Afghanistan War News & Discussions

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Since there isn’t an Afghanistan thread I thought I'd start one.

With NATO/Coalition casualties rising by the day, earmarked by the 10 French KIA earlier this week, serious questions are being raised on the wars long term outlook. I have a few questions that will hopefully stimulate discussion on this vital issue.

• What is happening on the ground in the ‘ghan?
• Is the west making any ground on the Taliban insurgency?
• What is behind the surge in Taliban activity?
• Is the resignation of Pakistani president Musharraf having an effect?
• Is NATO’s strategy fundamentally flawed?
• Do NATO have sufficient boots on the ground to do the job?
• What would failure mean for the alliance?

[Topmaul]

You can rule Afghanistan as long as you leave the opium alone, I think we all know that. I am suprised you did not mention opium it is the economy in Afghanistan, not attempting to deal Opium production made our occupation so far pretty easy compared to what the Soviets had to deal with.

[merocaine]

Well I guess first off is that things have been on the slide for a while in Afghanistan. The main reason is the looonggg border with the Pakistani tribal regions. Almost impossible to police.
The weakness of the Afghan Government has to be added to the mix. In the South and Parts of the East of the Country there regarded as the enemy, not a viable government. Its authority extends only to the main cities.
The Taliban itself has retrained, changed tactics, and is proving an adaptable foe, and a skilled propagandist.
It is also misleading to think of them as a single organization, there are many elements involved, drugs, local warlords, Al Queada, Pakistanis from the Tribal belts, local Pashtun, forigen fighters, Uzbeks, Chechens, ect.

There is also the failure of the Nato force. Quite frankly pathetic. Half the troops are kept out of the war zone. The other half are trying to police a hugh area without any long term success. There use of air strikes has also managed to drive the population further into the hands of the insurgency.

One the plus side, the North and east of the Country are unlighty to ever fall to the Taliban itself, but there is the possiblity they could fall even further under the control of local warlords and criminals.

The Taliban tactics show little concern for Civilians, and will eventually cause resentment, even among there own.

The Americans appear committed, and are in for the long haul. I can see them now taking the lead, since Nato seems incapable of exerting control of the situation.

[Chrom]

The Americans appear committed, and are in for the long haul. I can see them now taking the lead, since Nato seems incapable of exerting control of the situation.

This is only half the truth - the REAL truth is most NATO countries feel US pressured and trapped them in Afghanistan against they will. This is main reason why US efforts in Afghanistan meets so little help among major NATO countries like Germany.

Formally, they agreed to help. But practically - they dont want this war.

[kato]

True; although most major NATO armies have at least one brigade stationed down there.

There's also that additional feeling that the US bailed out of the Balkans, and left Europe to pick up the scraps, claiming "it's your thing" - somewhat at least. It does give thought about a reciprocal movement, ie. "well, it's your war, not ours" with regard to Afghanistan.

[Chrom]

True; although most major NATO armies have at least one brigade stationed down there.
That why they feel itself trapped.

There's also that additional feeling that the US bailed out of the Balkans, and left Europe to pick up the scraps, claiming "it's your thing" - somewhat at least. It does give thought about a reciprocal movement, ie. "well, it's your war, not ours" with regard to Afghanistan.

Also partially true - but only partially. Actually, "old" EU will be more than happy if US completely bails out of the Balkans. The main EU concern here - US doing something in american (national) interests - but most rising problems and expenses fall mainly on EU side.

[eaf-f16]

A day after the 10 French paratroopers were killed, an additional 8 ISAF troops were killed in one day. Earlier that week 25 French troops were wounded in battles with Taliban fighters.

The Afghan government is corrupt and inefficient at the district and provincial levels. The Taliban is basically the local government in many parts of Afghanistan. It collects taxes and enforces the law in these areas. It even runs courts, prisons and settles disputes between tribes and families. This type of stability and order goes a long way in ensuring the loyalty of locals in the areas in which there is little ISAF or government presence. A lot of this "loyalty" also comes from the Taliban's heavy-handed tactics against anyone who dares break the rules and laws they put in place.

The Afghan National Army is well trained and motivated and is progressing very well. The Afghan National Police are badly trained and equipped and have a very high-causality rate representing the vast majority (well over half) of security forces killed from 2007 to 2008 (this includes ISAF deaths).

Illegal drug production has more than doubled over the past 5 years and is major source of income for the Taliban, war lords and criminals. The Taliban are also collecting money from the marble trade.

There has been a 34% increase in "kinetic events" this year alone. The uncertain political situation in Pakistan makes it hard to predict how and to what degree Pakistan will co-operate with the US and NATO on Afghanistan in the future. Right now, there is almost nil coordination/cooperation between the Afghan and Pakistan governments and militaries.

There is, right now, a troop shortage in Afghanistan. The US hopes to offset NATO's unwillingness to commit more troops by doubling the size of the ANA and sending an additional 15,000 troops.

The ISAF's command structure is not a coherent one (but I read an article about the US solving this soon) and there isn't any good coordination between ISAF and ANA and political and humanitarian organizations.

This what I got from doing some quick (and superficial) research on the current situation in Afghanistan. I'll put up some better analysis/info later on.

[radiosilence]

There's also that additional feeling that the US bailed out of the Balkans, and left Europe to pick up the scraps, claiming "it's your thing" - somewhat at least. It does give thought about a reciprocal movement, ie. "well, it's your war, not ours" with regard to Afghanistan.



A stable Afghanistan is very much in Europe's interest since most of the drugs from Afghanistan make their way into Europe. Also, a number of foiled terrorist plots on Europe have orginated from Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.

[jimmyboy]

You will never win a war with half hearted attempts. The current Afgan war is nothing more than a half attempt by NATO to defeat Taliban/Al-Qida. US/NATO want to show the world that they are fighting terrorists in Afganstan but they have limited the capacity of the ground commanders by curtailing the number of ground troops. Also Afgan war can never be won till NATO/US troops go into the NWFP of Pakistan and remove Taliban training camps there.

[Sampanviking]

Nobody has queried the possible effects of the Georgian crisis on Afghanistan I notice, this is a little amiss, given that Afghanistan is another sore point in the East West relationship.

On the 28th Russia will meet with its SCO allies at the Heads of State conference in Dushanbe and I for one am very interested in what Russia will press for and indeed what the attitude of China will be once the Olympics are all out of the way.

I think Russia will exert considerable pressure on Kyrgyzstan to close the US base on its territory. I am also curious to see how China reacts to the loss of its friend Musharrif of Pakistan.

There are also questions to Iran’s application for SCO membership (and Pakistan’s for that matter).

What had until last month seemed a fairly quiet and routine meeting could now be potentially quite exciting.

[kato]

Also, a number of foiled terrorist plots on Europe have orginated from Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.

Which please? Other than occasional previous training in Afghanistan having come in, the suspects in such acts are usually the same "kind" of subjects - locally integrated immigrants or converts from traditional immigration countries to their respective countries, such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon or Jamaica. In fact, Al Quaeda wasn't even in the command chain for such events.

[Chrom]

A stable Afghanistan is very much in Europe's interest since most of the drugs from Afghanistan make their way into Europe. Also, a number of foiled terrorist plots on Europe have orginated from Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. In that case they should have leaved Taliban alone.

[Chrom]

You will never win a war with half hearted attempts. The current Afgan war is nothing more than a half attempt by NATO to defeat Taliban/Al-Qida. US/NATO want to show the world that they are fighting terrorists in Afganstan but they have limited the capacity of the ground commanders by curtailing the number of ground troops. Also Afgan war can never be won till NATO/US troops go into the NWFP of Pakistan and remove Taliban training camps there.

Afganstan war cant be won by force anyway. Even if NATO kills each and every Taliban / tribe member (genocide anyone?) - this will not help. Next day NATO pulls out there will be thousands "terrorists" screaming for revenge.

Only total education bounded with greatly increased life standards can win the war.

[Topmaul]

I think we should use Agent-Orange on the Opium fields and quit screwing around with it.

[eaf-f16]

Afganstan war cant be won by force anyway. Even if NATO kills each and every Taliban / tribe member (genocide anyone?) - this will not help. Next day NATO pulls out there will be thousands "terrorists" screaming for revenge.

Only total education bounded with greatly increased life standards can win the war.

Education should be a secondary priority right now (I know this sounds bad).

If the goal is to "defeat" (this is never going to really happen) the Taliban then the main priorities should be solving the governance issues, solving the very serious problems with the Afghan National Police, and significantly enhancing the ANA's and ISAF's presence in the regions which border Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP).

ISAF and the Afghan government should also make significant efforts to try to coordinate their efforts with the Pakistani military and government (instead of alienating them by staging cross-border raids and saying they support terrorism). Otherwise, this is never going to work.

This will eventually (a few years from now) lead to the "defeat" of the Taliban (weakening to the point were it can no longer mount continuous/significant attacks on SF's and is reduced to acts terrorism).

I think we should use Agent-Orange on the Opium fields and quit screwing around with it.

Isn't that illegal now?

[radiosilence]

Which please?


Al-Qaeda plotters sentenced

The court heard that Trabelsi, 33, met al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden several times in Afghanistan and asked to become a suicide bomber.


There was heavy security at the courthouse
He says he was ordered to go to Belgium, pack a bomb into a lorry and blow it up - with him at the wheel

bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3150594.stm)

[radiosilence]

In that case they should have leaved Taliban alone.

Do you consider the Taliban rule of Afghanistan stable when they host terrorist training bases openly?

[Chrom]

Education should be a secondary priority right now (I know this sounds bad).

If the goal is to "defeat" (this is never going to really happen) the Taliban then the main priorities should be solving the governance issues, solving the very serious problems with the Afghan National Police, and significantly enhancing the ANA's and ISAF's presence in the regions which border Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP).

All this is nearly impossible. Afghan National Police police is to great extent plagued by spyes/realtives/followers/etc of Taliban / Warlord tribes. It cant be used in any independent activity, and any plans relayed to it will be instantly known to Taliban/etc.

ISAF and the Afghan government should also make significant efforts to try to coordinate their efforts with the Pakistani military and government (instead of alienating them by staging cross-border raids and saying they support terrorism). Otherwise, this is never going to work.
Afghan government dont control much, it is just another NATO-friendly tribe between many others. Noone deals with weaklings.


This will eventually (a few years from now) lead to the "defeat" of the Taliban (weakening to the point were it can no longer mount continuous/significant attacks on SF's and is reduced to acts terrorism).
I explained why it is nearly impossible to achieve...

[Chrom]

Do you consider the Taliban rule of Afghanistan stable when they host terrorist training bases openly?

They host these bases now as well - may be not so openly, but they have more members crying for revenge instead. Also, obviously, the ten-fold increase in narcotic production (which btw mainly go to EU, while Afghanistan is mainly US affair) - speak to itself.

Btw, "terrorist" training bases are too biased words. For Taliban they just trained soldiers to protect they land. While Taliban was official government, there was very good chance these soldiers would never leave Afghanistan, or at very least not at much higher rate than from many other countries - like Saudi Arabia.

Generally, it is much better when main enemy is official power. Then it can be pressured by many ways, and it carries responsibility for own folk. It is much worse than such strong enemy is unofficial power - it have no responsibility, no stops then.

[eaf-f16]

All this is nearly impossible. Afghan National Police police is to great extent plagued by spyes/realtives/followers/etc of Taliban / Warlord tribes. It cant be used in any independent activity, and any plans relayed to it will be instantly known to Taliban/etc.

Afghan government dont control much, it is just another NATO-friendly tribe between many others. Noone deals with weaklings.

I explained why it is nearly impossible to achieve...

Most people in Afghanistan are not Taliban sympathizers because unlike other militant groups in the Muslim world they put their ethnicity and tribal traditions first and everything else (including religion) second.

It is not impossible to defeat the Taliban aren't a popular movement at all in Afghanistan. They aren't like Hezbollah, Islamic Army of Iraq, Chechen rebels, etc. whom have wide and solid support in their respective countries and areas of operation.

It is impossible to defeat them completely because they do have some popularity in the NWFP (which is relatively lawless) because the people there are ethnic Pashtuns (same ethnicity as Taliban) with roughly the same ideology and traditions as the Taliban.

But NATO doesn't have to worry at all about informants in the ANP or ANA since they are usually anti-Taliban (the ANA much more so than the ANP).

The problems with the ANP aren't Taliban-sympathizing related. They lack in numbers, training and equipment (mainly numbers and training, though)

They host these bases now as well - may be not so openly, but they have more members crying for revenge instead. Also, obviously, the ten-fold increase in narcotic production (which btw mainly go to EU, while Afghanistan is mainly US affair) - speak to itself.

Btw, "terrorist" training bases are too biased words. For Taliban they just trained soldiers to protect they land. While Taliban was official government, there was very good chance these soldiers would never leave Afghanistan, or at very least not at much higher rate than from many other countries - like Saudi Arabia.

Generally, it is much better when main enemy is official power. Then it can be pressured by many ways, and it carries responsibility for own folk. It is much worse than such strong enemy is unofficial power - it have no responsibility, no stops then.

I thought Afghan heroine mainly go to Iran and Pakistan.

Anyways, even when the Taliban was the official power, it couldn't care less what happened to its people. The Taliban's tribal traditions encourage backwardness and isolationism. So, any outside pressure like sanctions and isolation are actually good for the Taliban.

And to the Taliban, their fighters are neither terrorists or soldiers. They are the guys that keep the Taliban's leaders and tribes protected and in a position of power. The Taliban isn't a "people's movement" because it favors some tribes and ethnic groups over others.

[andrei]

nobody, ever, was able to conquer afghanistan.
this is a statement from a russian film about the war in afghanistan.
The talibans - afghans - are just using a different rythim and tactic. they will never try to attack in force a group of western troops. they will just retreat and wait.
a quick reaction force , western style, with helicopters, and heavy equipment and firepower, will always be meet by retreat. but on the other hand how long can the western power fight ? and stay ? one year ? five ? ten ? some pashtouns revenge journeys are based on 100 years feud. does any one realistically see western troops still in agfhanistan in 20 years ? with 70,000 troops on the ground now, the west is unable to win because 2/3 of these soldiers have strict orders to stay on their basis and only defend themselves. the war cannot be won because 20,000 western troops actively fighting the talibans cannot win. and 100,000 soviet troops with no regards for civilian casualties were not enough . french public, canadian public, and all western public opinion are fed up with this war. in 5 years they will be gone

[kato]

Trabelsi planned to attack a military base; legitimate target, not terrorism. The "poor man's cruise missile" and all that.

The rest was a pretty standard judicial treatment of an exposed underground cell.

[kato]

does any one realistically see western troops still in agfhanistan in 20 years ?
The German government is planning with that kind of timeframe (15-20 years), yes.

[andrei]

i don t see many germans troops willing to fight in afghanistan. i m no german but i believe that the german public will not accept heavy casualties resulting from active fighting. the reason why the french paratroopers were killed this week was that they went on patrol in villages, trying to enforce a western presence. before them the italians and the americans would nt do it, they would just stay in their basis and send some tanks on the road and planes above. well as long as the west is planning all humanitary aid and training for ANA the talibans will continue to gain ground. in the last 2 years in afghanistan the russians /soviet army was mostly confined to their basis and the result was that there were lower general casualties number and more attacks and more specific deadly fights when these occurred.

[Chrom]

But NATO doesn't have to worry at all about informants in the ANP or ANA since they are usually anti-Taliban (the ANA much more so than the ANP).

The problems with the ANP aren't Taliban-sympathizing related. They lack in numbers, training and equipment (mainly numbers and training, though)
Taliban is not they only problem. Various local warlords also. As i said, Afghanistan government is basically just another warlord tribe, somewhat more "civilized" due to official status and NATO influence. But this is not real independent power.


I thought Afghan heroine mainly go to Iran and Pakistan.
Lol! You really think Iran or Pakistan population have nearly enough money to buy that? No, nearly 90% of narcotics flow in EU and Russia. Thats why some wild conspiracy accusations about US involvement are so popular.

Anyways, even when the Taliban was the official power, it couldn't care less what happened to its people. The Taliban's tribal traditions encourage backwardness and isolationism. So, any outside pressure like sanctions and isolation are actually good for the Taliban.
Hard to tell. Usually such views turned to be out just propaganda, based on some exaggerated properties. Either way, Taliban still unofficiale rule pretty hefty chunk of land in Afghanistan.

And to the Taliban, their fighters are neither terrorists or soldiers. They are the guys that keep the Taliban's leaders and tribes protected and in a position of power. The Taliban isn't a "people's movement" because it favors some tribes and ethnic groups over others.
Just as any national power. Like f.e. Albanians in Kososvo, like Serbs in Serbia, even like Poland... Yes, it is not fully comparable examples. But US friendly Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates are already almost the same as Taliban.

[kato]

i m no german but i believe that the german public will not accept heavy casualties resulting from active fighting.
Germany isn't really that low there. Compare not so much to USA/UK/CA, but the other various battlegroups in the south - especially Netherlands and Denmark.

Killed due to hostile action, more than ten:

USA - 361 (out of 507)
UK - 86 (out of 116)
Canada - 81 (out of 92)
France - 19 (out of 22)
Germany - 14 (out of 26)
Denmark - 14 (out of 17)
Netherlands - 11 (out of 16)

[radiosilence]

They host these bases now as well - may be not so openly, but they have more members crying for revenge instead.

They might have more members crying for revenge but its a lot harder to execute a terrorist attack now that they can't plan and train as freely as they did during the Taliban regime.

Btw, "terrorist" training bases are too biased words. For Taliban they just trained soldiers to protect they land
I wasn't refering to Taliban "soldiers" . Al Qaeda training bases.

[radiosilence]

Trabelsi planned to attack a military base; legitimate target, not terrorism. The "poor man's cruise missile" and all that.

The rest was a pretty standard judicial treatment of an exposed underground cell.

See Djamel Beghal network. Financed by Bin laden and plan to attack American interest across Europe.

Do think an unstable Afghanistan and Fata is a threat only to the US?

[kato]

Quite seriously? It was rather stable before NATO went into it. 90% under stable Taliban government, only the North, consisting largely of formerly Soviet-supported local warlords was mucking up a bit.

Al Quaeda only used Afghanistan as one of their principal bases. There's more than enough places in the world where they can hold their training, or base their staff out of.
Real terrorist groups have never really been restricted to a particular powerbase, and have, at least in the past 40 years, always been internationally networked.

The difference is that Europe actually has experience dealing with such networks, hence why maybe the "threat" is perceived as less dangerous.
The US hasn't really had to "deal" with such over the past 40 years, and has pretty much only been "on the map" as a sort of collateral damage due to bases and interests in countries where such networks were active (see e.g.: RAF, 17N, BR). Even the scale is nothing new to Europe really. Al Quaeda's cadre and support base in Europe is laughable compared to what the IRA, ETA or BR in their heighday had, and is more on a scale with "foreign dependancies" of groups such as PKK in Germany or FIS in France.

The networking and interaction between groups is nothing new really too. Back in the 70s the PLO was the big factor there, cooperating with national terrorist groups throughout Europe due to joint interests.

And the European experience - except, notably, for the UK - has been such that military might, or power, doesn't stop such networks. In none of the affected European countries, which have been pretty much all of them. All that leads to is losing your leads on them, through "next generations" springing up.

[Feanor]

The real problem is not enough troops on the ground. There is only one way to deal with it, to bring overwhelming amounts of troops, close all the borders and systematically wipe out all insurgent infrastructure and fighters. Does it border on genocide? Yes. Is it doable? Yes.

[eaf-f16]

The real problem is not enough troops on the ground. There is only one way to deal with it, to bring overwhelming amounts of troops, close all the borders and systematically wipe out all insurgent infrastructure and fighters. Does it border on genocide? Yes. Is it doable? Yes.

It isn't genocide to kill armed fighters and the actions you just described aren't at all doable.

It is a lot more complicated than what you just described and increasing the number of troops is perhaps one of the easier things to do for the US. "Closing all the borders" is something that is never ever going to happen in a country like Afghanistan. The USSR had alot more troops in Afghanistan and they never managed to even reliably monitor, let alone close, the area bordering the NWFP.

[Feanor]

The USSR didn't have enough troops in Afghan either. When I say bring more troops, I don't mean a brigade or two. I mean around 300 000 - 500 000 troops. An amount that can close the borders and control almost all population centers on the ground.

[Sampanviking]

It isn't genocide to kill armed fighters and the actions you just described aren't at all doable.

It is a lot more complicated than what you just described and increasing the number of troops is perhaps one of the easier things to do for the US. "Closing all the borders" is something that is never ever going to happen in a country like Afghanistan. The USSR had alot more troops in Afghanistan and they never managed to even reliably monitor, let alone close, the area bordering the NWFP.

As the armed fighers are mainly the local residents and the Infrastructure is mainly their families, then yes it would be genocide.

Maybe NATO is simply the wrong organisation to be able to deal effectively with the problem and that other; rmore local, Security Organisations would be better placed to pacify the country?

[swerve]

The networking and interaction between groups is nothing new really too. Back in the 70s the PLO was the big factor there, cooperating with national terrorist groups throughout Europe due to joint interests.

And the European experience - except, notably, for the UK - has been such that military might, or power, doesn't stop such networks. In none of the affected European countries, which have been pretty much all of them. All that leads to is losing your leads on them, through "next generations" springing up.
1. The IRA briefly co-operated with FARC, in Colombia.

2. The UK only used the military in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain*, dealing with the IRA was done by the police & military intelligence working together.

*Plenty of IRA bombs here. I've been (unknowingly at the time, of course) within a few metres of at least two, here in Reading, & the local police were once given an unexploded one by a petty thief who stole a bag, & only found out when he got it home what it contained. :D His mother convinced him that the police wouldn't care about him having stolen the bag, & called them.

[Chrom]

They might have more members crying for revenge but its a lot harder to execute a terrorist attack now that they can't plan and train as freely as they did during the Taliban regime.


I wasn't refering to Taliban "soldiers" . Al Qaeda training bases.

Both work just as freely as before. 90% of Afghanistan territory is not controlled by NATO or Afghanistan government. Moreover, Al Qaeda is purely a creature of US propaganda. They was just marginal terrorist group among many others before 9/11, they (most likely) had little to do with 9/11 as well. Now, if course, with such PR Al Qaeda became one of largest terrorist groups worldwide.

[kato]

1. The IRA briefly co-operated with FARC, in Colombia.
As well as PLO and the Lybian secret service back in the days, and (suspected) also with ETA.

2. The UK only used the military in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain*, dealing with the IRA was done by the police & military intelligence working together.
True. Well, to express it another way - IRA was the only case (other than maybe FIS and PKK, but those are outside Europe) where a military approach confined to a defined mission area was remotely successful in any way.

One other group hunted with military means - and, notably, with members executed by firing squad as "military opponents" - was FRAP in Spain in the last years of Franco's dictature and the first years under his successor.

Moreover, Al Qaeda is purely a creature of US propaganda. They was just marginal terrorist group among many others before 9/11
Al-Quaeda essentially became big with the Taliban - the Taliban needed military advisors and training staff, and AQ was one of a number of groups that "joined up" essentially. Previous to that, sure, AQ performed some terrorist attacks nominally, but these were essentially performed by local groups affiliated in various ways with AQ.
These groups training Taliban in AFG essentially found together around '98, and jointly performed the first big strike (Kenya/Tanzania), followed by the first open warfare between these groups and the US with the cruise missile strikes on their camps.

[Feanor]

As the armed fighers are mainly the local residents and the Infrastructure is mainly their families, then yes it would be genocide.

Maybe NATO is simply the wrong organisation to be able to deal effectively with the problem and that other; rmore local, Security Organisations would be better placed to pacify the country?

Bingo. Nobody in the west has the stomach for winning this war. The price tag on that victory is seen as unacceptable. As a result the war is a compromise effort between those who want to fight and those who aren't willing to pay the cost for victory. :(

[Chrom]

Al-Quaeda essentially became big with the Taliban - the Taliban needed military advisors and training staff, and AQ was one of a number of groups that "joined up" essentially.
.
I'm somewhat skeptical about that. Taliban was trained by US / NATO - i think they still had enough expertise for that. I doubt Al-Quaeda could add much. Though i agree they used each other in mutual interests - AQ got some bases and requiting, Taliban some friendly (terrorist) group they could use abroad.

[Grand Danois]

I'm somewhat skeptical about that. Taliban was trained by US / NATO - i think they still had enough expertise for that. I doubt Al-Quaeda could add much. Though i agree they used each other in mutual interests - AQ got some bases and requiting, Taliban some friendly (terrorist) group they could use abroad.

While the Mujahedin and various warlords did recieve funding, weapons and training by CIA/ISI and KSA, the Talibs have never gotten anything from the West.

[kato]

And most warlords and mujahedeen quite naturally weren't on the Taliban's side, but only on their own. Quite often they switched sides as opportune at the time.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, about the only major warlord currently opposing the occupation, was actually fighting against the Taliban until his forces were ripped apart in the sweeping attacks, forcing him into exile in Iran.

Haqqani, the other warlord on the Taliban side at the moment, switched over to the Taliban in 1995, and is the one major player on the Taliban side who had fought as a US-supported mujahedeen against the Soviets.

The Taliban per se weren't really formed in the 80s yet. At that time they were a number of relatively disorganized Pashtun bands.

[Chrom]

While the Mujahedin and various warlords did recieve funding, weapons and training by CIA/ISI and KSA, the Talibs have never gotten anything from the West.

The Taliban was just one of these warlords tribes (yes, somewhat more religious than the rest) back then - and they received training & funding from CIA/ISI etc on common basis. In early 90x they got major support from Pakistan - which, in turn, was partially controlled & supported by US. A

As KATO also said, later they assimilated many other warlords - which also earlier were trained by CIA/etc.

[Grand Danois]

??? The Talibs took part in ousting the Soviets?

[kato]

Not as a group. A few individual groups from Pashtun areas that later became part of the Taliban did.

[SABRE]

The Taliban was just one of these warlords tribes (yes, somewhat more religious than the rest) back then - and they received training & funding from CIA/ISI etc on common basis. In early 90x they got major support from Pakistan - which, in turn, was partially controlled & supported by US. A

As KATO also said, later they assimilated many other warlords - which also earlier were trained by CIA/etc.

Taliban was/is not a tribe (there is no such Pashtoon or Afghan tribe). The word Taliban means Student (it is ironic how they blow up schools though). When Afghanistan was in a civil war in post Soviet Invasion time groups of religious minded (rather people who think they were religious) from Madarssa's (religious schools - hence the name Taliban) formed this organization and by 1996 took most of the Afghanistan.

The commanders of Taliban were the same people who fought Soviets under religious slogans. Note: Not all Jihadis were extremists, ie. Ahmed Shah Masud. We can say Masud's war was more of a Nationalist war.

US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & rest of the party decided to support the religious groups more then the nationalists & that was the greatest mistake. (However, Masud recieved significant support).

[SABRE]

While the Mujahedin and various warlords did recieve funding, weapons and training by CIA/ISI and KSA, the Talibs have never gotten anything from the West.

Taliban did not exist during Soviet war - so of course they couldn't get any weapons from the West.

After the war the Mujahedins ceased to exist also - since there was no Jihad left to fight. Pashtoon religious Mujahedin Commanders & few Mosque Mullahs (with no education and understanding of Islamic laws) went on to form Taliban (which tended to follow more of a mountain law under the shadow of Islamic Laws).

[SABRE]

Just to add my views on the war, since I live right across the border from Afghanistan.

1. US was supposed to go after Al-Qaida not Taliban, instead US started to focus on Taliban instead of Al-Qaida. The greatest Strategic mistake ever in the history of war in the new millennium and century.

2. US took support from Norther Alliance which is non Pashtoon, while Taliban were pre-dominantly Pashtoons as is Afghanistan. The disloging of Taliban brought in resentment from Pashtoon majority against the US.

3. US helped imposed Tajik and Uzbek dominated government on Afghanistan making things even worse.

Note: Today non-extremists Pashtoons also fight along side Taliban. Afghans are very stong Nationalist as well as ethno-nationalists.

3. US did not seek help from anti-Taliban religious (moderate) groups from the Islamic world, especially from Pakistan. This strengthened the concept of US wanting to take over Muslim world. Today non of these anti-Taliban groups want to give Fatwah (Surmons) against Taliban as they no longer see it religious war but Nationalist War.

Note: Gulbadin Hiqmat Yaar (former Afghan ruler) who resented Taliban take over in 1996 is now a supporter of Taliban.

4. Regardless of Pakistan curtailing & restraining itself from Afghanistan's internal affairs, US should have taken Pakistan in confidence before establishing any sort of government in Afghanistan. Especially before making Karzai the President.

5. Afghan issue can never be solved without the full involvement of following states:

i. Pakistan (Prime)
ii. Iran (Prime)
iii. Uzbekistan (Prime)
iv. Tajikistan (Prime)
v. Turkmenistan (Prime/Secondary)
vi. China (Prime/Secondary)
vii. Russia (Secondary)
viii. US (Secondary)

The Uzbek President did give a formula for these nations. However, he excluded US from it (unofficially saying 'things can get worse with their participation.')

6. US should properly manage its relations with Pakistan over Afghanistan, Taliban and Pakistan's tribal areas. Knowing that its Pakistani sea ports that provide access to US to send & receive goods for its army in Afghanistan. - Afghanistan should also realize their future is dependent on Pakistani ports since they are landlocked.

[Sampanviking]

I trust that Item 5 should read "without" instead of with?

If so I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the views of the Uzbek President.

[SABRE]

I trust that Item 5 should read "without" instead of with?

If so I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the views of the Uzbek President.

Yes, correction made.

[Chrom]

Taliban was/is not a tribe (there is no such Pashtoon or Afghan tribe). The word Taliban means Student (it is ironic how they blow up schools though). When Afghanistan was in a civil war in post Soviet Invasion time groups of religious minded (rather people who think they were religious) from Madarssa's (religious schools - hence the name Taliban) formed this organization and by 1996 took most of the Afghanistan.

The commanders of Taliban were the same people who fought Soviets under religious slogans. Note: Not all Jihadis were extremists, ie. Ahmed Shah Masud. We can say Masud's war was more of a Nationalist war.

US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & rest of the party decided to support the religious groups more then the nationalists & that was the greatest mistake. (However, Masud recieved significant support).


I know all that. And i agree - while Taliban as whole didnt existed (or was almost non-existent) during Soviet times, the peoples who later becomes Taliban - fought against Soviets, and were trained by CIA/ etc. And that is what matters. PEOPLES, not name tickers.

[Chrom]

Just to add my views on the war, since I live right across the border from Afghanistan.

1. US was supposed to go after Al-Qaida not Taliban, instead US started to focus on Taliban instead of Al-Qaida. The greatest Strategic mistake ever in the history of war in the new millennium and century.

Agree, with some correction - going purely against Al-Qaida and picturing it as something special was also mistake. It wasnt unique group. And still is not.

To get positive result, US should start active operations against ALL terrorist like group, and stop supporting ALL terrorist-like groups, even US-friendly ones. Without such move it is nearly useless to fight that multi-headed hydra.

2. US took support from Norther Alliance which is non Pashtoon, while Taliban were pre-dominantly Pashtoons as is Afghanistan. The disloging of Taliban brought in resentment from Pashtoon majority against the US.

3. US helped imposed Tajik and Uzbek dominated government on Afghanistan making things even worse.
Did US had a choice once they started to move against Taliban? Yes, they probably had. But that would have required much, much more understanding and diplomatic skill than US was willing to commit.

Note: Today non-extremists Pashtoons also fight along side Taliban. Afghans are very stong Nationalist as well as ethno-nationalists.

3. US did not seek help from anti-Taliban religious (moderate) groups from the Islamic world, especially from Pakistan. This strengthened the concept of US wanting to take over Muslim world. Today non of these anti-Taliban groups want to give Fatwah (Surmons) against Taliban as they no longer see it religious war but Nationalist War.
Yes, it is mistake. Although, pretty understandable one.


6. US should properly manage its relations with Pakistan over Afghanistan, Taliban and Pakistan's tribal areas. Knowing that its Pakistani sea ports that provide access to US to send & receive goods for its army in Afghanistan. - Afghanistan should also realize their future is dependent on Pakistani ports since they are landlocked.

Right now very substantial part of supplies for NATO in Afghanistan goes through Russia. Russia can any time refuse military transit throu own territory. That is why it would be such pita if Russia abort NATO cooperation.

This is just another very important reason why NATO is so cautions to do any real move to damage Russia-NATO relations.

[merocaine]

To get positive result, US should start active operations against ALL terrorist like group, and stop supporting ALL terrorist-like groups, even US-friendly ones. Without such move it is nearly useless to fight that multi-headed hydra.

Hummm, why would the US want to involve itself in every petty conflict on the planet!
Would'ent be better to conduct a cold eyed analysis of their interests and proceed from there?

Great Post Sabre by the way!

[eaf-f16]

Taliban is not they only problem. Various local warlords also. As i said, Afghanistan government is basically just another warlord tribe, somewhat more "civilized" due to official status and NATO influence. But this is not real independent power.

You know, that's what people used to say about the Iraqi government but as soon as it had confident and capable army at its disposal (which the ANA is quickly becoming) the Iraqi govt became very independent in its actions.

Hard to tell. Usually such views turned to be out just propaganda, based on some exaggerated properties. Either way, Taliban still unofficiale rule pretty hefty chunk of land in Afghanistan.

I'm really not exaggerating when I say that the Taliban is isolationist and backwards.

The USSR didn't have enough troops in Afghan either. When I say bring more troops, I don't mean a brigade or two. I mean around 300 000 - 500 000 troops. An amount that can close the borders and control almost all population centers on the ground.

Where is the US going to get 300,000-500,000 troops?

The US doesn't even need that many troops. That's why they always talk about a troop increase almost as if it is a secondary thing. Primary goals should be increasing the capabilities and confidence of the national security forces there. But like I said, this isn't really a military problem and more of a governance problem. The security force that need serious improvement is the ANP and if they become a capable force, they can greatly enhance security in Afghanistan.

Maybe NATO is simply the wrong organisation to be able to deal effectively with the problem and that other; rmore local, Security Organisations would be better placed to pacify the country?

That's is why ANA needs the proposed troop increase (50%) and the ANP need both an increase in numbers and much better training. Other wise, the US can never hope to get out of Afghanistan (or at least come out of it with a "victory").

While the Mujahedin and various warlords did recieve funding, weapons and training by CIA/ISI and KSA, the Talibs have never gotten anything from the West.

That's because they didn't exist back then. The people who later formed the Taliban had receive training and weapons from the US.

[Grand Danois]

That's because they didn't exist back then. The people who later formed the Taliban had receive training and weapons from the US.

Hmm. I thought that the Taliban emerged from an ideological movement that emerged after the Soviet withdrawal, ie - the Taliban themselves never got anything from the West, though the warlords and ex-Mujahideen which later joined had.

The Talibs were new on the battlefield.

[SABRE]

Agree, with some correction - going purely against Al-Qaida and picturing it as something special was also mistake. It wasnt unique group. And still is not.

Al-Qaida "was" a unique group. They did not meddle in the affairs of Taliban & did not manage a mass number of militant force in Afghanistan. They were more like decision making body in Afghanistan while their terror acts were carried out by someone outside Afghanistan. Remember almost all of their terror acts were conducted by Arabs & not Afghanis.

Mullah Omar was only giving Osama a place to live in & he did not mind Bin Laden's Jihad as long as Bin Laden financed him & did not meddle in his affairs. (This policy of Mullah Omar was open to all who called him 'friend').

Those who have interviewed Al-Qaida leaders personally say that they were/are surrounded by body guards & there is no sign of them having large army. So this builds a perception that Al-Qaida was not running Afghanistan but had merely turned Afghanistan its hide out & capital to make decisions in. However; after the Afghan invasion it is hard to differenciate between Al-Qaida & Taliban now. Large local force has also joined their camps --- nevertheless Al-Qaida remains a unique group "With in Afghanistan" as it is run by Arabs.

To get positive result, US should start active operations against ALL terrorist like group, and stop supporting ALL terrorist-like groups, even US-friendly ones. Without such move it is nearly useless to fight that multi-headed hydra.

Disagree. Otherwise US would have to go against the Northern Alliance (NA) also. Their recorded atrocities are much worse then the Taliban. Rape & looting runs in their soldiers. That is why when the Taliban disloged General Rashid Dustam from various parts of Afghanistan people welcomed Taliban with applause back in 1996-97.

Now with Taliban already US enemies, if US turns against NA it will only take a week for NATO troops to crumble down. NATO would not be facing a single boody of command but multiple. I.e: Taliban, Uzbiks, Tajiks, Turkman, Hazaras, Afghan-Persians etc. It will be a huge mess since they would be fighting US as well as themselves.


Did US had a choice once they started to move against Taliban? Yes, they probably had. But that would have required much, much more understanding and diplomatic skill than US was willing to commit.

Tell me if I am misinterpretation but the last line would imply that US was not really willing to commit to a broad based pro-active strategy prior to war & just wanted to jump in with all the weapons into a land which is unwelcoming not only to foreigners but also to its own people.

I would call it greatest blunder of the history after the Soviet Invasion.

Yes, it is mistake. Although, pretty understandable one.

How is it understandable one? I know the draw backs of it - it could have easily back fired but want to know your perception.


Right now very substantial part of supplies for NATO in Afghanistan goes through Russia. Russia can any time refuse military transit throu own territory. That is why it would be such pita if Russia abort NATO cooperation.

This is just another very important reason why NATO is so cautions to do any real move to damage Russia-NATO relations.

You have got Russia & Pakistan as two access points (although Russia is not geographically connected to Afghanistan) & NATO is ruining relations with both.

If you loose Russia I doubt that the Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan would be of much help. Their leadership is Russia dependent as well as pro-Russia.

You loose Pakistan, the whole thing goes in wain. There is already a huge public outcry in Pakistan not to support US strategy as it is a failure, it challenges Pakistan's sovereignty, it is against Pashtoons & above all Islam/Muslim World. & this is not coming from religious parties or extremists but the 'big moderates.'



AFGHAN MAFIA:


Another thing that US-NATO made a mistake on is failure to recognize & curb the "Afghan Mafia" comprising on former/current criminals, drug lords, human traffickers, smugglers etc ... They people provide aid & support to Taliban (Also man power) so US is busy fighting them (Taliban) while they easily slip out from behinds.

This Mafia has a strong influence & criminal support in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, China (Xinjiang), several parts of Russia & even Iran as well (though Iran is the only country they are reluctant to enter since Iranians border law calls for the immediate killing rather then sending them arresting them & sending them to courts). Else where they get killed their people carryout revenge operations.

This mafia must be dealt with in broad Afghan strategy.

Note: Previously (before the invasion) Taliban had curtailed this mafia & had made it virtually inactive.

[SABRE]

Hmm. I thought that the Taliban emerged from an ideological movement that emerged after the Soviet withdrawal, ie - the Taliban themselves never got anything from the West, though the warlords and ex-Mujahideen which later joined had.

The Talibs were new on the battlefield.

You are saying the same things a eaf-16. But let me clear out a little.

Taliban [the organization] did not exist during Soviet war but its future commanders were involved in the war. They received weapons & training from US & Pakistan, including the 'stinger'. When the war ended they had nothing much to do. Many turned back to their Madrisas. During the Afghan civil war these people regained their influence. Mullah Omar became the so called spiritual head & formed the Taliban. All the veteran commanders linked with religious schools joined in but unlike other groups in Afghanistan they had youth (young students from Madrisas) in their army.

Taliban = Students.

Others were still marching with their old commrades & busy fighting each other. The least civilized of the non-Taliban commanders being Rashid Dustam & the well civilized being Ahmed Shah Masud. But if it wasn't for their ethno-nationalism they wouldn't have lost Afghanistan so soon to Taliban. Taliban turned ethno-nationalists & sectarians once they came to complete power.

[radiosilence]

Just to add my views on the war, since I live right across the border from Afghanistan.

1. US was supposed to go after Al-Qaida not Taliban, instead US started to focus on Taliban instead of Al-Qaida. The greatest Strategic mistake ever in the history of war in the new millennium and century. The Taliban was given a choice to cut ties with al queda which they refuse to do. The Taliban had to be taken down since they were the govt. of Afghanistan which was hosting a terrorist group that attack the US. They weren't going to stay on the sidelines and let the US attack al Queda.

2. US took support from Norther Alliance which is non Pashtoon, while Taliban were pre-dominantly Pashtoons as is Afghanistan.
It was mistake not to give the Pashtuns a bigger role in governing the Afghanistan. Karzai is Pashtun however he is seen as an outsider to the Pashtuns.





4. Regardless of Pakistan curtailing & restraining itself from Afghanistan's internal affairs, US should have taken Pakistan in confidence before establishing any sort of government in Afghanistan. Especially before making Karzai the President.
Agreed, Karzai has no credibility. Pakistan's interest has to be acknowledge and respected in order to bring some sort of stability to Afghnistan.


6. US should properly manage its relations with Pakistan over Afghanistan, Taliban and Pakistan's tribal areas. Knowing that its Pakistani sea ports that provide access to US to send & receive goods for its army in Afghanistan. - Afghanistan should also realize their future is dependent on Pakistani ports since they are landlocked.
This is more the responsiblity of the Pakistani govt. to use this as leverage.

[Grand Danois]

Sabre,

I think we agree on what happened (though ISI also had their hand in it). I just don't accept that the "Americans created Taliban", which some have implied.

[radiosilence]

Right now very substantial part of supplies for NATO in Afghanistan goes through Russia. Russia can any time refuse military transit throu own territory.
Its limited to nonlethal supplies.

[merocaine]

Stuff like this does not help the Nato/US cause in Afganistan, cue another couple of hundred recruits for the Taliban...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/world/asia/24afghan.html?em

Why they continue to use airstrikes against civilian structures is beyond me.
This is happening with depressing regularity. Blaming it on the Taliban is not a solution.

[Chrom]

Al-Qaida "was" a unique group. They did not meddle in the affairs of Taliban & did not manage a mass number of militant force in Afghanistan. They were more like decision making body in Afghanistan while their terror acts were carried out by someone outside Afghanistan. Remember almost all of their terror acts were conducted by Arabs & not Afghanis.

There was a lot of similar terrorist groups in our world. How Al-Qaida is unique here?

Thats what i tried to tell - if America wouldnt PR Al-Qaida with all they media might, it would remain just another Arabs terrorist group - among others. If US somehow manage to destroy Al-Qaida and kill Bin Landen personally - it will not change anything. Another Arab group(s) will replace Al-Qaida in an instant.


Mullah Omar was only giving Osama a place to live in & he did not mind Bin Laden's Jihad as long as Bin Laden financed him & did not meddle in his affairs. (This policy of Mullah Omar was open to all who called him 'friend').
See? Al-Qaida wasnt unique here.

Those who have interviewed Al-Qaida leaders personally say that they were/are surrounded by body guards & there is no sign of them having large army. So this builds a perception that Al-Qaida was not running Afghanistan but had merely turned Afghanistan its hide out & capital to make decisions in. However; after the Afghan invasion it is hard to differenciate between Al-Qaida & Taliban now. Large local force has also joined their camps --- nevertheless Al-Qaida remains a unique group "With in Afghanistan" as it is run by Arabs.
Of course Al-Qaida didnt ruled Afghanistan. Al-Qaida used it as one of training camps and requiting centers. Probably also as source of income through narcotics.


Disagree. Otherwise US would have to go against the Northern Alliance (NA) also. Their recorded atrocities are much worse then the Taliban. Rape & looting runs in their soldiers. That is why when the Taliban disloged General Rashid Dustam from various parts of Afghanistan people welcomed Taliban with applause back in 1996-97.

Now with Taliban already US enemies, if US turns against NA it will only take a week for NATO troops to crumble down. NATO would not be facing a single boody of command but multiple. I.e: Taliban, Uzbiks, Tajiks, Turkman, Hazaras, Afghan-Persians etc. It will be a huge mess since they would be fighting US as well as themselves.
Thats why US cant win that war. All these groups are interconnected in reality - one day they are pro-US, other day anti-US, and most of them care only for themselves anyway and try to please/rob all sides.

As long as there are no strict law and rules FOR EVERYONE - this insurgency will continue. Dividing terrorist to "bad guys" and "good guys" is one of major sources of problems.

Of course, alienating everyone in Afghanistan would mean end of NATO presence there - but to tell the truth, what purpose having these NATO troops there now? Narcotics production (and terrorist income) increased tenfold, terrorist are trained just as before, many Afghanis personally hate and want to revenge US...


How is it understandable one? I know the draw backs of it - it could have easily back fired but want to know your perception.
Remember hysterical US media (and government) response after 9/11? US was not ready to cooperate with less radical groups. Also, these less radical groups would demand more independent role, were also strongly connected to various radical islamic groups, etc. Simply put, US reacted too quickly and additionally experienced "superiority complex" regarding any organizations in region.

This cooperation would have required much more preparation and much less military strikes. Not something Bush administration and neocons are strong at.




You have got Russia & Pakistan as two access points (although Russia is not geographically connected to Afghanistan) & NATO is ruining relations with both.
If you loose Russia I doubt that the Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan would be of much help. Their leadership is Russia dependent as well as pro-Russia.
Exactly. Russia helped/help NATO in Afghanistan affair - that is why the initial operation went relative flawless. Taliban was left without any support, while NATO enjoyed rarely seen international support.

Now, if NATO would abort all military cooperations with Russia - it will raise the cost of NATO troops presence in Afghanistan by a lot. But i dont think NATO leaving Afghanistan is in Russian interests. So some compromises will be made in any case


You loose Pakistan, the whole thing goes in wain. There is already a huge public outcry in Pakistan not to support US strategy as it is a failure, it challenges Pakistan's sovereignty, it is against Pashtoons & above all Islam/Muslim World. & this is not coming from religious parties or extremists but the 'big moderates.'

Yes, thats why Russian support becomes increasingly more important.
Another thing that US-NATO made a mistake on is failure to recognize & curb the "Afghan Mafia" comprising on former/current criminals, drug lords, human traffickers, smugglers etc ... They people provide aid & support to Taliban (Also man power) so US is busy fighting them (Taliban) while they easily slip out from behinds.

This Mafia has a strong influence & criminal support in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, China (Xinjiang), several parts of Russia & even Iran as well (though Iran is the only country they are reluctant to enter since Iranians border law calls for the immediate killing rather then sending them arresting them & sending them to courts). Else where they get killed their people carryout revenge operations.

This mafia must be dealt with in broad Afghan strategy.

Note: Previously (before the invasion) Taliban had curtailed this mafia & had made it virtually inactive.

There is no "united" international mafia. Many local "mafias" are cooperate with each other. This is normal thing, just dont exaggerate they influence on grand scale decisions.

In Afghanistan peoples simply dont have any other income sources except narcotics trade. Cant change that without major education & life standards increase. The only alternative is what Taliban did - strong dictatorship. For obvious reason any strong government there will be Anti-West by nature.

West cant allow that, so they have no choice but support weak government. The road what leads nothere.

[SABRE]

Sabre,

I think we agree on what happened (though ISI also had their hand in it). I just don't accept that the "Americans created Taliban", which some have implied.


ISI had their hands, legs, face, mouth, nose all in it.

Several former ISI officers have said a lot on this stuff. Few interesting things have been extracted.

1st they say they did not create the concept of Taliban but did get involve in its creation. But they do agree they had lot to do with it since they were the only direct party involved.

2nd; US interest was involved. Central Asia had just gotten its independence & there were natural resources to be exploited. However, the the sea rout was via Pakistan & to get these resources via Pakistan ports the resources had to pass through Afghanistan - & Afghanistan was in Civil War. They too were interested in a stable Afghanistan under stable regime. Hence US signaling a silent nod. That is why US did not criticize the Taliban much in the early years. Instead US invited Taliban officials to US in late 1990s.

When a deal was being planned between US, Central Asian States, Afghanistan [Taliban] & Pakistan to extract the natural resources US expected all work to be done by American companies. But the Taliban handed the contract over to an Argentinian company & refused to back off. This is where the ISI says the rift began to grow between US & Taliban. ---> Some see it one of the main reasons for Afghan war.

However, just to your statement: Agreed; Americans did not establish Taliban. They did not participate in its creation (even if they did they didn't do directly) nor were Taliban their idea. But somewhere in between they found it to be a good idea.


Having said all; when did I say US created Taliban? :unknown

[Grand Danois]

Having said all; when did I say US created Taliban? :unknown

You didn't. It wasn't directed at you. ;)

[SABRE]

The Taliban was given a choice to cut ties with al queda which they refuse to do. The Taliban had to be taken down since they were the govt. of Afghanistan which was hosting a terrorist group that attack the US. They weren't going to stay on the sidelines and let the US attack al Queda.

Right. & they called a Majlis-e-Shora (?) which concluded that Al-Qaida members should leave Afghanistan, though we will not use force against them. They were holding their 3rd or 4th meeting when US decided on war instead of pursuing diplomacy. The mistake of the Shora was that they should have used the word "MUST" instead of "SHOULD."

One thing will always remain true for Talibans. Regardless of them not agreeing with you making decisions prior to meetings they never backed off a diplomacy.


It was mistake not to give the Pashtuns a bigger role in governing the Afghanistan. Karzai is Pashtun however he is seen as an outsider to the Pashtuns.

Wont say an outsider but unacceptable. I forgot the name of this person who was supposed to be the caretaking President of Afghanistan after the war (killed by Taliban) who was very much acceptable to all the groups.


Agreed, Karzai has no credibility. Pakistan's interest has to be acknowledge and respected in order to bring some sort of stability to Afghnistan.

Its not just Pakistan who dislikes Karzai. Other neighbouring states (especially Iran) also want his exit. Hiqmat Yaar is gaining good reputation in Iran as well as Pakistan but his support for Taliban is costing him his political carier.

Having said that Pakistan, Iran, US & other Afghan neighbours have no right to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affair. This whole mess it because of interenational presence since the cold war.


This is more the responsiblity of the Pakistani govt. to use this as leverage.

Well leverge if there are good relations, threats if threatening relations. Its only a Real-Politik ain't it?:rolleyes:

[SABRE]

There was a lot of similar terrorist groups in our world. How Al-Qaida is unique here?

Thats what i tried to tell - if America wouldnt PR Al-Qaida with all they media might, it would remain just another Arabs terrorist group - among others. If US somehow manage to destroy Al-Qaida and kill Bin Landen personally - it will not change anything. Another Arab group(s) will replace Al-Qaida in an instant.

Aaee! Than I misunderstood ya.

See? Al-Qaida wasnt unique here.

Well you can't be unique in every department.

Of course Al-Qaida didnt ruled Afghanistan. Al-Qaida used it as one of training camps and requiting centers. Probably also as source of income through narcotics.

I doubt they were using narcotics for their finance. 1) Taliban were against narcotics, 2) Shariya calls against narcotics - if Al-Qaida or Taliban either used narcotics for their finance it would undermine their ideological claims.


There is no "united" international mafia. Many local "mafias" are cooperate with each other. This is normal thing, just dont exaggerate they influence on grand scale decisions.

Well yes that is the problem; there is no unified organization of this Mafia. They are separate entities, hence make the crackdown very hard. They don't make any strategic decisions but their influence is harming strategic decisions of states involved in the War against Terror (WaT).

[Chrom]

Well yes that is the problem; there is no unified organization of this Mafia. They are separate entities, hence make the crackdown very hard. They don't make any strategic decisions but their influence is harming strategic decisions of states involved in the War against Terror (WaT).

The part of problem is as i said "good" terrorists vs "bad" terrorists. Both are involved in various contrabands and narcotic deals - yet some of them are supported by US/West/China/Russia/etc, and some not. This is also part of reason why it is so hard to combat them.

I doubt they were using narcotics for their finance. 1) Taliban were against narcotics, 2) Shariya calls against narcotics - if Al-Qaida or Taliban either used narcotics for their finance it would undermine their ideological claims. Yes, theoretically. But in such sorry state all means are good for them. Supporting narcotics trade (unofficially) will not harm they picture much, but will bring a lot of cash. Contrary, actively opposing narcotics trade now, when they need all local support they can get - will only alienate local population and warlords.

[SABRE]

I Yes, theoretically. But in such sorry state all means are good for them. Supporting narcotics trade (unofficially) will not harm they picture much, but will bring a lot of cash. Contrary, actively opposing narcotics trade now, when they need all local support they can get - will only alienate local population and warlords.

Well you also have to take in account that in Taliban years the narcotics trade was very very minimum. They destroyed almost all the poppy crops. However, some Taliban officials did confess to have used narcotics for financing.

[eaf-f16]

"US, Pakistani militaries devise strategy against growing militancy"

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Top US and Pakistani military officials have met to discuss strategies to contain the growing militant threat along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff Admiral Michael Mullen said Thursday.

Mullen, who led the US side to the talks this week, also said that Pakistan military chief General Ashfaq Kayani had stepped up operations to flush out Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants using the border area as a staging point for attacks in Afghanistan.

"We certainly talked about the complexity of the challenges that we have in the border area, the pressure that we believe needs to be applied there for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the effect it's having on the fight in Afghanistan," Mullen told a Pentagon briefing.

There was "a very clear need from a US standpoint and from the Pakistani standpoint that we have got to figure out a way to get at this problem," Mullen said, in an indication that fresh strategies could be drawn up to combat the rising militancy threat.

Kayani led the Pakistani team to the talks among the top military brass, which also included US General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq who is set to be the senior military officer in the Middle East.

The meeting was reportedly held on a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday.

Kayani "is undertaking operations that were not ongoing a few months ago," Mullen said, cautioning that it could take some time to bring the problem under control.

"I am encouraged that he's taking action and I also think it's going to take some time," he said. "Expectations for instantaneous results are probably a little bit too high."

The meeting came amid increasingly deadly attacks against Afghan and Western targets in Afghanistan following a series of bombings and threats by Taliban-led insurgents trying to drive out the Western-backed government and its allies.

Washington has also been concerned that the Pakistani military had not been doing enough to stem the flow of militants from the Pakistan side of the border used as a staging point for attacks on Afghanistan.

"The meeting was mainly to continue to discuss ongoing operations against extremists in the border region and to work together to find better ways to solve those problems," one US military official who was briefed on the talks was quoted saying by the New York Times.

Last week, at least 10 suicide bombers staged a cordinated attack on one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan and about 100 insurgents ambushed and killed 10 elite French paratroopers in what was seen as the Taliban's most complex and audacious attacks of the war since 2001.

US-led forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 and ousted the Taliban regime for harbouring Al-Qaeda.

Nearly 70,000 international troops are helping the Afghanistan government fight the growing insurgent threat and rebuild its security forces. The Afghan army already takes the lead in some joint operations.

There we go. This is the beginning of the end of a major problem, hopefully. Cooperation and coordination with Pakistani military is vital to the success of Afghanistan. Now, if only the Afghan government starts participating in this type of dialogue with Pakistan instead of alienating it.

By the way, there were reports today that a PAF air strike had killed 22 militants. So, clearly Pakistan isn't just giving lip service (like Karzai tries to make it seem).

[Stryker001]

That matter of Pakistan is a lot more complex than just the militants. Once the general lost his uniform it was effectively a death sentence, recently when he call the President he refused to take his call, a spokesperson said a few words about Musharraf being a good ally.

Since late last year the ISI and other friends of the General have been very busy implementing a plan which has had the affect of destabilizing Pakistan, Kashmir and India the west sees the military operations in the badlands as a sign of success.

It was decided that this was the best way to create a situation in a coup and martial law can be imposed, with once again a military president.

The main reason Musharraf was ousted from power is because he is blamed for supplying the Ayatollah of Iran with nuclear technology.

[eaf-f16]

That matter of Pakistan is a lot more complex than just the militants. Once the general lost his uniform it was effectively a death sentence, recently when he call the President he refused to take his call, a spokesperson said a few words about Musharraf being a good ally.

Well, he plans on living in a luxurious villa inside Pakistan. So, I guess he doesn't feel the same way about his security as you do. It should be noted that the villa will be highly secured, though.

Since late last year the ISI and other friends of the General have been very busy implementing a plan which has had the affect of destabilizing Pakistan, Kashmir and India the west sees the military operations in the badlands as a sign of success.

Really? Even Kashmir and India? I thought he was often credited with moving forward peace initiatives with India and enhancing relations with them.

It was decided that this was the best way to create a situation in a coup and martial law can be imposed, with once again a military president.

I don't understand this part. So, if you care to clarify, that would be great.

The main reason Musharraf was ousted from power is because he is blamed for supplying the Ayatollah of Iran with nuclear technology.

Really?

So, it had nothing to do with interfering with judiciary, greatly increasing the president's powers and turning it into a dictatorial position, arresting opposition figures, not providing Bhutto with enough security (resulting in her death), etc.?

[Stryker001]

Well I would assume that the nuclear matter would have been the greatest issue of the US, not so much the judiciary (Gitmo) or we kill a lot of civilians every day in Afghanistan. The US VP have made his office very powerful over the last two terms, sometimes I wonder who is in charge of the Whitehouse.

India well people speak of the PRC military build while India gets away with it due to its ties with the US. India is not compliant to the wishes of Washington. As can be seen with the matter of India/Iranian relations. If the India/US nuclear deal goes through Pakistan wants the same agreement. Also the General is no longer in control of the ISI, so who really can say about India and Kashmir and the deterioration of stability of Pakistan.

He is safe until they take his security away, safe passage to a non commonwealth country has been arranged.

A coup look at the history of Pakistan the Pakistani Army will allow the dysfunctional Government to operate until it becomes a danger and then a coup.

Don't be surprised that Musharraf reenters politics and becomes the Prime Minister or President in the future, stranger things have happened.

[SABRE]

The main reason Musharraf was ousted from power is because he is blamed for supplying the Ayatollah of Iran with nuclear technology.

Any proof or sources? [Credible one]

[SABRE]

"US, Pakistani militaries devise strategy against growing militancy"

There we go. This is the beginning of the end of a major problem, hopefully. Cooperation and coordination with Pakistani military is vital to the success of Afghanistan. Now, if only the Afghan government starts participating in this type of dialogue with Pakistan instead of alienating it.

By the way, there were reports today that a PAF air strike had killed 22 militants. So, clearly Pakistan isn't just giving lip service (like Karzai tries to make it seem).

This is nothing new. Meetings are held regularly & same thing is said over & over again with US (from our point of view) not acting on it. I.e: They promise not to launch their attacks on Pakistan's tribal areas yet they continue to do so.

Pakistan & its Army has never given a lip-service on WoT. They are facing both internal & external pressure as well as threats yet they continue to fight. Most of the operations are carried out by Pakistan Army's Pashtoon Commanders & its very difficult to kill your own people. Regardless of that they have conducted themselves very well. In addition; Pakistan has lost more soldiers & civilians to terror attack then any state since 9/11. & when someone says we are doing to less then that just does it for the Pakistan Army & Pakistani people. Army can be brought back into control by its commanders but how you bring people to calmness - one major reason for the downfall of Musharaff.

As for the Karzai, well he is just a laughing matter. Can't control either Non-Pashtoon North which is relatively peaceful nor can't control rest of Afghanistan. He was a Mayer of Kabul & now has lost even that control. As one Pakistani scholar said; he is now just an information minister of Afghanistan, thats why he blubers a lot.



The Pakistan Army's strategy is bit slow but has started to show effects. The tribes don't take orders from anyone, they don't like outsiders meddling in their affairs & autonomy. Pashtoon Commanders of Pakistan Army knew that sooner or later the tribes will see their power diminishing under Taliban influence they themselves will turn against them & it has started to happen. Some of the main Taliban leaders have been killed by Tribesmen rather then Pakistan Army. These tribesmen were harassed by the Taliban militents. Several influencial tribes have gone far to call on united front against the Taliban. This is of course a slow process as Tribes have a code of dialogue 1st & shoot later (but if dialogue fails its a rain of blood). US however wants an "Action Packed Thriller" filled with brutality & violence from Pakistan Army - which the Pakistan Army refuses to do with its own people. We tried it & we got high civilian death toll, displaced people & more resentment amongst the people of Pakistan (including majority moderates). This can be dangerous for everyone.

[Stryker001]

Any proof or sources? [Credible one]

I don’t know how credible, the links are or the confession or who is telling the truth about the nuclear deal. Of course it was not just Musharraf but the people who also supported him and still do the Pakistani military. The concern is that the next person who becomes Washington's man in Pakistan may receive the same fate as Musharraf. It means that the Ayatollah owes Musharraf a favor, if he calls it in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4964884
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4967504

Long term targeted killings Phoenix program are the way to control the tribal regions, because that way only the key players are liquidated not civilians or at least a smaller percentage via false HUMINT, grudges etc. The insurgents continue their campaign of terror on the military and civilians regardless.

But it means that civilians are less likely to take up arms against the Pakistani military, due to their family members being killed during large scale campaigns as the current ones.

[SABRE]

I don’t know how credible, the links are or the confession or who is telling the truth about the nuclear deal. Of course it was not just Musharraf but the people who also supported him and still do the Pakistani military. The concern is that the next person who becomes Washington's man in Pakistan may receive the same fate as Musharraf. It means that the Ayatollah owes Musharraf a favor, if he calls it in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4964884
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4967504

Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.

[2S1]

Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.

Sabre, just out out interest, how much Saudi influence do you think is playing in this?

[Stryker001]

Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.

Who made him give up command of the Army and hold elections the US,UK etc in full knowledge that he would fall, it was only a matter of time.

Perhaps the Ayatollah owes him nothing, for the troops in the Afghan AO I hope you are right. When the US found out that Shiites had been given the technology by Pakistan they were surprised, so I would not doubt that favors can be called in between the two nuclear powers.

Meanwhile Pakistan says they will start demolishing the houses of terrorists using the Israeli tactic. It is actual an SS tactic and the only true reason terror acts have decrease in Israel is due to the security fence and the partitioning of the Israeli’s and Palestinians. Therefore, the affects in Pakistan will be minimal, although to westerns it sounds good.


If the Kingdom of Saud cancel the oil subsidy Pakistan's new Government will fall, so a fair bit of influence. That could result in a coup and martial law.

[shrike]

This winter in Afghanistan is going to be very "hot" according to these articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090302005.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-afghan0905,0,7318056.story

The US is preparing a major winter offensive to deny the insurgents (Taliban) a stay in Afghanistan during the winter months. The major surge in attacks this year by the Taliban is linked to a growing number of Taliban who stay in the country during winter and don`t have to cross the border from their staging areas in Pakistan.

[swerve]

It means that the Ayatollah owes Musharraf a favor, if he calls it in.
Who do you mean by "the Ayatollah"? Do you have any idea what an ayatollah is, or how many there are?

[DefConGuru]

Who do you mean by "the Ayatollah"? Do you have any idea what an ayatollah is, or how many there are?

These self appointed think tanks are ruining the American government as well.

[swerve]

These self appointed think tanks are ruining the American government as well.
Is that meant to mean anything?

I note that you haven't answered the questions. I must assume that's because you don't know the answers to the second one.

[DefConGuru]

Is that meant to mean anything?

I note that you haven't answered the questions. I must assume that's because you don't know the answers to the second one.

Assumption is the MOAFU over and out.

[swerve]

Assumption is the MOAFU over and out.
In my experience, cryptic comments such as your last two are almost invariably a cover for ignorance, & tend to confirm the impression given your post which first led me to ask you questions (which I'm still waiting for answers to). I'm trying to find out what basis you have for what you've said, & what you are replying with is on the level of "Naah, naah, not going to tell you". Very mature.

BTW, this forum actively discourages posts such as your last two. I suggest reading the rules, in particular rule 2. Posts should be meaningful.
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

[DefConGuru]

In my experience, cryptic comments such as your last two are almost invariably a cover for ignorance, & tend to confirm the impression given your post which first led me to ask you questions (which I'm still waiting for answers to). I'm trying to find out what basis you have for what you've said, & what you are replying with is on the level of "Naah, naah, not going to tell you". Very mature.

BTW, this forum actively discourages posts such as your last two. I suggest reading the rules, in particular rule 2. Posts should be meaningful.
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

If cryptics was your major please go back to your school and ask for a refund. You haven't asked me anything. Maybe I'm replying with "naah naah not going to tell you" because I don't know what in the name of f*** you are talking about!

[DefConGuru]

Is that meant to mean anything?

I note that you haven't answered the questions. I must assume that's because you don't know the answers to the second one.

It is quite obvious you have me confused with someone else. You never asked me anything. Open your eyes, scroll up, and READ.

[swerve]

It is quite obvious you have me confused with someone else. You never asked me anything. Open your eyes, scroll up, and READ.
True - I carelessly took your reply to my question to Stryker001 as from him. My apologies for that. But why did you reply to two of my posts with rather enigmatic one-liners? I refer you - again - to Rule 2. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

[Topmaul]

This winter in Afghanistan is going to be very "hot" according to these articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090302005.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-afghan0905,0,7318056.story

The US is preparing a major winter offensive to deny the insurgents (Taliban) a stay in Afghanistan during the winter months. The major surge in attacks this year by the Taliban is linked to a growing number of Taliban who stay in the country during winter and don`t have to cross the border from their staging areas in Pakistan.


Shirke thanks for that I agree it's time to make them react to us, not US react to them. We need to keep them off balance, the trouble was we had and still have not nearly enough troops in country.

[waraich]

Shirke thanks for that I agree it's time to make them react to us, not US react to them. We need to keep them off balance, the trouble was we had and still have not nearly enough troops in country.

My question is despite use of full fire power and NATO support ,why few thausand talaban are out of control of super power ,which can attack on three countries having army equivalent to russia at a time.

Main point is that this is gurrilla war where number and quantity conventional arm does not matter much.

Talaban need no training for gurilla war ,the main tactic in gurilla war is hit and run ,in which they have no match in world.

If US and NATO want any result ,they have to study the organisation structure of talaban,faith and their economics system and environment.

They are very strong in all above three factors.

last two factors are pakistan army and local war lords .

Pakistan dont want US strong hold in region, it will help india to establish their basis and their best friend's intrests also can be effected.

Many local war lords have sampathies with talaban , they have strong links which is also major factor in US and NATO failure.


US have to adopt fallujah type of policy with talaban if they want any success against AlQaida.

[SABRE]

All discussion on War on Terror (WoT) will be discussed here from now on: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8380

No new threads allowed without the permission of mods or admin.