THE Taliban has seriously rejoined the fight in Afghanistan, an NGO security group said in a report that concluded the country was at the beginning of a war, not the end of one.
The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) said the Taliban's "easy departure" in 2001, when a US-led invasion drove them from power, was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat.
"A few years from now, 2007 will likely be looked back upon as the year in which the Taliban seriously rejoined the fight and the hopes of a rapid end to conflict were finally set aside by all but the most optimistic," ANSO said.
About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 - half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups, the group said.
Abductions and killings were likely to escalate this year, with growing links between insurgents and criminal gangs increasing the threat, ANSO said.
It said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is helping the government fight insurgents, is "in fact just now entering a period of broad and deep conflict, the outcomes of which are far from certain."
ISAF may number about 41,000 soldiers but "realistically" could not have more than 7000 for combat, with the rest mostly support staff or prevented from fighting because of national restrictions, the group said.
The size of the Taliban force was unknown, but estimates ranged from 2000 to 20,000.
"There would not appear to be any capacity within ISAF to stop or turn back anticipated AOG (armed opposition groups) expansion," the report said.
"In simple terms, the consensus amongst informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a war, not the end of one."
About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 - half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups, the group said.
So in other words the Taliban managed to kill twice as many civilians as Afghan and ISAF soldiers did? Considering they would have had to have done it close up and dirty rather than bombs dropped from planes onto wedding parties, artillery and such don't the Tali-fans here find that rather disturbing?
the taliban will never be defeated, why? because many afghans think and believe like the taliban, so lets assume all 20,000 taliban fighters are killed in 1week of mass bombings it wouldnt end anything, by the next month, and next year they wud simply be replaced by another 20,000.
this is something westerners fail to realize and something they cant understand. not ALL afghanis want a western liberal democratic system, heck even the supposed 'moderate' afghanis who oppose the taliban arent up for this liberal western democratic system.
so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......
the taliban will never be defeated, why? because many afghans think and believe like the taliban, so lets assume all 20,000 taliban fighters are killed in 1week of mass bombings it wouldnt end anything, by the next month, and next year they wud simply be replaced by another 20,000.
this is something westerners fail to realize and something they cant understand. not ALL afghanis want a western liberal democratic system, heck even the supposed 'moderate' afghanis who oppose the taliban arent up for this liberal western democratic system.
so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......
Agreed.
And if the GOA let them have a legalized political party I think this will prove to be successfull, considering the fact that taliban want power.
How can you defeat a foe who can destroy million-dollar machines with devices that can be built off the Internet for about the cost of a pizza, especially if that foe doesn't particularly worry about dying?
answer: you can't.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment .
Both options are possible, but I personally think, Talibans will go for the ist consideration, as they have already rejected becoming part of the existing slave govt.
Since the taliban have shifted tactics from straight up fighting to more of an insurgency they definitely can last longer as a threat. Counter-insurgency is a not purely military and long long process, generational almost. I think the US is going to be in Afghanistan for a minimum of 25 years, and in some form or another for a long time to come.
so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......
Saints preserve us (not the Shiite kind)! I find myself agreeing with the poster formerly known as Prince. He is right. The Taliban never will sign a peace treaty. The goal must be that those who agree with the Taliban come to understand that violence will not achieve their goal. Potential Talibs are being trained in the madrassas of Pakistan as we speak.
As much as the hyperbole on this forum would suggest, the "West" will never accept the Russian strategy of just flattening any village that offers support to the Taliban. Unless the next President takes his or her eye off the ball, however, neither will they accept an Afghanistan as haven for murdering nutjobs frozen in some long-past century (not to be disclosed)
Since the taliban have shifted tactics from straight up fighting to more of an insurgency they definitely can last longer as a threat. Counter-insurgency is a not purely military and long long process, generational almost. I think the US is going to be in Afghanistan for a minimum of 25 years, and in some form or another for a long time to come.
Yes the U.S. and others will be there for a long time. At this rate all that is needed is a small quick strike force. Something the Australians excel at, which is why I wish they were given a larger role in Afghan operations. The U.S. has been slower to adapt to a long-term insurgency. The usual U.S. method is to stand around and take needle pricks until the big giant gets mad enough to stomp around, killing everything that moves in a 25 mile radius. That is effective in sending the Taliban running for the hills for a month or two, but it isn't all that effective in eliminating the source.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Asymmetric warfare is applied, when there is no comparison between the two rival forces. In other words, when a weaker side knows that they are helpless and don't have the means to initiate suitable responses, they are compelled to resort to non-traditional and unconventional weapons and strategy in order to obtain an advantage over a stronger opponent.
Asymmetric warfare is applied, when there is no comparison between the two rival forces. In other words, when a weaker side knows that they are helpless and don't have the means to initiate suitable responses, they are compelled to resort to non-traditional and unconventional weapons and strategy in order to obtain an advantage over a stronger opponent.
and time is on their side.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Of course, since permanent retention of captured countries in the post war scenerio becomes impossible with the passage of time. One can't afford SURGE POLICY everywhere for a longer duration.
Of course, since permanent retention of captured countries in the post war scenerio becomes impossible with the passage of time. One can't afford SURGE POLICY everywhere for a longer duration.
But that is not the case here as the insurgents don't have wide true support, they only have a few pockets of truly loyal population. As insurgent tactics a taken up, counter insurgency measures are taken. No military solution and as the Taliban is not a strategic threat to Afghanistan so its going to be a long slog.
But that is not the case here as the insurgents don't have wide true support, they only have a few pockets of truly loyal population.
Your line of reasoning is incorrect. Sun Tzu says that a fish can't survive w/o fresh waters, similarly insurgency can't survive w/o popular support. Had that not been the factual position on ground, Taliban's resistance movement would have died long ago.
The nature of counterinsurgency operations differs from the conventional conditions, soldiers are expected to face in combat. The commanders face an enemy whose objectives, tactics, and concepts are usually difficult to comprehend. The situation becomes worst, when you are conducting such operations in hostile environments on enemy territory, coupled with so many limitations like difficult terrain, extreme weather conditions, acute shortage of troops and resources available, vague and often inaccurate intelligence, which forces you to make jerky decisions and commit your resources in the wrong directions, which results in dissipation and you suddenly find yourself deprived of the flexibility on account of absence of reserves to deal with unforeseen and that is the ideal time, when freedom fighters will make you bleed. They will ensure that you are never able to achieve balance on ground. The same is happening with peace-keepers in Afghanistan
Sun Tzu says:-
1. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat, first fights and afterwards looks for victory
2. To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting
You misunderstand as you are taking Sun Tzu's abstractions to heart and going to extremes. You can't look at it as ALL the population supports the Taliban or NONE of the population supports the Taliban. Sure, there are those who support the Taliban in Afghanistan, but in my opinion, they are not a majority.The continued presence of the Taliban is more due to support in Pakistan than Afghanistan.
You have to be able to see the grey areas and things are not static. The challenges you deliniate are not insurmoutable and counter insurgency will get better with time, if given time.
The Afghan army will be better in five years. Intelligence services will be better. The taliban will continue to degrade their own local support.
The Taliban's activities in Pakistan show they are turning their focus more towards that region as Afghanistan gets tougher and tougher.
Sure, there are those who support the Taliban in Afghanistan, but in my opinion, they are not a majority.The continued presence of the Taliban is more due to support in Pakistan than Afghanistan.
The Taliban's activities in Pakistan show they are turning their focus more towards that region as Afghanistan gets tougher and tougher.
You forgot to mention the country, which attacked Afghanistan in 70s, in order to reach warm waters, but had to retreat due to US intervention through Pakistan. Don't you consider their indirect role, in order to take revenge
Again you didn't mention the country, which ranks at the top amongst axis of evil, as considered by the US and their prime interest is to see their enemy bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think they are sleeping
Pakistan internal crisis are linked more to another country, which is not ready to give Kashmiris, the right of self-determination and considers Pakistan, responsible for the insurgency in Indian occupied Kashmir. Don't you think, they have appropriate time to settle the scores
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
ehem.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks