More

Taliban Strength Unaffected By Allied Surge

SLOBODAN LEKIC   01/ 6/11 11:55 AM ET   AP

Afghanistan

BRUSSELS — A massive effort by U.S. and NATO forces – including offensives in the insurgent heartland and targeted assassinations of rebel leaders – has failed to dent Taliban numerical strength over the past year, according to military and diplomatic officials.

A NATO official said this week that the alliance estimates current number of insurgent fighters at up to 25,000, confirming figures provided earlier by several military officers and diplomats.

That number is the same as a year ago, before the arrival of an additional 40,000 U.S. and allied troops, and before the alliance launched a massive campaign to restore government control in Helmand province and around the city of Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan.

The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has kept official figures of enemy strength under wraps throughout the nine-year war. But non-U.S. military assessments have tracked the growth of the Taliban from about 500 armed fighters in 1993 to 25,000 in early 2010.

"These are rough estimates, because they're not just standing around to be counted," said the NATO official who could not be named in line with standing regulations.

The Taliban are pitted against about 140,000 ISAF troops – two-thirds of them Americans – and over 200,000 members of the government's security forces.

This gives the allies a numerical advantage of at least 12:1 – one of the highest such ratios in modern guerrilla wars. At the height of the Vietnam War, the U.S. and its allies had an advantage of between 4-5 to 1 over their Communist foes.

President Barack Obama has doubled U.S. troop numbers since taking office two years ago, hoping to inflict major losses on the Taliban before a planned pullout starting this year. The intensity of combat has sharply escalated as a result, with both civilian and military casualties hitting record highs.

Despite the Taliban's ability to make up for battlefield losses, U.S. and NATO commanders now insist they are making real progress throughout the country. They say hundreds of Taliban have been killed, and others forced to abandon the movement's strongholds in southern and eastern provinces.

Meanwhile, the training of a 300,000-strong government security force is said to be going according to the plan adopted at NATO's summit in November. It calls for a gradual hand-over to Afghan troops and initial withdrawals of foreign forces by the middle of this year, concluding in 2014, when security throughout the nation will be transferred entirely to government forces.

"As we look back on 2010, we see that we have made hard-fought progress," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. "Our strategy is sound and we have in place the necessary resources to accomplish it."

Military experts generally agree that international troops have seized the initiative in the war.

Peter Mansoor, a retired army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University, said the unchanged number of insurgents did not reflect the reality on the ground, as the Taliban had in fact sustained heavy blows over the past year.

"We have taken hundreds of their leaders off the battlefields," he said in a telephone interview.

"Next year will be clearly crucial as the Taliban try to regain lost territory around Kandahar and in Helmand, and we'll see if they can make up those losses," he said. "We will also see if we've been able to create the institutions – the government, police and army – there that can sustain themselves."

But other analysts caution that the gains could be reversed because the Taliban have not been defeated, but have simply retreated in the face of superior forces. Employing classic guerrilla tactics they melted away into other areas, spreading the rebellion into new parts of the country.

Jovo Kapicic, a retired Montenegrin general who fought in the first modern guerrilla war – in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II – said it was never a problem for insurgents to make up losses in manpower despite massive losses.

"Guerrillas who enjoy the support of the population can always bounce back," he added.

The Taliban are reported to be enjoying growing support among the population, which is exhausted by nine years of war and increasingly opposed to the foreign troop presence in their country.

"Many people now perceive ISAF as an occupying force," said Anne Jones, a humanitarian activist and author who has lived in Afghanistan. "(They) are no longer part of the solution, they have become the problem."

Afghanistan also remains mired in poverty, with the legitimacy of its graft-ridden, Western-backed government further undermined after two questionable elections in 2010 – conditions that experts in guerrilla warfare say make a perfect breeding ground for anti-government insurgency.

Other specialists note that NATO's announcement regarding withdrawal by 2014 has locked the alliance into an endgame that limits its options. This gives the Taliban a clear goal: survival over the next 18-24 months, when the drawdown will be well under way.

Nate Hughes, director of military analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence company, said the U.S. and NATO strategy – to weaken the rebels and force them to negotiate with the government – was unlikely to succeed in time.

"The West certainly doesn't have the staying power to defeat the Taliban and reshape the country by 2014, he said. "The Taliban can fall back and basically wait out the NATO forces."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

BRUSSELS — A massive effort by U.S. and NATO forces – including offensives in the insurgent heartland and targeted assassinations of rebel leaders – has failed to dent Taliban numerical strength...
BRUSSELS — A massive effort by U.S. and NATO forces – including offensives in the insurgent heartland and targeted assassinations of rebel leaders – has failed to dent Taliban numerical strength...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,727
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (43 total)
  1 of 9  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
tony wise 01:54 AM on 01/07/2011
“heres a way forward: 

leave. 
tell karzai if he lets the taliban, any of the 50 al-quida, or obl have a foothold in his government­, we will remove him by force. we did not invade and remove the taliban for no reason. I am not ok with thier return to power. that should be karzais fight, not ours. the afghan military should be capable of vetting security forces and government­. so  Read More...
12:55 AM on 01/09/2011
.
[""As we look back on 2010, we see that we have made hard-fought progress," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. "Our strategy is sound and we have in place the necessary resources to accomplish it."]

the problem lies not with "strategy"---the problem lies
in total lack of any rational and discrete objectives of the strategy.

Exactly what are we trying to accomplish??

--eliminate Al Qaeda personnel?? all couple of dozen of them??
--establish a Democracy??? (we set Karzai in power by democratic "free election").
--reorganize an ancient tribal society whose basic philosophy we have no grasp of??
--eliminate Taliban??? (by employment of tactics perceived by Afghans as tantamount to a Holy War??
--"friend" a muslim society (while we express only suspicion and hostility to Islam??)

or maybe, just:

--support the US Military Industrial Complex??

It is true that acquisition of the nuclear resources in Pakistan is a prime terrorist objective,
but precisely how is the current "strategy" in the Afghansitan War going to thwart this??--
by US winning the hearts and minds of the indigenous peoples??? by eradicating tribal
factions that we do not understand so that we can establish other factions in power that we
equally do not understand???? (LOL, and it's not at all funny)

Put aside the secondary issue of "strategy".

What is the clear point, purpose, and ultimate objective
of US military involvement in Afghanistan, and can this objective
(whatever it is) be better attained by non-military means??

.
photo
Somali
The best defense is no offense.
01:19 PM on 01/09/2011
Well said, my friend. Fav and fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wwoody
Retired fishing for the truth.
12:01 AM on 01/09/2011
If the Taliban is unaffected by our military surge, then this spell trouble for us in the region. Its time for us to declare victory and bring our troops home.
09:43 PM on 01/08/2011
Stupid!! The Taliban is using the Trojan Horse method. They are arming and training cloaked Talibanies
04:57 PM on 01/08/2011
The US Junta's efforts to restore the Afghan puppet government control are failing badly; so they have been rushing in more surge troops, which will continue to fail. The US doubling down its double-down will throw more money down the AfPak rathole, money borrowed on the deficit credit card, added to the unfunded national debt, which will be hyper-inflated into oblivion. It's either hyper-inflate or dissolve the US Union, following the defunct Soviet model.
09:42 PM on 01/08/2011
Stupid!! The Taliban is using the Trojan Horse method. They are arming and training cloaked Talibanies
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmad
01:37 PM on 01/08/2011
We should quit before we end up like the Russians. Western hubris prevents us from thinking like nearly any foreign culture.
How would you like having an invader telling you what to do?
05:01 PM on 01/08/2011
Try that question on Beck, Bill-O, Hannity, et al. Like with Chinese troops rampaging thru the US, trying to force their idea of "enlightened government" on the populace of GlennBeckistan!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
11:46 AM on 01/08/2011
The Taliban's strength has to do with the fact that we haven't helped people there, it's become worse, and because of the obvious criminalit­y of our presence.

People aren't aware, but contrary to the falsehoods put out by our media, the Taliban was near eradicatio­n of drug production­. Gates was called to testify about the drug smuggling of the CIA, and thereafter GHWB pardoned everybodya­ndtheirmot­her on ChristmasE­ve who would've implicated his own criminalit­y. It's not a surprise the same people who were in charge then are now in charge of Afghanista­n. Since we've been there, they're growing more drugs than ever before in their history, so much so, they've a very difficult time feeding their people. Since the Bushes were in power, Mexico drug cartels became more prominent and have almost led to a failed state, the use of Afghan heroin in this country has gone from 0%to 40%, and there's been an explosion in drug use throughout the world, Russia a case in point. The U.N. Investigat­ors of the financial collapse said it was only the drug money keeping the banks "afloat".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/06/29/70851/flood-of-afghan-heroin-fuels-drug.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3294
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21404
http://pakistanrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/afghanistan-us-escalates-the-illegal-drug-industry/
10:35 AM on 01/08/2011
How about we pass the baton to China next? They are heavily invested in mining there and have US troops protecting them. What's wrong with this picture?
photo
Somali
The best defense is no offense.
01:19 PM on 01/09/2011
US is being played by China.
01:26 PM on 01/09/2011
Yep, we are owned by them in many ways
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
09:07 AM on 01/08/2011
And that's why the 'megacorpse' needs high unemployment.

Take a large, desperate population and remove all hope of a better life. Then offer them a profitable and neverending 'patriotic cause' to sacrife their lives for, with a small paycheck attached.

Hey, presto! All political/ideological protests dissolve into a minor gnat buzzing at the flanks of the ruling class.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Deb Jesser
For What It's Worth
10:47 PM on 01/07/2011
There has not been a successful occupation/invasion of Afghanistan in over 2,000 years. Alexander the Great's army threatened mutiny after dealing with the Afghans, and taking on Afghanistan was a nail in the coffin of the British Empire. Why do we think this time it will be different?

We blew it big-time when Reagan left the country in the Stone Age after they took out the Russians for us, and then when Bush diverted resources from there to Iraq. The Taliban pays its fighters $8 a day, big money in that part of the world. If we actually employed Afghans to rebuild their country, rather than bringing in a cohort of war profiteers, I'm sure most Afghans would rather do that than hide out in the hills with an Uzi.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Valentine
Retired SEIU Member
11:13 PM on 01/07/2011
It's not about winning or losing the war. It's about the transfer of the treasury and wealth of the United States to the military industrial complex and that's for sure working.

63% of the American people oppose the wars yet they keep on fighting them, you have to wonder why.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GordonNYC
Not for Sale
12:20 AM on 01/08/2011
You have a point.
10:28 AM on 01/08/2011
I wonder where that stacks up with the unpopularity of the Vietnam war? And it would be interesting to see a graph of the growth of unpopularity. Of course that would require the MSM to be an independently functioning entity.
10:18 PM on 01/07/2011
Why would it have any effect on their strength? More of our guys have been KIA than the taliban. With baraks rules of engagement our troops have both arms tied behind their backs
photo
Danish5666
What makes life worthwhile isn't measured by GDP
12:33 PM on 01/08/2011
Another comments from the know nothing crowd.
02:16 PM on 01/08/2011
guess reading and current events isn't something you do.. how is sponge bob this afternoon?
09:51 PM on 01/07/2011
Not surprised. America will lose. I recall watching a BBC documentary where they were embedded with that Tali ban. One of the Talibans said the Soviets were much harder than the USA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jspkim
12:13 AM on 01/08/2011
true
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
omobob
left coast, usa
09:19 PM on 01/07/2011
At 12 to one odds, it seems clear the problem lies with the US Afghan Military Command. Once again ( Westmoreland in VietNam) the US Military has eschewed counter insurgency warfare for a modern technological approach to gain the upper hand. It hasn’t worked. I read they are sending 12,000 Marines to Afghanistan. How tragic seeing as how they wrote THE book on counter insurgency warfare just after the Philippine war. The model was copied by Special Forces until Westmoreland arrived. Its simple 5 men teams. Always with a doctor who can treat everything from blisters to delivering children. Talk about good will. All team members speak the language. They all live in the village. They eat what the villagers eat. They can arrange for better weapons for the men. They train, fight and die along side them. Lead from the front. It emboldens the indigenous personnel seeing US Soldiers fighting with them. Walking the Walk, Talking the Talk. Returning to air conditioning and McDonalds engenders no respect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
R Davis
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
09:16 PM on 01/07/2011
As long as the Taliban is making millions off the opium trade in Afghanistan how can expect to get rid of them. It would be like trying to get rid of the Costa Nostra in Sicily, or Chicago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Valentine
Retired SEIU Member
11:09 PM on 01/07/2011
As long as the MIC is making billions off the wars in the Middle East how can we expect to end them?
photo
blitznstitch
BAZINGA!!!
07:10 PM on 01/07/2011
duh, that is the Taliban's home - we are the invaders, we declared war on the Taliban
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notalwaysfittoprint
07:06 PM on 01/07/2011
Can you say "Vietnam"?