Afghanistan War News & Discussions

[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.