# Are the Taliban gaining momentum ?                   Aug 2008



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

I read with interest, that the "experts" are saying that the Taliban are gaining momentum. Would it have anything to do with the impending rotation?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I read with interest, that the "experts" are saying that the Taliban are gaining momentum. Would it have anything to do with the impending rotation?


Highly unlikely.  Not all Coalition nations rotate their troops at the same time.  The French and Poles don't necessarily rotate their troops at the same time as Canada. 

It is more than likely the Fall Offensive, before they go to ground for the Winter............"going out with a Bang".


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

Thanks George. Do you think the Taliban are gaining momentum?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2008)

Good question, and one that I have been wondering about as I watch the "Experts" being interviewed on TV.  Are we seeing actual Pushtan Taliban, or are we seeing AQ trained "mercenaries" from other Islamic countries willing to fight and die for fanatical reasons?  Chechen fighters have already been found, as have other nationalities.  Are we seeing an increase in AQ trained fanatics being given their 'final PO Check' and preparation to move the 'battle' to other hotspots around the world?  Will the attacks now taking place in Pakistan engulf the Region into one larger conflict with more than two sides and multiple alliances?  

Even LCol Drapeau agrees with Gen Mac, that NATO has to pump more money and troops into the Region; that Canada, the US, UK and Holland, can not carry the load alone.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

Good points.

I agree that we have to have greater participation by NATO members that are already there. The caveats have to be removed if they are serious about combatting the rot we call terrorism.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2008)

George - might want to change the subject line on this thread.....

WRT the escalation of activities in Afghanistan.... as external influence in Iraq diminishes, external influence in Afghanistan increases.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> George - might want to change the subject line on this thread.....



If you didn't post so fast.....  ;D  ......... Is that better?


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2008)

Yup... much better


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

I'm just sitting here thinking. I've not been accused of being a "deep thinker" but.....

Where did Canada go wrong? Since when is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing? Why is there such resistance to our country standing up for what is RIGHT? Is it the "peacekeeping" legacy? Was it the 60's...you know make love, not war? I'm sure Lester Bowles Pearson is turning over in his grave, as are a few others.

Do any of you feel this frustration? I cannnot believe what some of my fellow Canadians are saying.....how we "invaded" Afghanistan etc. Can we not counter these arguments?
I feel so darn frustrated when the anti war crowd starts their campaign of deceit. At least in Winnipeg, that line isn't being listened to.

God, this nation used to stand for something, now it seems Canadians will fall for anything. (Sorry about the line, I had to use it)


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Aug 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'm just sitting here thinking. I've not been accused of being a "deep thinker" but.....
> 
> Where did Canada go wrong? Since when is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing? Why is there such resistance to our country standing up for what is RIGHT? Is it the "peacekeeping" legacy? Was it the 60's...you know make love, not war? I'm sure Lester Bowles Pearson is turning over in his grave, as are a few others.
> 
> ...



Well said. Most Canadians are ignorant of anything outside their little sphere and have bought into whatever is spoonfed to them by an increasingly leftish media. These people make it extremely hard for any right thinking individual to counter their misguided thoughts and ideas. They won't listen to facts or any idea that runs counter to their pre-concieved notions. I fully lay the blame on the 60's generation that is now running the show in most western countries. (I'm shamefully from that generation of pacifists and left-wing loons :-[)


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2008)

Pearson believed that Peacekeepers should be well trained, disciplined soldiers.  As we progressed through various Governments after him, and enjoyed the praise of the World, in relatively peaceful times, for our professionalism in "hotspots" around the world where we stood between two belligerent factions and keep the peace; The Canadian Public developed a false impression that we were "good Samaritans" who simply had to stand between two 'brawlers' and keep them apart.  Hardly did they concern themselves with the fact that Canadians were being killed in this role.  National and UN caveats set out ROEs that stated that troops would not fire unless in self-defence.  

On a whole, to step from Peacekeeper, enforcing the peace, to Peacemaker, forcing the peace, was a shock to a nation that had grown up with the Peace Movement and the effects of the Peace Dividend that constantly whittled away at the Canadian Forces on an annual basis since 1950.  The idea that Soldiers would actually have to fire their weapons to make peace was outside of their comprehension.

Ignorance.  The lack of initiative to read and research facts.  The use of "sound bites" by the media and Peace Movements.  Foreign sedition.  All these things, with the luxuries of today's technological age, have made the Western, not just Canadian, population lazy and complacent.   Many have no idea what militaries do.  Many have no idea of the dangers out there in the world, as they concern themselves with their little sphere of influence in their private lives.  Hence, we have various leaders like Layton, who really don't have a clue of what is going on in the World.


----------



## Mike Baker (22 Aug 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'm just sitting here thinking. I've not been accused of being a "deep thinker" but.....
> 
> Where did Canada go wrong? Since when is it "unfashionable" to do the RIGHT thing? Why is there such resistance to our country standing up for what is RIGHT? Is it the "peacekeeping" legacy? Was it the 60's...you know make love, not war? I'm sure Lester Bowles Pearson is turning over in his grave, as are a few others.
> 
> ...


If you want my opinion, there are way too many people out there who have no pride for their country, are afraid of conflict, and want to focus on themselves then on others who are in more need then us.

These people don't want us to have soldiers on missions over seas, heck, many see us having a military as a stupid idea, saying something like "Oh America will help us," or "No one has enemies these days." 

To those people who believe all this hippie mumbo-jumbo, tell me, do you think that terrorists see Canada, and say that we're too nice to kill? 

Wait, I can answer for you, NO! They want us dead, and our way of life. So, why wait for them to come to us? I sure as hell don't want terrorists on Canadian soil, killing innocent Canadians.

Do you?


Rant off.
-Deadpan


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2008)

Deadpan said:
			
		

> These people don't want us to have soldiers on missions over seas, heck, many see us having a military as a stupid idea, saying something like "Oh America will help us," or "No one has enemies these days."



 ;D 

Friggin Hypocrites!

In one breath they go on that we shouldn't be fighting "Bush's War", or that we shouldn't align ourselves with the Americans or American Policy, and then in the next breath they say "America will defend us".    :

Anyone know what kind of meds these people are on?


----------



## Mike Baker (22 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> Friggin Hypocrites!
> 
> ...


Welcome to my friends, Geroge. 

But at least once I get going on the topic, they will either shut up, or leave, so it's all good for me ;D


-Dead


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

Thanks to 2CDO and George. Let's keep this rolling.

I was born in 57, the tail end of the baby boom, but I'm not one of them. Neither am I the GenX or GenY type. 
During high school I was ridiculed (not overtly) as a military nut, and 2CDO I agree with your assessment. Far too many of these "usefull fools" are in Parliament.

As for the highly restrictive UN ROE a la Cyprus, I have my own version. Goes like this:

1. Do not fire your weapon, ever. In fact, don't even put a mag on, it makes the belligerents uncomfortable and we don't want that. Besides, your training is far superior and we want to give them a "sporting" chance don't we?
2. If your really have to fire your weapon, make sure you're wounded. After all, our press officer would have a hard time explaining to the media why a peacekeeper shot a poor misunderstood individual. If you're wounded, it looks better in the press.
3. Only carry five rounds. That way you can't cause too much damage, right?  Besides, it's really easy for most of us to count to five when you have to turn your rounds in when you leave.
4. Please don't point your weapon at anyone. It makes the opposing forces uncomfortable and they might complain, and then we have to deal with that!
5. Use your weapon only to salute and "Present Arms" to any UN vehicle that may pass by. You guys look so good when you do that!! And don't forget to say "please" and "thanks" when you may have to intervene in a local dispute.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Aug 2008)

First off a minor off topic bit. 

2 Cdo what are you ashamed of? I too am from that generation, tail end boomer like Old Soldier, and while some, yes the majority of our generation bought into that naval gazing self indulgent crap, we didn’t. Our service, our beliefs and our values drawn or reinforced from that service show that.

Now to the topic at hand. 

I agree that the majority of the present fighters are foreigners brought  in as part of the world wide Jihad against the Infidel west. That's perhaps not a bad thing, are local recruits drying up and why?

I tend to agree that what we are seeing is a fall push before the winter slow campaign season sets in. However I’m also sure that the rotation of our troops is also a factor. They've announced publically were on their hit list now. They may live in caves but I think that they can count to 6 and figure when we replace our troops. Any casualties are bad but losing your people just before they go home is even more so in the morale war. They may also think it will intimidate the incoming troops. They must also be aware that this could be an election issue as in Spain. Government falls and as there troops pulled out (in Iraq afte the train attacks).

Personally I think that and the attacks on our Polish and French Allies will back fire against them. Watching the French President at the funeral of the 10 French Paras I think the French just jumped off the Euro tourist fence are are going to come out swinging. The Poles too. 

This and the Taliban’s switch to larger operations, stand and fight in company and battalion sized ops as opposed to one coward planting IEDs on children and the mentally challenged (ok I know that was Iraq), may also backfire on them. Coming out of their holes just makes it easier to hit them. AKM vs a MBT yeah this should be a equal match up.  > Like the NLF/VC a generation ago this is their Tet and will end the same way.

Finally the cynic in me feels that our head up their fifth point of contact media like in 1968 will get the end results wrong and report it that way.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2008)

Good post Danjanou

I figure with the TB fighters they sprung from jail, they ended up with a large fresh supply of jihadists ready at hand.
Large scale battles against an organized military (ANA & ISAF) will only result in one thing... having their a$$ served to them in a handbasket.

I would propose that the TB & AQ know that troops getting ready to rotate out will let their guard down somewhat - and troops rotating in will have their guard down - till they get their routines down pat... oportunities for the TB & AQ to capitalise on.

I'm only upset at people like TB Jack & Justin who are spouting off at the hip without a care in the world - cause they know they don't have enough support to Lead the country BUT enough support to gain popularity from the dissenhearted.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Aug 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> First off a minor off topic bit.
> 
> 2 Cdo what are you ashamed of? I too am from that generation, tail end boomer like Old Soldier, and while some, yes the majority of our generation bought into that naval gazing self indulgent crap, we didn’t. Our service, our beliefs and our values drawn or reinforced from that service show that



I find it shameful that so many Canadians would prefer to put their heads in the sand rather than to stand for what's right. I find it embarrassing to see the behaviour of the vast majority of those "useful idiots" being paraded in the news as "experts" when they are really self-serving, self important do-nothings. The least I can do is instill in my boys the sense of service before self and that sometimes you have to do the hard things because they are the right things to do. As opposed to the "heads in the sand" types who always choose the easy path, whether right or wrong, because it is the easy path.

As for my career choice, I have no regrets or shame. I have met some fantastic people and had some fantastic times.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

What is right is not always popular.

What is popular is not always right.

Let's do the RIGHT thing instead of what is fashionable, or easy.
Afghanistan isn't easy, but it is the right mission at the right time, for the right reasons.


----------



## wannabe SF member (22 Aug 2008)

> Watching the French President at the funeral of the 10 French Paras I think the French just jumped off the Euro tourist fence are are going to come out swinging



I disagree. Already "le parti socialiste" is asking for an emergency debate on the mission, every single interview of french citizens i've seen shows them reacting negatively to the news and saying their country should pull out. Then again it could also be a bias on part of the french media. 

HAR HAR HAR, a left wing french media  see the pleonasm.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

I had the occasion to speak with a member of the French Foreign Legion in Croatia in 1993. In fact, they were the best French troops in the region at the time. The French Army battalion at the time was holed up in their camp and hadn't patrolled the Serb dominated area in six months.
I was impressed with the Legion soldiers. Their weapons were clean and they looked fit. I wasn't very impressed with the conscript battalion. Anyways, I am off topic.

If the new French President is as gutsy in foreign affairs as he is in his choice of women, I think the Taliban are in for a hard time, no pun intended.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2008)

conscripts are.... conscripts.
At the time, French citzens had to do 18 mths of service - like it or not.  So yeah, they would not have been too impressive
The Legion on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish.  Volunteers to the core - hard core.. they wanted to be there and they would have been very effective at what they were told to do.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Aug 2008)

The French got rid of Conscription in 1996.

Way back in the day when we were based in Baden and Lahr We had a lot of contact with the conscripts of the French army based down the road at Rastatt. Not an impressive lot as noted, 18 year olds reluctantly doing their national service because they were too afraid of the consequences of not showing up, and of course like many conscript peace time armies not especially well lead or trained in my opinion, at least compared to us then. The Legion then as always being the exception.

These boys are not their fathers pulling garrison/occupation duty in the Black Forest. BTW in addition to the 2e Régiment Étranger de Parachutistes the other unit that took casualties was the 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment part of the 
French Army Special Forces Brigade not quite reluctant conscripts.


----------



## Gunnar (22 Aug 2008)

Would I be totally off base if I suggested that the recent uptick in belligerent action was largely due to the fact that the poppy harvest is complete, and perhaps they simply have money, and unemployed (former poppy pickers) people available?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2008)

WRT momentum, the Taliban need to show a strong face to the world press, even if they are down to their last rounds and men. Various factors favor them right now (end of the harvest, mercenary troops, safe havens in Pakistan), but the real reason for the upsurge in Taliban activity in my mind has to be the steady gains being made on the ground by ISAF and the GoA.

The Taliban *MUST* unleash violence and terror against the locals in order to frighten them away from the attractive rebuilding and reconstruction work the GoA is doing. They *MUST* also try to destabilize the government before the ANA becomes too strong to overwhelm, before government institutions find their feet and begin providing effective service to the people of Afghanistan, *and the all important date*, before 2015 when the wave of six million children emerge from the education system and become the critical mass of educated and skilled people needed to run things on their own.

Since they cannot defeat us in the field, their only other option is to create such an *impression* of chaos that the governments that provide troops and support to ISAF loose heart and order a withdrawl before 2015. Note these "spectaculars" are still highly localized in both time and space (a rash of events is usually bracketed by a long quiet spell as they rebuild and assemble their finite resources).


----------



## T.I.M. (23 Aug 2008)

As a member deployed on Roto 5 I can't speak for the rest of Afghanistan, but it Kandahar they're about back to where they were in 2006 from what I see, a little weaker but also a little wiser.  We're pretty much where we were two years ago really, with some gains and some losses.  I'd call it a stalemate overall.  As winter approaches Roto 6 taking over from us is inevitably going to roll them back but overall here they've had a decent summer, and all else remaining the same we'd probably be back where we started next summer.

What'll change the situation is the steady increase in US forces.  That gives us the ability to expand our footprint and push into new areas.  2-2 Inf moved into Maywand earlier this month, which is a longstanding Taliban "logistics node" where most of the weapons, drugs and fighters smuggled into Zhari/Panjwayi and Northern Helmand come through.  Until now we've never been able to affect it - neither us or the Brits had the numbers to keep a permanent and powerful presence there.   I'm expecting good things from 2-2. 

As more and more US forces arrive the Taliban are going to lose more and more safehavens.  At the same time they *are* getting better tactically - some of the guys in 2 PPCLI were here for MEDUSA and said after one battle in Siah Choy that the enemy there was a lot better than what they fought in 2006 - more aggressive and more tactically savvy.  So as the Taliban start to lose key terrain they're going to get nasty, which could mean some hard fighting ahead.  What will ultimately decide this though is the fact that the Taliban have *nothing* to offer the populace.   When we move into areas the Taliban have held for *years* there is no loyalty to them on the part of the locals - if we can provide security and services, then they're all for us and its as if the Taliban had never been. Look at the fall of Musa Qala in Helmand.  Even with the corrosive effects of Government corruption and mismanagement, the Taliban are still an entirely negative movement that relies on our absence to coerce and threaten the populace, and has nothing positive to offer over event the most meager efforts of Karzai's henchmen.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Aug 2008)

T.I.M.

Re the assessment that the TB are more aggressive and tactically savvy, is that because of better training or because they are using outsiders instead of local hires or neither or both?


----------



## T.I.M. (23 Aug 2008)

May be the case over in RC(E) but we haven't had anything confirmed here in Kandahar.  There's probably the odd foreign fighter running around here, but most of them are your usual angry Afghans.  They're just learning - some of them are the same guys who have been fighting us since 2006.  Surviving that long teaches a lot of tricks, and those who don't learn, die.

At least that's the case for the Zhari/Panjwayi veterans.  When we fight the guys from the northern safe havens who barely ever encounter us we can immediately tell the difference.  They, frankly, suck.  From what I hear the RC(E) guys are even better than the Z/P crew, and that probably IS due to all the training time in Pakistan and substantial foreign assistance.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Aug 2008)

Thank you, good summary.


----------



## Dog Walker (23 Aug 2008)

Is it a case of the TB going after NATO, or is NATO going after the TB? 

Some media reports stated that the French had intruded into a known TB held area. Also there is this news report on CTV saying that our battle group has just completed a massive offensive operation in Zhari District. 

 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080823/zhari_op_080823/20080823?hub=TopStories


----------



## X-mo-1979 (23 Aug 2008)

TIM,not a personal attack. However all I see is KAF on your profile.And your info seems to be coming from outside sources on the so called stalemate your talking about.Is this just your view?How do you validate it being a stalemate (i.e facts?)


----------



## T.I.M. (24 Aug 2008)

Hmmmm, well, if you remember back to the end of 2006 and the area we were supposed to control by now, having driven the Taliban out, encouraged development, and increased government control. . . well, that hasn't materialized.  Among other things we were supposed to have ink-blotted most of Zhari by now, and be well on our way through Maywand, Shah Wali Kot, Ghorack et al.  But all the places where 2 PPCLI are fighting have the same names as where we were fighting at the end of 2006, and through 2007. Just look at the recent OP TIMIS PREEM (It also means "Lawnmower" and isn't that an awesome name or what?  ) which shows the good and the not so good.  Good:  We kicked their ass.  Not so Good:  We did it in the exact same location where we kicked their ass in late 2006.  It's not that we don't regularly thump the Taliban - but that doesn't win you an insurgency.  So long as we don't control the ground we can't keep them out, and if we can't keep them out we can't keep the development and government in.  In the end there's only so much ground two companies can hold down.

. . .Which is why the arrival of 2-2 Inf is gonna be a huge change for the positive.  We've just doubled the number of Coalition boots on the ground in our AOR.  Some talking heads are fond of saying more troops won't solve the problem, which is nonsense.  Drop another 50,000 Americans into RC(S) and the Taliban, as they are today, are hooped.  So long as they retain cross-border safe havens and the GoA remains capable of pissing off the Pashtuns they won't vanish, but they'll be a lot weaker than they are now.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

Same mistake the VC made in Vietnam.Once they began operating in force it was easier to find them,fix them and destroy them. Same will happen in Afghanistan if they go down this path.

AFGHANISTAN 
Taliban fielding battalion-sized forces, military records reveal
Murray Brewster 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–Taliban militants reportedly amassed a 600-strong fighting force and dragged out bigger weapons only 10 months after being routed by NATO forces in a landmark 2006 battle west of Kandahar, newly released documents have revealed.

The heavily-censored records, released to The Canadian Press under access to information laws, provide a candid glimpse of the insurgency and the heavy odds faced by Afghan security forces and their Canadian trainers as they battle to hold territory.

Much has been made of the scope and complexity of the ambush that killed 10 French soldiers on Tuesday in eastern Afghanistan. But the documents – withheld for months by the Canadian Defence Department – suggest Taliban commanders have long been gaining critical battle experience in Kandahar, using Afghan security forces as target practice.

As many as 100 insurgents were involved in Tuesday's attack on a French and U.S. reconnaissance patrol in the Sarobi district.

But Canadian army daily situation reports show Afghan forces and the Canadians mentoring them were encountering Taliban organized into formations ranging from 200 to 600 fighters in June 2007.
More on the link
www.thestar.com/News/W...cle/482490


----------



## pizzathahut (7 Sep 2008)

"Op Timis Preem" a success in Afghanistan. Megatron unavailable for comment."


----------



## gun runner (9 Sep 2008)

LOL that is good!!. The more boots on the ground is what we really need right now..and that is a real boost for morale, both here and in the field. Now.... if we can just find those SOB's that keep putting out those damned IED's. RIP Sgt. . Ubique


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Sep 2008)

Find that mullah .....and... :rage:


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Sep 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: A very "quiet surge" indeed by US/Canadian "journalism" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/afstan-very-quiet-surge-indeed-by.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gun runner (10 Sep 2008)

It's a good article.  But when are the U.S. army troops due to arrive in Kandahar to help out?  Will it really be a two month gap in troop strength?  And why is this not in the news as the columnist had said.  Are we mushrooms?  Kept in the dark and fed bull***t?  Yes, the article about the turbine should have been in the papers..a sort of feel good news event to help us out of the moods we are all in from our recent losses.   The American troop surge will be a welcome boost to the firepower on the ground right now, and maybe it will bring some new toys to the game..like the EXCALIBER arty round. I know we are seeing them in more numbers, but maybe they will be around for more than a demonstration or two. These gadgets and gizmos help us to hurt the enemy. Bring 'em all I say. More troops means potentially more loss.. that is the way it is played out in the big game, but more numbers means an advantage that the badguys dont have.. trained professionals on the ground 24/7 looking for them even when they aren't looking for us.  So why are the newsies not telling us the whole story? Ubique


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Sep 2008)

gun runner: A US Army battalion has been at Kandahar for a while:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63871&archive=true
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e2b8b97-6c70-439e-baab-fd34ad668795

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gun runner (10 Sep 2008)

Ok, thanks for the info. Ubique


----------



## T.I.M. (11 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> So why are the newsies not telling us the whole story? Ubique



From my perspective, largely because we (the military) don't tell them anything.  We feed them little unconnected snippets with a bare minimum of info, making it very difficult for them to make any sense at all of the overall picture.

Anyway, even before 2-2 arrived the Americans were a presence in Kandahar Province; between March and July they'd lost more soldiers and Marines in combat here than we had.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

I would say that the Taliban have won yet another 'Political' victory in their propaganda war.  Just like the Italians, Spanish, and a few other nations, have capitulated in their efforts in Afghanistan as members of NATO, it looks like Canada's political leaders are going to turn on bended knees and abandon all the work that NATO has achieved to date in improving the situation in Afghanistan and the Region as a whole.  The hard work and effort of Canadians in Afghanistan seems to be lost on Canadian Politicians who don't seem to have the dedication to seeing a job through to completion.  

Are our Politicians cowards?  Are they pawns to Taliban and AQ propaganda?  It would appear so.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Sep 2008)

With respect to the Harper government I am sure they are watching the opinion polls and there seems to be consensus to hang around until 2011.I am concerned by the lack of progress by the Karzai government in making government work at the basic levels. Killing taliban alone isnt going to do it without progress on the civilian side to include aid projects. I think the direction we are going to go is to find clans/tribes willing to work with us to keep the taliban out of their areas like the awakening organization we saw in Anbar province.Reassessing our use of airstrikes is probably going to happen to get a handle on "civilian" deaths.A mini-surge is in the works but so far the civilian leadership hasnt signed off on all the brigades that McKiernan wants.Petraeus at CENTCOM will try to apply the success in Iraq to Afghanistan. It may be apples and oranges but its worth a shot.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

On the combined Al Qeada/Taliban front we find this:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act  (LINK in Title)


*Is al-Qaeda network as strong as ever? *

SAEED SHAH 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

September 10, 2008 at 10:33 PM EDT


ISLAMABAD — Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda has spread its violent tentacles across Pakistan, while its ally, the Taliban, have staged a bloody comeback in Afghanistan.

The radical Islamist group and its local partners have destabilized nuclear-armed Pakistan, and largely taken over its northwest fringe. Afghanistan has been sent into a tailspin of violence. While al-Qaeda was beaten back in Iraq after exacting a heavy toll on human life, its influence is now entrenched in Pakistan and Afghanistan, from where it is feared that terror strikes against the West are still being planned.

Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain at large, probably moving between Pakistan's tribal area and adjacent regions of Afghanistan, and they continue to use the news media to spread their message of hate.

U.S. President George W. Bush's announcement this week that thousands more troops would be deployed to Afghanistan was an acknowledgment that the mission there is in peril. The south and east of the country are firmly in the grip of an insurrection that took hold over the past three years, reversing the initial coalition victory in Afghanistan soon after 9/11.

“We've eliminated a lot of important players [in al-Qaeda] but all those players have been substituted,” said Christine Fair, an analyst at Rand Corp., a private U.S. research organization. “There's no question that Pakistan is far less secure than before the launch of the global war on terrorism. It is unquestionable that we are failing in Afghanistan. The Taliban are expanding with alarming success.”

After Pakistan joined Washington's anti-terror fight, it experienced for the first time attacks against its army, ISI intelligence agency and the Frontier Corps paramilitary force that patrols the tribal belt. Established Islamic extremist groups in Pakistan, which had previously been regionally focused and posed little danger to the country as a whole, have taken on al-Qaeda's ideology of global jihad, which means that they now also target their own country.

And new militant groups have developed in Pakistan, most notably Tehreek-i-Taliban, a movement with thousands of warriors that now controls much of the tribal belt that runs along the Afghan border. By the admission of Pakistan's Interior Ministry chief, Tehreek-i-Taliban has been taken over by al-Qaeda. During the past year, Pakistan has been rocked by dozens of suicide bombings, more and deadlier assaults than seen even in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda has also successfully colonized numerous other extremist groups in Pakistan, such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which have cells across the country that it can use to carry out attacks. Some of these groups had, or retain, murky relationships with Pakistan's intelligence agencies, which means that al-Qaeda benefits from an element of state patronage. But Pakistan's ability to manage these groups, once used to fight proxy wars in India and Afghanistan, has slipped from its grasp since its alliance with the United States drove the militants into al-Qaeda's embrace.

“They [militant groups] have got out of control,” said Muhammed Amir Rana, director of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, an independent think tank in Islamabad. “A few of them are involved in sectarian activities, some of them are [fighting] in Kashmir, everything has been scattered. Officials are very disturbed, they have no strategy now for dealing with them.”

The closeness of a key Afghan Taliban commander to al-Qaeda was shown this week when a U.S. missile struck the home, in Pakistan's tribal territory, of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a veteran jihadist whose network has staged some of the most daring recent attacks on coalition forces. Among the dead were reportedly four al-Qaeda operatives, including two key lieutenants.

But while Pakistan has been thrown into chaos, and life in Afghanistan is much more insecure today than it was even under Taliban rule in the 1990s, there has been no attack on the U.S. mainland since 2001, a vindication for some, whatever the price in other countries.

“Al-Qaeda demonstrated the potential on 9/11 for being a strategic threat to the United States,” said Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis at Stratfor, a private U.S. intelligence firm. “Al-Qaeda is now down to a tactical-level threat. The fact that there hasn't been a follow-up attack in the United States speaks volumes of the success of the United States against this transnational, non-state actor.”

But rising anti-Americanism across much of the Islamic world and among Muslim immigrant communities in the West continues to inspire recruits to the radicals' cause. And while most remain outside of any sort of central control of al-Qaeda, local terror cells inspired by Mr. bin Laden have staged murderous attacks in London and Madrid, and numerous other plots have been caught before they could be executed.

“Al-Qaeda today is as dangerous a threat as ever. It has a secure safe haven in Pakistan, a revived ally in the Taliban and can operate on a global basis,” said former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, author of The Search for Al Qaeda. “I think it remains a strategic threat, and those who argue it is not are underestimating it.”

Special to The Globe and Mail 


More at LINK, including Comments.


----------



## gun runner (11 Sep 2008)

Well I for one hope that Harper gets re-elected to a majority government for once. That way he can get the influence to do in Afghanistan what needs to be done rather than pander to the opposition for permission to do this or that. So in responce to GEORGE WALLACE, I dont think the govt are cowards..just trying to get the majority it needs to get the job done.Ubique


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Well I for one hope that Harper gets re-elected to a majority government for once. That way he can get the influence to do in Afghanistan what needs to be done rather than pander to the opposition for permission to do this or that. So in responce to GEORGE WALLACE, I dont think the govt are cowards..just trying to get the majority it needs to get the job done.Ubique



So, you propose he should lie?

I know......All politicians lie.


----------



## pizzathahut (11 Sep 2008)

I personally don't believe for a minute we will pull out in 2011. Maybe a shift from a Combatant force to PRT 98% of the time. I think the statement that we are going to pull out in 2011 and "the Afghan Government will have to start pulling its own weight" is meant to send a strong message to say, 'get your shit together' ANA.

I also think the statement was meant to give a 'light at the end of the tunnel' feeling to the Canadian populace.
We and Military leaders are fully aware that if the Afghan war is lost, the evils of 9/11 will return. Its as simple as that, there will be no full withdraw, just a major shift in priorities/operation commitments.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Sep 2008)

Admiral: US military 'running out of time' in Afghanistan

The US military is not winning the war in Afghanistan and is "running out of time" for a workable strategy to combat the insurgency there, the Pentagon's uniformed leader said today.

"I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," navy admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told Congress – the first sentence not present in his prepared testimony.

The admission was a bleak reminder of the increasingly unstable and violent situation in Afghanistan seven years after western troops first toppled the Taliban. Analysts admit that al-Qaida and other militant groups are freely operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Despite what Mullen called the "desire" of Nato commander David McKiernan for three more army brigades of soldiers in Afghanistan, George Bush said yesterday he would send one extra brigade and one new battalion of US marines.

Mullen told members of the House of Representatives that he is working on a revised approach to the conflict "that covers both sides of the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border", but he warned that it could be impossible to succeed without a more coordinated strategy.

"Absent a broader international and interagency approach to the problems there, it is my professional opinion that no amount of troops in no amount of time can ever achieve all the objectives we seek," Mullen said.

The US military presence in Iraq is nearly three times as large as that in Afghanistan, where both Barack Obama and John McCain have backed adding more troops. The two candidates differ more markedly on Iraq: McCain blasts Obama's withdrawal plan there as an admission of loss at the expense of winning in Afghanistan.

Mullen reminded Congress, however, that an effective strategy should involve more than military might but also economic and social development.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/10/usa.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Edit:
And more info on Adm.Mullen speaking to Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001396.html


----------



## pizzathahut (11 Sep 2008)

The battle has to go into Pakistan's northern regions. The talifuks are hiding in there like the cowards they are. Lets not even start on 2 faced Pakistan and the problems with them....


----------



## T.I.M. (11 Sep 2008)

Yes, but that fight has to be lead by the Pakistanis themselves.  It doesn't make much sense to be picking a fight with Pakistan when we're already tapped out against the Taliban as is.  There's common interest between us and them in stopping the extremists, the trouble is they're walking a tightrope and currently terribly distracted with internal strife in other more important (for them) areas.

As for the Taliban, and the Pashtun insurgents at large, I find them a vicious bunch of xenophobic zealots - but I can't honestly call them cowards.  Worse luck.  If they were they'd be easier to beat.


----------



## pizzathahut (11 Sep 2008)

Agreed T.I.M.. I myself think Pakistan should allow closer cooperation with the Coalition inside their borders. I'm thinking our forces in the Stan and Pakistan need to get a plan together to clean out Pakistan's un-unified Northern regions. Of course this would be a very touchy operation as our forces wouldn't attack the Pushtans... The idea brings up a a lot of questions... Would such a plan be acceptable? Pakistan to attack it's rebels, while we indirectly assist them... Hermmmm....

Regardless, the problem does lay there. Something has to be done or there will be no end in sight.

P.S.
I refer to them as cowards because they utilize IED's. What a disgusting tactic.


----------



## T.I.M. (11 Sep 2008)

I think Pakistan currently is trying to play both sides.  They've made a peace deal with the Taliban, but at the same time are quietly allowing the Americans to strike into the border area. . . and then vociferously decrying American attacks which I bet they've secretly OK'd.  Problem is it's a political minefield both for their internal situation and relations with the US, and they're only going to be able to walk it for so long before they step on something that blows the whole tenuous deal to bits. . . and Pakistan's current leadership does not strike me as very sure footed.


----------



## pizzathahut (11 Sep 2008)

LOL! Yup, you're touching on the '2 faced Pakistan' I noted earlier. 

Like that one uncleared report on Pakistan taking coalition payouts from the US but then supplying the Talifuks with that same money...


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Sep 2008)

SNAFU


----------



## rtangri (12 Sep 2008)

Afghanistan will be won over completely by ISAF, and it is the obvious job of the media to make things hard. Let the armies and NATO and UN do their job, by highlighting that 10 kids died in a training camp in PAKISTAN (and most of them will be foreign national i.e. syrian, afghani, pakistanis, etc...). Bad media is making our goals in Afghanistan ridiculously hard to complete. so to the TORONTO STAR and the SUN especially, let the army do their job, and go paparazzi some morons in hollywood.
my 2 cents.

P.S. There is no point of dealing with Pakistan like a national government, 1. There really is no government there that has any real power (its actually worse under musharaff. wow that was hard to say). 2, Pakistan doesnt know what it wants, all the lawyers in pakistan protest when one judge is decomissioned, where are they when honour killings happen or when their beloved Pakistani government is aiding and supplying the terrorists that are active all over the world especially in afghanistan and india (kashmir). 3, Pakistan's border with Afg. is disputed due to Pashtun claims that it is rather a region under their tribal autonomy, and in almost all cases it is found to be true. If this land belongs to the Pashtuns, and the Pashtuns are housing the terrorists, the Pashtun will be targeted, plus Pakistan shouldnt feel threatned considering they dont consider themselves Pakistani (other national conflicts include the Balochistani separation movement, etc.)


GO HARPER haha


----------



## pizzathahut (12 Sep 2008)

There was a vid on youtube filmed in Pashtun. (I do not claim the vid to be true nor its translation) but from what was on youtube before it got banned was a Pashtun soldier saying they are about to launch a major attack against the Pakistan army and that US forces should not interfere. He goes on to say that the Pashtun's are not harboring the Talifuks and that their fight is not with our forces. 

I replied, you don't want to get involved in our conflict, get the Talifuks out of your "claimed" territory and stop them from from doing their 'hit and run tactics' based within your lands. The terrorist didn't reply to me.

This is all looking like Vietnam, where the enemy hides across a border which the war cannot enter. If things do not change in Pakistan... it's Vietnam all over gain.


----------



## gun runner (13 Sep 2008)

Ok, so it will be a Vietnam all over again... well, what did that war teach us about guerrilla conflict? Unless you have overwhelming firepower and the soldiers to get metal on target.. then it simply will not be accomplished. I feel that the U.S. troop surge into Afghanistan will be the deciding factor in whether we will actually get anything worthwhile out of this war on terrorism. It is obviously not going to happen with the current troop strength and the fence sitting by some of our NATO partners. WE NEED THESE BOOTS ON THE GROUND ! The talifuks are doing just as you say..hiding where we cannot go. So let us set up an F.O.B. every 500 yards and wait for them to show their ugly faces ,and blow them off then. If we cannot keep up the patrols that will find these jerks, let's get more operators to do the job right the first time..every time. Ubique


----------



## TacticalW (15 Sep 2008)

For as long as we don't have the troops to actually hold the territory we capture the Taliban will "always" have their bases to attack from and villagers that look to them for support since our coalition forces can't get to them or help them. Until there are more troops (which will be happening now that things have settled in Iraq) we won't be able to completely stop the Taliban since when we can't provide them security they will look for it elsewhere. I'm sure once several more brigades pop up there will be assured security for the Afghans and no real reason for the populace to even think of joining the Taliban. 

As for the incursions into Pakistan, all I can say is that it should have happened a while ago. Pakistan "was" just short of offering them sanctuary and recently that's exactly what they were doing followed by the many other questionable actions. If nothing was to be done about the insurgents in Pakistan I don't think total security in Afghanistan would have been remotely possible. 

In my opinion things look pretty bright for Afghanistan in the near future, insurgents are being routed out of Pakistan and there will be enough troops to watch over the land that's freed from the Taliban. I just hope that if things finally settle in Afghanistan that there won't be a large surge of activity in Iraq shortly after. An attack on Iran or anything to that degree definitely has a chance of destabilizing things there and it looks like that's unavoidable.


----------

