This sounds like a full scale battle. The Taliban are strengthening.
10 French troops killed in Afghanistan SAYED SALAHUDDIN
Reuters
KABUL — Taliban insurgents killed 10 French soldiers and wounded 21 more in a major battle east of the Afghan capital, Afghan and French military officials said on Tuesday, the biggest single loss of troops from France since 2001.
The Taliban have gradually closed in on Kabul in the past year, making travel south, west or east of the capital hazardous for troops, aid workers and civilians and spreading fear among a populace already frustrated by dozens of suicide attacks.
The French soldiers, part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), were killed in a battle that began on Monday about 60 kilometres east of Kabul, an Afghan military official said.
France has 1,670 troops with ISAF after sending an extra 700 soldiers this year in response to a U.S. call for its NATO allies to send more forces to check a surge in violence.
Full story here:
http://m.avantgo.com/ui?ag_url=52616e646f6d4956eed6fda46ca32cd20f2dd8058eaebe85898b4e28b6d4b8b81ae203b4ada493645edfc4dfc8ad106985ca9c8c3a0bf44887a62f08a95ed354ec18dde7b8f723dedfd90e4f2a0770b4&ag_channel=4179&showNav=0&ms=globeandmail
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
4 comments:
"This sounds like a full scale battle. The Taliban are strengthening."
Morton, come on, the taliban are finished.
When McCain takes the helm, you watch the "surge" that happens.
The taliban are nothing more than far left Canadians trying to use "propaganda" to win.
Are you a defeatist Morton?
Absent an air force the Taliban cannot engage in ‘full scale battles’ against the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Without air power, massing troops and keeping them massed, becomes almost impossible. Even if you manage to take a given piece of territory, like the outposts the Taliban have been attacking, you cannot hold them. As long as ‘our side’ has enough air assets to go around, any attempt to concentrate men for any extended period just means they will get bombed. Armour has the same advantage. Lacking the ability to engage our heavy armour directly, the Taliban are stuck putting bombs on the side of the road, or lobbing mortars – though these kinds of tactics do slow us down, reducing our mobility, and of course, they kill people, they are effective in their own way.
However, there is a great quote, attributed to General Schwarzkopf, of first Gulf War fame, that “nobody ever controlled land by flying over it.”
In most cases, guerrilla-style and terrorist tactics like the Taliban are employing have a mainly political utility – prodding us to retaliate and hopefully (for the Taliban) to accidently kill civilians, or otherwise screw up, pulling people into support for them. Also, simply by continuing to exist, attacking our troops, aid workers, our Afghani allies and weakening their government institutions, the Taliban hope to convince the Canadian public that the fight isn’t worth it, or that it is impossible, in short that Afghanistan is a quagmire.
It is instructive to look at what happened to the Soviets. Using the Stinger surface-to-ground missiles provided to them by the CIA and, apparently, channelled through the Saudis, the mujahedeen were able to shoot down Soviet air craft. Something the Taliban have so far been unable to do to us. This meant the Soviets lost uncontested control of the sky. This forced the Soviets to move men and material around on the ground, where they were relatively unprotected as their helicopters and gun ships, etc … now being at risk, were unable to perform the same aggressive, protective role they had previously. A lack of effective air support meant Mujahedeen ambushes and attacks on Soviet troops and their Afghan allies instantly became much more effective. This is what really lost Afghanistan for the Soviets.
We are in a situation where our present advantages can only carry us so far. And if NATO countries like Canada or France, Germany, or the United States (who are already doing most of the fighting) aren’t going to put more troops into Afghanistan, and therefore accept that more of our soldiers are going to get killed, the Taliban will be able to successfully mount more of the kind of attacks we’ve been seeing. Though, for the above reasons, it is doubtful they will be able to move beyond their present, harassing types of operations. It is, however, in the Taliban’s interest to up the tempo of attacks. If only to convince Canadians and Germans and Americans that the fight isn’t worth it. That it is hopeless.
All this represents a real problem. One for which there isn’t an easy solution.
wsam
Despite the drivel poured out by Johnathon (who apparently doesn't even believe NATO assessments), the Taliban are strengthening and extending their deployments around Kabul. Asia Times Online has an informative piece on that but you can find the same story in the Afghan news services.
The Taliban are, of course, fighting a political war, the essence of guerrilla warfare and the only way to counter them entails flooding the country with enough troops to be able to afford round the clock security to the villagers.
Instead we have what Chatham House has labelled the "nexus" of a corrupt central government, a predatory security service, warlordism, drug barons and insurgents. Yes, they're all connected.
Take a look at how many top-level drug barons Karzai's government has arrested in his several years at the helm. Does "none" say anything? Karzai doesn't even have to look hard to find them. His own brother, Ahmed, is a key figure in the drug game.
Instability that spreads insecurity is the bread and butter of insurgency and Afghanistan is awash in instability. Add the enormous problems posed by Pakistan next door and the complications of India playing geo-politics in Kabul and you have a mass of problems so much greater than a mere insurgency.
Exactly.
What should happen is a frank assessment of outcomes NATO can expect from Afghanistan, matched to what we collectively are willing to do.
An Obama presidency might have more success convincing Germans, for example, that Afghanistan is worth it. That they should commit more troops.
Or maybe not. Maybe it won't make a difference either way.
The only thing we know for sure is that under McCheney things will get worse.
wsam
Post a Comment