Kunduz ... Why are we still in Afghanistan?

gree0232

New Member
Kunduz, IMHO, has shown us the future of Afghanistan. In an ethically mixed area of Afghanistan, a group that is largely Pashtu made significant inroads into the other ethic groups and methodically took 70% of the province before storming the city. How?

The majority if the security forces are the same infamous militias that were only recently implicated in abused like the rape of children, and rapes and other abuses were common Kunduz from these ill trained and often brutal 'security' forces. Even the best behaving groups came, usually one on top of another, and demanded money and other materials. Abuses went unpunished, and exploitation is rapid.

In sharp contrast, the Taliban collected a cut of the opium trade once per year and its agents acquired a reputation for fairness (often siding against larger ethic groups according to Islamic jurisprudence - the one thing that crosses ethnic lines in Afghanistan). The result was the continual run up to the inevitable.

Now, we and the Afghan Army have shot our way back into Kunduz. We['ve scattered the Taliban back to ... agh, just outside the city. The Taliban will simply shift forces to another front and apply pressure on a different point until the heat comes off ... and then head right back in.

There have been few acknowledgements of the grievances that drove the situation in Kunduz, and no talk whatsoever of replacing corrupt officials or reigning in and disciplining the daltia forces. The people accept the 'return of governance' under the umbrella of US Air Power and Special Forces lead Afghan forces - who will not remain indefinitely (going back to playing whack a mole with the Taliban who simply move to where we are not - recruiting a fresh group of fighters from the ill governed Pakistani Tribal belt to continuously feed the fight). As the forces shift, as the militias take hold again, as corruption seeps in again ...

This should not be.

We have the manpower advantage by a wide margin. We have a massive material and technology edge. We have better equipment, and more of it. We have better processes and tactics. We have every military advantage conceivable.

The ONLY advantage the Taliban have over us is that they are comparatively far less corrupt than the Afghan government.

And for some reason, that single advantage is enough to have us at a shaky stand still on the battlefield ...

We keep hearing about how we cannot change Afghan Culture, even as Afghan Culture is telling us it loathe the very things we are ignoring and not trying to change. Why we continue to empower corrupt and rapaciously brutal people and think this a state builds is ... baffling. You cannot bomb a people into accepting injustice, something we at least should have learned from the Russians before us.
 

Goknub

Active Member
I'll bite.

I don't think there is as much to the assault on Kunduz as you see it. This is simply the Taliban taking advantage of the weakened Afghan army in their first year without Western support. They are learning hard lessons that they weren't able/willing to learn when Western troops were there to assist them.

The Afghan army was always going to suffer setbacks but their conduct in this latest contest is quite good. They would have likely been spread thin conducing small scale operations and weren't ready for a large-scale assault. Holding firm would have seen them either annihilated or end up like the British in Helmand, surrounded and destroying the place just to survive. Withdrawing to regroup made a lot of sense. They've now managed to clear most of a city of 300,000 in just a week. These are all positive learning steps.

The assumption has been that many of the smaller outposts will collapse as they can't be resupplied but the overall situation can still be managed.

The important lesson is that West doesn't do what it did in Iraq and completely abandon them. Firstly, the training teams need to stay. The Afghan govt has requested that the Australian trainers stay, this should be accepted. Secondly, the SF/air support combo needs to stay. I see the conflict taking on the same character as it was right at the start. Small SF teams embedded with local forces.

It takes a long time for an army to become an Army. The sky hasn't fallen in but the Afghanis still need our support.
 

gree0232

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I'll bite.

I don't think there is as much to the assault on Kunduz as you see it. This is simply the Taliban taking advantage of the weakened Afghan army in their first year without Western support. They are learning hard lessons that they weren't able/willing to learn when Western troops were there to assist them.

The Afghan army was always going to suffer setbacks but their conduct in this latest contest is quite good. They would have likely been spread thin conducing small scale operations and weren't ready for a large-scale assault. Holding firm would have seen them either annihilated or end up like the British in Helmand, surrounded and destroying the place just to survive. Withdrawing to regroup made a lot of sense. They've now managed to clear most of a city of 300,000 in just a week. These are all positive learning steps.

The assumption has been that many of the smaller outposts will collapse as they can't be resupplied but the overall situation can still be managed.

The important lesson is that West doesn't do what it did in Iraq and completely abandon them. Firstly, the training teams need to stay. The Afghan govt has requested that the Australian trainers stay, this should be accepted. Secondly, the SF/air support combo needs to stay. I see the conflict taking on the same character as it was right at the start. Small SF teams embedded with local forces.

It takes a long time for an army to become an Army. The sky hasn't fallen in but the Afghanis still need our support.
Kunduz is not a small outpost. The Afghan military performed abysmally, having been made up of local, corrupt police forces and militias. That Afghan units lead by US Special Forces Teams coupled with US air power were what was needed to take back Kunduz is striking in what it tells us.

More importantly, Kunduz is OUTSIDE the nominal pashtu tribal areas, and the that the Taliban made such significant inroads into these ethnic groups it telling about which side the LOCALS choose. Are we really ready to bankroll and use force to crush any and all resistance to corruption and abuse in Afghanistan? Or are we going to get serious about making Afghanistan's government work?

If not? Kunduz is the future. Just as it was for the Russians, who went to great lengths to build up an Afghan state before they left. The Afghan Army is hanging on in many areas only because the US is providing massive logistical and air power support, and General Campbell has, by many accounts, become the Afghan Minister of Defense in all but name. This is not a strategy for success.

This is a strategy bogged down in tactical fights. Every year, more combatants come out of the tribal belt in Pakistan and there is little we can do about it. The Taliban simple goes to where we, and the Afghan Army are not ... or where they are corrupt and where there are opportunities to exploit and simply melts back into the countryside when we respond with force. It's a game of whack a mole devoid of any real strategy, and Kunduz tells us that our long range plan to turn Afghanistan over to the Afghani is not working.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Wouldn't it be the optimal solution to just withdraw completely from Afghanistan and leave it to the Afghans to sort out by their means? The Russians tried to impose the soviet variant of communism on Afghanistan and were soundly defeated. The great British Raj attempt to incorporate Afghanistan into the empire and got a bloody nose every time they tried. What makes you think that the USA is any better at it? As tragic as 11/9/2001 was, with around 3000 lives lost because of the attack on the Twin Towers etc., Bin Laden is literally sleeping with the fishes and many Taliban fighters and senior leaders have been killed. After 14 years, wouldn't it be fair to say that it is time to withdraw completely?

To a non American it appears that the USA has this almost religious fervour in its belief that the democracy and the American way of life is the only true way of living for humanity. The point is that in reality democracy per se, is just one political system out of many and is a purely western construct that reflects western cultural values. I live in a very democratic society, one of the most free countries in the world and I count myself lucky. However some cultures and societies have no experience of democracy nor any understanding of what it is. That is where the west fails. It introduces and sometimes imposes democracy and western values upon cultures and societies that have no experience or understanding of them and then are left to their devices. Secondly democracy doesn't always meld with the preexisting tribal, sectarian and religious landscape and western style democratic institutions can and in some cases do, exacerbate any preexisting tensions within the population.

This I think is a significant underlying factor with the problems in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Those in the government unable or unwilling to adopt and adapt to an open and fair democratic form of government and populations having no knowledge of democracy, how democratic governmental institutions are supposed to function and no knowledge of the checks and balances that are a requirement of a democratic form ofgovernment. Hence it is my belief you just can not go in, change a regime and then just walk out. If you are going to do something like that, you must be prepared to spend decades and significant treasure in order to achieve proper success. We are living with the failures of the current attempts. Hence this is why I believe that it would be best to withdraw completely from Afghanistan and let the Afghans sort it. It will be bloody but now there is little choice IMHO.
 

Goknub

Active Member
Kunduz is not a small outpost. The Afghan military performed abysmally, having been made up of local, corrupt police forces and militias. That Afghan units lead by US Special Forces Teams coupled with US air power were what was needed to take back Kunduz is striking in what it tells us.
That Kunduz isn't a small outpost makes it all the more harder to secure. Defending an urban area that large would be a significant challenge for any military force. While the SF teams have had an impact I don't think we should underestimate the Afghan forces involved. Most of the media coverage is negative but it always is. Just because the Taliban have made headway into a province doesn't it mean they have local support. They are a brutal military force and most civilians will just keep their heads down.

That being said the Afghan security forces have certainly got a long way to go and I think the West needs to be realistic about the support they are going to need in the longer term. This is going to take decades not years, this will need the sort of ongoing commitment that was made to Germany, Japan and is still in place in South Korea. That's where the training team/SF team/air support package is so important. It is low cost enough that it can be sustained indefinitely. The Taliban believe they can outlast Western support, they need to be shown they are wrong on that assumption.

Until Pakistan can take control of it's regions the threat won't be going away but it can be successfully managed I believe. It could also end in disaster but Afghanistan isn't Iraq. I've worked with both and there is a world of difference between the two cultures.
 

gree0232

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
That Kunduz isn't a small outpost makes it all the more harder to secure. Defending an urban area that large would be a significant challenge for any military force. While the SF teams have had an impact I don't think we should underestimate the Afghan forces involved. Most of the media coverage is negative but it always is. Just because the Taliban have made headway into a province doesn't it mean they have local support. They are a brutal military force and most civilians will just keep their heads down.

That being said the Afghan security forces have certainly got a long way to go and I think the West needs to be realistic about the support they are going to need in the longer term. This is going to take decades not years, this will need the sort of ongoing commitment that was made to Germany, Japan and is still in place in South Korea. That's where the training team/SF team/air support package is so important. It is low cost enough that it can be sustained indefinitely. The Taliban believe they can outlast Western support, they need to be shown they are wrong on that assumption.

Until Pakistan can take control of it's regions the threat won't be going away but it can be successfully managed I believe. It could also end in disaster but Afghanistan isn't Iraq. I've worked with both and there is a world of difference between the two cultures.
Why Afghanistan Is Going To Fall To The Taliban Again. And It's Not Why You Think.

What makes you think that a group that largely controls the Pakistani Tribal belt and once controlled 90% of Afghanistan is intimidated or unable to control a single city?

If the status quo prevails, will the Taliban takeover continue?

I don't see why it wouldn't.

There's a pattern that I wouldn't be surprised to see repeated. In the south, where I lived, what would often happen is a dramatic Taliban offensive, capture of a key site, followed by a government/ISAF recapture. But when you looked closely, you found that the Taliban had in fact executed a "strategic withdrawal." That is, they had faded away in the face of the counter-attack. This would usually happen in the summer or fall. Then, during the winter, they'd filter back into the area, start intimidating and assassinating people, and work their way back in. So, by the next year, they actually controlled all the territory they had gained briefly in that initial attack, but had regained it almost invisibly. The first dramatic military assault was really aimed at sending a message to the local population. It was psychological warfare.

We why are not killing the corrupt officials that undermine our military efforts? I have no idea.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Why Afghanistan Is Going To Fall To The Taliban Again. And It's Not Why You Think.

What makes you think that a group that largely controls the Pakistani Tribal belt and once controlled 90% of Afghanistan is intimidated or unable to control a single city?

If the status quo prevails, will the Taliban takeover continue?

I don't see why it wouldn't.

There's a pattern that I wouldn't be surprised to see repeated. In the south, where I lived, what would often happen is a dramatic Taliban offensive, capture of a key site, followed by a government/ISAF recapture. But when you looked closely, you found that the Taliban had in fact executed a "strategic withdrawal." That is, they had faded away in the face of the counter-attack. This would usually happen in the summer or fall. Then, during the winter, they'd filter back into the area, start intimidating and assassinating people, and work their way back in. So, by the next year, they actually controlled all the territory they had gained briefly in that initial attack, but had regained it almost invisibly. The first dramatic military assault was really aimed at sending a message to the local population. It was psychological warfare.

We why are not killing the corrupt officials that undermine our military efforts? I have no idea.
I take it you are defining "we" as the US. The US has no legal mandate to kill corrupt Afghan govt officials. That in itself would be pure murder and could be seen as some as an act or terrorism against the Afghan state. It is murder because the US has no legal jurisdiction at all. If anyone is to bring the corrupt officials to justice it has to be the Afghans themselves. The only real way for the US and other nations to prevent the corrupt use of their funds is to cease funding any projects in Afghanistan. In the long run that may turn out to be the only option.
 

gree0232

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
I take it you are defining "we" as the US. The US has no legal mandate to kill corrupt Afghan govt officials. That in itself would be pure murder and could be seen as some as an act or terrorism against the Afghan state. It is murder because the US has no legal jurisdiction at all. If anyone is to bring the corrupt officials to justice it has to be the Afghans themselves. The only real way for the US and other nations to prevent the corrupt use of their funds is to cease funding any projects in Afghanistan. In the long run that may turn out to be the only option.
If our goal is to stabilze Afghanistan, then we had better have a plan in place to deal with corruption - because it is undermning everything we are doing in Afghanistan.

"We have no legal mandate!," is a paltry excuse to allow corrupt officials to pilfer billions from our treasury and extort their own people on 'our watch'.

We've killed plenty of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, getting qualms about killing some very bad people because they pretend to be on our side is a bit silly.

If we are not going to deal with corruption, then we might as well call a spade and spade and bring the boys home now. It really is that simple.
 
Here is a link that provides some explanation of what the pro government militia are doing in Kunduz

IRIN Asia | Abuses rise along with pro-Afghan government militias | Afghanistan | Conflict | Human Rights | Refugees/IDPs | Security

My 2 cents worth is that in the short term it might be advantageous to use militia to achieve the governments aims, in the longer term it simply alienates the population and drives more and more people to join the taliban.

The same could be said for air strikes on villages. Even in 80 percent of the time the US got it right, and those killed were only Taliban, mistakes happen and a lot of civillains are going to get bombed. What happens next, the populace gets annoyed with the Americans, and more individuals are then drawn to join the ranks of the Taliban.

Corruption, stealing, bad government etc, are excellent ways of alienating millions of poor people. Even if 95 percent just keep out of it, with millions of civilians, having a few percent that are annoyed enough to take up arms against the government is not good. There will be a larger pool, that just dont care, they dont like the government, they dont like the Taliban, but if the Taliban come in asking for a small amount of food, they are not likely to refuse them. If the government troops arrive, and ask if any Taliban have been around, those same people will just keep quiet.

I think Afghanistan is truly lost.

Poverty, corruption, militias etc. The US cant change the hearts and minds of the majority of the populace. 15 years on, its been a disaster,,, sigh
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Fluster cuck with no apparent solution. Probably need an agree or disagree button on the thread for this.
 
Top