You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Experts say Taliban making a comeback, blame Iraq war
2006-05-19
Taliban insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies, once thought defeated in Afghanistan, are regaining strength as the U.S. prepares to cede military control of the war on terror's initial battleground to NATO forces. ``We have lost a lot of the ground that we may have gained in the country, especially in the South,'' Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S., Said Jawad, said in an interview. The fact that U.S. military resources have been ``diverted'' to the war in Iraq ``is of course hurting Afghanistan,'' he said.
Which is why the Brits and Canadians are there, since we trust them to do the same job we did.
The escalating violence is reviving questions about President George W. Bush's decision to make Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism. Instability in Afghanistan could allow Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to regroup there, analysts said.

``Afghanistan is a wild, tribal place in which the various armed actors take advantage of any decrease in pressure,'' said W. Patrick Lang, former chief Middle East analyst at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. ``We pulled troops out and put them in Iraq and that took pressure off. I don't think the U.S. effort there backsliding should come as any surprise.''

Bush administration officials and military commanders say they're optimistic that conditions in Afghanistan will improve. ``We should take stock of the tremendous progress that Afghanistan and the international community have made to date and apply that same commitment to the difficulties that lie ahead,'' Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a May 10 Pentagon briefing.

Some experts on defense policy and the region say that confidence is misplaced. ``They absolutely miscalculated from the beginning,'' said Barney Rubin, director of New York University's Center on International Cooperation. ``We don't have enough forces where they should'' be, and ``that has absolutely led to insurgency,'' said Rubin, who visited Afghanistan last month.
The lack of forces didn't lead to insurgency, the insurgency has been there all along. We've rotated forces, and the new forces will take some time to get things back into the box.
Nazif Shahrani, a professor of Central Asian and Middle East Studies at Indiana University at Bloomington who focuses on Afghanistan, said, ``If we were serious about the war on terror we should have focused our efforts on fighting a more effective war on the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.''

``Instead,'' he added, ``we focused on Iraq and that gave the Taliban and al-Qaeda time to regroup and find money and weapons.''

There have been at least five suicide bombings in Afghanistan since May 8 and more than 20 in the past two months, the U.S.-funded Voice of America reported on its Web site, citing officials it didn't identify. ``There wasn't the drop-off'' in attacks ``we normally see in the winter months,'' said Chris Riley, a NATO spokesman. ``We're not characterizing it as a resurgence, but there is a level of activity in the south and east.''

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has begun assuming security operations in southern Afghanistan, a process due to be completed in July, Riley said. The multinational force will increase its troop strength to about 21,000 from 9,000 and will assume responsibility for the entire country, probably by the end of the year, he said. The U.S. plans to withdraw 6,500 of its 23,000 troops now in the country because NATO and Afghan security forces are assuming a bigger role. The Afghan National Army has 34,000 soldiers and the police have about 30,000 officers.

Some Afghan officials are concerned NATO forces won't be as aggressive as U.S. troops in countering insurgents. ``We are discouraged by some of the statements coming from the NATO countries that they will not engage the terrorists,'' said Jawad, the Afghan ambassador. ``If they are coming, then they should be ready to fight the terrorists.''
The Brits and Canadians will be. The rest?
NATO officials say they will operate aggressively. Britain has already sent more than 3,000 troops and eight Apache attack helicopters to Afghanistan's southern Helmand province in a show of force, Riley said. ``I am pretty sure its going to be fairly robust stuff from NATO for the first few months,'' said Riley. ``People on the ground have to know that we're not screwing around.''

Military officials trace the rising violence in Afghanistan to Pakistan's continuing failure to control its borders. Insurgents enjoy sanctuary in western Pakistan and cross over the mountainous border into Afghanistan to launch attacks. Al-Qaeda fighters ``have sanctuaries on both sides of the border,'' Lieutenant General Sher Karimi, the Afghan Army's chief of operations, said at a May 4 briefing.
They do, don't they. At some point we'll get Perv to look the other way.
Taliban and al-Qaeda are ``no doubt'' making a comeback in at least nine of Afghanistan's 30 provinces, not just the five bordering Pakistan, said Shahrani. ``There have also been incidences in urban areas in the North as well as in Kabul.''

``Troops being moved out of Iraq should be redeployed to Afghanistan,'' said Caroline Wadhams, senior national security analyst with the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based policy research group. The level of U.S. troops there ``needs to double,'' she said.
Thanks Caroline. Here. Here's a rifle. Care to join our troops?
Posted by:Dan Darling

#12  Are these the same "experts" who were trying to sell the "Brutal Afghan Winter"™, etc., etc., a couple of years ago?

Sure, I'd listen to them.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-05-19 23:34  

#11  Pakistan is becoming a problem that grows exponentially by day. That Perv isn't frightened by the smack that's coming to the NWFP any day to clear this nest, makes one wonder just how deep Al Q has him in their pockets. And who's financing them? And how does this feed into Iran?

There are games afoot.
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412   2006-05-19 20:32  

#10  Afghanistan is not the center of gravity. We have yet to attack the real threats. Save our troops (NATO too) for the real Islamic threats of Iran, the Arabian peninsula and eventually Pakistan. Quit trying to do everything for every people. Otherwise they become passive/aggressive and useless. Let the Afghans decide whether they want to fight and for which side. Better to get our most of our troops out of there, hire 100,000 Tadjiks and Uzbeks for 5% of what are spending and let them get payback on the Pashtuns.
Posted by: ed   2006-05-19 19:54  

#9  "Chickenhawk meme?"

I think it is called "considering the source"?
Posted by: Fordesque   2006-05-19 19:17  

#8  Ditto Old Patriot.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-05-19 17:05  

#7  Another circa 2003-2004 meme floating in a trial balloon. Will this one stay aloft through the Fall 06 elections? Only time and a few IPSOS polls will tell....
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-05-19 16:32  

#6  After this week, 100 or so of them will have to "comeback" from the dead.
Posted by: tu3031   2006-05-19 16:06  

#5  The supply lines for more troops would run through...

Once you answer that question, you'll know why Caroline and Nazif are in academia and liberal think tanks.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-05-19 15:43  

#4  New York University's Center on International Cooperation.

Center for American Progress, a Washington-based policy research group.

With experts like these, who needs smug, arrogant pontificators?
Posted by: Xbalanke   2006-05-19 15:40  

#3  The talliwackers are making a comeback because they have a safe-haven in Pakistan. We played that game in Vietnam, with sanctuaries for the NVA and Viet Kong in Laos and Cambodia. Have we learned nothing? We need to start whacking the people in "Balouchistan" daily, and dare Musharrif to do anything about it. A few ARCLIGHT strikes along the eastern edge of the border would do wonders on making the taliban unacceptable 'guests'.

There are no 'civilians' in this war - there are only participants and supporters. It's time to quit playing kids games and go to war, like we did in WW II and Korea. The rest is just getting people killed for no reason.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-05-19 15:25  

#2  "Thanks Caroline. Here. Here's a rifle. Care to join our troops?"

Chickenhawk meme? You dont need to be a soldier to make a comment on strategy. Either shes wrong or shes right (im not sure - more troops in themselves wouldnt hurt, but there are less obvious uses for them than in Iraq, and the political situation has in the past been very unfavorable for any but the lightest touch - maybe thats changed now that Afghan has govt with internal legitimacy for the first time since the monarchy fell, but I dont know)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-05-19 10:02  

#1  The British and the Russians both learned the hard way that Afghanistan's a pretty tough place to govern. Everyone complains the Bush administration -- which I believe is completely and utterly butchering the Iran crisis -- doesn't learn from its mistakes. No one seems to note how well they have learned from the mistakes of others in history. It is not feasible at reasonable cost to impose order on a place like Afghanistan by ramping up boots on the ground. The enemy -- and those of ambiguous status -- will react to what one does. Lots of troops on the ground can easily be seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, or can become a permanent crutch. Institutions need to arise endogenously, out of the will, desires, and needs of those who live there. In the case of Aghanistan, this means that there will be periodic resurgences of the enemy, but these can be managed as they arise. Most importantly, the Afghan people need to learn to deal with the Taleban on their own in the long run.
Posted by: Perfessor   2006-05-19 09:59  

00:00