Here's the story:

Link



To be debated:

1. Is this a sign that the war in Afghanistan is becoming more difficult? Or is this merely the death struggle of the Taliban?

2. Will this interfere with plans to turn command over to NATO?

3. What are the implications for US military operations elsewhere?

Both. Its become more difficult because the time to clean out the Jihadi infestation has been put off for far too long and now operations in Afghanistan are finally under way again, the troops are facing an enemy who was given time to dig in and prepare.
Though military operations have been on going, this is is the first large scale attempt to take on the Jihadi's since Afghanistan was liberated and it shows. Since its liberation Afghanistan has suffered from a neglect which has allowed the jihadi's to regroup and wage a clandestine propaganda campaign against the 'crusaders' even as they consolidated their broken strength back into a fighting force. This wasn't difficult after all, since the 'crusaders' are kufir (non-believers) and it is in every Muslim's duty to resist any perceived threat to Islam from the non Muslim world, (also known as the 'House of War' to the faithful).

This is the standard Islamic modus operandi and can be seen repeated right across the world, also in America where affiliated jihadi organisations like CAIR and the AMC quietly promote jihad against the west. Once the focus of attention brought about by combat operations has passed, the faithful come out from their hiding holes again and quietly resume the spread of jihad. Apart from the actual combat our troops must endure, this is the dangerous part of the war in Afghanistan. If the infestation is not fully purged, then the government in Kabul will not survive. It has already had to adopt numerous Islamic trappings, so many in fact that some Taliban have actually declined to fight it since it already fulfils so many of their expectations!


I don't think so. In fact I think it is the turn over to NATO that is allowing the military campaign to function since the US troops are being replaced by the Brits, Canadians, Aussies (and Danes*) boosting numbers to the point where extended operations are actually possible instead of just keeping Kabul (relatively) safe. The build up of NATO troops in Helmand province has actually been ongoing for several months now which shows just how hard it is to get men and equipment into Afghanistan. According to this article, the British are actually creating new special forces units simply to meet the demand.

Several months ago I listened to a BBC Radio 4 programme which followed a British military commander around as he took over in Basra, in southern Iraq. During this programme I noted with interest that the British government had assigned a 'political commissioner' to the British forces. This woman's job was to be a direct conduit between Downing Street and the British troops in southern Iraq. The British commander jokingly referred to her as a Soviet style political officer (All Soviet units had political officers appointed by the communist party to keep the soldiers in line with party policy) and it was fairly clear that all British military operations are being kept on a very tight leash. I'm not sure how this will impact on the NATO command structure, but I suspect its 'par for the course' as they say since NATO is really just a political organ masquerading as a military outfit. I'm not optimistic about wars run by politicians and I hope the soldiers will be given leave to conduct operations in such a way that succeed in bringing the fight to the enemy, but given the typically American name of the endeavour currently underway in Afghanistan, 'Operation Mountain Thrust', I'm afraid what we're seeing will be a lot of thunder and smoke and precious little actual results. The Taliban will be defeated, pushed back into the darkness and Afghan manned police stations will be established to guard the pacified regions. NATO troops will eventually move on and the Jihadi's will then come back and continue where they left off.


I see two obvious implications. Initially there will be a slight lessening of pressure on US military ground forces though probably not enough to solve the problems of man power shortage that Iraq has brought on.

Then also, there will be a baptism of fire for the NATO ground troops in Helmand province and this will test the cooperation between the American air force and its multi national allies on the ground. This latter could prove invaluable for forging a greater frame work of multi national military alliance, something we may need to see more of if the global jihad is ever to be defeated...

There is more information, including a 10 min audio interview here

* Denmarks contribution is as small as you might expect. 290 soldiers from the Guards Reg. off Bornholm Island.

edited for spelling

To be debated:

1. Is this a sign that the war in Afghanistan is becoming more difficult? Or is this merely the death struggle of the Taliban?
My guess is that it is more the former. The Taliban have one thing going for them. Folks don't like to be occupied by foreigners, particularly ones that are sticking guns in their faces.

2. Will this interfere with plans to turn command over to NATO?
Hopefully it will encourage it. The broader the participation the better. The US doesn't have a lot of credibility as far as being an honest broker in these regions. I'd like to see a UN command actually if it could be carried out effectively. That would create the least suspicion of the occupiers having some nefarious agenda.

3. What are the implications for US military operations elsewhere?
The more committed we are all over the world the more we look like imperialists and conversely the weaker we are perceived to be as we hemorage our resources everywhere. Observing this makes our enemies bolder. The Soviet model of over extension and ultimate collapse is quite assuredly on a lot of people's minds.

A simple additional point. Why must we assume we can't strike a deal with at least some of the Taliban? I assume most of them are Afghan nationalists rather than international Jihadists. The association with Al Qaeda as I read it was more out of necessity than real affinity. I think it's time to define clearly what our vital interests are and get over this PNAC inspired idea of franchising some sort of model of Western laissez faire democracy all over the place. I'm for promoting standards of world justice but through international bodies like the UN, the World Court and the ICC, and also NGOs, as peacefully as possible, not through narrowly biased nationalist agendas bristling with dark military threats.

Just a last shot in the dark. Suppose we cut some sort of a deal that went like this. You give us Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri and the other top Al Qaeda leadership and allow some low level inspection to assure that no international Jihadist operation is recreated in Afghanistan and we'll amscram out of there. Would that be worth a try?

The war there is not over. The Taliban have retreated into the border area with Pakistan and are quite weak but certainly not totally defeated. As a tribal nation the strong influence of the central government does not extend to all areas of the country.


No I am sure NATO is aware of the situation and ready to pitch in.



None unless we, for example, have to help repel an all out invasion of South Korea by the North.