip on a suspicious group if indigenous people who appeared to pose a threat within one week... Get real or watch our country become a battleground at home.

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

How to Cut Collateral Damage in Afghanistan

Rein in the Special Forces cowboys, and let Gen. McChrystal call the shots.

BY MARC GARLASCO | MARCH 3, 2010

(21)