What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan?

[AfghanAmbush]

AfghanAmbush, I'm sure you could speak on this more accurately than myself, but isn't opium, even without Taliban links, harmful to the long-term stability of Afghanistan both regionally and nationally?

I say that because opium, while it does generate a livelihood for farmers, also creates severe addictions to the drug, resulting in severe poverty and destitution which could hold Afghanistan back or could become a factor in provoking rebellion or dissent several years down the road.

Of course, the Taliban did a better job at limiting the opium trade then the western forces. Some ways of reducing the illegal drug trade would be building pharmaceutical companies and giving the farmers a source to sell it to instead of the dealers etc.. Making medical use of opium would be helpful specially with the support and allied countries.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Of course, the Taliban did a better job at limiting the opium trade then the western forces. Some ways of reducing the illegal drug trade would be building pharmaceutical companies and giving the farmers a source to sell it to instead of the dealers etc.. Making medical use of opium would be helpful specially with the support and allied countries.

True, true. But adding middlemen would add to the cost of the opium and give the Afghan gov't yet another thing to try to regulate. I think that doing this would just create a black market, result in price hikes, and make the lot of the addicts even worse, not to mention the fact that it could give the Taliban an opportunity to exploit.

 

[Feanor]

It's a matter of combining the administrative controls, with stronger law enforcement.

 

[umair655]

You cannot get success in Afghanistan

I think US is not going to win in Afghanistan ever, reason they cannot never win the heart of local people. Many of the local people are converting to insurgents after each NATO strike killing their loved ones. So it will be not wrong if I say US army is fighting the Afghan Nation not any regular army, as an army can defeat any army but can't defeat the a nation. So I think better for US is to leave Afghanistan asap and take testifications from the local afghan people or taliban they willl not allow Alqaeda again to use their ground to attack US, remember alqaeda is US ememy not Taliban.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I think US is not going to win in Afghanistan ever, reason they cannot never win the heart of local people. Many of the local people are converting to insurgents after each NATO strike killing their loved ones. So it will be not wrong if I say US army is fighting the Afghan Nation not any regular army, as an army can defeat any army but can't defeat the a nation. So I think better for US is to leave Afghanistan asap and take testifications from the local afghan people or taliban they willl not allow Alqaeda again to use their ground to attack US, remember alqaeda is US ememy not Taliban.

That's one of the reasons US, etc. military leaders are working so hard to partner with and co-operate with local leaders and governments. They recognize that they have to create a framework which can make the Afghans self-governing and prevent the Taliban from exploiting an unstable gov't or poor balance of power.

Pulling out right now, quite simply is not an option. The vast majority of the ANP and the Afghan Army are not ready for individual, unsupervised combat operations. If NATO forces pull out now, the whole house of cars will come down and the country will descend into tribal violence, and the Taliban will simply seize control again, leaving the country in an even worse position than it was in 2001-2002.

"Testifications?" Without enforcement, people aren't going to keep a promise to keep the Taliban and Al-Qaeda out. Such an idea represents a stunning amount of naivete. Al-Qaeda is going to exploit any and every US failure, especially a defeat in Afghanistan. There's a lot more at stake here than just a bunch of mountains and poppy fields.

If we thought Iraq was bad, just wait and see what happens if we leave Afghanistan prematurely. It'd simply be Vietnam all over again, and it would destroy the last shards of US credibility on the world stage.

 

[umair655]

We all know that attacks on the US were not planned in Afghanistan, but in other parts of the world.

When in 2001/02 Taliban asked US to provide proofs to them against Alqaeda so that they can sewed, US attacked them.

You cannot defeat people who have slammed two Super Powers in last century, I think US is going to complete the hatrick for them.

Wait and See The game of desctruction of the US army and economy.

 

[umair655]

We all know that attacks on the US were not planned in Afghanistan, but in other parts of the world.

When in 2001/02 Taliban asked US to provide proofs to them against Alqaeda so that they can sewed, US attacked them.

You cannot defeat people who have slammed two Super Powers in last century, I think US is going to complete the hatrick for them.

Wait and See The game of desctruction of the US army and economy.

 

[STURM]

We all know that attacks on the US were not planned in Afghanistan, but in other parts of the world. .

No, it was mostly planned by Al Qaeda cells based in Europe and the U.S. The Al Aqeda leadership was based in Afghanistan. So what's the point you're trying make ?

You cannot defeat people who have slammed two Super Powers in last century, I think US is going to complete the hatrick for them.

Wait and See The game of desctruction of the US army and economy.

I think ''slammed'' is a bit too strong a word to use. Let's keep in mind that the various Afghan groups received a lot of aid from the U.S. and Saudi, plus other nations, during the struggle against the Soviets. Involvement in Afghanistan took a heavy toll on the Soviet economy and the after effects of the war contributed to the collapse of the Soviet system, but U.S. and coalition failure in Afghanistan will not lead to the ''destruction of the U.S. army and economy'' though it will have other effects.

One of the many problems facing the coalition is that the Taliban is seen as a legitimite ressistance movement against foreign occupation by a sizeable amount of the population, not all of whom subscribe to Al Qaeda ideology or the brand of Islam practised by the Taliban. And not all of whom are against ''western values'', ''the American way of life'' and democracy, as so oftened mentioned even today by many news reports. The coalition however appears to have a sound long term strategy in place to deal with all or most of the problems faced, so lets wait see before drawing any conclusions.

As Kilo 2-3 said earlier - ''That's one of the reasons US, etc. military leaders are working so hard to partner with and co-operate with local leaders and governments. They recognize that they have to create a framework which can make the Afghans self-governing and prevent the Taliban from exploiting an unstable gov't or poor balance of power.''

 

[umair655]

No, it was mostly planned by Al Qaeda cells based in Europe and the U.S. The Al Aqeda leadership was based in Afghanistan. So what's the point you're trying make ?



I think ''slammed'' is a bit too strong a word to use. Let's keep in mind that the various Afghan groups received a lot of aid from the U.S. and Saudi, plus other nations, during the struggle against the Soviets.

One of the many problems facing the coalition is that the Taliban is seen as a legitimite ressistance movement against foreign occupation by a sizeable amount of the population, not all of whom subscribe to Al Qaeda ideology or the brand of Islam practised by the Taliban. And not all of whom are against ''western values'', ''the American way of life'' and democracy, as so oftened mentioned even today by many news reports. The coalition however appears to have a sound long term strategy in place to deal with all or most of the problems faced, so lets wait see before drawing any conclusions.

As Kilo 2-3 said earlier - ''That's one of the reasons US, etc. military leaders are working so hard to partner with and co-operate with local leaders and governments. They recognize that they have to create a framework which can make the Afghans self-governing and prevent the Taliban from exploiting an unstable gov't or poor balance of power.''

Well I think the US and the coalition have to talk with them eventually so why they do it sooner then later, talk to them US cannot make an army with non-pashtuns, and have them defeat Taliban. Eventually US have to leave.

Lets see what happens.

 

[Feanor]

We all know that attacks on the US were not planned in Afghanistan, but in other parts of the world.

When in 2001/02 Taliban asked US to provide proofs to them against Alqaeda so that they can sewed, US attacked them.

You cannot defeat people who have slammed two Super Powers in last century, I think US is going to complete the hatrick for them.

Wait and See The game of desctruction of the US army and economy.

Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.

The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.

 

[umair655]

Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.

The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.

I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.

The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.

You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.

 

[umair655]

Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.

The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.

I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.

The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.

You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare environment, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.

 

[umair655]

Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.

The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.

and FYI - the us aided the mujahideens till 88 the talibs emerged in early nighties there are many other countries financing them till now, dont get the impression the US can defeat them but will get defeated, they lost 9 years and can even do that if they lose 90 more years.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Well I think the US and the coalition have to talk with them eventually so why they do it sooner then later, talk to them US cannot make an army with non-pashtuns, and have them defeat Taliban. Eventually US have to leave.

Lets see what happens.

For the US to talk to the Taliban right now would give the world the appearance that the US is losing the will to fight and is willing to make concessions to the Taliban. It would void all our rhetoric up to this point, strengthen the Taliban's will to fights, and make the loyal Afghans feel like we're going to throw them to the wolves.

If the US is going to negotiate with the Taliban, especially its more radical elements, then it has to be from a position of overhwelming strength. Quite honestly, the US and NATO aren't in that position right now.

Now, if the Afghans wan to try and make reconciliations with the more moderate Taliban, that's fine, but even then, they need to move forward with caution. (By the way, there was a big tribal conference a while back in which some Afghan leaders did just that, or at least proposed doing it.)

 

[Feanor]

I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.

The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.

You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.

You do have evidence I suppose, for the alleged support. Especially Russian and Chinese. Right? Please post it here.

 

[stoker]

For the US to talk to the Taliban right now would give the world the appearance that the US is losing the will to fight and is willing to make concessions to the Taliban. It would void all our rhetoric up to this point, strengthen the Taliban's will to fights, and make the loyal Afghans feel like we're going to throw them to the wolves.

If the US is going to negotiate with the Taliban, especially its more radical elements, then it has to be from a position of overhwelming strength. Quite honestly, the US and NATO aren't in that position right now.

Now, if the Afghans wan to try and make reconciliations with the more moderate Taliban, that's fine, but even then, they need to move forward with caution. (By the way, there was a big tribal conference a while back in which some Afghan leaders did just that, or at least proposed doing it.)

I certainly agree that there is no need for the US to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban. There is no doubt however that behind the door negotiations are going on in Saudi Arabia between the Taliban and Afghan Government /Coalition negotiators.

Contrary to some people on this Forum I have NO doubt the the US/Nato? Allies are winning this war against the Taliban.

We just have to look at the situation that the Taliban are in, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan they are coping a hiding.

In Pakistan the US/CIA 'drones' have cause major losses of experienced senior Taliban leaders, the Taliban are going to have major problems replacing them.
The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA,
The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.
The ISI, the progenitors of the early 'Taliban' have seen the writing on the wall that states ,the Taliban are losing this war, we better get on side with the winners, they have been instrumantal in providing intelligence for strikes against Taliban leaders, and have help in the capture of top Taliban leaders.

In Afghanistan, the 30,000+ surge has given the Allies the surge they need, they are hitting the Taliban hard, and the Taliban is not only losing the war badly, they have no means to come back in a position of military strength to beat back the Afghan/Allies forces.
General McChrystals tactics to minimise civilian deaths, although it puts our troops at greater risk, is succeding, Afghan troops are out in the front lines earning the trust of Afghan civilians, and as areas are cleared of insurgents and IED's, the troops will be replaced with the Afghan Police force and local civilian Government.
As long as the needed infrastructure is delivered to these areas, and they are protected against the Taliban criminals, the locals will be quite happy to live in peace and harmony.
As the opium fields are eradicated a majors source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed.
The destruction of the Taliban's logistical network will be a major problem for the Taliban, they certainly don't have the means to quickly replace their losses, and this will mean mounting major attacks on the Afghan/Allies will be problamatic.

I have no respect for Obama, but his stated deadline of 2011 is definitely a pretty acurate assessment, I have no doubt that within 12 months the US/Nato/Allies?Afghan forces will have basically abolished the Taliban, although Afghanistan will take up to 4 - 5 years to be stabilised and the endemic corruption controled.

But at the end of the day the Taliban are already beaten, and they know it.

 

[STURM]

The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA, The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.

The move against the Taliban in FATA by the Pakistan army at the behest of the U.S. was deeply unpopular by a large segment of the Pakistani army [many of whom have Taliban sympathies] and by the Pakistani population who feel their government has sold itself to Uncle Sam and turned the Pakistani army into an army for hire.

As the opium fields are eradicated a major source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed.

As the opium fields are eradicated, it is the locals who will face a loss of revenue and the means to feed themselves, long before the ''Taliban/criminals''.

Some of the opium fields are also controlled by warlords who are opposed to the Taliban and who are supported by the U.S. On paper these warlords swear allegeince to Karzai but in reality iut's a bit different. The good news is the warlords are not so dependent on opium as the Taliban are as the warlords get revenue from supplying materials/services to the coalition and smuggling.

But at the end of the day the Taliban are already beaten, and they know it.

I think it's a bit early days to form that conclusion.

Given the present situation, I thinks it's very ironic that when the Taliban first came to power, many countries including the U.S., saw the Taliban as a movement that could finally bring law and order to Afghanistan. As part of the lobbying efforts by a U.S. oil company who wanted to lay an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, a Taliban delegation even visited the U.S. and was met by junior State Department people.

Another country who provided cash and political support to the Taliban over the years, was Uncle Sam's ''close friend'' in the Midle East, Saudi Arabia. On the hand, Iran the ''bad boy'' of the Middle East was and remains very anti-Taliban and with India and Russia, provided support to the Northern Alliance.

umair655...... China, Russia and India do not support the Taliban.

 

[OPSSG]

I'm not American and I've not been to Afghanistan. Hence I'm not going to talk with authority on this topic, unlike umair655, who is so sure he is right and who is also actively misrepresenting coalition efforts there. However, I do make an attempt to read up every now and then on the developments there.

I certainly agree that there is no need for the US to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban.

It also depends on who you define to be the Afghan Taliban.

There are Afghan tribes who have supplied fighters and there are documented instances where US forces do negotiate and assist tribal elders from these tribes to marginalize the influence of the more hardcore in these tribes. Where the US is successful in winning over tribal elders and able to strengthen the bargaining power of those Afghans who are willing to work with the US, the result is a dramatic reduction in violence and attacks against US troops. For more info, see this latest pdf article by Maj. Nathan Springer - well worth the effort to have a read.

The carrot is developmental work - the problem is credibility, time and reach to the rural areas.

There is no doubt however that behind the door negotiations are going on in Saudi Arabia between the Taliban and Afghan Government /Coalition negotiators.

Do you have a source on this? I'm quite interested in any news/reports on a Saudi role.

Contrary to some people on this Forum I have NO doubt the the US/Nato? Allies are winning this war against the Taliban.

If the coalition is able to find the enemy, the local Taliban are always defeated in force on force battles. The problem is identifying and finding those that need to be killed via kinetic activities. Maj. Nathan Springer's article quoted above talks about that in more detail.

We just have to look at the situation that the Taliban are in, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan they are coping a hiding.

Yes. From what I read, that is often the case. According to the LWJ, since 2004, the US has conducted covert air strikes in Pakistan. The LWJ have charted the numbers here, if you are interested. In 2008, 36 strikes were conducted by the US and in 2009, 53 US strikes were conducted, which shows the escalation.

In Pakistan the US/CIA 'drones' have cause major losses of experienced senior Taliban leaders, the Taliban are going to have major problems replacing them.

The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA... The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.

The ISI, the progenitors of the early 'Taliban' have seen the writing on the wall that states ,the Taliban are losing this war, we better get on side with the winners, they have been instrumental in providing intelligence for strikes against Taliban leaders, and have help in the capture of top Taliban leaders.

We'll need to see how things develop but it looks promising, thus far.

There are number of surveys being conducted over time - and the Taliban only enjoy single digit support from the Afghans responding to the surveys - I don't have the link handy (I'll post the link if I can find it again) but it's something like 6-8%. From what I understand, the 'Taliban' have a brutal ideology and are keen to take the Afghanistan back into the stone age. The fact that the 'Taliban' kill more Afghans than the coalition via their IEDs and their human shield tactics means that they are even more unpopular than the coalition forces or the ANA.

In Afghanistan, the 30,000+ surge has given the Allies the surge they need, they are hitting the Taliban hard, and the Taliban is not only losing the war badly, they have no means to come back in a position of military strength to beat back the Afghan/Allies forces. General McChrystals tactics to minimise civilian deaths, although it puts our troops at greater risk, is succeeding, Afghan troops are out in the front lines earning the trust of Afghan civilians, and as areas are cleared of insurgents and IED's, the troops will be replaced with the Afghan Police force and local civilian Government.

There is a plan in place and the coalition are in the execute phase of the plan. I'm not sure about 'no means' but I believe that the Taliban have more constrains than commonly spoken of. So I would not say no chance, rather, the chance of the Taliban coming back to power is very slim indeed.

My concern is that poverty and ignorance and wonderful conditions to enable the recruitment of fresh cannon fodder. Afghanistan has a young population so, there is a big potential pool of Taliban recruits and the coalition plan has not been to kill their way out of the insurgency (the way the Sri Lankan government has done with the Tamil Tigers).

As the opium fields are eradicated a majors source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed. The destruction of the Taliban's logistical network will be a major problem for the Taliban, they certainly don't have the means to quickly replace their losses, and this will mean mounting major attacks on the Afghan/Allies will be problematic.

Attacking sources of Taliban funding will help decrease their capability and influence.

Cheers.

 

[STURM]

Do you have a source on this? I'm quite interested in any news/reports on a Saudi role.

It was mentioned in the Ahmad Rashid interview, in the link I provided.
It would make sense as the Saudis way before 9/11 were closely linked to the Taliban and in league with the Pakistanis provided cash payouts to support Taliban efforts to defeat the Northern Alliance.. As both subscribe to wahhabism and donations from wealthy Saudis sustain the madrassahs in Pakistan, the Saudis probably still have influence with the Talibs. According to Steve Coll's book, at one point prior to 9/11, the Taliban even offered to hand OBL to the Saudis.

 

[OPSSG]

It was mentioned in the Ahmad Rashid interview, in the link I provided.
It would make sense as the Saudis way before 9/11 were closely linked to the Taliban and in league with the Pakistanis provided cash payouts to support the Taliban efforts to defeat the Northern Alliance.. As both subscribe to wahhabism, the Saudis probably still have influence with the Talibs.

Sorry brain fart. Intended to ask for 'another source on the current Saudi role' on this rather than 'a source on the Saudi role', which was already kindly provided by you. It's just my natural curiosity on how the link or line of influence works and to see if there are more perspectives on the nature of that influence.

This angle on how the Saudis can contribute needs to be understood and if valuable, pursued.