What's new

Taliban attack on Faryab. updates

I don’t buy that excuse. Between NATO & the ANA & local pro-govt militias, there are significantly larger numbers of security forces deployed in Afghanistan compared to PA & FC deployments in FATA & Swat. NATO also brings massive force multipliers to the table in terms of its high tech fighters, drones & attack helicopters that provide surveillance & CAS capabilities unmatched by Pakistan. The US has been spending $5 Billion annually on Afghan security forces which is equal to the entire military budget of Pakistan.

The problem in Afghanistan remains one of poor strategic & tactical policy making, in terms of both COIN and institution building.
Most to leadership of ttp is killed by u.s and our army failed to capture or kill them.the militants fighting
against nato are supported by russia and afghanistan has history of this and when british invaded subcontinent after mughal rule they easily captured kpk and fata area but failed to capture and invade afghanistan.if we send our army in afghanistan they will not be able to
control a single city and will perform worst than nato.we have no experience of foreign invasion
 
.
These situations are not comparable, at all.

Pakistan Army is clearing militants from Pakistani territory, and enjoy complete support of the public in this endeavor. American drone strikes were also softening resistance to Pakistani Army in Waziristan by assassinating hardcore militants there from time-to-time.

Pakistan Army wasn't a master of COIN operations by default. Our military learned from exposure, experience and recorded considerable losses over time. We have lost more troops in this war in comparison to any other in our history. Experience is a valuable teacher nevertheless.

---

NATO is operating in a distant country and constitute a "occupying force" - it doesn't have regional legitimacy. NATO have established an Afghan government and its primary responsibility is to develop Afghan Security Forces - this is a mammoth task (expensive and unrealistic too).

NATO doesn't have substantial presence in Afghanistan either (16000 troops in total) - this strength is not enough to secure Afghanistan. On the other hand, Taliban is a huge force with substantial legitimacy in numerous sectors of the country - they are Afghan locals and they know their country inside out.

NATO have to do something major to turn the tide of war in Afghanistan. Current strategy is not going to work.

Some argue that NATO should abandon Afghanistan to its fate because this country is too fragmented and tribal to reform. Afghanistan finds itself in a perpetual state of civil war, and a foreign entity cannot address its problems.
I'm not at all suggesting that the PA was a 'master of COIN' when it started ops. Those of us that have followed these events since PA deployments in FATA/Swat are painfully aware of the losses that the PA suffered. Yet it is also true that the PA adapted & evolved over the last several years. The Frontier Corps was transformed from a largely rag-tag tribal militia to a well trained and fairly equipped para-military force capable of undertaking COIN ops on its own with PA/PAF in supporting roles.

But by the same token, the US/NATO/ANA have also been fighting COIN ops for for 16 years now. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars more than Pakistan on Afghan military & intelligence capacity building. They have better equipment and many magnitudes more resources. What these recent events point out is a massive failure of intelligence and failed training and capacity building programs. ANA logistical support appeared to be non existent, soldiers are poorly trained barring a few elite units. Thousands of Taliban massed and launched coordinated attacks across the country with the US/NATO/NDS/ANA having no clue what was about to happen.

What exactly does the US/NATO have to show for the hundreds of billions poured into training and capacity building of the ANA & Afghan intelligence agencies?

With respect to the argument that the US/NATO are seen as a foreign, occupying force, lending legitimacy & domestic support to the Taliban narrative - that was an issue pointed out from the beginning. It was one of the reasons Pakistan strongly opposed US strikes on Pakistani territory - there is simply no room domestically to be associated with US military action on Pakistani soil, even if coordinated between the Pakistan & US. Additionally, the US & Afghan policy of alienating Pakistan and courting India has been an absolute catastrophe.
 
.
Anyone wondering this all started suddenly right after China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia meetings on regional security...
 
.
.
Most to leadership of ttp is killed by u.s and our army failed to capture or kill them.the militants fighting
against nato are supported by russia and afghanistan has history of this and when british invaded subcontinent after mughal rule they easily captured kpk and fata area but failed to capture and invade afghanistan.if we send our army in afghanistan they will not be able to
control a single city and will perform worst than nato.we have no experience of foreign invasion
Killing the leadership is useful from a PR perspective but it does not have a significant impact on the situation on the ground. How many Afghan Taliban leaders & commanders have been killed? Dozens - and yet the Afghan Taliban insurgency has continued to grow. The terrorism in FATA & Swat was not defeated because the leadership was killed, it was defeated because of COIN operations on the ground & broader policies to deal with the potential collateral damage and reconstruction post operations. Take a look at Swat - Mullah FM ran away from Swat to Afghanistan and was only killed this year, but peace came to Swat even though he was alive.

Also, I'm not at all suggesting that Pakistan send her Army into Afghanistan - our soldiers should not bleed for a nation that refuses to even respect the Afghan-Pakistan border. I'm pointing out that the US and Afghan military have been utterly incompetent in developing a broader COIN & political strategy to work towards an end to the war in Afghanistan.
 
. .
I'm not at all suggesting that the PA was a 'master of COIN' when it started ops. Those of us that have followed these events since PA deployments in FATA/Swat are painfully aware of the losses that the PA suffered. Yet it is also true that the PA adapted & evolved over the last several years. The Frontier Corps was transformed from a largely rag-tag tribal militia to a well trained and fairly equipped para-military force capable of undertaking COIN ops on its own with PA/PAF in supporting roles.

But by the same token, the US/NATO/ANA have also been fighting COIN ops for for 16 years now. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars more than Pakistan on Afghan military & intelligence capacity building. They have better equipment and many magnitudes more resources. What these recent events point out is a massive failure of intelligence and failed training and capacity building programs. ANA logistical support appeared to be non existent, soldiers are poorly trained barring a few elite units. Thousands of Taliban massed and launched coordinated attacks across the country with the US/NATO/NDS/ANA having no clue what was about to happen.

What exactly does the US/NATO have to show for the hundreds of billions poured into training and capacity building of the ANA & Afghan intelligence agencies?

With respect to the argument that the US/NATO are seen as a foreign, occupying force, lending legitimacy & domestic support to the Taliban narrative - that was an issue pointed out from the beginning. It was one of the reasons Pakistan strongly opposed US strikes on Pakistani territory - there is simply no room domestically to be associated with US military action on Pakistani soil, even if coordinated between the Pakistan & US. Additionally, the US & Afghan policy of alienating Pakistan and courting India has been an absolute catastrophe.
Good points - my views converge with yours to large extent, but their are additional set of realities and observations.

NATO diverted its attention to the Middle East in 2003, and took its challenges much more seriously (issues of Afghanistan take a back seat in front of the issues of Middle East). NATO invested much more in its COIN operations within Iraq and Syria respectively, and achieved meaningful results there.

NATO stationed a large force (~100,000 troops) in Iraq while addressing its challenges. They invested a great deal in developing post-Saddam Iraqi government and Iraqi Security Forces, but they had ample firepower to spare for insurgent activity throughout Iraq. This strategy and level of commitment worked, and the reformed Iraq can stand on its own feet now.

Operation Inherent Resolve was also a masterfully crafted and executed COIN initiative to defeat ISIS across the Middle East, and it produced meaningful results. ISIS is close to being irrelevant in the Middle East today.

Here in Afghanistan, we don't see similar levels of commitment. A small NATO force is stationed in the country and Taliban is having its way in numerous sectors of the country. NATO is expecting too much from Afghan Security Forces, IMO.
 
.
**** power 2.png
 
.
tht mean direct confontration between us and taliban which mean they ( usa) will bleed .
.
.
that is exactly the plan .

Do you think US and Talibans are not directly Engaging each other ??? Yes of course they do. Even now US jets are bombing Taliban positions. and the additional troops will be here to push back the talibans.
Of course US solidiers will die but so do the Talibans in greater numbers. but we'll fear for the poor innocents who are caught up in between
 
.
Do you think US and Talibans are not directly Engaging each other ??? Yes of course they do. Even now US jets are bombing Taliban positions. and the additional troops will be here to push back the talibans.
Of course US solidiers will die but so do the Talibans in greater numbers. but we'll fear for the poor innocents who are caught up in between
they arnt confronting each other at the same ground . usa uses ana to fight taliban but after the collapse of ana usa have to confeont thm by themselves :) .
.
.
kill with a thousands cuts :) ....
 
.
Question is, will trump send the troops? This appears to be an opening for the yanks to enter the arena again with force. A lot of things are on stake but we are heading to an ultimate showdown. You can have many Alamo's but their thick walls will be thinly manned.

Trump can go either way. On one hand it's his name/ego at stake if US was to lose the war in Afghanistan under his administration. On the other hand he has been pushing Japan/NATO to reduce reliance on US and cutting aid(to foreign countries) and gutting government programs(domestically)...so he might perhaps avoid this expense of deploying additional troops.

A sensible thing to do would be to just negotitate with all the parties involved and pull out of Afghanistan...in order to plug this hole of billions of dollars being spent every year.
 
.
In some days we'll get the news of additional US troop deployment in Afghanistan
Hope they find new supply route

Do you think US and Talibans are not directly Engaging each other ??? Yes of course they do. Even now US jets are bombing Taliban positions. and the additional troops will be here to push back the talibans.
Of course US solidiers will die but so do the Talibans in greater numbers. but we'll fear for the poor innocents who are caught up in between
Look at the bigger picture are taliban losing or gaining ground in Afghanistan?
Aerial bombings runs only slow down taliban
 
. .
In some days we'll get the news of additional US troop deployment in Afghanistan
I think indian supa soldier should also deploy in Afghanistan you are buddy with Kabul govt.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom