As U.S. Nears a Pullout Deal, Afghan Army Is on the Defensive

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,614
29,572
Colorado
Almost 18 years later....

We never should have invaded Afghanistan.

As U.S. Nears a Pullout Deal,
Afghan Army Is on the Defensive
KABUL, Afghanistan — As the United States appears to be nearing a deal with the Taliban on pulling its troops from Afghanistan, the country’s security forces are in their worst state in years — almost completely on the defensive in much of the country, according to local military commanders and civilian officials.​
Afghan commanders vowed last year to take the offensive, rather than go on fighting a static “checkpoint war.” But in most major battlegrounds, the bulk of the regular Afghan forces are still holed up in fortified bases and outposts. Most offensive operations have been left to small numbers of Afghan and American Special Operations soldiers, backed by both countries’ air forces.​
The woeful state of the regular Afghan forces has been widely seen as giving the Taliban a valuable edge in its negotiations with the United States, which have gone on for eight rounds in Doha, Qatar, and are believed to be near a conclusion. An announcement could come as early as Tuesday but also may be delayed, perhaps for weeks.​
An analysis of more than 2,300 combat deaths of government forces, compiled in daily casualty reports by The New York Times from January through July, found that more than 87 percent occurred during Taliban attacks on bases, checkpoints or command centers. These numbers indicate that the Taliban can attack many such bases almost at will.​
...A senior American military official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations, acknowledged that the Afghans were increasingly relying on elite units such as commandos and special police units to attack the Taliban. He said regular Afghan units still sustained most of their casualties while trying to hold on to territory anchored by bases and checkpoints.​
Dan Coats, the American director of national intelligence, told Congress this year that outside urban areas, “Afghan security suffers from a large number of forces being tied down in defensive missions, mobility shortfalls and a lack of reliable forces to hold recaptured territory.”​

More: As U.S. Nears a Pullout Deal, Afghan Army Is on the Defensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: skews13
May 2018
7,924
5,813
none
WTF? Why are we doing deals with the Taliban?

'I couldn't even scream': survival and abuse inseparable for Kabul children | Pariwash Gouhari

I'm sorry, we fucked it up. We damn well better fix it before we leave. Otherwise, we're back where we started. There are no "deals" to be made with the Taliban.

I'm sorry but no. We broke it, we bought it. Afghanistan does not need to be a democracy or anything, but we cannot leave them to fight the Taliban on their own. If we do, we will regret it.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2018
2,471
648
Earth
Almost 18 years later....

We never should have invaded Afghanistan.

As U.S. Nears a Pullout Deal,
Afghan Army Is on the Defensive
KABUL, Afghanistan — As the United States appears to be nearing a deal with the Taliban on pulling its troops from Afghanistan, the country’s security forces are in their worst state in years — almost completely on the defensive in much of the country, according to local military commanders and civilian officials.​
Afghan commanders vowed last year to take the offensive, rather than go on fighting a static “checkpoint war.” But in most major battlegrounds, the bulk of the regular Afghan forces are still holed up in fortified bases and outposts. Most offensive operations have been left to small numbers of Afghan and American Special Operations soldiers, backed by both countries’ air forces.​
The woeful state of the regular Afghan forces has been widely seen as giving the Taliban a valuable edge in its negotiations with the United States, which have gone on for eight rounds in Doha, Qatar, and are believed to be near a conclusion. An announcement could come as early as Tuesday but also may be delayed, perhaps for weeks.​
An analysis of more than 2,300 combat deaths of government forces, compiled in daily casualty reports by The New York Times from January through July, found that more than 87 percent occurred during Taliban attacks on bases, checkpoints or command centers. These numbers indicate that the Taliban can attack many such bases almost at will.​
...A senior American military official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations, acknowledged that the Afghans were increasingly relying on elite units such as commandos and special police units to attack the Taliban. He said regular Afghan units still sustained most of their casualties while trying to hold on to territory anchored by bases and checkpoints.​
Dan Coats, the American director of national intelligence, told Congress this year that outside urban areas, “Afghan security suffers from a large number of forces being tied down in defensive missions, mobility shortfalls and a lack of reliable forces to hold recaptured territory.”​

More: As U.S. Nears a Pullout Deal, Afghan Army Is on the Defensive
The primary reason we invaded Afghanistan was to restore the flow of opium that the Taliban had cutoff. You can see how successful it has been by looking at the opioid crisis and how it has enriched the drug makers. If the Taliban had agreed to supply the opium we would have left years ago.
 
Nov 2013
2,781
1,244
NM
Pres. W had to do something, after 09/11. The US Special Forces (& massive arty & bombing & missile attacks on defined targets) in Afghanistan routed Al Queda, & made it look easy. Too easy - we tried the same thing in Iraq, & then we invaded both countries. They're (& the region's) a morass of competing tribes, religions, ethnicities, warlords, drugs, entrenched elites, & loyalties switch @ the drop of hat. We didn't have enough troops nor diplomats who understood the ground, languages, cultures, people & histories there. Think of it as Vietnam without the foliage, but due to the ethnic/political considerations, demanding even more adroitness in managing the situations on the ground. Which - predictably - our military & spooks & diplomats failed to do, in a spectacular fashion. There were a handful of exceptions, but not enough to gain the political momentum we needed to achieve.

We (US military & diplomacy) don't function well in that environment - witness the endless dance between US & Pakistan, & our own allies inside Iraq & Afghanistan. There was a chance, maybe, to corner bin Laden & Al Qaeda @ Tora Bora in Afghanistan - but the US military couldn't field enough troops to seal off the escape routes into Pakistan, & we counted on vacillating weak straws to do the soldiering for us. We should have sealed off the passes, & killed everything that moved for however long it took.
 
Mar 2013
10,382
11,285
Middle Tennessee
And there it is right there !!! We had the Taliban beat. We had them bottled up. Nothing but a few rag tags hiding in caves with limited weapons or supplies. We just needed to take the time and spend the energy to go in and finish them off. We have the technology and the firepower. But we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when we packed up and headed into Iraq who had NOTHING to do with 9-11. We didn't leave enough troops to fully fend off the Taliban as it grew and strengthened, much less finish them off.

If we weren't going to finish the job we should have taken the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Ladin !!! Right after 9/11 they said show us proof he was involved and we'll hand him over. For some reason Bush chose to invade. This is twice in my life time, we have essentially saved Afghanistan only to turn our backs on them, leaving them unprepared and ill equipped to maintain their country.
 
Mar 2013
10,382
11,285
Middle Tennessee
OHHHH And WHERE is the fright wings outrage ?? They jumped all over Obama for honoring the troop withdrawal agreement BUSH made with Iraq. Calling him traitor and saying he was giving up the war !!!!
 
May 2018
7,924
5,813
none
And there it is right there !!! We had the Taliban beat. We had them bottled up. Nothing but a few rag tags hiding in caves with limited weapons or supplies. We just needed to take the time and spend the energy to go in and finish them off. We have the technology and the firepower. But we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when we packed up and headed into Iraq who had NOTHING to do with 9-11. We didn't leave enough troops to fully fend off the Taliban as it grew and strengthened, much less finish them off.

If we weren't going to finish the job we should have taken the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Ladin !!! Right after 9/11 they said show us proof he was involved and we'll hand him over. For some reason Bush chose to invade. This is twice in my life time, we have essentially saved Afghanistan only to turn our backs on them, leaving them unprepared and ill equipped to maintain their country.
Agreed 100%.
 
Sep 2017
1,073
432
Pennsylfaani
WTF? Why are we doing deals with the Taliban?

'I couldn't even scream': survival and abuse inseparable for Kabul children | Pariwash Gouhari

I'm sorry, we fucked it up. We damn well better fix it before we leave. Otherwise, we're back where we started. There are no "deals" to be made with the Taliban.

I'm sorry but no. We broke it, we bought it. Afghanistan does not need to be a democracy or anything, but we cannot leave them to fight the Taliban on their own. If we do, we will regret it.
lmao fuck them. Literally who cares what happens to them? They don't want us there, and we've been there for almost 20 years with literally nothing to show except American soldiers in body bags and a war-torn country.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,614
29,572
Colorado
lmao fuck them. Literally who cares what happens to them? They don't want us there, and we've been there for almost 20 years with literally nothing to show except American soldiers in body bags and a war-torn country.
Here's why "we care."

See also: Opium production in Afghanistan and Illegal drug trade
After regularly producing 70 percent of the world's opium, Afghanistan decreased production to 74 tons per year under a ban by the Taliban in 2000, a move which cut production by 94 percent. A year later, after American and British troops invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more. Opium production in that country has increased rapidly since[123][124], reaching an all-time high in 2006. According to DEA statistics, Afghanistan's production of oven-dried opium increased to 1,278 tons in 2002, more than doubled by 2003, and nearly doubled again during 2004. In late 2004, the U.S. government estimated that 206,000 hectares were under poppy cultivation, 4.5 percent of the country's total cropland, and produced 4,200 metric tons of opium, 76 percent of the world's supply, yielding 60 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product.[125] In 2006, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimated production to have risen 59 percent to 165,000 hectares (407,000 acres) in cultivation, yielding 6,100 tons of opium, 82 percent of the world's supply.[126] The value of the resulting heroin was estimated at US$3.5 billion, of which Afghan farmers were estimated to have received US$700 million in revenue. For farmers, the crop can be up to ten times more profitable than wheat.



Opium - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter the Roman
Nov 2013
2,781
1,244
NM
I understand the narcotics problem. But I'm not sure that the US (nor Western Civ. in general) should be waging the war on drugs with military forces & tactics in the source countries. It would be more effective - my opinion - to cut off the demand @ the root - if no one clamors to buy illegal drugs, it doesn't matter how much of the stuff is produced in the World - if there's no market, there will only be local demand, & no exorbitant prices paid by a self-destructing & frivolous client base.

& you can hardly fault the local producers in Afghanistan for having learned to play the capitalist game so well. No, I don't think military search & destroy missions are going to solve the West's dependency on narcotics, wherever grown or produced. In order to solve the narcotics problem, we (the US, @ least) need to quit horsing around @ the edges of the problems, & seriously tackle the issues - the first one being to remove the profit margin for the primary producers - that is, find cures or treatments to seriously reduce the demand for illegal narcotics. If we need to upend popular culture in order to do that; well, what's the problem? I'm not fond of popular culture in the US anyway - I won't count it as a great loss if we have to toss the worst bits of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat