Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taliban outflanks US war strategy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taliban outflanks US war strategy

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NI22Df01.html
    Taliban outflanks US war strategy
    By Gareth Porter and Shah Noori

    WASHINGTON/KABUL - Sharply increased attacks on US and other international forces personnel by Afghan security forces, reflecting both infiltration of and Taliban influence on those forces, appear to have outflanked the US-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command's strategy for maintaining control of the insurgency.

    The Taliban-instigated "insider attacks", which have already killed 51 NATO troops in 2012 - already 45% more than in all of 2011 - have created such distrust of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and national police that the International Security Assistance


    Force (ISAF) command has suspended joint operations by NATO forces with Afghan security units smaller than the 800-strong battalion of Kandak and vowed to limit them in the future.

    ISAF had intended to carry out intensive partnering and advising of ANA and police units below battalion level through 2012 to get them ready to take responsibility for Afghan security. Now, however, that strategy appears to have been disrupted by the insider attacks, and Afghan military and civilian officials are seriously concerned.

    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta sought to minimize the crisis in US war strategy Tuesday by calling the inside attacks on NATO troops the "last gasp" of a Taliban insurgency that has been "unable to regain any of the territory that they have lost". The "last gasp" phrase recalls then Vice-President **** Cheney's infamous 2005 claim that the Iraqi insurgency was "in its last throes".

    But General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has no apparent personal stake in touting the existing strategy in Afghanistan, called the attacks "a very serious threat to the campaign" in an interview on Saturday.

    "You can't whitewash it," said Dempsey. "We can't convince ourselves that we just have to work harder to get through it. Something has to change."

    The ISAF command also tried to downplay the significance of the decision, portraying it as "temporary" and not unlike previous adjustments to high threat conditions. The ISAF press release vowed that it would "return to normal operations as soon as conditions warrant".

    But the Taliban have power over whether conditions return to a level that would allow resumption of the joint operations between NATO and Afghan forces, which have been touted as the key to preparing the ANA and the police to cope with the Taliban on their own. The Taliban have achieved a strategic coup by creating a high degree of US-NATO fear and mistrust of the Afghan forces.

    Even if some joint operations are resumed, moreover, they will be limited to those approved by regional commanders, according to the new policy. And White House spokesman Jay Carney appeared to contradict the ISAF "return to normal operations" language, telling reporters, "Most partnering and advising will now be at the battalion level and above."

    ISAF Commander General John Allen has tried in the past to minimize the role of the Taliban in the insider killings, suggesting that as little as 10% of the Afghan soldiers and police who killed NATO troops were Taliban infiltrators. Most of the killers acted out of personal anger at their Western advisers, Allen argued.

    But Allen also conceded that, in addition to Taliban infiltrators, some Afghan troops may have acted out of "radicalization or having become susceptible to extremist ideology".

    New evidence suggests that the Taliban had influenced a number of ANA and police who killed NATO personnel. Last month, the Taliban's media arm released a video showing a Taliban commander in eastern Kunar province welcoming two ANA soldiers who they said had killed US and Afghan troops earlier in the year. Based on the video, the Long War Journal judged that neither of the soldiers had been a Taliban infiltrator but had made the decision in response to Taliban urging.

    Douglas Ollivant, who was senior counterinsurgency adviser to the US commander of the regional command for eastern Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, told IPS the evidence indicates that most Afghan personnel who killed NATO troops and were not already Taliban when they joined the security forces had later become "de facto infiltrators".

    In the Afghan rural social context, the local Taliban and the Afghan troops and soldiers "all know each other", Ollivant said. "It's not like they are from two different planets."

    Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis, who traveled extensively across Afghanistan during his 2010-2011 tour of duty there, found evidence that the Taliban had indeed achieved influence over the Afghan security forces who were supposed to be helping US-NATO forces root out the insurgents.

    In a draft report he wrote earlier this year, which had circulated within the US government and was leaked to Rolling Stone magazine, Davis wrote, "In almost every combat outpost I visited this year, the troopers reported to me they had intercepted radio or other traffic between the ANSF and the local Taliban making essentially mini-nonaggression deals with each other."

    In Zharay district of Kandahar province, Davis wrote, he found the Afghan security forces were "in league with the Taliban".

    Taliban spiritual and political leader Mullah Omar issued a statement August 16 saying the Taliban had "cleverly infiltrated the ranks of the enemy according to the plan given them last year." Omar also called on Afghan security personnel to "defect and joint the Taliban as matter of religious duty".

    For many months the US has been putting intense pressure on the Afghan government to prevent such killings by "revetting" the personnel files of ANA and police personnel. Just last week, the government announced that it had removed "hundreds" of security forces from its ranks.

    But there is very little the Afghan government can do to ensure against Afghan troops turning against NATO. "Vetting is virtually impossible in a place like Afghanistan," former British commander Colonel Richard Kemp told the Guardian.

    There are no detailed files on the young recruits into the army and police. The only information on the vast majority of new recruits is a statement from village elders vouching for them.

    Retired Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, senior fellow and director of communications at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, told IPS that US officers in Afghanistan don't believe the Afghan government's efforts to identify potential Taliban infiltrators or sympathizers will slow the pace of insider killings. "They are all saying it isn't going to have any effect," said Shaffer.

    The decision by ISAF to pull back from joint operations with smaller Afghan units is regarded by Afghan officials and observers as a major boost to the Taliban and a potentially serious blow to the already shaky ANA and police.

    Retired ANA General Atiqullah Amarkhail acknowledged in an interview with IPS that insider attacks "have destroyed the NATO trust in the Afghan security forces". The halt in joint operations with Afghan security forces will "really embolden and raise the morale of the Taliban", he said. "The Taliban consider that they have achieved the goal they have been working for and are proud that they made coalition forces stop helping Afghan security forces."

    Amarkhail said he doesn't believe the ANA will be able to conduct operations without the help of NATO forces, because of poor coordination among Afghan security forces and its lack of modern weapons.

    "If the foreign forces do not support and leave the Afghan Army in the present condition, things will get worse," said Amarkhail. He expressed the fear that the result could be that different elements within the ANA will "turn their guns on each other".

    Dawoud Ahmadi, spokesman for Helmand Province Governor Mohammad Gulab Mangal, also expressed the fear that the ANA in the province will not be able to operate effectively against the Taliban if ISAF halts joint operations with the ANA at lower unit levels.

    The spokesman told IPS, "We have problems in Helmand province, especially in the North. If NATO doesn't help in conducting operations at lower level, the Afghan security forces will face problems, because they are not yet ready to launch operations on their own in that part of the province."

    Shah Noori reported from Kabul. Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the US war in Afghanistan.

  • #2
    The Afghanistan war is going so badly that even Senate hawk John McCain has said an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces has to be considered among the options. by Jack Kenny


    Friday, 21 September 2012 10:22 McCain Wants Faster Withdrawal as Option in Afghanistan

    Written by Jack Kenny



    Things are going so badly in the war in Afghanistan that even John McCain, one of the Senate's foremost hawks, has said an accelerated withdrawal of American forces has to be considered among the available options, the D.C. publication The Hill reported.
    "I think all options ought to be considered, including whether we have to just withdraw early, rather than have a continued bloodletting that won't succeed," McCain said Wednesday. The Arizona senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate has long been a champion of the U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and was a vocal opponent of setting a timeline for the withdrawal of troops. But the 2014 date set by President Obama is based on a transition of responsibility to the Afghan armed forces, which would be ready to defend the government on their own from attacks by the Taliban and other insurgents. But a rash of "insider" attacks on American and NATO forces by Afghan soldiers and police has thrown off track the training and support of the government forces.
    A recent surge of such attacks has brought to 51 the number of Americans killed this year by the Afghan troops they have been training and fighting alongside. Last month coalition forces halted the training of new recruits for the Afghan military and police while the vetting process for weeding out Taliban or other insurgents is under review. Last week, the U.S.-led coalition temporarily suspended joint operations with Afghan units because of the insider attacks.
    "Any rational viewer that has any knowledge of the military knows that the whole program has to be re-evaluated, because the process that they said would lead to that withdrawal has been an abject and total failure," McCain said. Still, he was not calling for an accelerated withdrawal, but only saying it should be considered as an option. Other members of Congress are past considering the options in the 11-year-old war and have decided that American fighting units have been in Afghanistan either long enough or too long. Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, is among them.
    "I think we should remove ourselves from Afghanistan as quickly as we can," Young said in an interview Monday with the Tampa Bay Times. "I just think we're killing kids that don't need to die." Young has previously opposed resolutions for withdrawal or setting a timetable for withdrawal.
    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he agrees with President Obama's timeline for having all combat units out of the Afghanistan by 2014, with some U.S. military personnel remaining beyond that date to continue to assist in the training and equipping of the Afghan forces. Romney has, however, criticized the current withdrawal of the roughly 33,000 troops Obama sent to the country in the surge of forces in 2009. The withdrawal will leave about 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan through 2014.
    At last month's Republican National Convention in Tampa, film star Clint Eastwood ridiculed Obama's schedule for troop withdrawal, claiming Romney's response was, "Why not just bring them home tomorrow morning?" That was never Romney's position, but the line drew applause from the delegates.
    The Authorization of the Use of Military Force, passed by Congress three days after the September 11 attacks, authorized the president to take military action against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." The United States and allied forces deposed the Taliban government of Afghanistan shortly after initiating hostilities with that country in the fall of 2001. Two years ago Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated there were no more than 50 to 100 al-Qaeda left in the country. Some critics of the mission in Afghanistan say it has gone beyond what was authorized by the AUMF and that the U.S. military has been involved in nation building in a land that has had little history of nationhood and a long legacy of tribal warfare.
    Sen Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who rarely disagrees with McCain on foreign policy and military issues, believes an earlier withdrawal from Afghanistan would be disastrous. "What happens when you leave? Tell me a scenario where we're safer by pulling the plug on Afghanistan," Graham said to reporters Wednesday. "I can't envision a scenario that doesn't lead to holy hell ... and I can't envision a scenario where another 9/11 doesn't come about."
    Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the administration should always be reevaluating policy on Afghanistan. As Levin sees it, the question is whether the United States should continue the withdrawal of forces there or stop the drawdown for a while.
    "That's the issue that the administration is going to be facing," he said.

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...s-afghanistan/


      Defense hawk backs US withdrawal from Afghanistan



      DONNA CASSATA | September 21, 2012 03:17 PM EST



      WASHINGTON — One of the strongest defense hawks in Congress says the United States should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan amid increasing signs that even Republican proponents of the war believe it's no longer worth the cost.
      Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., said in an interview this week that "we're killing kids who don't need to die."
      Young's comments reflect the growing weariness with a conflict that has dragged on for more than a decade, with polls showing more than 60 percent of Americans opposing the war and military fights drawing little of the public's attention. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney didn't even mention the troops or the war in his convention acceptance speech last month, a striking omission for a GOP candidate.
      Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Friday that the 33,000 additional U.S. troops that President Barack Obama had sent to Afghanistan roughly two years ago to counter the Taliban attacks have left the country.
      That leaves close to 100,000 NATO troops, including 68,000 Americans.
      Even the fiercest backers of the war in Congress have been unnerved by the increasing wave of deadly insider attacks in which Afghan Army and police troops, or insurgents dressed in their uniforms, have turned their guns on U.S. and NATO forces. This week, commanders imposed new limits on when NATO and Afghan troops can patrol together.
      Fifty-one coalition troops have been killed in such attacks this year.

      "I think we should remove ourselves from Afghanistan as quickly as we can," Young told the editorial board of the Tampa Bay Times on Monday.
      As chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees defense spending, Young's words are certain to reverberate at the Pentagon and the White House.
      The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised the prospect of an early withdrawal of U.S. forces, who are scheduled to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
      "I think all options (should) be considered, including whether we have to just withdraw early rather than have a continued bloodletting that won't succeed," McCain said Wednesday. "The whole program has to be re-evaluated because the process they said would lead to that withdrawal has been an abject and total failure."
      The next day, McCain issued a statement clarifying his comments. He suggested halting the drawdown of U.S. forces to reassess the strategy, including Obama's plan.
      He added that no option should be taken off the table, even the possibility of a more rapid withdrawal of American troops. However, McCain insisted that "would be the worst possible course of action.
      Panetta said the surge accomplished its objectives of reversing the Taliban momentum and has dismissed suggestions that the overall strategy is failing.

      Comment


      • #4
        A British official was recently quoted as saying that Afghanistan should be left alone and let things take it's course.

        No s*** sherlock! Thanks for setting that "course" back decades by invading Afghanistan. These people are idiots.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tashfin28

          تاشفين – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ









          Please read this.

          Having problems with the board? Have advice to improve the board? Feel free to post any problems you are facing or any advice you might have to offer to improve our community.



          Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
          Salaam u Alaikum Forum,

          I have posted this message elsewhere and the include this here as the update:

          Since Barakzai flagged up the issue, I've scrolled through a good sample of Noorzai's posts both in English and Pashto. My personal conclusion is that most amount to 'press releases'.

          Pashtunforums does not act as a mouthpiece for recruiters - military, intelligence, terror group or their affiliates. That is why it has been easy to say "No" to the offers of payment from the various outfits wishing to recruit Pashto/English speakers.

          The forum needs to remain an independent place open for debate and allowing people to have a strong opinion is not the same as allowing an account to operate for the opportunistic purposes of military propaganda. To that effect, it seems sensible to close the Noorzai account.

          I thank the various Members for flagging this up.
          Last edited by Shah-i-Kot; 10-03-2012, 01:27 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X