U.S. failures blamed on Pakistan
Mohammad Jamil
On Line: 14 August 2011 13:34
In Print: Monday 15 August 2011
Last week, the helicopter carrying U.S. Special Forces was shot down in Afghanistan, killing 38 troops, which was coming to the rescue of a team on a mission, what they said, to capture a senior Taliban leader.
The Guardian reported: Rumors have circulated in Wardak that a more sophisticated anti-aircraft system had been deployed by insurgents, and there has been speculation among analysts that an improvised rocket-assisted mortar may have been to blame. Some are raising fingers towards Pakistan, but there is a possibility that Russia might have supplied improved version of rocket-propelled grenades. Otherwise also, one can buy arms of any type from the international arms market, whereby the suppliers deliver as per customers needs.
In November 2010, President Barack Obama had claimed that the U.S. and its allies were breaking the Talibans momentum, but it appeared the reality on the ground was different. After the Lisbon Conference on Afghanistan, the leadership of the Afghan Taliban had declared: In the past nine years, the invaders could not establish any system of governance in Kabul and they will never be able to do so in future.
About ten years since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the countrys south and east are still veritably under the sway of Taliban and other insurgent groups, notwithstanding the tall claims of success by the military command of American and NATO forces.
Anyhow, American, NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan are extremely worried about the heightened activities of the Taliban. International media carried the stories about the deals and concessions offered to Taliban in various provinces of Afghanistan. Troops of most 46 countries, deployed in different provinces of Afghanistan, reportedly have brokered local peace deals with the Taliban to avoid casualties; Germany, France, Holland the UK to name a few.
Despite increased Special Operations Forces raids and, under General David Petraeus, the insurgency in Afghanistan continued to spread. His resort to heavy aerial attacks also did not produce the desired results. Since American economy is in dire strait, and it is on the brink of precipice, and after the precipice there is abyss.
Anyhow, the fact remains that the U.S. strategy from the very beginning was flawed one, and it had become complacent after bombing Afghanistan flat thinking that it had created enough shock and awe to be able to control Afghanistan with minimum troops. The Americans had primarily focused on hunting down Al Qaeda leaders and cadres not realizing that Afghanistan is a large territory and cannot be controlled by abysmally meager force. ISAF forces stayed around Kabul for at least five years and were scared to go into hinterland, which provided opportunity to the militants to come back and consolidate.
For years, 6000 ISAF troops stayed put in Kabul, whereas they should have spread out to chase and capture Al Qaedas and Talibans fleeing rumpus, but they did not dare. Initially, American soldiers were barely 12000, and they too remained in their Bagram redoubt, showing not much of soldiering to take on their adversaries. In 2006, when the NATO officially led and ramped up the forces spreading out to the south and the east, the Taliban had already regrouped in their strongholds of the countrys east and south.
Yet, the coalition forces were mostly less keen on fighting and more intent on spending out duty period in the countrys relatively peaceful north and west. It was because of their cowardice that the Taliban now control major part of landmass in Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO generals seemed to have lost the war in their minds before losing it on the ground in Afghanistan. When McChrystal was commander of the U.S. and NATO forces, the weaknesses had surfaced. Already in 2008, Mike Mullen had testified to a Congressional hearing that America is not winning the war in Afghanistan but it can. The blind truth, however, is that America has practically lost the war, which is reflective of the failure of the worlds best war machine - the U.S. and NATO forces - that could not achieve the objective of decimating the Taliban. There is a perception that no progress can be made unless more than half of Afghanistans population - Pashtuns who draw the bulk of their fighters and supporters are given assurance that they will have their rightful share in power. And no other tricks or ruses are likely to work.
In December 2010, Director of National Intelligences report presented a bleak picture of security conditions in Afghanistan, which had cited progress in ink spots where there were enough U.S. or NATO troops to maintain security, such as Kabul and parts of Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Much of the rest of the country remains Taliban-controlled, or at least vulnerable to Taliban infiltration.
The document had alleged: Pakistans government pays lip service to cooperating with U.S. efforts against the militants, and still secretly backs the Taliban as a way of hedging its bets in order to influence Afghanistan after a U.S. departure from the region. For showing no spine for fighting, the coalition forces sought in Pakistan the whipping boy for their failure in Afghanistan. Instead of blaming Pakistan, they should do a bit of serious introspection as to why more than 150000 American and NATO forces and similar number of Afghan forces could not control Afghanistan. But now America is not in a position to foot the bill.
In fact, the U.S. and ISAF forces did not do much of soldiering initially, and despite using all the arsenals at their disposal they failed to break the will and determination of the Taliban fighters. It was due to the eerie circumstances that the so-called international peacekeepers remained confined, in large measure, to capital Kabul for five years, leaving the rest of the country especially its southern and eastern parts where Taliban regrouped. Some time back, Russias Afghan War Veterans who had the first hand experience and lost about 25000 troops, had expressed their opinion that the U.S. and its allies could not win the war in Afghanistan.
Vechislov Sivko, who heads the Committee of Veterans of the Afghanistan War remarked: No matter how good your technology is, it cant level the mountains I dont think the United States in the end will accomplish its goal There has never been a foreign country that has successfully achieved its goal of conquering or defeating Afghanistan. You can invade Afghanistan, but to possess it is practically impossible.
Whose fault whose losing
Mohammad Jamil
On Line: 14 August 2011 13:34
In Print: Monday 15 August 2011
Last week, the helicopter carrying U.S. Special Forces was shot down in Afghanistan, killing 38 troops, which was coming to the rescue of a team on a mission, what they said, to capture a senior Taliban leader.
The Guardian reported: Rumors have circulated in Wardak that a more sophisticated anti-aircraft system had been deployed by insurgents, and there has been speculation among analysts that an improvised rocket-assisted mortar may have been to blame. Some are raising fingers towards Pakistan, but there is a possibility that Russia might have supplied improved version of rocket-propelled grenades. Otherwise also, one can buy arms of any type from the international arms market, whereby the suppliers deliver as per customers needs.
In November 2010, President Barack Obama had claimed that the U.S. and its allies were breaking the Talibans momentum, but it appeared the reality on the ground was different. After the Lisbon Conference on Afghanistan, the leadership of the Afghan Taliban had declared: In the past nine years, the invaders could not establish any system of governance in Kabul and they will never be able to do so in future.
About ten years since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the countrys south and east are still veritably under the sway of Taliban and other insurgent groups, notwithstanding the tall claims of success by the military command of American and NATO forces.
Anyhow, American, NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan are extremely worried about the heightened activities of the Taliban. International media carried the stories about the deals and concessions offered to Taliban in various provinces of Afghanistan. Troops of most 46 countries, deployed in different provinces of Afghanistan, reportedly have brokered local peace deals with the Taliban to avoid casualties; Germany, France, Holland the UK to name a few.
Despite increased Special Operations Forces raids and, under General David Petraeus, the insurgency in Afghanistan continued to spread. His resort to heavy aerial attacks also did not produce the desired results. Since American economy is in dire strait, and it is on the brink of precipice, and after the precipice there is abyss.
Anyhow, the fact remains that the U.S. strategy from the very beginning was flawed one, and it had become complacent after bombing Afghanistan flat thinking that it had created enough shock and awe to be able to control Afghanistan with minimum troops. The Americans had primarily focused on hunting down Al Qaeda leaders and cadres not realizing that Afghanistan is a large territory and cannot be controlled by abysmally meager force. ISAF forces stayed around Kabul for at least five years and were scared to go into hinterland, which provided opportunity to the militants to come back and consolidate.
For years, 6000 ISAF troops stayed put in Kabul, whereas they should have spread out to chase and capture Al Qaedas and Talibans fleeing rumpus, but they did not dare. Initially, American soldiers were barely 12000, and they too remained in their Bagram redoubt, showing not much of soldiering to take on their adversaries. In 2006, when the NATO officially led and ramped up the forces spreading out to the south and the east, the Taliban had already regrouped in their strongholds of the countrys east and south.
Yet, the coalition forces were mostly less keen on fighting and more intent on spending out duty period in the countrys relatively peaceful north and west. It was because of their cowardice that the Taliban now control major part of landmass in Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO generals seemed to have lost the war in their minds before losing it on the ground in Afghanistan. When McChrystal was commander of the U.S. and NATO forces, the weaknesses had surfaced. Already in 2008, Mike Mullen had testified to a Congressional hearing that America is not winning the war in Afghanistan but it can. The blind truth, however, is that America has practically lost the war, which is reflective of the failure of the worlds best war machine - the U.S. and NATO forces - that could not achieve the objective of decimating the Taliban. There is a perception that no progress can be made unless more than half of Afghanistans population - Pashtuns who draw the bulk of their fighters and supporters are given assurance that they will have their rightful share in power. And no other tricks or ruses are likely to work.
In December 2010, Director of National Intelligences report presented a bleak picture of security conditions in Afghanistan, which had cited progress in ink spots where there were enough U.S. or NATO troops to maintain security, such as Kabul and parts of Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Much of the rest of the country remains Taliban-controlled, or at least vulnerable to Taliban infiltration.
The document had alleged: Pakistans government pays lip service to cooperating with U.S. efforts against the militants, and still secretly backs the Taliban as a way of hedging its bets in order to influence Afghanistan after a U.S. departure from the region. For showing no spine for fighting, the coalition forces sought in Pakistan the whipping boy for their failure in Afghanistan. Instead of blaming Pakistan, they should do a bit of serious introspection as to why more than 150000 American and NATO forces and similar number of Afghan forces could not control Afghanistan. But now America is not in a position to foot the bill.
In fact, the U.S. and ISAF forces did not do much of soldiering initially, and despite using all the arsenals at their disposal they failed to break the will and determination of the Taliban fighters. It was due to the eerie circumstances that the so-called international peacekeepers remained confined, in large measure, to capital Kabul for five years, leaving the rest of the country especially its southern and eastern parts where Taliban regrouped. Some time back, Russias Afghan War Veterans who had the first hand experience and lost about 25000 troops, had expressed their opinion that the U.S. and its allies could not win the war in Afghanistan.
Vechislov Sivko, who heads the Committee of Veterans of the Afghanistan War remarked: No matter how good your technology is, it cant level the mountains I dont think the United States in the end will accomplish its goal There has never been a foreign country that has successfully achieved its goal of conquering or defeating Afghanistan. You can invade Afghanistan, but to possess it is practically impossible.
Whose fault whose losing
