Taliban in Control of 54% of Afganistan

[DiogenesDog]

Afghanistan 'falling into hands of Taliban'


· Frontline getting closer to Kabul, says thinktank
· Aid not going to those who need it most, warns Oxfam

Graphic: Taliban presence in Afghanistan

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday November 22, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2214994,00.html


The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.

Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

How can this possibly be? Was all that has gone before a charade? Did we not shoot or bomb enough mud huts, cave entrances, or did we not kill enough innocent people.

Was it something I said? Was it the Democrats not caving in to the W_administration sufficiently? Did the troops in the field not perform to their utmost ability?

In the face of the best the west had in its armament and tactical locker to bring to force against the political entity called Taliban, Taliban has survived, flourished and is occupying the heartland of Afghanistan unopposed. I do not believe that evil is the cause for their success from inside their ranks. The evil is outside in the way and means of forces opposing such a paternalistic and vulnerable martial group. Errors are being made every day by the west. The guard is down because the political prosecution of this war is being directed by a narrow minded and corporate mentality that has allowed corrupt business practices to become the rule. They will have their wealth at no cost to themselves. As long as the little people stand about with their remotes in their hands nothing but evil will come about.

The world will continue to turn. The seasons will change. Dancing with the stars will continue to play to the proles. As a nation the US will no longer have a place in the world of honest interaction outside arms and destruction of others by surrogates.

Many of you who now give lip service to this sad period in our lives will perhaps in the final moments of your conscious existence ask in pain, "What was I thinking?"

I AM

 

[Annie]

I've posted, here or elsewhere that while Iraq is won in the main, Afghanistan is more than a challenge. Is Petraus available?

 

[Gunny]

I've posted, here or elsewhere that while Iraq is won in the main, Afghanistan is more than a challenge. Is Petraus available?

Coalition troops can't occupy every square inch of ground and the Taliban just leaks back into areas that are left uncontrolled. Hardly a surprising strategy, nor an unexpected one.

This is just more spin to try and paint Afghanistan as a failure, in the ongoing effort to ensure the US efforts as a whole are made to look like losing ones.

 

[jillian]

Coalition troops can't occupy every square inch of ground and the Taliban just leaks back into areas that are left uncontrolled. Hardly a surprising strategy, nor an unexpected one.

This is just more spin to try and paint Afghanistan as a failure, in the ongoing effort to ensure the US efforts as a whole are made to look like losing ones.

No, spin, Gunny. It's that our resources were diverted to Iraq. Bush didn't keep his eye on the prize. That's not a reflection on our military. That's a reflection on our civilian leadership.

And for the record, it's the same stuff many of us said at the beginning. No Monday morning quarterbacking. Just that we were right.

 

[Gunny]

No, spin, Gunny. It's that our resources were diverted to Iraq. Bush didn't keep his eye on the prize. That's not a reflection on our military. That's a reflection on our civilian leadership.

And for the record, it's the same stuff many of us said at the beginning. No Monday morning quarterbacking. Just that we were right.

It is not that our resources were diverted to Iraq. It's more like, who cares if the Taliban occupies Afghanistan's version of the mojave desert?

I disagree that you are "right" about whatever it is you are claiming to be right about.

The fact is, we were never going to be allowed by the candyasses to annihilate the Taliban. That fact exacerbated by the fact they can hide in another country to regroup, and the only way to go after them is to invade another sovereign nation.

If nothing else, I'm sure the "leadership" has gotten the message about doing THAT from the aforementioned candyasses.

 

[jillian]

It is not that our resources were diverted to Iraq. It's more like, who cares if the Taliban occupies Afghanistan's version of the mojave desert?

I disagree that you are "right" about whatever it is you are claiming to be right about.

The fact is, we were never going to be allowed by the candyasses to annihilate the Taliban. That fact exacerbated by the fact they can hide in another country to regroup, and the only way to go after them is to invade another sovereign nation.

If nothing else, I'm sure the "leadership" has gotten the message about doing THAT from the aforementioned candyasses.

Hogwash. Yes. There are people for whom no provocation is enough for war. And on the other side, there are people who want to go bomb A-rabs for the fun of it. Most people are more like me. And most people wanted to blow the bejeesus out of the Taliban and parade Bin Laden's head around on a stick.

The only one who didn't want to do that was the admin. They wanted to go do what the neo-cons wanted for the five years prior.

You had full international support for anything you did in there too. (less that little percentage of no war -- never -- types).

 

[Annie]

Coalition troops can't occupy every square inch of ground and the Taliban just leaks back into areas that are left uncontrolled. Hardly a surprising strategy, nor an unexpected one.

This is just more spin to try and paint Afghanistan as a failure, in the ongoing effort to ensure the US efforts as a whole are made to look like losing ones.

The problem with the Taliban is their ability to run and hide in Pakistan, then come back when they are ready.

I don't think this was a failure on the part of US or needing more troops. The problem is Afghanistan's lack of a legitimate economy. The US and Afghanistan has been shutting down the poppies, so that is a problem.

 

[Gunny]

Hogwash. Yes. There are people for whom no provocation is enough for war. And on the other side, there are people who want to go bomb A-rabs for the fun of it. Most people are more like me. And most people wanted to blow the bejeesus out of the Taliban and parade Bin Laden's head around on a stick.

The only one who didn't want to do that was the admin. They wanted to go do what the neo-cons wanted for the five years prior.

You had full international support for anything you did in there too. (less that little percentage of no war -- never -- types).

Just to clarify ... I am not the administration, so let's don't personalize this by saying "you." I had nothing as I am not in the decision-making process.

Since Afghanistan is and has been a UN coalition action, Us troop strength is not as much a factor as you wish to make it out to be.

And just to clarify my stance there, I would NOT have opened a second front until I had completely secured the first one. I did NOT think invading Iraq when we did was the strategically correct thing to do, and I have repeatedly said so since the decision was made.

I'm just not buying the argument that the invasion of Iraq is hampering our effort in Afghanistan. I'd say the single-most factor would be the fact that we cannot pursue into Pakistan. Troop strength has little to do with that since at no time did we have enough troops in Afghanistan to occupy every square inch of the country.

 

[DiogenesDog]

GunnyL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
I've posted, here or elsewhere that while Iraq is won in the main, Afghanistan is more than a challenge. Is Petraus available?
Coalition troops can't occupy every square inch of ground and the Taliban just leaks back into areas that are left uncontrolled. Hardly a surprising strategy, nor an unexpected one.

This is just more spin to try and paint Afghanistan as a failure, in the ongoing effort to ensure the US efforts as a whole are made to look like losing ones.

A wise and resourceful commander never over extends his front, exposes his flanks in error or engages in two major campaigns with insufficient resources. I know you served as well as your capabilities allowed. I fear that you do not understand that you should be outraged and very vocal about those errors being committed against your Corps, your flag and your Constitution. Our seeming failures and the inability to take and hold territory has one principal sponsor and many half assed experimental architects. The supporting cast of Americans-in-the-Mall have no idea how ill they are being used.

I attempt to avoid this

"Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete".The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογί&#945, meaning defense of a position against an attack. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

I do a great deal of work in this

hermeuneutics - The art or skill or theory of interpretation: the method of coming to an understanding of a text.

www.theology.edu/theology/glossary.htm

I have some innate abilities in this. It is why I was a shit hot communications analyst.

This site is a gold mine of contradiction and pathology. I love it so.

I AM

 

[jillian]

Just to clarify ... I am not the administration, so let's don't personalize this by saying "you." I had nothing as I am not in the decision-making process.

Since Afghanistan is and has been a UN coalition action, Us troop strength is not as much a factor as you wish to make it out to be.

And just to clarify my stance there, I would NOT have opened a second front until I had completely secured the first one. I did NOT think invading Iraq when we did was the strategically correct thing to do, and I have repeatedly said so since the decision was made.

I'm just not buying the argument that the invasion of Iraq is hampering our effort in Afghanistan. I'd say the single-most factor would be the fact that we cannot pursue into Pakistan. Troop strength has little to do with that since at no time did we have enough troops in Afghanistan to occupy every square inch of the country.

First. Apologies. I didn't mean to personalize in that fashion. I was writing quickly. Am I forgiven?

I am not alone in my view. And I think it isn't reasonable to think that our diversion of resources to Iraq had no net effect on our efforts in Afghanistan.

Many foreign-policy analysts, members of Congress, and former intelligence officials say that the Bush administration, when it moved on in early 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, mistakenly and naively calculated that its mission in Afghanistan was well under control.
"The United States, Karzai, and the international community failed to move quickly enough when the Taliban was on the run to establish a reasonable security environment in which reconstruction could take place," James Dobbins, a Rand director and specialist in postwar reconstruction efforts, told National Journal. "The planning and resources for Iraq began to siphon not only our resources but also our time and attention from Afghanistan."
Dobbins, who until mid-2002 was a special envoy to Afghanistan for the Bush administration, puts much of the blame on the diversion of intelligence, manpower, and money to Iraq. "I think Iraq and Afghanistan have had a pernicious effect on each other," Dobbins explained. "The administration missed a giant window of opportunity in 2002 and 2003. The Afghanistan government failed to provide public services to the population."

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/1206/121106ol.htm

And lest you have issue with the site, you can check it out here:

http://www.govexec.com/about.htm

 

[DeadCanDance]

First. Apologies. I didn't mean to personalize in that fashion. I was writing quickly. Am I forgiven?

I am not alone in my view. And I think it isn't reasonable to think that our diversion of resources to Iraq had no net effect on our efforts in Afghanistan.



http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/1206/121106ol.htm

And lest you have issue with the site, you can check it out here:

http://www.govexec.com/about.htm

Many foreign-policy analysts, members of Congress, and former intelligence officials say that the Bush administration, when it moved on in early 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, mistakenly and naively calculated that its mission in Afghanistan was well under control.


Spot on. Many experts, and people who knew the region said it was far from over, in December 2001 when the taliban were routed from kabul. That it was going to take a major, and ongoing sustained commitment from us. Meanwhile, some warhawks were already toasting bush's great victory, and salivating to turn to iraq next.

Big mistake.

 

[jillian]

Spot on. Many experts, and people who knew the region said it was far from over, in December 2001 when the taliban were routed from kabul. That it was going to take a major, and ongoing sustained commitment from us. Meanwhile, some warhawks were already toasting bush's great victory, and salivating to turn to iraq next.

Big mistake.

I thought so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I thought so.

Except NO ONE planned to send in large numbers of Non Afghan troops, EVER. The theory being such a move would cause widespread resistance ala the Soviet Invasion in the 80's. And we STILL do not plan to send large numbers of Foreign troops into Afghanistan.

 

[Gunny]

First. Apologies. I didn't mean to personalize in that fashion. I was writing quickly. Am I forgiven?

I am not alone in my view. And I think it isn't reasonable to think that our diversion of resources to Iraq had no net effect on our efforts in Afghanistan.



http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/1206/121106ol.htm

And lest you have issue with the site, you can check it out here:

http://www.govexec.com/about.htm

The argument is akin to the "Man-made Global Warming" argument. Without a doubt, it would be extremely hard to say man does not have SOME impact in some way. But to go all hysterical and start legislating for the sake of it when the actual reason for global waming has not been discovered, IMO, is ridiculous.

Same applies to Afghanistan. I am sure than in some ways, there is an impact on US resources. Would be hard to argue otherwise.

But to blame that for the Taliban reoccupying areas not controlled by coalition forces is, IMO, grasping for straws. If we had our entire armed forces occupying Afghanistan, it would still be perfectly logical that Taliban forces would reoccupy any land not controlled by our forces.

The only other option they have is complete surrender of Afghanistan. The didn't give it to the Soviets, and they aren't going to give it now. If the Taliban isn't destroyed to the last man, it will continue to operate as a guerilla force, and detractors will continue to point to its existence as a failed policy.

 

[Gunny]

Many foreign-policy analysts, members of Congress, and former intelligence officials say that the Bush administration, when it moved on in early 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, mistakenly and naively calculated that its mission in Afghanistan was well under control.


Spot on. Many experts, and people who knew the region said it was far from over, in December 2001 when the taliban were routed from kabul. That it was going to take a major, and ongoing sustained commitment from us. Meanwhile, some warhawks were already toasting bush's great victory, and salivating to turn to iraq next.

Big mistake.

While I will argue the "big mistake" comment ... I have never argued that it is strategically sound to open a second front unless forced to before completely securing the first front. That's just common sense.

I'm not however, going to go the complete opposite direction with the sensationalist "big" mistake.

As stated in my previous post, unless the Taliban is annihilated to the man, it will continue to exist as a guerilla organization and will have to be dealt with.

Problem with Americans is they want a fast, cut-n-dried win with no remainder to deal with, and if there is a remainder, rather than deal with it, they want to start pointing fingers and casting blame.