Cross-border insurgents flood Afghanistan

by snuffysmith | November 1, 2009 at 12:26 pm

114 views | 26 Recommendations | 10 comments

KABUL — The expansion of Islamic extremist groups across the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is “the worst I’ve seen it,” with Afghan insurgents receiving help from Iranian operatives and “very possibly” freelancing Pakistani intelligence agents, as well as a small but growing number of “deadly” foreign fighters, said Maj. Gen. Mike Flynn, director of intelligence for Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s headquarters here.

“I wouldn’t say it’s out of control right now, but this is a California wildfire and we’re having to bring in firemen from New York,” said Flynn, who has been tracking Islamic extremism for at least eight years as director of intelligence for Joint Task Force 180 (in Afghanistan), Joint Special Operations Command, Central Command and the Joint Staff.

The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other Jihadist groups smell blood. With U.S. policy being perceived as weak and indecisive, they are now flowing into Afghanistan to kill U.S. and allied soldiers. Unlike Iraq, where U.S. forces/President Bush made it very clear that they were going to win the war, Afghanistan is being painted with a different brush and the Jihadists know this.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

snuffysmith

at 12:30 on November 1st, 2009

2010 is probably going to be a bloodbath coupled with a major escalation in the war.

albertacowpoke

at 14:36 on November 1st, 2009

Interesting to have Maj Gen Flynn make reference to Iranian operatives assisting in bringing foreign fighters across the Afghan/Pakistani border.

Hit and run tactics of the Insurgents is hard to counter. If U.S. and allied soldiers are to remain in Afghanistan, then half-hearted efforts will not succeed.

The question is, whether or not Afghanistan is worth our effort. With the recent withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah from the re-run elections, what kind of government are we propping up?

If the Karzai government has been able to gain influence outside of Kabul in 7 years, why should we believe that they ever will.

The tribal nature of Afghan society will make it difficult to create a democratic society in the short term.

Did all those soldiers die in vane?

jefhow22

at 14:45 on November 1st, 2009

I agree ACP...the bad guys are going to play with the minds of the US and the allies...not hard to do with no committment from The Land of Of Free...even the long term goal should not be for the West to change the Afghanistan government but merely try to point it in the right direction.

a211423

at 15:13 on November 1st, 2009

Recent attacks in Afghanistan are creating an artificial "front" to sway American and international focus and influence the Obama administration's decision about whether to escalate or leave. The president is in an untenable position--as a distinguished colleague told me today. The over arching question we should be asking ourselves is if we are safer from terrorists by continuing in Afghanistan. I would say no for all the reasons Matthew Hoh the diplomat gave when he resigned. Even though he was only there for five months, he took the pulse of the country, and the lack, indeed dearth, of American reasons for being there. Afghistan is not the "front" for fighting terrorism any longer. This needs to be made clear to Americans and the international community.

I think part of the fear of this administration is that if we leave, and there is a terrorist attack, they will be blamed for leaving Afghanistan as a strong hold for Al Qaeda. People need to realize that terrorism, indeed Al Qaeda, has gone global and wasting our time in Afghistan is probably what the terrorists want as they ever expand their bases of operation. One of their greatest attributes has been their mobility. This has been played out in Afghanistan, and now they are seeking out new places to embed themselves, and keeping us--and the world--occupied in Afghanistan could not be better for them in this effort.

Babel-Fish

at 16:06 on November 1st, 2009

That's spot on and the reality, the Obama administration would come under fire if it withdraws its troops if the Taliban reassess its power in Afghanistan. The general on the ground is making bold statements that the war needs to be won and has estimated the amount of troops required to carry out the aim.

So Obama is left with the problem of making this his war and sending reinforcements, or keeping it as a Bush blunder and solving the problem by handing the terrorist problem over to a government that could easily fall. The added problem if he as I am sure he has to, in fact really he has no real other option but to make it his war. This leaves another problem of does he send the total troops the general on the ground says he needs or cut the reinforcement to suit political needs to sort appease the no to war crowd. This of course takes a lot of thought as Obama was elected on a "no to war" platform.

The present government election problem complicates the issue and Obama has only one real option left, let the general on the ground have exactly what he wants and place the responsibility on that generals back. The "I can only go by what my advisor on the ground is saying its armies that win wars and not presidents" political ploy.

albertacowpoke

at 16:16 on November 1st, 2009

a211423 those are all pertinent questions that must be answered. Particularly the one that asks if we are safer because of Afghanistan. There is another story published that talks about a Major General responsible for General McChrystal's Intelligence that has talked about Iranian operatives readying insurgents across the Afghan/Pakistani border.

With recents events regarding the withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah from the re-run election, it has become apparent to me that nation-building is no longer possible unless we align ourselves with a corrupt regime. The tribal nature will not permit the Afghan government to reach much beyond Kabul.

So what should be the goal for success in Afghanistan now? Maybe the goal should be that everything that can be achieved has been achieved and we need to get our troops home and stop the carnage.

The only other alternative would be an all out effort and occupation of Afghanistan with all the consequences that come with it. Even this will not guarantee success in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's counter insurgency warfare, leaves the battle lines blurred, which are pretty obvious in conventional warfare.

a211423

at 16:54 on November 1st, 2009

Babel

Thank you for your comments.

I will invoke former president Truman: The Buck Stops Here.

No matter if president Obama takes the advice of General McChrystal or not, the responsibility ultimately will fall on him on election day and in posteriety for the outcomes. In Viet Nam we don't remember the failures of individual strategies, but we do remember Johnson failed to end it.

It's a delimma no president welcomes, but it goes with Commandar and Chief job description.

a211423

at 16:59 on November 1st, 2009

cowpoke

Thank you for your responses--as always

The goals for success have not been clear for the last eight years. Can we expect that they will be now? : (

I agree the lines are blurred beyond recognition, and now with more or less legitimizing the Karsai fraudulant, corrupt government in the facical run-off of one candidate the credibility of our reasons for being in Afghanistan become even less genuine and open to criticism.

albertacowpoke

at 18:03 on November 1st, 2009

I guess we all have to wait patiently to the President;s announcement, hopefully along with an explanation and a clear goal with an exit strategy.

a211423

at 08:38 on November 2nd, 2009

Since Karsai has been declared the winner now without the run-off, this is going to pressure the administration to make a decision about escalating the war. The next few days will be critical in this regard.