Major military operation under way in Afghanistan

[muse]

Last chance saloon in Helmand
By Aziz Ahmad Shafe, Mohammad Ilyas Dayee and Aziz Ahmad Tassal

KHANSHIN, Helmand province - It is all too rare a phenomenon lately: local residents cheerful at the sight of foreign troops. But Operation Khanjar (Dagger Thrust), which the United States Marines Corps launched in early July in southern Helmand, has so far delivered on its promise to put protection of civilians ahead of killing the enemy.

"When the American forces first came to our village, we were very frightened," said Mohammad Isaa, a resident of remote Khanshin district, which the Marines cleared just one day after the start of the operation.

"But there was no fighting, and no Taliban. The soldiers are just walking around, but they haven't bothered anybody yet. They are not searching houses. They tell people that they are here for our security, so we can participate in the [presidential] elections. They also said, 'If you don't make problems for us, we will never make problems for you.' We are very happy now."

Khanshin, one of Helmand's largest but least-populated districts, is mostly desert. Villages are scattered throughout, most boasting just a bazaar with a few dozen shops. It is one of five districts targeted in Operation Khanjar, the others being Nawa, Garmsir, Dishu and Marja.

Assadullah Sherzad, the provincial chief of police, said that Nawa, Garmsir and Khanshin were now clear and stable.

"In those areas that we have cleared, we have established security checkpoints," he told reporters. "The police have been able to keep those areas clear of the Taliban."

Operation Khanjar has met very little resistance since it got under way early in July; the overwhelming firepower of the US forces doubtless had the Taliban thinking better of a face-to-face fight. But even more surprising than the lack of a counter-punch has been the reception given the troops by the Helmandis, who have been battered and let down over the past eight years.

"These Americans are very good people," said Tak Mohammad from Nawa district. "They wave and speak to us in a very friendly way. And they have helped us finally to get rid of these cruel oppressors."

Chased out by the US-led invasion in 2001, the Taliban came back to Helmand in force in 2006. For the past three years, local residents have been buffeted by wave after wave of military operations that only managed to clear the target area for a few months. Along the way, they caused untold damage to property and livestock, as well as mistakenly killing many non-combatants in air strikes or raids.

Once the foreign forces moved on, the insurgents came back, often exacting revenge for any perceived collaboration with the enemy.

So it is understandable that the patience of the Helmandis is wearing thin. While they may be prepared to put up with some inconvenience if Operation Khanjar does free them permanently from the Taliban, they are unlikely to give the foreigners another chance if, once again, they are abandoned to their fate.

"The standard for a successful operation is if they clear an area and stay and hold it," said retired army officer Abdul Jabar. "If they just clear an area and do not leave forces there, the opposition returns and things are even worse than before. It leaves a very bad impression with the community, and they go over to the insurgents because they see them as the dominant force."

Jabar was skeptical about Operation Khanjar. The overwhelming force of the US Marines demonstrated a lack of understanding of the enemy, he said.

"Sure [the US] has a lot of troops, modern weaponry, artillery, tanks and an air force, but come on! This is an army for five provinces. The Taliban are not that powerful that you need to send so many soldiers to fight them," Jabar said.

But, while the insurgents lack the firepower of their foreign foes, they have shown a remarkable capacity for survival, so it may be too soon to count them out entirely.

"The Taliban haven't gone anywhere," said a political analyst in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They are here. Every one of them is in his place. They are not outsiders or foreigners. They are in the community."

Qari Yusuf Ahmadi, spokesman for the Taliban, told IWPR that the battle was still to come.

"We have not yet started the fight," he said. "We are launching our own operation, Puladi Jaal [Steel Net], in answer to Operation Khanjar. We will catch their 'dagger' in our 'net'."

Ahmadi acknowledged that the Taliban were not able to mount a frontal assault at this time, but insisted that they had more than enough tactical arrows in their quiver.

"We will use everything," he said. "Rockets, missiles, suicide bombers, guerrilla attacks, and face-to-face fighting. This is war."

One weapon the Taliban have used to great effect is the improvised explosive device, IED - the roadside bombs that target the vehicles the foreign forces drive.

"I do not mind if I am killed, provided that the Americans get rid of the Taliban this time,” said Sharaf, who had brought his injured son to Lashkar Gah from Nawa. "Those tyrants have taken my son's leg. They laid mines on the roads. Don't they see that these roads are also used by civilians?"

While keeping a low profile in the areas now controlled by the US Marines, the Taliban have put up a spirited fight in other parts of Helmand.

Rockets rain down almost daily on Lashkar Gah, although so far they have caused little damage.

More seriously, in the central and northern parts of the province, the British are facing a bitter and bloody battle as they carry out their own operation, Panjai Palang (Panther's Claw).

But there are many who see the Taliban's present quiescence in southern Helmand as a sign that they have lost their appetite for combat.

"If the Taliban are not resisting, it means they cannot fight any more," said Ehsanullah Ehsan, a writer living in Lashkar Gah.

A former chief of police, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told IWPR that the Taliban were losing their spirit.

"The Taliban have lost their morale," he said. "Our sources say that the insurgents are leaving Marja district, and have been ordered not to fight. They are afraid they will be killed."

Nonsense, says Mullah Abdullah, a Taliban commander in Helmand.

"We have started our own operation, and we will continue until we kick the foreigners out," he said in a telephone interview.

For now, Helmand residents and observers are willing to give qualified approval to Operation Khanjar, but there is a long way to go before it can be termed a success.

"People are withholding judgement," said the political analyst in Lashkar Gah. "They cannot say whether this operation is good or bad. They are afraid that the forces will stay here for some days and then leave, so we will be alone with the Taliban again.”

Many are waiting to see what the Americans can bring in the way of real development.

"It is still just the beginning," said Mullah Shin Gul from Nad Ali district. "The Americans need to begin reconstruction, by agreement with the people. They should establish centers here in the districts, and they should follow every single Taliban and kill him. In a short while it will be too late. The people will lose trust."

The governor of Helmand, Gulab Mangal, looks much happier these days. He has been very optimistic about Operation Khanjar, and told a news conference in Lashkar Gah that as soon as the districts were cleared the government would re-launch voter registration, to give people a chance to participate in the August 20 presidential and provincial council elections.

"Everything is getting better," he told reporters at the opening of a two-kilometer stretch of road inside Lashkar Gah. "In the near future Lashkar Gah will have stable electricity. The side roads will be paved. Everything will be fine."

But many Helmandis are asking what will happen when the US forces leave, as they eventually will do.

Once the Afghan National Army, ANA, is able to take charge, say officials, it will instigate a system of house searches and checkpoints, which is sure to rile local residents.

"The Americans did not bother people this time," said Mohammad Gul, a resident of Nawa district. "But if the ANA come and start searching people's houses, they will face a very fierce reaction from people. Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, just do not like their houses being searched."

Villagers are also complaining about the Afghan National Police, the ailing organization that has been almost universally condemned for inefficiency and corruption.

"The police are bothering people," said Fedaa, a resident of Nawa district. "They are stopping anyone with a turban or a long beard. They accuse them of being Taliban, and then they take bribes from them. We are very happy with the Americans and the Afghan army, but we hate the police."

One tactic the Americans have implemented in their campaign for hearts and minds is the shura - the traditional village councils that dispense decisions for the community. By convening shuras, the US forces hope to demonstrate that they have come to help, rather than suppress, the local population.

But local people say there is some skepticism surrounding these gatherings.

"It is not important for the Americans to make shuras, where they deliver their deceptive speeches," said the political analyst. "They have to prove their words with action. Only then will the people trust in them. The American shuras will gain credibility when they do something that the people can believe in. Otherwise it's useless. I'm not saying that people won't go - they will. But they will not listen."

Of course, not everyone is happy about the presence of foreigners in this very traditional, very conservative province.

"Yesterday the American soldiers came to my house and said, 'We are here for your security'," said Hajji Sher Mohammad from Khanshin. "My son was standing behind me, drinking a glass of water. And the soldier said, 'In a few days we will be digging wells for drinking water.' I just told him, "We don't want your drinking water. Go away and leave us alone. Your planes frighten my children, they cannot even go outside.' We are God's servants, and may His will be done. We cannot do anything, either with the Taliban or with these [Americans]."

Aziz Ahmad Shafe, Mohammad Ilyas Dayee and Aziz Ahmad Tassal are IWPR-trained reporters in Helmand

 

[S-2]

Interesting mix of comments.

Far too soon to guage results and nothing at all conclusive but reason for some encouragement nonetheless.

Here's a link for those desiring such.

 

[waraich66]

Interesting mix of comments.

Far too soon to guage results and nothing at all conclusive but reason for some encouragement nonetheless.

Here's a link for those desiring such.

Talaban saved their arms and fighters during US invasion in 2001 and in last eight years they laid their network all over Afghanistan, now they just wanted to exhaust the ISAF forces and waiting for right time to attack with full strength.

Obama regime already announced 18 months target , which looks crazy

I think Talaban will start real war after completion of 18 months.

 

[muse]

US to leave Afghanistan after two years: official


Saturday, 08 Aug, 2009 | 05:05 AM PST |
Obama’s counter-terrorism mandate ‘isn’t at the top of my list’, said David Kilcullen (above), a counter-insurgency expert. His top reasons include: if Afghanistan crumbles, nuclear-armed Pakistan will probably follow. -
Pakistan’s resistance to drone strikes will soften, hopes US RESULTS GUARANTEED
Pakistan’s resistance to drone strikes will soften, hopes US

WASHINGTON: An incoming adviser to the top US general in Afghanistan has predicted that the United States will see about two more years of heavy fighting and then either hand off to a much improved Afghan fighting force or ‘lose and go home’.

David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency expert who will assume a role as a senior adviser to Gen Stanley McChrystal, has been highly critical of the war’s management to date. He outlined a ‘best-case scenario’ for a decade of further US and Nato’s involvement in Afghanistan during an appearance at the US Institute of Peace on Thursday.

Under that timeline, the allied forces would turn the corner in those two years, followed by about three years of transition to a newly capable Afghan force and about five years of ‘overwatch’.

‘We’ll fight for two years and then a successful transition, or we’ll fight for two years and we’ll lose and go home,’ Mr Kilcullen said.

‘I think we need to persist,’ he said, but with ‘some pretty significant limits on how much we’re prepared to spend, how many troops we’re prepared to send, how long we can do this for.’

Mr Kilcullen was speaking for himself, and it is not clear that Gen McChrystal shares his dark assessment. Gen McChrystal is assembling what aides describe as a blunt summing up of a war his predecessor called a stalemate. That review is due within weeks and may lead to a request for additional US forces beyond those President Barack Obama has already sent to Afghanistan this year.

The report is expected to recommend changes in the way the United States and Nato organise and manage the war. Ahead of those recommendations, the Pentagon set up a new command centre, an ultra-secure war room where a people from a mix of services and disciplines sit together. The command post is supposed to quickly process information for Gen McChrystal and bulldoze some of the Pentagon’s legendary bureaucracy.

Measures of success

Separately, the Obama administration is developing new measures of success in Afghanistan, something top military leaders promised Congress months ago. Some of the gauges would apply to the Afghan government, some to its armed forces and police and some to the United States.

Mr Obama announced a re-tailored war strategy in March, with a streamlined focus on ensuring that Afghanistan cannot be used as a harbour for Al Qaeda. He has committed 21,000 additional US troops for Afghanistan this year, roughly doubling the US footprint to 68,000 in a year.

The United States does have compelling reasons to continue the fighting, Mr Kilcullen said, but Mr Obama’s counter-terrorism mandate ‘isn’t at the top of my list’.

His top reasons: The United States and Nato have promised protection to the Afghan people; the future of the Nato military alliance could hinge on perseverance in Afghanistan; and if Afghanistan crumbles, nuclear-armed Pakistan will probably follow.

Mr Kilcullen, formerly an adviser to Gen David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said the Taliban-led resistance was pursuing a classic strategy in which a militarily weaker force avoided direct warfare and sat back to ‘wait us out ’til we get tired and go home.’—AP

 

[TruthSeeker]

Under that timeline, the allied forces would turn the corner in those two years, followed by about three years of transition to a newly capable Afghan force and about five years of ‘overwatch’.

‘We’ll fight for two years and then a successful transition, or we’ll fight for two years and we’ll lose and go home,’ Mr Kilcullen said.

It seems clear that Obama cares far more about his domestic US agenda than he does about being the world's policeman. He will be facing a re-election in the timeframe of this statement. He will not place his own possibility of a second term as US President in jeopardy by continuing the war in Afghanistan in the face of a stalemate or worse.

Also, the Israelis have a similar timeframe to get serious with the Palestinians, or Obama will side heavily with the Palestinians. This is a less certain prediction, however, since Jewish American influence in both the Democratic Party and the US media is so very strong. He may, instead, turn a deaf ear to the Palestinians, even though the Congressional Black Caucus of the Democratic Party strongly supports the Palestinians.

One thing is absolutely certain: Obama will throw any friend or ally "under the campaign bus" if they are hampering his re-election.

 

[muse]

TS (Terribly Sexy?)

I too think much has to do with American financial health, politics and elections - I had said to S2 that I didn't think US forces would be in Afghanistan, after Obabma's first term, if there was to be a second term -- You will also have noted that WoT terminology is no longer in vogue - What do you make of the flwg:

Most Americans oppose Afghan war

* Nearly two thirds of Republicans support Afghanistan war, three quarters of Democrats oppose it

WASHINGTON: Most Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, which President Barack Obama has made a priority, dispatching tens of thousands of troops to fight a growing insurgency, a poll said on Thursday.

In a new low in public support for the war effort, 54 percent of respondents said they opposed the US-led fight against the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies, with only 41 percent in favour in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. The survey came as violence hit an all-time high in the nearly eight-year-old war, with 76 foreign troops killed in July, including 45 US troops ahead of elections on August 20. Another 14 Western soldiers have died in Afghanistan so far this month.

In the last poll, taken in May, most respondents — 50 percent — supported the US-led war and 48 percent voted against it.t.Obama has dispatched 21,000 US troops to the war-torn country, with the US contingent set to reach 68,000 by the end of the year, but the Democratic president’s move is hurting support within his own party. “Afghanistan is almost certainly the Obama policy that Republicans like the most,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Nearly two thirds of Republicans support the war in Afghanistan. Three quarters of Democrats oppose the war.” The poll was conducted by telephone July 31 through August 3, with 1,136 US adults surveyed and a margin of error or plus or minus three percentage points. afp

Now, if the US does leave in the next 2 to 4 yrs, it will be a disaster for Pakistan - you will note that there is a pace and tempo to Pakistani war fighting which suggests that politics is priority # 1 -- Bad nuz! unless of course those predators are kept busy morning, day and night and at the end of which as a favor to the Pakistani nation, one may go astray, target a convention of to pakistani politiicans - trust me, there would widespread gratitude for that one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

What do you make of the flwg:

Most Americans oppose Afghan war

What many who post on this forum do not seem to understand, or cannot believe, is that the American "people" are basically isolationist. They REALLY resent that the US excessively involves itself in the troubles of other nations. If the US had to hold a plebiscite of the American voters to approve a foreign military intervention, most would be defeated. The fact of the many USA interventions seems to belie this American isolationism of the "average" American, but consider how many Governments in the world, including Pakistan, are able to ignore public sentiment for quite some time. It is true of the US as well, especially if the "intervention" is supported by the news and opinion media.

All of the many involvements of the USA in foreign conflicts have to be sold to the American public in moral terms. You can laugh, but it is nonetheless, true, that America is a "Christian" nation and does not believe in killing innocents. In fact, the USA is the most Christian nation in the West, in terms of adherence to the Christian faith, imperfect as it may be. Therefore, US interventions must be couched in a justification that, on balance, those who are killed are not "innocent" in a Christian sense. The officials who want to initiate or continue a foreign military intervention have to convince the American public that the US has to do X, Y or Z because someone will be killed by evil forces, if we do not "save" them.

Different foreign interest groups, i.e. Iraqi ex-patriots or advocates for a free Georgia, et cetera, have to successfully put on a PR campaign that convinces the US public that their cause is just and worthy of the sacrifice of US young soldiers and $$$. Sometimes the PR campaign succeeds and sometimes it does not. Republicans and Democrats, when in power, bring to the questions different net moral imperatives. So, some arguments that will get a Republican White House to intervene will not convince a Democratic White House to intervene, and vice versa.

The great success of the Isreali lobby in the US has been to cross over party lines and convince both Republicans and Democrats that their cause is moral, period. I think they are the only foreign interest group in the US that has managed this twofer.