Taliban on the ropes...the beginning of the End?

[M.Dancer]

Taliban ammunition 'running low'

Troops are due to push into south-west Marjah in the coming days

Taliban militants battling coalition troops in Marjah, Afghanistan, are running out of ammunition, Nato officials say.

A BBC correspondent in Kandahar says that from eavesdropping on Taliban communications, Nato understands militants have called for support.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8521503.stm

Taliban militants are increasingly using civilians as "human shields" as they battle against a joint Afghan-Nato offensive, an Afghan general has said.

Gen Mohiudin Ghori said his soldiers had seen Taliban fighters placing women and children on the roofs of buildings and firing from behind them.

The joint offensive in southern Helmand province has entered its fifth day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8519507.stm

As a result of the push west by Afghan and Canadian forces, "the insurgency in Panjwaii is currently in a state of disarray," Walsh said. One of the main reasons for this is that "their rat lines" for resupply and reinforcements "had all been interdicted," by the presence of Afghan and Canadians troops in areas where they used to operate, he said

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadians+Afghans+beat+back+Taliban+crazy+fighting+Soldier/2666480/story.html

Baradar 'singing like a canary.' Captured Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is "singing like a male canary," according to intelligence officials, reports Fox News. Baradar, who remains under Pakistani custody, is providing vital information about the Taliban and other extremist groups in the region. After a series of arrests, the Afghan Taliban's leadership has reportedly dispersed across Pakistan to avoid capture. The pressure on the Taliban is undermining insurgencies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Western officials.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/at-war-captured-taliban-l_n_494952.html

The war is winnable and will be won sooner, not later.

[Dillon]

The war is winnable and will be won sooner, not later.

It will continue, I am lead to believe there will always be conflict in the Middle-East.

Or this war will finish and a new one will break out in Korea or something.

[Sir Bandelot]

It will continue

It will possibly end soon, unfinished.

March 10th, 2010 CNN

Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted Wednesday that U.S. troops could be leaving earlier than the announced July 2011 troop withdrawal date.

Without giving details, Gates said that any early pullout and hand over of control to Afghan forces "would have to be conditions-based."

"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where Afghan soldiers are trained by U.S. and British forces.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has said Obama's additional goal to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in July 2011 will force Afghan officials to take the lead on ensuring their country's security.

The U.S. hope is to grow the Afghan National Security Forces to their authorized size of 170,000 soldiers and 134,000 police by the pullout date.

Gates' visited Afghanistan as NATO-led coalition forces are pressing an offensive against Taliban forces around the town of Marjah in southern Helmand province.

Dubbed Operation Moshtarak, the offensive was launched in February by an international coalition of 15,000 troops, including Afghans, Americans, Britons, Canadians, Danes and Estonians.

Gates thanked the Afghan soldiers for their service.

"We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," he said, concluding a two-day unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/gates-hints-at-possible-early-pullout-of-u-s-troops/?hpt=T2

"We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," ... from a distance.

I'm sure there will be lots of spin on both sides, peace lovers and war lovers as to why they wish to pull out early. But I don't understand how such a deep seated problem will come to any kind of long term stability within the next 12 months.

One rather negative indicator of the effect of this surge is the recent battle for Marjah. This was touted as a major turning point for the war, and there was much confidence that the battle would be over in one or two days, that tomorrow would bring a new dawn for Marjah and Afghanistan. But that was back in February, when 15,000 coalition troops attacked some 2000 Taliban. The battle still continues sporadically to this day. What appears to have happened is what more or less always happens- when a large scale attack is planned the Taliban simply fade into the background, they simply disappear, not stand and fight. That might seem fine, but they are not gone and as soon as the troops move elsewhere they come back again. All they need to do is wait out the coalition until they become tired of fighting, or run out of money and leave Afghanistan. The question will be, then what? Will Afghanistan become the pearl of the middle east for democracy and human rights? Because without it, all we have is the same old story, harsh theocratic rule and breeding ground for those who have contempt for the west.

So if indeed the Taliban are on the ropes, it looks like they are actually using the "roper-dope".

[bloodyminded]

Further complicating matters is that much of our erstwhile alliance in the country, usually referred to as "Warlords" or "Northern Alliance," are ideologically indistinguishable from the Taliban.

We have to remember that "allied with us" does not equal "good."

Or even "preferable."

Edited March 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Mr.Canada]

Well this would be welcoming news to be sure but I cannot help but think that Iran could givethem some supplies or Syria or Jordan or any of those rogue type nations.

[eyeball]

Well this would be welcoming news to be sure but I cannot help but think that Iran could givethem some supplies or Syria or Jordan or any of those rogue type nations.

Most of which are allies of our's strangely enough.

[wyly]

Most of which are allies of our's strangely enough.

Jordan a rogue nation? and Iran is no friend of the Taliban...

[wyly]

It will possibly end soon, unfinished.

March 10th, 2010 CNN

Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted Wednesday that U.S. troops could be leaving earlier than the announced July 2011 troop withdrawal date.

Without giving details, Gates said that any early pullout and hand over of control to Afghan forces "would have to be conditions-based."

"We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where Afghan soldiers are trained by U.S. and British forces.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has said Obama's additional goal to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in July 2011 will force Afghan officials to take the lead on ensuring their country's security.

The U.S. hope is to grow the Afghan National Security Forces to their authorized size of 170,000 soldiers and 134,000 police by the pullout date.

Gates' visited Afghanistan as NATO-led coalition forces are pressing an offensive against Taliban forces around the town of Marjah in southern Helmand province.

Dubbed Operation Moshtarak, the offensive was launched in February by an international coalition of 15,000 troops, including Afghans, Americans, Britons, Canadians, Danes and Estonians.

Gates thanked the Afghan soldiers for their service.

"We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," he said, concluding a two-day unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/gates-hints-at-possible-early-pullout-of-u-s-troops/?hpt=T2

"We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," ... from a distance.

I'm sure there will be lots of spin on both sides, peace lovers and war lovers as to why they wish to pull out early. But I don't understand how such a deep seated problem will come to any kind of long term stability within the next 12 months.

One rather negative indicator of the effect of this surge is the recent battle for Marjah. This was touted as a major turning point for the war, and there was much confidence that the battle would be over in one or two days, that tomorrow would bring a new dawn for Marjah and Afghanistan. But that was back in February, when 15,000 coalition troops attacked some 2000 Taliban. The battle still continues sporadically to this day. What appears to have happened is what more or less always happens- when a large scale attack is planned the Taliban simply fade into the background, they simply disappear, not stand and fight. That might seem fine, but they are not gone and as soon as the troops move elsewhere they come back again. All they need to do is wait out the coalition until they become tired of fighting, or run out of money and leave Afghanistan. The question will be, then what? Will Afghanistan become the pearl of the middle east for democracy and human rights? Because without it, all we have is the same old story, harsh theocratic rule and breeding ground for those who have contempt for the west.

So if indeed the Taliban are on the ropes, it looks like they are actually using the "roper-dope".

well if plays out well for the home audience then we can leave and claim we won, just like the USA in Vietnam...when the Taliban return after the departure well it wasn't our fault it was the warlords who lost it...

[eyeball]

Jordan a rogue nation? and Iran is no friend of the Taliban...

I should have bolded rogue type nations. I didn't mean to impugn Jordan or Iran.

[M.Dancer]

Jordan a rogue nation? and Iran is no friend of the Taliban...

Being friends does not stop a nation becoming bedmates...

Meanwhile, Iran is "playing a double game" in Afghanistan, trying to woo the Afghan government and undermining U.S. and NATO efforts by helping the Taliban, Gates said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also visiting Afghanistan this week.

Gates had an unusually provocative warning for Tehran should it carry efforts to help the Taliban too far.

"They also understand that our reaction, should they get too aggressive in this, is not one they would want to think about."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/world/main6277025.shtml

[eyeball]

Being friends does not stop a nation becoming bedmates...

Being enemies doesn't either. The West has always been a fickle biatch.

[Michael Hardner]

Further complicating matters is that much of our erstwhile alliance in the country, usually referred to as "Warlords" or "Northern Alliance," are ideologically indistinguishable from the Taliban.

We have to remember that "allied with us" does not equal "good."

Or even "preferable."

Allied with us doesn't equal good, that is true, but I do think it's preferable to have allies rather than explicit enemies. One would assume, for example, that allies attack us less often.

And seriously, if they're on the same economic grid as us moving forward, then there's an interdependence there that can be used as a basis for negotiation.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bloodyminded]

Allied with us doesn't equal good, that is true, but I do think it's preferable to have allies rather than explicit enemies. One would assume, for example, that allies attack us less often.

And seriously, if they're on the same economic grid as us moving forward, then there's an interdependence there that can be used as a basis for negotiation.

Sure, I'm not naive enough to think that we should never, ever ally with those whose views we consider odious.

However, many of us seem to be under the pretence that allied with us does equal "good guys."

Our politicians, and to some extent our media, propagate this factually-incorrect notion. Sometimes explicitly. (ie "freedom fighters.")

Further, these Warlords hold a tremendous amount of power in Afghanistan...and by most accounts, they seem to be quite hated. Often hated as much as the Taliban; which makes sense, since so many of them are literally indistinguishable.

Some Afghans even prefer the Taliban.

We think this is "wrong" only because of our alliances. It is not a moral assessment, much less an objective one.

And since we're ostensibly trying to help the people there--or that's what we're continually told--then the only opinions that truly matter on this issue are the opinions of the Afghan people.

[ToadBrother]

The war is winnable and will be won sooner, not later.

Just in time for Canada to abandon Afghanistan.

[ToadBrother]

Further complicating matters is that much of our erstwhile alliance in the country, usually referred to as "Warlords" or "Northern Alliance," are ideologically indistinguishable from the Taliban.

We have to remember that "allied with us" does not equal "good."

Or even "preferable."

As Winston Churchill said on the occasion of the alliance with the Soviets against Nazi Germany:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

Sometimes you don't have the option of picking your allies. If Karzai and the anti-Taliban warlords keep Al Qaeda out, even if they do a lot of what the Taliban did, then we've gained something.

[bloodyminded]

As Winston Churchill said on the occasion of the alliance with the Soviets against Nazi Germany:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

Sometimes you don't have the option of picking your allies. If Karzai and the anti-Taliban warlords keep Al Qaeda out, even if they do a lot of what the Taliban did, then we've gained something.

Sure. Like I said elsewhere on this thread, I am not so naive as to believe ugly alliances are not sometimes necessary. (Though all of them are undoubtedly not necessary.)

My greater objection is to the narrative offered by our governments (and, perhaps more astonishingly, by so much of our major media): that the official enemy is the "bad guy"; and the official ally is not.

This is, certainly in this case, objectively false.

In other words, we are fed deceitful propaganda, through both omission and commission, for the sake of supporting a war.

It galls a little, is all.

Edited March 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[wyly]

As Winston Churchill said on the occasion of the alliance with the Soviets against Nazi Germany:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

Sometimes you don't have the option of picking your allies. If Karzai and the anti-Taliban warlords keep Al Qaeda out, even if they do a lot of what the Taliban did, then we've gained something.

reading the list of abuses the Afghan police and security forces are bringing down on their people I don't see a difference, the Afghans we're allied with are no better than those we're fighting...torture, murder, pedophile harems, rape, human trafficking...Canadians are dying for this?...we've spent how many billions supporting these arseholes?..what have we gained?

[M.Dancer]

reading the list of abuses the Afghan police and security forces are bringing down on their people I don't see a difference....

The difference is they are not aiding and abetting terrorists planing on attacking us in North America, Europe and elsewhere.

[bloodyminded]

reading the list of abuses the Afghan police and security forces are bringing down on their people I don't see a difference, the Afghans we're allied with are no better than those we're fighting...torture, murder, pedophile harems, rape, human trafficking...Canadians are dying for this?...we've spent how many billions supporting these arseholes?..what have we gained?

What's fascinating to me is that Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP, is usually ignored...but when she's not, she's mocked and ridiculed, almost as some sort of enemy.

Fascinating because Joya is one of the few Afghan politicians whose principles precisely align with Western liberal principles. Women's rights, children's rights, the rights of minorities, anti-corruption, the need for greater democracy and greater accountability...these are all her projects.

However, she considers the coalition war to be violently counterproductive. She also is the enemy of the Warlords...whom she says are identical in every way to the Taliban "except for the direciton of their money."

And so, someone who is actually a philosophical and ideological ally--is ignored and/or scorned here.

Perhaps she's not bowing sufficiently low to Washington; and telling us how grateful Afghans are for the Canadian presence; and hailing NATO as humanitarians.

Sure, she's like us...but, heretically, she disagrees with us on the war. That will not stand.

[eyeball]

The difference is they are not aiding and abetting terrorists planing on attacking us in North America, Europe and elsewhere.

So long as we keep aiding and abetting regimes that attack their own people we will continue to invite attacks on ourselves.

[ToadBrother]

reading the list of abuses the Afghan police and security forces are bringing down on their people I don't see a difference, the Afghans we're allied with are no better than those we're fighting...torture, murder, pedophile harems, rape, human trafficking...Canadians are dying for this?...we've spent how many billions supporting these arseholes?..what have we gained?

Perhaps keeping Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a training and planning base to launch attacks from. That is, after all, why the Taliban were toppled and why we keep fighting them.

[ToadBrother]

So long as we keep aiding and abetting regimes that attack their own people we will continue to invite attacks on ourselves.

As bad (and ineffective) as the current Afghani regime is, it's nothing compared to the Taliban.

[eyeball]

As bad (and ineffective) as the current Afghani regime is, it's nothing compared to the Taliban.

Notice how each successive regime is nothing compared to the one before it?

[M.Dancer]

Notice how each successive regime is nothing compared to the one before it?

Progress.

[eyeball]

Progress.

Maybe from a military contractors point of view.