War in Pakistan

Mr BoShambles

jambiguous
Gilles Dorronsoro: 'The Taliban's Winning Strategy in Afghanistan'

The Taliban strategy has been successful so far. They have achieved most of their objectives in the South and East, and they are making inroads in the North. The Taliban are unlikely to change their strategy significantly in the face of the U.S. troop surge. The leadership will probably not concentrate forces to challenge the IC, as they regretted doing in 2005. The Taliban could decide to exert more pressure on cities such as Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar, where they are well infiltrated.

The bulk of the new IC resources is going to the South to reinforce the existing military apparatus. This deployment will benefit the Taliban: Success is unlikely in the South and the North is left open to insurgent infiltration. The IC is sending thousands of troops to Helmand, for example, which may prompt the Taliban to retreat tactically to the northern part of the province or to Ghor (or Uruzgan) and return later after IC forces leave. There will not be enough IC forces to take and hold most of the areas now controlled by the insurgency, so the Taliban can leave areas where American troops concentrate and then return when troops redeploy elsewhere. There is no way to force the Taliban to fight when they have a sanctuary in Pakistan or in the mountains. Concentrating U.S. forces in the South will also leave the North open for Taliban gains.


Recommendations for the IC:

1) Stop focusing on the local leadership of the Taliban in Afghanistan and focus more on the central command in Quetta while pressuring Pakistan directly to take action there.

2) Focus new resources in places where the Taliban are still relatively weak: around Kabul and in the North to counter their strategy of geographical and ethnic extension of the war.

3) The current strategy of focusing the reinforcements in two provinces (Helmand and Kandahar) is risky. The lack of Afghan institutions condemns the IC forces to stay there indefinitely to prevent the return of the Taliban, especially since the Pakistani sanctuary enables them to conduct hit-and-run operations. In addition, the insurgency could rapidly redirect its resources to the North. Finally, more reinforcements will be needed in 2010 if this “clear and hold” strategy is to be expanded to other provinces.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
I asked a commentor at Registan about the cost of the ANSF. Here's what they said:

vimothy, annual Afghan GDP excluding poppies might be $10 billion.
Annual intermediate run steady state ANSF costs:
  • ANA excluding ANAAC (between $2 billion and $3 billion per year)
  • ANAAC (between $1 billion and $2.5 billion per year)
  • ANP (between $0.5 billion and $1.5 billion per year)
  • Total ANSF = $3.5 billion to $7 billion per year
There are more detailed assumptions behind these numbers. I think that the ANSF need $130 billion in foreign funding over the next 20 years to win the war, establish security inside Afghanistan, allow ISAF to return home. This assumes that parts of the Pakistani establishment continue to back the Taliban and their allies and allow them sanctuaries. I think that Afghanistan as a whole will need $250 billion in foreign grants over 20 years, with the balance being economic.
 

polystyle

Well-known member
Ahhh, those pesky long term relationships ...


One immediate effect of Mr. Mehsud’s death, if confirmed, could be a reduction of lingering mistrust between the intelligence services of the United States and Pakistan. The two sides have long harbored suspicions about each other’s motives, and some officials in Islambad once suspected that the C.I.A. might not be seriously trying to kill Mr. Mehsud because he was a C.I.A. asset.
 

polystyle

Well-known member
This strike possibly a result of that last wave of new model drones.
Raver, Shadow and the rest and then the newest generations on the boards now.
Noted recently a news' info bit that there are currently 7,000 drones in op.
Air Force has drones , the Army has drones.
Drones with missiles and ones with bombs ...
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Taliban claiming that Baitullah Mehsud is still alive - here, which going by the respective track records the Taliban & the Pakistani govt in reporting the death of Taliban leaders, means he probably is.
 

polystyle

Well-known member
Gone to ground...

Quite vivid HBO Docu on Afghanstan last night "The Taking Of A ... ...." (name of Afghan 'fixer').
To hear the fixer talking freely with another young Afghani in shotgun seat - about the journalist in his back seat and his 'type' ( foreign journo's in general ) translated in subtitles was telling.
"BBC pays the best ...', etc.
But obv. one can be a bit too smart when in Helmand with the Taliban in control of villages, areas, zones.
After his party was kidnapped, the fixer's head was sawed off with a dull blade ,
while the Italian journalist went free.
Taliban said it was all settled by a call from Pakistan ISI ( or whatever they are called, Intelligence service who has been backing Taliban during all of this and preceeding,
with US $ ).
Let the foreigner go and kill the Afghan....

By today, looking at what appears to be some disarray , it appears that those we thought might be dead- are dead.
Now there are more being captured and talking.
Sure, some may be lies the Pakistani's and US wants to hear , but some may be true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?hpw

And naturally, when forces with overwelming power attack you on a few fronts,
one gets squeezed to another area.
Central Asia has some weak Gov's and paper tiger leaders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/world/asia/18kyrgyz.html?ref=world
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
so the Afghan election! just in case you live under a rock in a cave in outer space & hadn't heard, it's the *first openly contested election in the country's history*. is there any doubt it's going to be Karzai? like, in a dubious landslide? I've no idea, that's just what everyone seems to be saying. either way, is this election actually important or just media cycle important?
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
to what should be no one's surprise

U.S. Military Says It's Forces In Afghanistan Are Insufficient

tbc, for the mission/objectives as currently stated. counterinsurgency, after all, being a manpower heavy project. the problem is, really, that this is a tactical issue when the question is really strategic. thankfully there's a strategic review currently going on under the aegis of Gen. McChrystal. we'll have to see what comes of it, I can't imagine sound strategical reasoning - even just cost vs. (potential) benefits - for continuing the war tho as per other threads I'm pretty certain we're stuck with this war at least until the next election.

a lot of "we have to turn it around in the next 12-18 months" stuff going around, it all feels rather like Iraq in 2006, but perhaps worse. I think most Americans would leap for joy if we could pull a resolution as "good" as that out of Afghanistan, tho I reckon it's a much tougher proposition. meanwhile, the election sounds like a clusterf**k, which probably shouldn't be a surprise either.
 
Last edited:
Top