Showing posts with label war in afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war in afghanistan. Show all posts

Monday, November 26, 2007

Taliban Resurgent

From Reuters:

Resurgent Taliban closing in on Kabul: report

The conflict in Afghanistan has reached "crisis proportions," with the resurgent Taliban present in more than half the country and closing in on Kabul, a report said on Wednesday.

If NATO, the lead force operating in Afghanistan, is to have any impact against the insurgency, troop numbers will have to be doubled to at least 80,000, the report said.

"The Taliban has shown itself to be a truly resurgent force," the Senlis Council, an independent think-tank with a permanent presence in Afghanistan, wrote in a study entitled "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the brink."

"Its ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt," it said. "The insurgency now controls vast swaths of unchallenged territory including rural areas, some district centers, and important road arteries."

Senlis said its research had established that the Taliban, driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. invasion in late 2001, had rebuilt a permanent presence in 54 percent of the country and was finding it easy to recruit new followers.

It was also increasingly using Iraq-style tactics, such as roadside and suicide bombs, to powerful effect, and had built a stable network of financial support, funding its operations with the proceeds from Afghanistan's booming opium trade.

"It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when," the report said.


This proves the point that my original opposition to the war in Iraq was based. Unlike many I thought it was a bad idea from a purely strategic standpoint. First I'm a big believer that you don't start a new task until you have finished the last one. Secondly given Afghanistan's history winning the country has always been harder than keeping it. As a result of our optional involvement in Iraq we have given the Taliban enough breathing room to regroup. Hence we may be forced to choose which war we want to win. Fortunately for W should it come to that he won't be burdened by that decision. That may very well be the job of the next POTUS. And for that reason alone this election may be the most important one in a generation.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda

I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. That's mainly because I believe in finishing one job before moving on to the next. Its the easiest way to ensure that you don't end up with two jobs done half assed which is exactly what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Administration Report Cites Havens in Pakistan

By Spencer S. Hsu and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 12, 2007; A01

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.

Although the officials declined to discuss the assessment's content because it is classified, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, John A. Kringen, told a House committee yesterday that al-Qaeda appears "to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan."

"We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications," Kringen said. more

It's become obvious that we didn't truly defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we only evicted them. Now we can't or won't strike at them directly while they can bide their time and strike at their leisure. Now that Pres. Al Maliki has given us his blessing to leave Iraq the Dems have a new tool to use in pushing for a withdrawl (which isn't happening as long as W is in office) my question is what do the Dems plan to do about Afghanistan, The Taliban, Al Qaeda once that has occured. We've heard little from any candidate about what their plans are once are troops are home. Should this prove to be a close race for the DNC nomination having a comprehensive plan may turn out to be the tie breaker.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling." more

Well that is confirmation of what we already suspected. The question is is this a strategy intended to tie up our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and to prevent the preemptive invasion that Iran suspects is in the works or a tactic to show what trouble they can be if we continue to oppose their nuclear program?


Tuesday, May 15, 2007

President Nominates Scapegoat

ABC News Learns Pentagon Official Selected to Oversee Iraq, Afghanistan Wars

After a frustrating search for a new "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC News has learned that President Bush has chosen the Pentagon's director of operations, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, for the role.

In the newly created position of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation, Lute would have the power to direct the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies involved in the two conflicts.

Lute would report directly to the president and to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Filling the position had become a priority for the White House, after a handful of retired generals told the White House they did not want the job. Among them, retired Marine Corps four-star Gen. Jack Sheehan, who proved an embarrassment to the White House after he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there were "huge shortcomings" in the White House view of the strategy in Iraq.

"What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration," wrote Sheehan, "is that there is no agreed upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region."

Lute is a widely respected officer, but is by no means a high-profile player in Washington. Before assuming his position at the Pentagon, he was the director of operations for Central Command while Gen. John Abizaid was the commander.

A West Point graduate who holds a masters degree from Harvard University, Lute also fought in Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War.

Lute must gain congressional approval before he can assume the position. He'll likely have two deputies -- one for policy (a civilian), one for implementation (an officer).

In addition to the four generals the position was also turned down by Cap'n Crunch, Commander Chaos, and TV show host Mike Rowe






Good luck General Lute. You're going to need it.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Pakistani, Afghan troops clash at border

From the AP:

By SADAQAT JAN, Associated Press WriterSun May 13, 3:06 PM ET

Pakistani and Afghan forces exchanged fire at their rugged border Sunday in their most serious skirmish in years. Pakistan claimed it killed five Afghan soldiers, but Afghanistan said just two Afghan civilians were killed.

Tension has been running high between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both key U.S. allies, over controlling their 1,510-mile shared border and stemming the flow of Taliban and al-Qaida militants that stage cross-border attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistan's move to fence parts of the disputed frontier has also angered Afghanistan.

Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad accused the Afghan army of firing first at Pakistani border posts: "This was unprovoked and without any reason."

A Pakistan military statement said its troops returned fire and five Afghan soldiers were killed.

On the Afghan side, Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi accused Pakistani forces of crossing more than a mile into Afghanistan's Paktia province.

"Border police tried to stopped them, and the Pakistani army started firing heavy weapons toward the Afghan forces," he said.

Two students were killed, he said.

Paktia Gov. Rahmatullah Rahmat said the Afghan forces fired in self-defense after the Pakistani soldiers launched artillery rounds and troops on foot attacked a border security post Sunday morning in the province's Jaji district.

"The Pakistanis launched artillery, shot their guns, and they left behind civilian casualties in the area. It is a clear violation — crossing the border to attack Afghanistan," Rahmat said.

Azimi claimed that thousands of locals joined the Afghan forces after the clash, which he described as the worst in years between the two countries.

Pakistan later denied its forces had entered Afghan territory or that they had hit civilian targets. Pakistan also complained that Afghan forces had fired on a NATO helicopter in the area. NATO officials in Kabul could not be reached for comment.

Afghanistan accuses the government in Islamabad of harboring and helping supporters of the former Taliban regime ousted in late 2001, which Pakistan denies.

The friction between Karzai and Musharraf has been well publicized however this is this first time our allies have traded gunfire. The question is this attributable to Pakistani regulars or militia supposedly under Musharraf's control. After all Musharraf ceded that portion of the country to tribal authority over six months ago.