Article: Leaked report says Taliban will win

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I suppose it's that time of the week again when we have a discussion about Afghanistan.

From today's Guardian newspaper:

Author: Julian Broger

A secret US military report says the Taliban, heavily backed by Pakistan, are confident they can win the Afghanistan conflict, and that they are gaining popular support at the expense of the Kabul government.

The report, The State of the Taliban 2012, is the latest of a series drawn up by a US special operations taskforce on the basis of interrogations with 4,000 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida detainees.

Its conclusions, that the Taliban's strength and morale are largely intact despite the Nato military surge, and that significant numbers of Afghan government soldiers are defecting to them, are in stark contrast to Nato's far more bullish official line, that the insurgent movement has been severely damaged and demoralised.

The report, leaked to the BBC and The Times, also portrays the Taliban as being under the thumb of Pakistan's powerful security agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), but resenting that control.

According to published excerpts, the report finds that "Taliban commanders, along with rank and file members, increasingly believe their control of Afghanistan is inevitable. Though the Taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation, funding and tactical proficiency remains intact."

The authors, American researchers attached to special forces, conclude that the weakness and venality of the government in Kabul is an increasing source of strength for the insurgents. "In the last year, there has been unprecedented interest, even from [Afghan government] members, in joining the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over [the Afghan government], usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders.

The BBC quotes the report as saying: "Reflections from detainees indicate that Pakistan's manipulation of Taliban senior leadership continues unabated. The Taliban themselves do not trust Pakistan, yet there is a widespread acceptance of the status quo in lieu of realistic alternatives."

The report also quotes a senior al-Qaida detainee as saying: "Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar without them watching." He added: "The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad."

Pakistan's foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, rejected the report as "old wine in an even older bottle". Speaking during a visit to Kabul, Khar said her country had no hidden agenda and would back a peace process between Kabul and the Taliban as long as it was driven by Afghans and not outsiders. The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) played down the singificance of the report, pointing out it reflected only the views of captured Taliban fighters, who had their own agenda.

"Obviously they are telling us what their idea is about the goings on of their campaign," said Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson, the chief Isaf spokesman. "It is what they either do believe or what they want us to believe."

He said most of the captured fighters think "they are still having a successful role" on the ground but that perception was wrong and Nato was not planning to change its strategy because of it in any way.

"The insurgency is clearly on the back foot. We have been pressurising them over the summer, we have taken vast amounts of land out of their hands and we have detained a high number" of militants, Jacobson said.

The report is the latest of a series aimed at providing an assessment of the insurgency on the basis of detainee interrogations, written by researchers seconded to a US special operations unit called Task Force 3-10, which is charged with hunting down Taliban and al-Qaida commanders. An earlier version of the report was influential in convincing the British government at the time that a peace deal could be done with the Taliban.

Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former UK special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said of the document at the time: "It paints a picture of the Taliban believing that they are winning in the long war, in the long game, though they suffer tactical reverses.

"It shows that many of them are fed up with fighting; that some of them have suffered very painful losses. And it shows their real objection is to foreigners in their land, whether those foreigners come from Kansas or Karachi or Cairo. They are fighting as nationalists, and it does show that a deal could be done – but it doesn't show that a deal will be done."

The Taliban on Wednesday said they had no plans to hold peace talks with the Afghan government in Saudi Arabia, as President Hamid Karzai has proposed. A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid said that exploratory talks with the US would not lead to negotiations in Qatar as planned until there is "trust-building between the sides, which has not started yet". The Taliban are demanding the release of five of its senior members from Guantánamo Bay.

The Obama administration is considering the demand, but Karzai has blocked any deal on the grounds that it bypassed the sovereignty of his government.

The Associated Press quotes unnamed intelligence officials as saying the US was exploring a solution by which Afghanistan could assume a formal legal custody over the prisoners and then, with the prisoners' own consent, agree to consign them to house arrest in Qatar.

**DeadlySquirrel**

They already have. We are pulling out. And what have we accomplished? The country is in a terrible state, but at least the CIA's opium poppies are safe...

**Yak9UT**

You can't win a uncoventional war in coventional means.

**Miraclefish**

You can never wipe them out, the harder you hit them the more you recruit people to their cause. Eventually you have to leave the country, thus, they will win. It's a zero sum game.

**Frazzled**

If they want that pile of rocks they can have it. We went there for Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

**Ketara**

I was actually discussing this one last week with an MP who used to be heavily involved with the Ministry of Defence until quite recently. I can't say more than that due to the Chatham House Rule, but he had some interesting thoughts.

He said that by giving a definitive withdrawal time, he thought we were defeating ourselves, because the Taliban would simply bide their time, gather their strength, and strike to reclaim power the second we were out of the country. Instead, he proposed we withdraw to a number of fortified compounds for a prolonged period of time, draw down troop numbers, and withdraw from public view there. He envisaged our garrisons emerging to initiate special forces strikes, or to defeat any in the field Taliban army, and otherwise leaving the day to day security of the country to the Afghan Army.

His reasoning was that if we leave, the Taliban will retake the country, and we can't afford the casualties and financial burden of the current deployment. He thought we'd basically lost the hearts and midns battle, and by removing ourselves from the public eye, antipathy towards Western Forces would decrease. It also allows us to maintain bases of operation in the country should we require them.

It was an interesting thought, and I believe, worth further scrutiny. I believe the specifics would need to be nailed down, but its certainly a possibility.

**Frazzled**

Here's the thing, and I know its a can of worms but, why do we care?

The Taliban were hiding Al Qaeda. Pakistan "theoretically" wasn't. If the Taliban had supported us or just moved out of the way, then they would still be in power. (Or we jhad just nuked Alqaeda locations)

Anything else is nation building, and Afghanistan has never been a nation, and won't be in our lifetimes.

**Ketara**

Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

**Frazzled**

Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

**The Foot**

The problem is this isn't a conventional war. I don't think anyone has actually "won" a war like that. I do believe that the Taliban has been hurt, but they certainly have enough support to win back the country once we leave. Most people over there just want to live in their huts and do their thing and they will side with whomever they think will provide that and the Taliban will tell them anything they want to hear.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

**Frazzled**

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

**Samus_aran115**

Frazzled wrote:If they want that pile of rocks they can have it. We went there for Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Yup.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

Because it wouldn't have been victory?
Nukes are a hazardous weapon to use at best on a target that isn't, say, a city or urban environment, and given that we're still fighting the buggers now even after Bin Laden got his, how can you guarantee that it would have ended the violence?
Even the shock value of a nuke (arguably what scared the Japanese into surrender way back when) might backfire, convincing people who are otherwise on the fence about the West that it's ruthlessness is real, and that it should be opposed.
You probably won't care about that, either, to be honest. But you should.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

The situation of AQ in Afgan is special because WE laid the roots that grew into the Taliban and AQ. A lot of the underground infrastructure to create terrorist fighters is there. Or at least that's how I understand the Afgan situation over say Indonesia or Qutar.

**Samus_aran115**

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything other than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

IMO, NATO is a silly idea in a post Cold-War setting. It's only purpose was to scare the USSR when we were gaking bricks waiting for them to nuke us. it has no reason to exist anymore. I can see why it does exist now, but I don't think it's being used for the right reasons.

Nukes are just politically bargaining chips, and they really don't solve anything. I agree with your comment below:

Because it wouldn't have been victory?
Nukes are a hazardous weapon to use at best on a target that isn't, say, a city or urban environment, and given that we're still fighting the buggers now even after Bin Laden got his, how can you guarantee that it would have ended the violence?
Even the shock value of a nuke (arguably what scared the Japanese into surrender way back when) might backfire, convincing people who are otherwise on the fence about the West that it's ruthlessness is real, and that it should be opposed.
You probably won't care about that, either, to be honest. But you should.

Nuking Afghanistan would serve no purpose, no matter where you dropped it, and would likely just do exactly what you mentioned. Going back to the idea that they're just bargaining chips, it would be a sign of weakness that 'big bad america' had to waste a nuke on a little piece of gak country like afghanistan, rather than fighting the insurgency by traditional means (which obviously isn't the best).

I really wish our military would have thought out a better plan for Afghanistan if they had to do it at all. The way I see it, they're dealing with the same problems they had in Vietnam, and it doesn't seem like we really learned anything from that mess.

**Frazzled**

We didn't lay the roots. The roots were there with the mujihadeen, and with the afghanis even before the Soviets invaded.

Again, how do you actually "win" there? once you've killed Al Qaeda, define "win." We did what we went there to do. Time to bug out.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything other than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

IMO, NATO is a silly idea in a post Cold-War setting. It's only purpose was to scare the USSR when we were gaking bricks waiting for them to nuke us. it has no reason to exist anymore. I can see why it does exist now, but I don't think it's being used for the right reasons.

You could argue the same of people who run around worrying about the commies in the US still, I guess. Eh, I guess old habits die hard when it comes to the effects of the Cold War.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:We didn't lay the roots. The roots were there with the mujihadeen, and with the afghanis even before the Soviets invaded.

Frazzled is right. The Afghans have never been fond of invaders; hell, even Alexander the Great had one hell of a time holding onto it.

**AustonT**

I'm pretty sure the US helped the Afgan Mujahideen with money, arms, and training under Carter covertly and then covertly and real out in the open under Regan.

**Ahtman**

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure the US helped the Afgan Mujahideen with money, arms, and training

No need to be 'pretty sure', we absolutely did.

Hell, they even made a Tom Hanks movie about it.

**AustonT**

Rambo III?

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure the US helped the Afgan Mujahideen with money, arms, and training under Carter covertly and then covertly and real out in the open under Regan.

yes they did. However the mujihadeen were already there. We just gave them a fighting chance.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Frazzled wrote:
AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure the US helped the Afgan Mujahideen with money, arms, and training under Carter covertly and then covertly and real out in the open under Regan.

yes they did. However the mujihadeen were already there. We just gave them a fighting chance.

To be fair, they had a fighting chance anyway, considering the general lack of quality of the Red Army at that time, and the fact that they knew the terrain far better than their enemies.
However, the point still stands.

**Ahtman**

AustonT wrote:Rambo III?

Tom Hanks as John Rambo? Hmmmm.

Charlie Wilson's War

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Never thought I'd say (write) this but Donald Rumsfeld was right: Get in, topple the regime, install a puppet, and get the hell out!

**CT GAMER**

Ketara wrote: All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Shocking. Didn't see that coming...

**Mr Hyena**

*Shrugs* They can keep their sand and stay in the stone age if they want.

**Sonophos**

The Taliban were born of the war with the Soviets they are a political system set up for war and conflict even within themselves. They are tribal in nature and as such "Taliban" should be viewed as a generic term not a name.

The Taliban point of view pretty much represents the views of the tribal elders in Rural Afganistan (ie most of it) so you won't get rid of them unles you pretty much wipe out every man woman and child in the entire country.

This was the view of the British during the Victorian era and that is why modern India and Pakistan have the borders they do today.

Every army that has tried to conquer this region has had it's rear end handed to it with the notable exception of Alexander the Great.

If I may draw your attention to this:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/oil_war.htm

You will notice that the pipeline treaty that Mr. Kharzi signed 5 minutes after being handed office proposes a nice neat way to avoid pumping oil to Europe and China whilst avoiding Iranian and Russain territory.

You will also note that it crosses areas where troop surges have been targetted.

I would not want to imply a causal link just a little coincidence.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Sonophos wrote:The Taliban point of view pretty much represents the views of the tribal elders in Rural Afganistan (ie most of it) so you won't get rid of them unles you pretty much wipe out every man woman and child in the entire country.

This was the view of the British during the Victorian era and that is why modern India and Pakistan have the borders they do today.

Every army that has tried to conquer this region has had it's rear end handed to it with the notable exception of Alexander the Great.

And even then he couldn't hold onto it.
Ultimately, fighting the Afghans is like fighting the Vietnamese; sure, it looks easy 'cause they have old Soviet tech at best, but once you find yourself stuck in yet another
guerrilla war, you'll end up wishing you'd just stayed the feth out of it all and not wasted all the money and lives.

**biccat**

Sonophos wrote:You will notice that the pipeline treaty that Mr. Kharzi signed 5 minutes after being handed office proposes a nice neat way to avoid pumping oil to Europe and China whilst avoiding Iranian and Russain territory.

You will also note that it crosses areas where troop surges have been targetted.

I would not want to imply a causal link just a little coincidence.

So you're saying that the Afghanistan government is using their geographic position as a strategic resource and defending the commercial value of that resource against sabotage?

Devious bastards.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Ultimately, fighting the Afghans is like fighting the Vietnamese; sure, it looks easy 'cause they have old Soviet tech at best, but once you find yourself stuck in yet another
guerrilla war, you'll end up wishing you'd just stayed the feth out of it all and not wasted all the money and lives.

The problem with Afghanistan is the same as the problem in Vietnam - disorganized resistance in a difficult environment that eliminates the advantage of superior military resources.