Is the US's position in Afghanistan precarious?

[surpreme]

Here we go will this again. No matter what anyone said the ANA is shaping up to being a good force. We must remember a army is not created overnight and ANA have problem with coalition forces due to the action of some soldiers who decided to do some extra killing. If thing was reverse and you have Afghan military invade and takeover U.S. and then train and rebuilt the American Army what will happen if a Afghan unit kill some Americans you will have some American soldier killing the Afghan trainers. I'm surprise more Afghan's didn't kill more coalition forces. Only thing holding back others is heavy US and coalition forces watching over Afghan units. The final conclusion thing is mess up right now in Afghan but U.S. forces has defeated the Taliban on the frontline there numbers are deceasing as we speak due to heavy SF/CIA operations which are classfied. The coalition knows to watch over the ANA after the Quran burning and the killing of civilians by American soldier.

 

[STURM]

The final conclusion thing is mess up right now in Afghan but U.S. forces has defeated the Taliban on the frontline there numbers are deceasing as we speak due to heavy SF/CIA operations which are classfied.

Why do we keep hearing about the Taliban being defeated? If the Taliban were truly defeated, Karzai, with U.S. blessing, would not be holding talks with them to see what role they can play in a future government! If indeed theTaliban were defeated, the U.S. position would be the same as several years ago, with the U.S. insisting that the Taliban would have absolutely no role to play in a future Afghanistan. Remember, all the Taliban have to do is continue to exist and retain support - and this they have done - despite all the firepower and billions that have been used against them. Its immaterial whether they lose every tactical engagement they participate in, they win by continuing to exist. The Taliban have met nearly all their political objectives, can the same be said of the U.S?

http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=2780

http://ericmargolis.com/2012/03/why-afghans-are-turning-on-their-us-allies/

 

[surpreme]

Why do we keep hearing about the Taliban being defeated? If the Taliban were truly defeated, Karzai, with U.S. blessing, would not be holding talks with them to see what role they can play in a future government! If indeed theTaliban were defeated, the U.S. position would be the same as several years ago, with the U.S. insisting that the Taliban would have absolutely no role to play in a future Afghanistan. Remember, all the Taliban have to do is continue to exist and retain support - and this they have done - despite all the firepower and billions that have been used against them. Its immaterial whether they lose every tactical engagement they participate in, they win by continuing to exist. The Taliban have met nearly all their political objectives, can the same be said of the U.S?

http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=2780

WHY AFGHANS ARE TURNING ON THEIR US

The Taliban in the battlefield don't or can't perform major military operation no more. I once said before the Taliban lose alot great commanders. Politics and the realize on the ground are different things. In one of my threads I told about the problems the ANA and US/Coalition are going have because of culture differences. Its hard to completely destroyed a insurgents.

 

[Sampanviking]

I would definitely recommend the following article link by Nick Turse published recently on ATOL.

Asia Times Online :: A technical knockout in Afghanistan

the gist of his argument is quite simple: that the situation in Afghanistan mirrors that of 1968 Vietnam in a number of critical ways, not least being the way that the US military is measuring and presenting its performance in its PR.

Turse, argues that; just as the Tet offensive knocked the contentions of victory being put about at the time by General Westmoreland, into a cocked hat, so does the recent Taliban attacks on the Green Zone in Kabul.

He further credits the Taliban for realising that you can achieve the same psychological effect as Tet acheived but with only losing a handful of fighters rather than the sixty thousand that the VC lost in 68.

He also reiterates a basic fact so often ignored by the PR. Insurgents do not seek to hold territory. Holding territory is the job of structured militarys. The job of insurgents is to ensure that the enemy is unable to hold territory securely, and not just at the periphery but at all locations including the centre.
The March attacks demonstrate this quite ably.

Beyond the article there are other questions which need address and which relate to the precise nature of the insurgents that NATO is fighting.
With Afghan Al-Qeada gone, its leaders dead or captured, what exactly is the point of the ongoing military operation?
The insurgency may have started in some quarters as a Jihad, but it seems more and more now a simple nationalist struggle against an occupying power that has long overstayed both its relevance and welcome. Such a view is especially potent as it is a view as prevalent with the Government in Kabul as it is with the Taliban in the field.

 

[STURM]

He also reiterates a basic fact so often ignored by the PR.

What is so ironic is that theTaliban had previously banned or placed strict controls on the media but now are making full use of the internet and other forms of media. Press statements announcing attacks are usully released much faster than those issued by ISAF.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012418103051891506.html

The Taliban in the battlefield don't or can't perform major military operation no more. I once said before the Taliban lose alot great commanders.

It's irrelevent. Whether or not they can still stage operations and irrespective of their losses, the fact that they still exist and can count on support from the local population means that they have won! And do they have to launch any major offensives, now that the U.S. is leaving? All they need to do is launch highly visible prin pricks attacks - for their political value - like the one launched in Kabul 2 weeks ago which was a huge embrassement for ISAF. The aim of the Taliban was to outlast the foreign occupiers and this they have clearly done. Like I said before, the Taliban have met most of their political objectives, the same can't be said of the U.S. And so what if their losses have been great, the Vietnamese lost almost every tactical engagement yet they still entered Saigion in 1975, the same can be said of numerous other conflicts like in Rhodesia and Algeria where the insurgents eventually won despite suffering tremoundous casualties.

 

[surpreme]

What is so ironic is that theTaliban had previously banned or placed strict controls on the media but now are making full use of the internet and other forms of media. Press statements announcing attacks are usully released much faster than those issued by ISAF.

Tet Offensive echoes In Afghanistan attacks - Opinion - Al Jazeera English



It's irrelevent. Whether or not they can still stage operations and irrespective of their losses, the fact that they still exist and can count on support from the local population means that they have won! And do they have to launch any major offensives, now that the U.S. is leaving? All they need to do is launch highly visible prin pricks attacks - for their political value - like the one launched in Kabul 2 weeks ago which was a huge embrassement for ISAF. The aim of the Taliban was to outlast the foreign occupiers and this they have clearly done. Like I said before, the Taliban have met most of their political objectives, the same can't be said of the U.S. And so what if their losses have been great, the Vietnamese lost almost every tactical engagement yet they still entered Saigion in 1975, the same can be said of numerous other conflicts like in Rhodesia and Algeria where the insurgents eventually won despite suffering tremoundous casualties.

All that you saiding is true but this is another war not the war of the past. If it wasn't for the culture problems the war been over. The reason why I said this is because the ISAF causes more problems then it should have. The SF/CIA are doing remarkable job in Afghanistan the unknown operation that are not published to the public. The media made it look more than what it was from a military standpoint what did it do. All you had was some guerillas taking positions in a building and shooting from it. From a military point of view the Taliban hasn't did any major operation that killed alot of American like the Vietnam War where there were lots of American killed. This war seen more SF than Vietnam that what help it knock alot of Taliban manpower out of the war. When the US first when to Afghan it use SF which was smart. I do agree the US should have put more manpower in 2003 instead of Iraq, Afghan would been different than what you see now. Cant you named a great operation the Taliban did. I'm give you a example like in Iraq when some insurgent dressed as American and got inside a camp and killed some American that was a well planned operation. The Taliban tried something like this but was killed before it could do anything. Overall the Taliban can't perform any major operation. Yes they they are still around but what can they do beside some stupid no sense operation. The US already have undercover operatives in Afghan posing as Taliban that how deep it has pentrated there forces. Alot of Taliban have giving up there weapon to the ISAF. The only safe haven the Taliban got is in Pakistan where they get there recruits. The problem with that how to get the recruits in Afghan without being detected. For the past years the media talk about this spring offensive or whatever. I haven seen any offensive yet for two years whenever the Taliban meet to organised a operation they are hit that the work of the SF/CIA.

 

[STURM]

If it wasn't for the culture problems the war been over.

Apologies, but you are very mistaken and you're being too simplistic. It was not due to cultural problems but due to mistakes that were made during the 2003-2004 period - the lack of any effort given to nation building, failure to bring the EU and the UN in at an early stage, preoccupation with Iraq, the policy of buying off warlords to save cash and to avoid bringing more troops in, etc. In the 2003-2004 period when the Taliban was very weak and when the bulk of the Afghan population was yet to adopt the position it later did against foreign troops, key fundamental mistakes were made, the results of which can be seen today.

From a military point of view the Taliban hasn't did any major operation that killed alot of American like the Vietnam War where there were lots of American killed. This war seen more SF than Vietnam that what help it knock alot of Taliban manpower out of the war.

But the Taliban didn't have to achieve huge kills rate to succeed! And most major Taliban attacks are planned the for the political benefits that come with it, not military benefits. The notion that guerillas like the Taliban are able to inflict huge casulaties or win tactical engagements against troops from the U.S. and NATO and attempts to judge their level of success from their failure to do so is absurd. You forget that all the Taliban had to do was outstay their opponents, to ensure that they remained a major player in Afghanistan and to ensure they received continued support from segments of the population - and they did. Today, unlike the U.S., the Taliban can say that it has met almost all of the political objectives it set to achieve, when it made a comeback in 2003.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012418103051891506.html

The only safe haven the Taliban got is in Pakistan where they get there recruits. The problem with that how to get the recruits in Afghan without being detected. For the past years the media talk about this spring offensive or whatever. I haven seen any offensive yet for two years whenever the Taliban meet to organised a operation they are hit that the work of the SF/CIA.

If what you were saying was remotely true, the U.S. and the Karzai government wouldn't have come to the conclusion, after more than 10 years of war, billions spent and thousands of civilians killed, that the Taliban is a problem that won't go way and that it has to be a part of any future political process.

 

[surpreme]

Apologies, but you are very mistaken and you're being too simplistic. It was not due to cultural problems but due to mistakes that were made during the 2003-2004 period - the lack of any effort given to nation building, failure to bring the EU and the UN in at an early stage, preoccupation with Iraq, the policy of buying off warlords to save cash and to avoid bringing more troops in, etc. In the 2003-2004 period when the Taliban was very weak and when the bulk of the Afghan population was yet to adopt the position it later did against foreign troops, key fundamental mistakes were made, the results of which can be seen today.



But the Taliban didn't have to achieve huge kills rate to succeed! And most major Taliban attacks are planned the for the political benefits that come with it, not military benefits. The notion that guerillas like the Taliban are able to inflict huge casulaties or win tactical engagements against troops from the U.S. and NATO and attempts to judge their level of success from their failure to do so is absurd. You forget that all the Taliban had to do was outstay their opponents, to ensure that they remained a major player in Afghanistan and to ensure they received continued support from segments of the population - and they did. Today, unlike the U.S., the Taliban can say that it has met almost all of the political objectives it set to achieve, when it made a comeback in 2003.

Tet Offensive echoes In Afghanistan attacks - Opinion - Al Jazeera English



If what you were saying was remotely true, the U.S. and the Karzai government wouldn't have come to the conclusion, after more than 10 years of war, billions spent and thousands of civilians killed, that the Taliban is a problem that won't go way and that it has to be a part of any future political process.

No i did not said that the Taliban had to win a battle or engagement that not going to happen but to have alots of American killed would have made big different. The war has been going on for 10 years look at the number of American killed not alot compare to Vietnam War. The US has gotten some goals completed. To elimated Al-Qaida and keep it from training on Afghan soil so yes the US has completed it main goal get rid of Al-Qaida

 

[STURM]

The war has been going on for 10 years look at the number of American killed not alot compare to Vietnam War.

And after 10 years, billions spent and thousands of civilians killled, the fact is that the Taliban is still a major player, has the support of segments of the population and can mount high profile attacks in Kabul, what does that tell you? The number of enemy killed does not provide any indication as to how well things are actually progressing. If that were the case the capital of a unified Vietnam would not be Hanoi and there would still be a country called South Vietnam. Similarly, the fact that much less Americans have been killed compared to Vietmam [such comparisons should not be made as this is comparing apples to oranges] or that the Taliban has failed to kill large number of Americn soldiers in tactical enagements is not indicative of how well things are progressing.

The US has gotten some goals completed. To elimated Al-Qaida and keep it from training on Afghan soil so yes the US has completed it main goal get rid of Al-Qaida

But the main goal, that of defeating the Taliban remains elusive and will probably never be achieved. This is not due to the failure of ISAF troops but due to fundamental mistakes that were made. The main goal of the invasion in 2001 was to defeat AQ with less attention being paid to the Taliban. When the Taliban first appeared out of nowhere in the mid-1990's, the Clinton admistration with urging from Saudi Arabia, actually kept its options open and was not critical of the Taliban as it was felt that the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan, in place of the warlords.

After 9/11, it was thought that by driving AQ away and by 'defeating' the Taliban, that things would be resolved. But then came the 2003-2004 comeback of the Taliban and the Taliban became the biggest threat to the U.S. achieving its goals in Afghanistan as unlike AQ it was a 'large' organisation with actual grass root support and was visible. The other goal was to establish a 'friendly' Afghan government in Kabul, one that was effective and one that had the widespread support of the population. That too remains elusive.

 

[My2Cents]

The US has gotten some goals completed. To elimated Al-Qaida and keep it from training on Afghan soil so yes the US has completed it main goal get rid of Al-Qaida

Al-Qaeda is alive, if not too well, and it’s command units are living in Pakistan and Yemen. They will be back in Afghanistan as soon as the pressure is off. And so far the Taliban is indicating it will be inviting Al-Qaeda back as soon as they return to power.

 

[STURM]

And so far the Taliban is indicating it will be inviting Al-Qaeda back as soon as they return to power.

Actually, according to Ahmad Rashid, the Taliban leadership has announced that they will not allow 'terrorists' back as this would be very damaging to the Taliban and might again result in foreign intervention. The Taliban fully realise that they can't do what they did in the past if they expect to retain support from the local population and that the main factor which lead to the U.S. invasion and the Taliban loss of power was due to the presence of AQ.

Other changes made have been directives by the Taliban leadership to units in the field not to attack schools and prevent women from receiving an education, and of course this isn't always obeyed by all the commanders. Motivated they may be by their strict interpretation of their religion and their desire to rid their country of foreigners but the Talibs recognises the fact many major mistakes were made when they were in power and that they have to change and adapt.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4QyWne7Bc"]Q&A: Ahmed Rashid - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[peterAustralia]

Have finished reading a couple of books on aghanistan and the Taliban.

Some things of note, it seems the Taliban were started on 24 October 1994, when a group of villagers got sick of corruption and warlords extracting taxes that made life almost unbearable, location was a road east of Kandahar. Soon after they recieved donations from Businessmen who were sick of having to pay tolls to armed men just to drive their trucks around. It seems that later the ISI may have become a supporter of the Taliban.

Some things of note, in no order after reading a couple more books

The US and Nato was/is providing aid at one eleventh of the total of military expenditure. This is important as aid and development go a long way to building up the good will of the local populace. Furthermore a lot of this aid was tied. By that I mean German aid has to go to german companies, american aid to american companies, etc etc.

One example given was resurfacing of a highway at $700,000 per km, whereas rival bids were a third of that bid. The road was narrow with no shoulders and already starting to break apart.

870 million dollars was spent trying to train up the Afghan Police for almost no benefit,

Life expectancy in afghanistan has actually gone down over the last ten years. From memory the figures changes from 43.5 to 41.5 years (figure from memroy could have been 45 to 43, either way not good)

The civil service in Agfhanistan of around 270000 people only get paid $40 per month. Aid agencies pay $1000 a month, thus it makes it difficult to retain good people in the Aghan civil service.

Lots of the Pashtun areas in the SE were never really controlled from a central government. This is not to say that there was anarchy, instead elders of each village would settle disputes via consultation. Although this is a different model from Western ideas of a centralised government, it is not neccessarily a bad form of government.

The Aghan forces (think police/could have been army) were transitioning from Toyotas to Hummers, whereas Toyotas are cheaper and more cost effective.

The size of the Taliban was given at only 25000 fighters, this number suprised me, I had assumed they would be a much larger number.

The general overview is that the war has not been conducted well. Too little effort was expended in providing good governance, fighting corruption, providiing stability.

My personal view is that Afghanistan is a lost war. I am not a great fan of the Taliban, however I do not see them as evil as is my opinion of Al Queda. With the French, Dutch forces leaving soon, other countries starting to pull out in next few years this will leave a vacuum that the Taliban can move into.

The Taliban did not ban female education, what they banned was mixed sex schools.

As a general rule that Taliban does not extort money from the populace as opposed to various warlords, Aghan Police. I am not saying that they are wonderful people. Apparently many of the Taliban that were fighting the US in 2001 had never heard of 9-11.

As to 2-cents assertion that if the Taliban got back in power, they would allow Al-Queda to move back in, do you have any sources to back up your claim. I am not questioning your character, it is just that I have never heard this claim before and would like to see what the actual basis is.

Looks to me like Afghanistan is a stuff-up. Donald Rumsfeld does not come across well. A lack of resources, a lack of committment to provide a good stable government that is respected by the people all point to this. Apparently Hamid Kazai and his family have ended up billionaires after being President of Afghanistan for 11 years, not a good look.

 

[surpreme]

Al-Qaeda is alive, if not too well, and it’s command units are living in Pakistan and Yemen. They will be back in Afghanistan as soon as the pressure is off. And so far the Taliban is indicating it will be inviting Al-Qaeda back as soon as they return to power.

No that not true I haven't heard or read anything like that. Al-Qaeda is still around no doubt about that. But let me ask you this with so many of it commanders and it main leader dead what's next? What can it do. The Operation of Al-Qaeda is down, there numbers are low and the area where they can train is limited so Al-Qaeda as a force is a non factor at the moment.

 

[My2Cents]

No that not true I haven't heard or read anything like that. Al-Qaeda is still around no doubt about that. But let me ask you this with so many of it commanders and it main leader dead what's next? What can it do. The Operation of Al-Qaeda is down, there numbers are low and the area where they can train is limited so Al-Qaeda as a force is a non factor at the moment.

True, al-Qaeda has been losing commanders faster than they can replace them. They are also slowed by the loss of so many support specialists (the bomb builders, internet and communications experts, propagandists, etc.). But they still have new recruits coming in, and a core group capable of training them.

All al-Qaeda needs is the appearance of victory to attract recruits -- surviving until the US pulls out of Afghanistan will suffice –a ‘safe-haven’ to train in, and in 2 to 3 years al-Qaeda will equal or exceed their pre-911 strength.

 

[surpreme]

True, al-Qaeda has been losing commanders faster than they can replace them. They are also slowed by the loss of so many support specialists (the bomb builders, internet and communications experts, propagandists, etc.). But they still have new recruits coming in, and a core group capable of training them.

All al-Qaeda needs is the appearance of victory to attract recruits -- surviving until the US pulls out of Afghanistan will suffice –a ‘safe-haven’ to train in, and in 2 to 3 years al-Qaeda will equal or exceed their pre-911 strength.

The problem for them when the US/ISAF pull out you still have the ANASF that will be hunting them down with US SF/CIA operatives so Al-Qaeda will be limited in what it can do. I don't want sound to far off but US Special Ops are well trained and capable forces if not the best in the world and Al-Qaeda has been label as a treat to the US so with that being said I don't see Special ops letting up on them.

 

[STURM]

Unless the West stops practicing double standards with regards to democracy and human rights in the Middle East, stops being 'selective' over where it wants democracy, the Israel and Palestine issue is not resolved and Israel does not withdraw from the occupied territories and Western troops leave Arab lands - Al Qaeda and other groups like it will continue to thrive and will be able to attract new recruits. We have to get to the root causes to understand why there is so much frustration and unhappiness amongst the majority of locals in the Middle East with the West. Until we do that, it will be irrelevant as to how well trained any foreign troops are, how many insurgents or terrorists are killed and how many 'regimes' are disposed.....

 

[peterAustralia]

A couple of days ago Nato decided to give 16 billion dollars of aid to Afghanistan. It was reported that the main contributors would be the US, Germany and Japan. Well as I noted previously, these countries often give tied grants. By that I mean that the money does not go to the everyday people. A grant from the US will often go to a US company to build a project (even it competitor bids are much cheaper). German grants usually go to german companies to do projects etc etc.

Australia is giving 1 billion dollars over 4 years in aid.

Alexander Downer (former Australian foreign minister) was on TV last night. Even he is saying that a negotiated settlement with the Taliban is the best course of action. I did find it a bit rough him saying that some Afghan refugees should not leave their country. I dont have any easy answers, but there are some that if they stay there are at risk of being killed. Thus those individuals are in a dilemma, stay and die or leave teh country and live.

Nato and its allies have spend a good $400 billion in Afghanistan going on 11 years now. The average life expectancy over that time has actually gone down (43 to 41), and corruption is amazlingly rampant. Opium makes up about half the economy. Whichever way you look at it, Afghanistan is a stuff-up, it has not been managed well

With all the aid projects in so many countries over so many decades, you would think that by now the west would be getting better at it, I know Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack, but it has not been managed well.

 

[Marc 1]

With all the aid projects in so many countries over so many decades, you would think that by now the west would be getting better at it, I know Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack, but it has not been managed well.

Afghanistan was never going to be. For any meaningful change a commitment of 30-40 years would be necessary. The population would probably want to get rid of the taliban but were unlikely to come across to the NATO side simply because they knew NATO was not going to be around for many years to come. If the population had come out and revealed the taliban - sided with NATO, ironically the success that would have generated would have lead to an earlier NATO withdrawl - as soon as NATO had withdrawn, the talibs would have come back and exacted a very nasty and permanent retribution on the afghans that had betrayed them.

So, mindful of the long game, the afghans sat and kept their mouths shut - without a very long term commitment on a much larger basis they knew it would end in tears.

 

[STURM]

With all the aid projects in so many countries over so many decades, you would think that by now the west would be getting better at it, I know Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack, but it has not been managed well.

The issue is dealt with in great depth in Ahmad Rashid's Descent Into Chaos. The author also explores other areas in which crucial mistakes were made in the 2002-2003 period when the Taliban was weak and the bulk of the population were not yet against the presence of foreign troops.

A very interesting video that shows a human face to the insurgents. The insurgents shown are are from Hetmatyer's Herz e Islami. Hetmatyer was the main beneficiary of much aid that was channeled from the US. and the Arab world via Pakistan during the war with the Soviets and was Pakistan's main man until he was discarded in favour of the Taliban in 1996. The video is also quite hilarious as it shows an ambush in which almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the insurgents and also shows the dedication and faith they have in their cause.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpAwqGd6g8"]Dispatches Afghanistan: Behind Enemy Lines (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/nomedia]