bobdina
05-06-2010, 06:53 AM
Lawmaker: Afghanistan FOBs lack protection
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 5, 2010 17:44:14 EDT
The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee charged Wednesday that the Obama administration is shortchanging force protection capabilities in Afghanistan.
In response, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Paxton, the Joint Staff’s director for operations, acknowledged a lag in the deployment of critical “eyes and ears”-type assets to Afghanistan as the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops continues into early fall, but said more are on the way, both from Iraq and in the form of new equipment and additional personnel.
The concerns voiced by Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., were underscored later in the day when the Government Accountability Office published Pentagon figures showing that enemy attacks in 2009 increased by 75 percent over the previous year, to a total of more than 21,000. Officials have maintained that more attacks are a natural outgrowth of rising U.S. and NATO troop strength and its new strategy aimed at retaking enemy strongholds.
“It’s my understanding that there continues to be a serious indirect fire threat to U.S. and coalition forward operating bases in Afghanistan,” McKeon said. “Yet the current force protection systems that protect FOBs in Iraq are not deployed to protect FOBs in Afghanistan. This is disconcerting, especially given the fact that we have evidence that such capabilities have saved hundreds of lives in Iraq.”
He also noted that most U.S. troops now operate outside Iraqi cities.
Paxton disagreed with that threat characterization, saying that most casualties in Afghanistan are caused by direct fire — roadside bombs and small-arms fire from sources such as rocket-propelled grenades.
Figures from the independent website iCasualties.org bear him out. A total of 316 U.S. troops died last year in Afghanistan and 109 have died in the first four months of 2010. Of the U.S. deaths last year, 275 were caused by roadside bombs.
McKeon asked why there is such a disparity in the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles between Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that 80 unmanned aerial vehicles are dedicated to direct support of the Army in Iraq but only about 50 in Afghanistan.
“You still need extra eyes and ears out there [in Iraq] because you don’t have the physical presence on the ground,” Paxton said. “So we’re trying to strike the balance between how quickly we can draw down in Iraq and then how much we build up in Afghanistan. Some of it is the transition of forces from one theater to the other; in other cases, we need them in both, so we’re procuring more” in the form of additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities such full-motion video, electro-optical and infrared.
Paxton acknowledged a “lag” in the transfer of such assets from Iraq to Afghanistan.
But forces in the two war theaters, he said, get equal consideration for supplemental combat assets or “enablers.”
“Our analysis and assessment of force protection is no different, regardless of the theater,” Paxton said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_afghanistan_force_protection_050510w/
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 5, 2010 17:44:14 EDT
The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee charged Wednesday that the Obama administration is shortchanging force protection capabilities in Afghanistan.
In response, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Paxton, the Joint Staff’s director for operations, acknowledged a lag in the deployment of critical “eyes and ears”-type assets to Afghanistan as the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops continues into early fall, but said more are on the way, both from Iraq and in the form of new equipment and additional personnel.
The concerns voiced by Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., were underscored later in the day when the Government Accountability Office published Pentagon figures showing that enemy attacks in 2009 increased by 75 percent over the previous year, to a total of more than 21,000. Officials have maintained that more attacks are a natural outgrowth of rising U.S. and NATO troop strength and its new strategy aimed at retaking enemy strongholds.
“It’s my understanding that there continues to be a serious indirect fire threat to U.S. and coalition forward operating bases in Afghanistan,” McKeon said. “Yet the current force protection systems that protect FOBs in Iraq are not deployed to protect FOBs in Afghanistan. This is disconcerting, especially given the fact that we have evidence that such capabilities have saved hundreds of lives in Iraq.”
He also noted that most U.S. troops now operate outside Iraqi cities.
Paxton disagreed with that threat characterization, saying that most casualties in Afghanistan are caused by direct fire — roadside bombs and small-arms fire from sources such as rocket-propelled grenades.
Figures from the independent website iCasualties.org bear him out. A total of 316 U.S. troops died last year in Afghanistan and 109 have died in the first four months of 2010. Of the U.S. deaths last year, 275 were caused by roadside bombs.
McKeon asked why there is such a disparity in the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles between Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that 80 unmanned aerial vehicles are dedicated to direct support of the Army in Iraq but only about 50 in Afghanistan.
“You still need extra eyes and ears out there [in Iraq] because you don’t have the physical presence on the ground,” Paxton said. “So we’re trying to strike the balance between how quickly we can draw down in Iraq and then how much we build up in Afghanistan. Some of it is the transition of forces from one theater to the other; in other cases, we need them in both, so we’re procuring more” in the form of additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities such full-motion video, electro-optical and infrared.
Paxton acknowledged a “lag” in the transfer of such assets from Iraq to Afghanistan.
But forces in the two war theaters, he said, get equal consideration for supplemental combat assets or “enablers.”
“Our analysis and assessment of force protection is no different, regardless of the theater,” Paxton said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_afghanistan_force_protection_050510w/