Taleban are worn down, say British troops

From Times Online.

British troops in southern Afghanistan have “worn down” the Taleban and forced them to abandon many of their key strongholds in Helmand province, a senior commander said yesterday. Brigadier Andrew Mackay, commander of 52 Brigade, said: “The Taleban are now suffering from a lack of manpower and that is why they are having to rely on foreign fighters. They are also now operating outside their normal areas because they lack support from the local populations.” There is evidence that the Taleban are now having to adopt new methods of attacking British and other Nato troops. There have been more asymmetric attacks and suicide bombings in places such as Kandahar in the south. Brigadier Mackay said that the use of more foreign fighters had damaged the Taleban's relations with the Pashtu people living in the area. Up to 80 per cent of the population is now under government protection, according to the latest military assessment. Three thousand extra US Marines are joining Nato forces in southern Afghanistan to concentrate on defeating the Taleban in Garmsir.

Several articles are stating how the Taliban are resurgent noting that 6500 people, mostly Taliban, have been killed in 2007 which is up a few thousand from 2006. What these articles fail to understand is the ANA is now powerful enough and with the help of NATO forces they are able to go into places like Musa Qala and defeat the Taliban.

Quite simply, the number of Taliban deaths are up in 2007 from 2006 because NATO forces brought the attack to the Taliban and stunted their spring offensive.

In turn, the Taliban replaced their forces with foreign terrorists who kill indiscriminantly using suicide bombers. Hence the rise in suicide bomber attacks in 2007 and early 2008. However, Al Qaeda's use of suicide bombers is now having the same effect in Afghanistan that it did in Iraq, namely loss of support from the population. The question becomes why has it taken more time in Afghanistan for the populous to turn against Al Qaeda than it has taken in Iraq? A little history of the conflict has to be reviewed.

After initially overrunning the Taliban in 2001, instilling a friendly government, and executing free and fair democratic elections, Afghanistan quickly turned to an economy of force operation in the Long War from the American perspective, especially given the onset of a persistent insurgency in Iraq and Al Qaeda labeling Iraq as their central front. As such, attacks in Afghanistan were sporadic and did not affect most of the population.

The Taliban were easily overrun in 2001 because they did not have active support from the population. They did; however, have tacit support from the population. The difference here is that a tacit population are fence sitters. If side X is more powerful, the population will tend to support side X. If side Y is more powerful, side Y tends to be supported. With the American military making Afghanistan an economy of force operation and neither side able to gain terroritory, much of the population in Afghanistan remained on the fence, not wanting to commit to either side in case the other side proved victorious. For its part, NATO has been unable to get European committment to soundly defeat the Afghanistani insurgency.

From 2001 to 2006 however, NATO forces increased in size (mostly due to American increased) and scope of combat operations they could conduct. In addition, the ANA grew in size and capability. Over this time, Taliban Commanders have been killed as have several thousand of their foot soldiers. But no major change in front lines occurred. Hence most Afghanistanis still straddled the fence, providing tacit support to whoever controlled the terrority where they lived.

Finally, in late 2006/early 2007, Iraq exerienced the Al Anbar Awakening and the complete collapse of the insurgency in this country. With Iraq lost, 2007 saw a rise in foreign Taliban and Al Qaeda forces moving to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. In turn increased NATO numbers and ANA capabilities resulted in many battles which the Taliban were consistently defeated and overrun.

Less Afghanistani Taliban, more foreign Taliban, and the loss of key battles all resulted in the Taliban in Afghanistan to begin employing more suicide bombers which ultimately led to more indiscriminantly killings of innocent Afghanistanis. As such, tacit support of either side is beginning to shift to active NATO/ANA support. This change of attitude is especially noticable in the recent defection of Mullah Abdul Salaam who has been put in charge of the Mula Qasa district in Helmand province.

Rewarding Mullah Abdul Salaam with a governship is no different than putting Sunni tribes in charge of Al Anbar. It is the only way to win an insurgency. They enemy must be turned to our side. Once turned, the new friend must be rewarded. His defection to NATO is no different than Risha changing sides in Al Anbar. The difference is foreign Al Qaeda were not prevalent in sufficent numbers in Afghanistan until recently, which is putting the Afghanistani "Awakening Movement" behind the Iraqi one. However, the end result will be the same, especially given the recent "surge" of Marines to Afghanistan. Afghanistan in late 2007 is reminiscent of Al Anbar in late 2006/early 2007.

2008 will be the year to watch in Afghanistan. There should be an increase in attacks as Al Qaeda attempts to terrorize the population in submission. "Awakening Movements" will begin in the spring of 2008 as Al Qaeda's terror campaign gets into full swing. Slowly, over the course of a year to 18 months, Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan will be defeated and pushed out of several areas where they currently have tacit support. They will be pushed back to the FATA regions in Pakistan. A year from now, Iraq will be essentially peaceful, Afghanistan will still have a low-grade insurgency trying to survive (much like Iraq currently), and Pakistan will very well see an increased insurgency.

Pakistan has at most a year before Al Qaeda launches a full fledge insurgency in Pakistan as they see their fortunes failing in Afghanistan and Iraq completely lost. In fact, if Al Qaeda is smart, it would start a full insurgency now while the government of Pakistan is in transition. However, this action is also risky as it may leave Musharraf in office as the President and result in rapid loss of support among fellow Pakistanis.

Either outcome does not bode well for Al Qaeda. They will be completely defeated in Iraq by next winter. They will have been defeated in Afghanistan, and they will begin being pursued in their last remaining secure base, the FATA regions in Pakistan.

Yes, 2008 will be an interesting year. Even more interesting will be the 2008 Presidential elections which will see marked success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a battle possibly raging in Pakistan. One candidate is fully supportive of the Long War we will be undeniably winning at the time of the elections. The other candidate(s) will be trying to change his/her story about how they now really support the long war.

Whoever is elected will be forced to keep a strong, but reduced presence in Iraq, increase forces in Afghanistan as NATO force committments expire, and coordinate with whoever is in charge of Pakistan to assist this military in defeating the last remanents of Al Qaeda in the region.

For its part, Europeans will once again feel disenchanted with their governments because they did not stick it out with the victors to see the destruction of Al Qaeda as a viable international force.

I thank God I live an a country that still has a backbone. Americans have always been tough. And when the going gets tough, Americans shine. Lets hope we change Europeans more to our way of thinking in the upcoming four years instead of America moving closer to a European spineless attitude. It is looking good from this perspective as more conservative leaders have all been elected in Germany, France, and England since the Long War kicked off. If we are successful in strengthening European's backbones, we have nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran. If we are not successful, then unfortunately Iran will become Al Qaeda with a bomb. And that will not be a pleasant time.

George Bush is not a very effective communicator; however, he did give Americans a backbone for the Long War. As we were waivering and unsure of what to do, George Bush surged forces into Iraq which resulted in Al Qaeda in Iraq's defeat. It will be interesting if we give up this backbone in November 2008. While the social policies of all remaining candidates are not much different now, the international policies are clearly distinguishable. It is in foreign policy where this presidential election will be decided.

In the last eight years, George Bush, for all his failings, will have done his part to defeat Al Qaeda. We know Europeans run when the going gets tough. The question is will we? If we do, we must prepare for battle with a nuclear Iran and the Long War will continue.

Alexander III, king of Macedon, became Alexander the Great and forever has a place in history due to the Battle of Gaugamela in which he defeated Darius, the Persian King. With all hope lost, he turned the battle into a rout of the Persian Empire. George Bush, with the surge, has done the same thing in modern times against Al Qaeda. Again, the question is will we do the same again present day Persia?