Thread: Whats new in Afghanistan?

KABUL: The additional 17,000 soldiers that the US is preparing to send to Afghanistan will face a well-armed Taliban insurgency and an unarmed but equally daunting foe: public opinion.

In interviews across Kabul last week, Afghans said that instead of helping to quell the violence, more foreign forces will exacerbate the problem.

The comments echoed a recent survey by the BBC and the American ABC News that found that although 90 per cent of Afghans oppose the Taliban, fewer than half view the US favourably, a sharp drop from a year ago, and a quarter say attacks on US troops can be justified.

People interviewed spoke with anger and suspicion about the US-led coalition forces - questioning their motives and bitterly complaining about civilian casualties, home invasions and other alleged abuses.

"Bringing in another foreign army is not going to help," said Ibrahim Khan, 40, a truck driver. "They always come here for their own interests, and they always lose. Better to let everyone sit down with the elders and find a way for peace."

On Saturday US military officials acknowledged that US air strikes in the western province of Herat on Tuesday had killed 13 civilians and three insurgents. The US had initially reported that 15 insurgents were killed, but Afghan officials had disputed the assertion.

The growing negative perception of foreign forces is especially worrisome because US military planners say that they are counting on intensified interaction and co-operation with Afghan civilians as a vital complement to their expanded use of ground troops and firepower against the Islamist fighters.

The Washington Post

Afghan public opinion turning against presence of US forces | smh.com.au

The article neglects to mention that the foreign troops in Ghan are not just US, a bit of an oversight from the Washington Post.

Anyway, I am far from convinced that an extra 17,000 troops plus whatever can be eked from NATO allies will be enough to turn the tide. Under a more limited scenarion though- increasing the pressure on the Taliban to get them to the negotiating table- perhaps it may be more succesful.

Short of an all out, bloody war which the world can hardly afford, and has little stomach for I do not think the Taliban can be defeated militarily.

^ Not in Afghanistan anyway. Would be like the English trying to kill off the Welsh way back when in Wales. Anyway, those groups just keep getting new recruits. If they could build up the economy so people had jobs to support themselves and their families, and the kids had schools, then it would lessen the recruits.

^ Sort of like winning hearts and minds by bombing civilians?

We remember the Phoenix Programs....didn't work. Your uninvited stay in Afghanistan will be a failure. History is on their side - something the Yanks will never comprehend.

This short article makes grim reading :-

Informant to pay for error with life

HERAT, Afghanistan: An Afghan court has sentenced a man to death for giving "wrong information" to US-led troops about insurgents that led to air strikes which killed dozens of civilians.

Mohammad Nader was sentenced on Saturday in a court in the western city of Herat, capital of the province where the August 22 strikes intended for Taliban militants destroyed several houses.

Investigations by the Afghan Government and the United Nations said about 90 civilians were killed, including many children. The US military said 33 civilians and 22 militants died.

The sentence was handed down as it emerged there had been 29 US deaths in Afghanistan in the first two months of 2009, compared with eight in the same period last year.

As US forces pour into the country and violence rises, another sobering measure has also increased. More Afghan civilians are dying in US and allied operations than at the hands of the Taliban, according to a count by the Associated Press.
In the first two months of the year, US, NATO or Afghan forces have killed 100 civilians, while militants have killed 60.
Agence France-Presse, Associated Press

Informant to pay for error with life | smh.com.au

President Barack Obama promised on Friday that the United States has no long-term designs on Afghanistan as his administration switches focus to the war-torn country with its pullout from Iraq.
Obama, who on Friday announced an 18-month timeline to end combat operations in Iraq, is planning to send another 1700 US troops to Afghanistan as part of a fresh push to fight Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists.
The new US president made clear he was well-aware of the sentiments of the Afghan people, who have fiercely resisted foreign invaders from the British to the Soviets.
"One of the things that I think we have to communicate in Afghanistan is that we have no interest or aspiration to be there over the long term," Obama said in an interview with PBS public television.

Full article- Obama vows no long-term designs on Afghanistan - World - BrisbaneTimes


One of the much vaunted 'Master strategies' for Afghanistan was to use it as an energy conduit, a gas and oil pipeline bypassing the dreaded Russian and ex-USSR states.

Seems to have all gone quiet recently, doesn't it?

Well, ignore the B/S Legalese and doublespeak- a US military enquiry has found that procedural errors were the reason behind a horrific bombing incident in which many Afghani civilians were killed and seriously injured:-



A failure by US forces to follow procedures in deadly air strikes last month in Afghanistan "likely" caused the death of at least 26 civilians, the US military said.
During a May 4 battle with Taliban insurgents in western Afghanistan, US air crews and ground troops acted in line with the laws of armed conflict, but three air strikes by a B-1 bomber "did not adhere to all of the specific guidance" under US combat rules and orders, a military investigation concluded.
"Not applying all of that guidance likely resulted in civilian casualties," said a summary of the probe released on Friday.
The investigation found that about 26 civilians died in the incident but said it was possible that a higher number were killed.
The Afghan government has put the civilian toll for the incident at 140.
The investigators wrote that "no one will ever be able conclusively to determine the number of civilian casualties that occurred on May 4, 2009."


In a series of recommendations, the investigation said it was vital for the US mission in Afghanistan to adopt tactics that put a priority on avoiding civilian casualties.
The probe said that US and coalition forces should review and refine all combat rules, including the use of air power, for situations where there is a risk of civilian casualties.
Units in the country and due to deploy need to carry out immediate training once the new guidance is in place, it said.
The probe also called for better public relations efforts in cooperation with Afghan ministries, better communication with leaders of local non-governmental organisations and the creation of investigative teams that can quickly respond to reports of possible civilian casualties.

US forces 'likely' caused Afghan deaths

There have been too many of these 'incidents' in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they have been enormously damaging to the US led Nato efforts there. When you wage war in another peoples country, the battle for 'hearts and minds' is critical.

So lets hope that incidents of this nature can be, as close as is reasonably possible, eliminated.

The spooks have started calling the NWFP areas of the FATA the "Af-Pak". Sounds awful to me it is such lovely country.

Originally Posted by astasinim

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

We remember the Phoenix Programs....didn't work. Your uninvited stay in Afghanistan will be a failure. History is on their side - something the Yanks will never comprehend.

As usual, your uttering complete crap. A large portion of civilian casualties are caused by the Talibans indiscriminate bombing of anything near ISAF troops. The locals are either hounded out of their homes by Taliban or leave for fear of them, and only return once theyre gone. The Afghans have had enough of being used by their neighbors, and are fighting back by joining the Afghan national police. Support for the Taliban is rapidly waning, as the Afghans know they have been used by them.

But what does this pablum have to do with an unwelcomed occupation?

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

The US continue to make the same mistake over and over again, it is gross stupidity which alienates them from the population and devalues any justification they may have for being there in the first place.

Yea, but it gets the voters hot back home in USA. Its just like watching a John Wayne or a Rambo movie to many. The good guys blow up the bad guys and then to a commercial break to get more goodies out of the fridge. They dont have to bury the body parts of their children. They dont have to live with the severe financial handicap of a family breadwinner killed.

Call it what you like, -- "collateral damage" (though that term seems to have gone out of vogue of late), or just plain, -- "sorry, we fucked up. Will try to do better next time."
Whatever you call it, its seen as a cowardly attack and an act of terrorism against innocent civilians including women and kids by the survivors in most of these cases.

USA may well eventually get control of the ground,or at least some of it, but they wont ever get control of the people on it the way they are going. All they are doing is breeding new generations of radicals and terrorists that will come back to haunt them.

Originally Posted by Panda

All they are doing is breeding new generations of radicals and terrorists that will come back to haunt them.

Well, you gotta give them credit for sticking to what they do best.....

Originally Posted by Dan

Yes, America is evil

Nice to see you concede the point so readily. I admire you for it.

Similar to Bush's tendency toward speaking in absolutes.

The Russian's tried to subdue the Afgans and failed,withdrew after sustaining massive losses. What chance The West with its 'Free Press' watching and critisising its every move?

They may end up controlling the land, but will they ever end up controlling the people? Bit like Iraq, -- only worse.

Eight deaths were announced on Friday in one of the worst days for British forces in Afghanistan since the start of operations in 2001.
It took the total so far this month to 15 and raised the number of British servicemen who have died on operations in Afghanistan to 184, higher than the 179 who died in Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion


The head of Britain's military, Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup, insisted that Taliban insurgents were losing the fight against British and NATO-led forces in the volatile southern province of Helmand.
"It's tough going because the Taliban have rightly identified Helmand as their vital ground," Stirrup said in a televised statement on Friday.
"If they lose there then they lose everywhere and they are throwing everything they have into it. But they are losing and our commanders on the ground are very clear of that," he said.
"But it's going to take time and, alas, it does involve casualties."
The death toll has increased sharply since its troops launched Operation Panther's Claw three weeks ago, a major assault against Taliban insurgents in Helmand.
Britain raised its troop presence in Afghanistan to 9,000 ahead of elections in August, with the vast majority in Helmand.
The United States has poured thousands of extra troops into Helmand.

AFP: Britain defends troops' presence in Afghanistan

No word on Taliban casualties though.

The U.S. embassy said in a statement that it looks forward to working with Hamid Karzai to support reform and improve security, after his challenger dropped out and a runoff election was canceled.

U.S. Congratulates Karzai on Winning Second Term - FOXNews.com



Absolutely nothing new in Afghanistan.

^ And the news isn't going to become any prettier in the coming months and years...