Comments on Haq's Musings: US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

Here is a BBC report about Taliban's brazen Kabul ...

2010-01-23T17:57:35.257-08:00

Here is a BBC report about Taliban's brazen Kabul attacks and how the Afghan Taliban deliberately avoided civilian casualties, unlike the Pakistani Taliban:

The Taliban, we learned later, having failed to storm the government buildings they had at first targeted, sought shelter elsewhere.

At least four went into a crowded shopping centre.

If their intention had been to kill as many people as possible, it would have been achievable there.

But they didn't. They ordered everyone - shoppers and shopkeepers alike - out. Soon the building was on fire.

The Taliban fighters died amid the flames, most of them in a volley of gunfire, while the last man alive blew himself up.

The number of civilians who died was - given the scale of what was happening - surprisingly low.

From Pakistan, we learned, a Taliban spokesman had called a news agency, while the attack was still under way, to announce that 20 of its militants were involved.

The public relations management was as vital to the perpetrators as the co-ordination of the attack itself.

This care, this determination to avoid civilian deaths is now part of the conflict in Afghanistan.

It is something the Taliban shares with its Nato enemies.

As Obama ponders US policy and more US troops in A...

2009-11-19T08:34:11.369-08:00

As Obama ponders US policy and more US troops in Afghanistan, there are echoes of Soviet defeat, according to BBC:

By the late 1980s, Moscow's exit strategy was basically the same as Nato's today - to build up an allied government in Kabul with sufficient trained army and police forces to defend itself, thereby allowing foreign troops to leave.

But even with the backing of a 100,000-strong Soviet army and billions of rubles in aid, the Afghan government struggled to establish its legitimacy and authority much beyond the capital - much like President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed administration today.

This bleak assessment of the situation in late 1986 by the Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, sounds eerily familiar.

"Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old," Mr Akhromeev told Mr Gorbachev at a November 1986 Politburo session.

"There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.

"The whole problem is that military results are not followed up by political actions. At the centre there is authority; in the provinces there is not.

"We control Kabul and the provincial centers, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority. We have lost the battle for the Afghan people".

By that point, Soviet trainers had created an Afghan army 160,000-strong - double the size of the force Nato has trained so far - together with thousands of much-feared secret policemen.

Yet once Soviet forces had left, they could do little more than defend Kabul and a few other cities.

Only massive military aid, coupled with incompetence and in-fighting among the US-backed mujahideen opposition, allowed the Afghan government Moscow left behind to cling on in Kabul for a few more years before finally collapsing.

There were familiar problems too with the financial assistance Moscow gave.

It hoped the funds would bolster the capacity of the Afghan government and pay for projects that would benefit people, winning hearts and minds.

However corruption rendered much of its useless.

As the Politburo discussed a new aid request from Kabul in January 1987, Marshal Sergei Sokolov said: "In 1981, we gave them 100m roubles of free assistance. And all of that went to the elite. And there was nothing in the hamlets - no kerosene, no matches."

Here's a comment I received via email on this post...

2008-10-07T08:27:42.854-07:00

Here's a comment I received via email on this post:

Dear Riaz,
Beautifully composed; hits the nail on the head. The saying in Pakistan is: you cannot kill the Pathan with a bullet.
Yesterday I saw on the TV that an Afghan delegation, has met one from Taliban in Saudi Arabia under the patronage of the Kingdom; may be it us the beginning of the "end game".
Let us hope better sense prevails.

There are differences in the language used, but th...

2008-10-07T08:22:08.849-07:00

There are differences in the language used, but there is a broad consensus emerging among US, UK, NATO and UN that the Afghan war can not be won by military means alone. That political negotiations are necessary. Here's an excerpt from a BBC report on this subject:

Mr Gates said despite challenges, there was no reason to think success could not be achieved in the long run.

But he endorsed the recommendation by Brig Mark Carleton-Smith that a resolution to the conflict would require negotiations with the Taleban.

Earlier, Nato-led forces said they also supported opening talks with militants.

Brig Richard Blanchette, the spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said there could be no military solution.

The UN Special Representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, made similar comments.

Courage actually comes from necessity and direness...

2008-10-06T03:31:00.000-07:00

Courage actually comes from necessity and direness of threat perception. What did Nazis blabbered about Jews' fighting capability.6-day multi-front war pronouncedly answered that question. Europeans think that winning Taliban is an option.The way Spain folded up when a ceasefire was proposed by Al-Qaeda vindicates my rant about Europeans (with exception of french & russians).Taliban/warlords can be defeated if "the source" is taken out. You might have heard about latest Spanish intel leaks taking about Pak army-intelligence double game. This is precisely the reason for phoenix type rise of Taliban from ashes.As Afghan RAM chief puts it, the situation in NWFP-FATA is "controlled chaos" to confuse the US into thinking that Pak Army is on the same side of counter-terrorism and border areas are out of control. Its for no reason that Western intelligence have stopped sharing intelligence with ISI.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/3116894/Spanish-intelligence-document-says-Pakistan-helped-arm-Taliban.html

http://www.kyrgyzstannews.net/story/413765

-Jaydev

Jaydev, i bet you sit comfortably home and get mos...

2008-10-05T20:51:00.000-07:00

Jaydev, i bet you sit comfortably home and get most of your news from cnn and listen to bush and now obama. regardless of what they want or should want. Have you ever thought that you can never win against people who are more courages then you are. The u.s soldiers and the n.a.t.o soldiers spend millions on safety and in sure the soldiers don,t die even though poor soldiers can,t even walk cause they are so heavy carrying all the safety guard. On the other hand the taliban as much as i hate them, go out there to die and you can,t win against people who are willing to sacrifice.Talking is the only solution wheather you like it or not and i am glad sombody has sense, rather then same old rethoric. sooner or lar they will have to talk
p.s obama is just using the same thechnique bush used in 04 scare the american public and it will work.

Jaydev,Your comments are quite predictably hawkish...

2008-10-05T13:15:48.404-07:00

Jaydev,
Your comments are quite predictably hawkish and highly laudatory of India's "successes". The fact is that the only insurgency India has successfully put down is the one in Punjab. The rest of them are still raging with no end in sight.

Please understand: Afghanistan and FATA are not Punjab. Just look at the history of invasions and interventions and you'll know that no one, I emphasize "NO ONE" has been able to defeat them with bombs and bullets. The Brits and the Russians know it better than any one else.

I applaud Brig Gen Carleton-Smith for his insightful analysis and candor. Privately, I am almost certain that the American generals are saying the same thing to their politicians (particularly Obama) who are full of bluster and bravado. It'll take some more time and more losses before they all agree with Carleton-Smith and start dealing with the political side of the conflict, just like they had to in Iraq.

Its a shame for a Brigadier rank officer to say th...

2008-10-05T12:41:00.000-07:00

Its a shame for a Brigadier rank officer to say they cannot win the war.That is the job of politicians.The Europeans have turned soft because of prosperity and peace in the region while US does the dirty job.The Germans hide in Southern Afghanistan and very touchy about causalities.Why are they wasting large amount of money on military. They should go ahead and disband the military and raise poultry farm instead.The Americans says they are NOT WINNING but THEY CAN. And that is the attitude of a soldier. Peace deal with Taliban - Give me a break.And negotiate what length of beard or hijab or abaya? A Chamberlain policy will lead to history repeating itself. What the hell were they doing brinkmanship with Soviet Union when they cannot even tackle a rag-tag Taliban guerrilla warfare.India is battling 35 or so insurgencies all at the same time and crushed Punjab,Tripura and Kashmiri terrorism without hifi network centric warfare or night vision.They cannot handle a stupid illiterate force with walkie-talkies and automatic.Another 7/11 type attack will hopefully get the attention of the chattering Europeans.