Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Taliban Tactics/Strategy Surprising-is the Obama strategy working
Share:
by albertacowpoke | September 2, 2009 at 02:39 am
173 views | 16 Recommendations | 6 comments
Photos
Videos
Without question, Afghanistan was on the backburner while the Bush administration concentrate on the surge in Iraq, which up to this point seems to have been successful. President Obama changed the stakes in Afghanistan and send more troops to that country.
President Obama, along with Secretary of Defence Robert Gates handpicked General McChrystal to wage a new strategy in Afghanistan. Additional U.S. troops were send to Southern Afghanistan. U.S. troop levels number near 68,000.
General McChrystal is expected to ask for an additonal 20,000 troops later on this month.
The military leadership realizes that the Taliban are very adaptable and have taken advantage of the new NATO strategy and General McChrystal's newly issued Rules of Engagement. 2009 is the bloodiest year so far in Afghanistan. August has reached an all time high of 47 troops killed.
The new Rules of Engagement, which restrict the use of Airpower and aggressive action against civilians, have also emboldened the Taliban and opened new space for them.
The new strategy also calls for training more Afghan security forces. Senior NATO commanders are calling for this training to be accelerated. With the population, particularly in Khandahar and Hellmand province, being increasingly skeptical that NATO can provide security, the Taliban are gaining the upper hand in rural areas.
The Taliban's new strategy also targets construction projects.
"The point is that the Taliban, who have had a very clear aim and means from the very beginning, have been able slowly and steadily to get better at what they're doing," said a European official whose country's troops are fighting alongside U.S. forces.
There are allegations by both sides of the political spectrum of election fraud in the recent Afghan election, all of which plays into the hands of the Taliban.
There is increasing opposition in the U.S. against the war in Afghanistan. Allies are also questioning their role their. As an example Canada's parliament has voted to discontinue Canada's combat role in 2011, when Canada's present mandate ends.
Under these conditions, the U.S. administration and the Pentagon are trying to answer the question why the Taliban appear to be winning.
The Taliban has become a much more potent adversary in Afghanistan by improving its own tactics and finding gaps in the U.S. military playbook, according to senior American military officials who acknowledged that the enemy's resurgence this year has taken them by surprise.
U.S. rules of engagement restricting the use of air power and aggressive action against civilians have also opened new space for the insurgents, officials said. Western development projects, such as new roads, schools and police stations, have provided fresh targets for Taliban roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The inability of rising numbers of American troops to protect Afghan citizens has increased resentment of the Western presence and the corrupt Afghan government that cooperates with it, the officials said.
As President Obama faces crucial decisions on his war strategy and declining public support at home, administration and defense officials are studying the reasons why the Taliban appears, for the moment at least, to be winning.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
albertacowpoke
Canada
Related Stories
Recommendations (16)
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Scott Wu
Vancouver, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
- reply
chad noel (not verified)at 04:23 on September 2nd, 2009
the taliban appears to be winning, cuz we are LETTING them win!! War is war, it is not a game!!! We need to go in with disproportionate force!! destroy anything and EVERYTHING the taliban stands for, fights from, or hides behind! this BS of using propotional force is EXACTLY how you LOSE wars! get the troops we need in there, and even MORE than we need, and maybe we will get the war finished within OUR lifetime!!
at 04:32 on September 2nd, 2009
General Kearney who was replaced by McChrystal obviously didn't agree with the new strategy. Thanks for your comments.
at 06:29 on September 2nd, 2009
Where are all the liberals screaming about WAR? Is it okay for Obama? This is amazing that it is never really in the news now! No pictures of soldiers killed ..how many....all the "ain't it awful stuff is gone"....Where are the loons? What are they doing? I guess they are unemployed and can't afford to run around and picket.
at 10:18 on September 2nd, 2009
I told my wife and I told Queenshart that, once Obama was elected, the war would be a "democrat war" and the protests would cease.
And, that is what has happened because today we don't "do" principles. We "do" identity politics. If Obama does the war and I like Obama, then the war is good. Exact same war that I objected to under Bush in two countries.
Few people review their positions to look for inconsistencies, and the left, as I said, does not do "principles". They do "narrative".
Being as the modern libs and progressives are (as opposed to old-school libs), the product of narcissism and an intellectually-based defense structure, the left can come up with a new defense and attitude, even with a continuing series of rationales as needed.
About the Taliban: identity is the question here.
What are the Taliban? They are fundamentalist Muslims who were willing to host Al Qada. Their leader warned Osama binLaden not to attack the US because he recognized that the US would attack back and overthrow their religious paradise where they could do exactly as they wanted, from the mistreatment of women to the blowing up of statues of the Buddha.
They are still a willing host for the likes of Al Qada, but, beyond that, I don't know what to think of them.
We could legalize heroin and drive down the world price of opium and deprive them the means to continue this war.
The second question is: who are the non-Taliban, this nucleus of a future Afghan nation?
I worked for an Afghan family who had a transportation business. They told me how they escaped from Afghanistan. They had top level jobs, and some ended up in prison during the occupation by the Russians.
That leadership class is now safely esconced in the US and elsewhere and probably won't return. Some of them went to visit in Afghanistan, but none of them spoke of returning.
I think that no one knows what kind of deal, if any, could be worked out with the Taliban. The situation simply does not look good..
- reply
Anonymously Given (not verified)at 10:07 on September 2nd, 2009
These are the facets of a one party system that operates as a two party charade.
- reply
Anonymously Given (not verified)at 10:12 on September 2nd, 2009
Think about it: both parties (in spite of any rhetoric) pay homage to a) Banks b) Corporates c) War