Afghan Endgame Underway

[don]

Vietnamization didn't fare that well either . . .

Audacious Raid on NATO Base Shows Taliban’s Reach

By ALISSA J. RUBIN

KABUL, Afghanistan — An audacious Taliban attack on a heavily fortified base in southern Afghanistan did far more damage than initially reported, destroying or severely damaging eight attack jets in the most destructive single strike on Western matériel in the 11-year war, military officials said Sunday.

While other attacks have caused greater loss of life, the assault late Friday at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province, one of the largest and best-defended posts in Afghanistan, was troubling to NATO because the attackers were able to penetrate the base, killing two Marines and causing more than $200 million in damage. “We’re saying it’s a very sophisticated attack,” said a military official here. “We’ve lost aircraft in battle, but nothing like this.”

The complex attack, which NATO officials said was conducted by three tightly choreographed teams of militants wearing American Army uniforms, was a reminder that the Taliban remain capable of serious assaults despite the “surge” offensive against them. Now the offensive is over, and nearly 10,000 American Marines have left Helmand Province, a critical stronghold for the Taliban, over the past several months.

The 15 insurgents conducting the attack lost no time from the moment they blew a hole in the perimeter at one of the closest points to the airfield, military officials said. They then raced toward their targets, shooting and setting fire to parked Marine AV-8B Harrier jets and destroying three refueling stations, even as a quick reaction force was mustering to fight them off, a military official said. “It was a running gun battle for a while, two and a half hours, nonetheless they were able to get to the aircraft before we could intercept them,” a military official said, noting that because it happened at night it was difficult until daylight to be sure that all the insurgents had been killed or captured.

Six of the jets, which each cost between $23 million and $30 million when they were first acquired by the United States Navy, according to a General Accounting Office report, were completely destroyed and two more were so severely damaged it was unlikely they could be repaired. Also badly damaged were three refueling stations and three soft-skinned aircraft hangars, the military said in a news release.

Determining how it was possible for the insurgents to penetrate and severely damage such a well-defended base, particularly one with clear lines of sight across miles of mostly flat plain, will be important in determining whether this was a unique attack or one that could be replicated either in targeting Western bases or Afghan ones, military experts said.

“The Taliban retain the command and military planning infrastructure to put together complex and sophisticated attacks,” said Stephen Biddle, a professor at George Washington University with expertise in defense studies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/wo...gewanted=print


Nato Afghan strategy in disarray after joint ground operations suspended

The Nato-led military strategy in Afghanistan has been thrown into disarray after joint on-the-ground operations were suspended because of a collapse in trust over the killings of Americans and other Nato soldiers by Afghan government forces.

The move came after a surge in the number of "insider attacks" by Afghan government soldiers and police officers. There have been 36 such attacks this year, which have killed 51 Nato soldiers. The suspension threatens the joint plan to train an effective Afghan army to keep the Taliban at bay after foreign troops pull out.

General John Allen, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, ordered a stop to joint combat operations and patrols "until further notice".

The decision, which was announced in Washington, took the UK government by surprise, coming just a day after the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, spoke in defence of Nato's continued work with Afghan troops in parliament. Whitehall sources said British commanders were unaware the announcement was going to be made.

"We are very much partnered with the Afghans. Literally everything is partnered with them right down to every level. We need to see what are the parameters for us … it's for the individual countries working under Isaf to determine how they work through what Isaf wants to be done."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ations-afghans

[Mega]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

I think the "Plan" is to reteat into a few large camps & try to direct drone strikes from there. I think they will be forced out, not just from there either.........the Western impearist scum will suddenly find themselves fighting on a wide front....they can't possably respond.

Mike

[BigBagel]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

"Rule number one in politics is never invade Afghanistan." Harold Macmillan.

You have to respect a people who will not, under any circumstances, accept a foreign boot in their face.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

The endgame in Afghanistan was clearly established when a withdraw timeline was announced and everyone started to accelerate it and crowd the exit.

For anyone paying attention the tactics used by the Taliban to shear away the connection between ISAF and the Afghani ANA/ANP has been nothing short of brilliantly successful.

At the cost of a few dozen infiltrators on the enemy side and the cost of a 100 or so ISAF casualties, the Taliban have managed to create a massive divide between ISAF and the ANA/ANP. It also led to a serious drop in support for operations in Afghanistan operations in ISAF home countries. And it will surely lead to further dissention within the ranks of the ANA/ANP as they jockey for position in a post-ISAF Afghanistan.

The strategy of targeting embedded ISAF training team didn't really begin until the departure timeline was communicated.

Once again proving the Afghani saying of "You may have all the watches, but we have all the time."

As far as the attack on Camp Bastion it was far better planned, coordinated, and executed than the typical attack/ambush on ISAF, leading one to safely assume it likely possessed external support from the likes of Pakistan/Iran as well as a professional crew to carry it out.

There is apparently one survivor.....my guess if he spills the beans it fingers Iran/Pakistan.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

"Rule number one in politics is never invade Afghanistan." Harold Macmillan.

You have to respect a people who will not, under any circumstances, accept a foreign boot in their face.

Which people would that be?

The western concept of the Afghani nation people?

Or the more local concept of ethnic/tribal peoples?

The Hazari people for example are NOT interested in seeing ISAF leave(or be attacked) out of fear of the return of the Taliban and the genocidal massacres that went along with it in the past.

The same/similar could be said of the Tajik and Uzbek peoples in Afghanistan, but to probably a lesser extent.

I wonder if we will see the same thing happen in Afghanistan as what happened after the US abandonment of South Vietnam when North Vietnam successfully invaded South Vietnam in a conventional war?

I recall the Degar/Hmong/Montagnard/Dega/Rade peoples of Vietnam, who strongly supported the US mission in Vietnam and fought against North Vietnamese infiltration and eventually conventional invasion, suffered quite badly post 1975.

Lots of lessons to be learned from both Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there are also some basic misconceptions that have lingered for decades and are probably cursed to linger for decades more.

[don]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

wrap it up, it's a take . . .

[flintlock]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

The US needs to redefine it's definition of "ally". There was a time you didn't call someone who worked against you, while receiving your $ in aid, an Ally. While I agree with Lakedaemonian that it doesn't take but a few infiltrators to wreak havoc and muddy the real picture, I can't see that happening as often in Great Britain during WWII. Any support for the US presence in that region is ambivalent at best. These fragging events are a lot easier to pull off when nobody loves you over there. Proof money can't buy everything. Lots of Vietnam type lessons having to be relearned unfortunately. Tet was a turning point, even though the US/ARVN slaughtered the VC/NVA involved. If you are fighting a war that can be lost by perception alone, then maybe you shouldn't be fighting it.

[Mega]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

Ah yes Vietham..............that went well!
I can still recall my Father calling me down from my Bed room to watch the fall in 75.........the Helecopters getting throw off the ships.......
Mike

[don]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

The US needs to redefine it's definition of "ally". There was a time you didn't call someone who worked against you, while receiving your $ in aid, an Ally. While I agree with Lakedaemonian that it doesn't take but a few infiltrators to wreak havoc and muddy the real picture, I can't see that happening as often in Great Britain during WWII. Any support for the US presence in that region is ambivalent at best. These fragging events are a lot easier to pull off when nobody loves you over there. Proof money can't buy everything. Lots of Vietnam type lessons having to be relearned unfortunately. Tet was a turning point, even though the US/ARVN slaughtered the VC/NVA involved. If you are fighting a war that can be lost by perception alone, then maybe you shouldn't be fighting it.

All wars are political - the old refrain "war is the continuation of politics by other means" is as valid today as it was in Clausewitz time. Comparing Great Britain as an ally of the US, in a Total War effort against rival first-world nations, with indigenous resistance to a foreign, in this case the US, occupier is quite a stretch.

[don]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

Ah yes Vietham..............that went well!
I can still recall my Father calling me down from my Bed room to watch the fall in 75.........the Helecopters getting throw off the ships.......
Mike

just imagine the replacement largess. fortunes were made in Vietnam . . .

[flintlock]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

All wars are political - the old refrain "war is the continuation of politics by other means" is as valid today as it was in Clausewitz time. Comparing Great Britain as an ally of the US, in a Total War effort against rival first-world nations, with indigenous resistance to a foreign, in this case the US, occupier is quite a stretch.

Thats my point. And I was also referring to nations like Pakistan. When you send them as much money as the US has, you can't exactly call them an enemy. But nor are they an ally. These wars are as much political shenanigans as war. Usually with a lot of money involved. Its hard to claim that Afghanistan is even a war by proxy between the superpowers like in Vietnam, as the Afghans fought the Russians with equal ferocity in the 80s. Partly these wars are sideshows, designed to deflect attention from real problems at home. Like I said, if a little bad press can defeat you, you probably don't need to be fighting there. You certainly cannot "win". Bad press is just too easy for enemies to produce. Can anyone imagine episodes like the bombing of Dresden or even the Abbey at Monte Cassino knocking the US out of the WWII? My point is not that we need to step up the war. Just the opposite. We need to make the decision to enter them based on the predictable end result, and actual national defense, not the cash or political gain from them.

The parallels with Vietnam as an ally with Afghanistan are interesting. The VC also had people in the ARVN, fighting an insurgency. That war didn't work out too well for the US either. My point was the definition of an ally. Co-belligerent is perhaps a better term for Afghanistan( or Iraq,etc). I'm not aware of the formalities between the nations. The situation is more akin to Tito's Partisans, or in the case of Germany, Finland fighting the Russians in WWII. Allied leadership realized the limitations of an alliance with Tito and acted accordingly. They didn't bankrupt the nation trying to turn them into "friends" and prop up two-faced leaders. The initial campaign in Afghanistan was more along the lines of what the allies did with Tito. And it worked. But then someone remembered there was no money to be made with that kind of campaign.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that the murders of NATO personnel by Afghan military and police is all some brilliant infiltration by terrorists. I think they have at least a limited amount of popular support and there are substantial factions in Afghanistan that are not at all unhappy with the results. Like Lakedaemonian said, Afghanistan is not one unified people. The US reminds me of a pushy neighbor who invites himself to dinner, never considering he's not really welcome. Nor does he care.

[don]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

interesting side note on allies: during the Great War, the US was not an ally of Britain or France, they were an associate. The difference? Allies pool their resources and share the spoils. Associates do not share the spoils - the US had no reparation or territorial claims on the Central Powers. They did have bills-payable for France and Britain, a factor in the latters quest for reparation payments.

[don]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

Afghanistan: the Smell of Defeat

by MIKE WHITNEY

“These two visions, one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life, clashed in Afghanistan. And thanks to brave US and coalition forces and to Afghan patriots, the nightmare of the Taliban is over and that nation is coming to life again.”


– George W. Bush, The War College Address, 2004

Not so fast, George.

The United States hasn’t liberated Afghanistan. It hasn’t rebuilt Afghanistan. It hasn’t removed the warlords from power, curtailed opium production, established strong democratic institutions, or improved life for ordinary working people. The US hasn’t achieved any of its strategic objectives. The Taliban are stronger than ever, the central government is a corrupt farce, and, after 11 years of war, the country is in a shambles.

This is what defeat looks like. The US military has been defeated by a poorly-armed militia which has demonstrated a superior grasp of modern warfare and asymmetric engagement. The Taliban has shown that they are more adaptable, more motivated, and smarter. That’s why they prevailed. That’s why they beat the world’s most celebrated army.

Americans don’t like to hear that kind of talk. They’re very proud of their military and are willing to pay upwards of $1 trillion per year to keep it outfitted in the most advanced weaponry on earth. But weapons don’t win wars, neither does propaganda. If they did, the US would have won long ago, but they don’t. What wins wars is tactics, operations, and strategy, and that’s where the emphasis must be if one expects to succeed.. Here’s an excerpt from an article by William S. Lind explaining why the US mission in Afghanistan failed:

“A general rule of warfare is that a higher level trumps a lower, and technique is the lowest level of all. Our SEALs, Rangers, Delta, SF, and all the rest are vastly superior to the Taliban or al-Qaeda at techniques. But those opponents have sometimes shown themselves able at tactics, operations, and strategy. We can only defeat them by making ourselves superior at those higher levels of war. There, regrettably, Special Operations Forces have nothing to offer. They are just another lead bullet in an obsolete Second Generation arsenal.” (“What’s so special about Special Ops?”, William S. Lind, The American Conservative)

The US military’s high-tech gadgetry and pilotless drones merely disguise the fact that America is still fighting the last war and hasn’t adapted to the new reality. Here’s more from Lind expanding on the same theory:

“The greatest intellectual challenge in Fourth Generation war—war against opponents that are not states—is how to fight it at the operational level. NATO in Afghanistan, like the Soviets three decades ago, has been unable to solve that riddle. But the Taliban appears to have done so….
The Soviet army focused its best talent on operational art. But in Afghanistan, it failed, just as we have failed. Like the Soviets, we can take and hold any piece of Afghan ground. And doing so brings us, like the Soviets, not one step closer to strategic victory. The Taliban, by contrast, have found an elegant way to connect strategy and tactics in decentralized modern warfare.
What passes for NATO’s strategy is to train sufficient Afghan forces to hold off the Taliban once we pull out. The Taliban’s response has been to have men in Afghan uniform— many of whom actually are Afghan government soldiers or police—turn their guns on their NATO advisers. That is a fatal blow against our strategy because it makes the training mission impossible. Behold operational art in Fourth Generation war……
The Taliban know this technique is operational, not just tactical. They can be expected to put all their effort into it. What counter do we have? Just order our troops to pretend it is not happening—to keep trusting their Afghan counterparts. That order, if enforced, will put our soldiers in such an untenable position that morale will collapse.” (“Unfriendly Fire”, William S. Lind, The American Conservative)

Lind does not underestimate the Taliban or dismiss them as “ignorant goat herders”. In fact, he appears to admire the way they have mastered 4-G warfare and routed an enemy that has vastly superior technology, communications and firepower. It helps to prove his basic thesis that tactics, operations, and strategy are what matter most.

For more than a decade, the Taliban have been carrying out an impressive guerrilla war frustrating attempts by the US to establish security, hold ground or expand the power of the central (Karzai) government. In the last year, however, the militia’s efforts have paid off as so-called “green on blue” shootings–where coalition troops have been killed by Afghan soldiers or policemen–have dashed US plans to maintain a client regime in Kabul when US combat operations end and American troops withdraw. The Taliban found the weak-link in the Pentagon’s strategy and has used it to full advantage. “As American Security Project Central and South Asia specialist Joshua Foust puts it, ‘The training mission is the foundation of the current strategy. Without that mission, the strategy collapses. The war is adrift, and it’s hard to see how anyone can avoid a complete disaster at this point.’” (“The Day we lost Afghanistan”, The National Interest)

TIME TO CUT AND RUN?

The persistent green on blue attacks have convinced US and NATO leaders that the war cannot be won which is why President Barack Obama has decided to throw in the towel. Here’s a clip from a speech Obama gave in May at a NATO confab in Chicago:

“I don’t think that there is ever going to be an optimal point where we say, this is all done, this is perfect, this is just the way we wanted it and now we can wrap up all our equipment and go home…Our coalition is committed to this plan to bring our war in Afghanistan to a responsible end.”

The political class is calling it quits. They’ve decided to cut their losses and leave. Here’s how the New York Times summed it up:

“After more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan…it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan ….. It should not take more than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm….
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure “logistical withdrawal,” but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014 Afghan election, seems dubious at best …
…the idea of fully realizing broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive….More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not “come back in..
Post-American Afghanistan is likely to be more presentable than North Korea, less presentable than Iraq and perhaps about the same as Vietnam. But it fits the same pattern of damaging stalemate. We need to exit as soon as we safely can.

America’s global interests suffer when it is mired in unwinnable wars in distant regions.” (“Time to Pack Up”, New York Times)

Notice how the Times fails to mention the War on Terror, al Qaida, or Bin Laden, all of which were used to garner support for the war. What matters now is “America’s global interests”. That’s quite a reversal, isn’t it?

What happened to the steely resolve to fight the good fight for as long as it takes; to liberate Afghan women, to spread democracy to far-flung Central Asia, and to crush the fanatical Taliban once and for all? Was it all just empty posturing aimed at ginning up the war machine and swaying public opinion?

And look how easy it is for the Times to do a 180 when just months ago they were trying to persuade readers that we should hang-in-there to protect Afghan women. Take a look at this August 2012 editorial titled “The Women of Afghanistan”:

“Afghanistan can be a hard and cruel land, especially for women and girls. Many fear they will be even more vulnerable to harsh tribal customs and the men who impose them after American troops withdraw by the end of 2014.
Womens’ rights have made modest but encouraging gains over the past decade. But these could disappear without a strong commitment to preserve and advance them from Afghan leaders, Washington and other international partners….
…all Afghans should be invested in empowering women. As Mrs. Clinton has argued, there is plenty of evidence to show that no country can grow and prosper in today’s world if women are marginalized and oppressed.” (“The Women of Afghanistan”, New York Times)

Ahh, but lending a hand to “marginalized and oppressed” women doesn’t really hold a candle to “America’s global interests”, now does it? As one might expect, the Times most heartfelt feelings are shaped by political expediency. In any event, the Times tacit admission proves that the war was never really about liberating women or spreading democracy or even killing bin Laden. It was about “America’s global interests”, particularly, pipeline corridors, mineral extraction and the Great Game, controlling real estate in thriving Eurasia, the economic center of the next century. That’s why the US invaded Afghanistan, the rest is propaganda.

There’s one other glaring omission in the Times article that’s worth noting. The editors tiptoe around the one word that most accurately summarises the situation: Defeat. The United States is not leaving Afghanistan voluntarily. It was defeated. The US military was defeated in the same way that the IDF was defeated by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, by underestimating the tenacity, the skill, the ferocity, the adaptability, and the intelligence of their adversary. That’s why Israel lost the war in Lebanon. And that’s why the US lost the war in Afghanistan.

There’s a reason why the media won’t use the term defeat however applicable it may be. It’s because your average “Joe” understands defeat, the shame of defeat, the sting of defeat, the anger of defeat. Defeat is a repudiation of leadership, proof that we are ruled by fools and scoundrels. Defeat is also a powerful deterrent, the idea festers in people’s minds and turns them against foreign interventions, police actions and war. That’s why the Times won’t utter the word, because defeat is the antidote for aggression, and the Times doesn’t want that. None of the media do.

But the truth is, the United States was defeated in Afghanistan.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/...ell-of-defeat/

[Shakespear]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

Thats my point. And I was also referring to nations like Pakistan. When you send them as much money as the US has, you can't exactly call them an enemy. But nor are they an ally. These wars are as much political shenanigans as war.

Flint they simply have no choice. Put up the cash or find a different land route to bring in supplies. Then if you want to play the "Play India against Pakistan", you also need to put the cash on the table. Want to squeeze Chinese influence, put money on the table. The moment the money is gone .... it will be a flip of a change.

The rest can easily be explained by reading history of this region. It is the same Kabuki Play.

Something makes it profitable for US to stay there and drop such heavy money on the table. It can't be because we want to "nation build" , IMHO

[flintlock]

Re: Afghan Endgame Underway

Flint they simply have no choice. Put up the cash or find a different land route to bring in supplies. Then if you want to play the "Play India against Pakistan", you also need to put the cash on the table. Want to squeeze Chinese influence, put money on the table. The moment the money is gone .... it will be a flip of a change.

The rest can easily be explained by reading history of this region. It is the same Kabuki Play.

Something makes it profitable for US to stay there and drop such heavy money on the table. It can't be because we want to "nation build" , IMHO

Oh I understand why they align themselves with Pakistan. Its the wisdom the whole war I question. I agree, we aren't there because we "care"