PDA

View Full Version : Afgan Info


Ambush Master
12-02-2004, 18:57
Geopolitical Diary: Thursday, Dec. 2, 2004

The U.S. Defense Department is loudly telegraphing an impending offensive in Afghanistan. Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, who has operational command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said Wednesday there are signs of a spring offensive being mounted by Taliban forces. The American intention is to disrupt that offensive with a preemptive attack that is to begin shortly after the inauguration of newly elected President Hamid Karzai on Dec. 7.

According to Olson, the offensive will involve virtually all U.S. forces in Afghanistan and will focus on dislodging Taliban from their winter sanctuaries -- in particular, staging raids by special operations teams -- along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

It is clear that this offensive cannot be effective if it simply stays on the Afghan side of the border. The border cannot be sealed, regardless of the number of U.S. troops deployed. Any attack that confines itself to the Afghan side will leave a large number of Taliban intact for operations in the spring. Therefore, unless the U.S. military is simply planning to churn up the countryside, which we doubt, there will be operations inside Pakistan as well.

It is interesting to note that Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf recently ordered the withdrawal of a substantial portion of Pakistani troops from the border region. At the time, this appeared to be a strange move. However, if the United States was telling him of its plan to stage an offensive in the area, Musharraf might well have thought it prudent to reduce his own footprint in the region in order to minimize the chances of clashes between U.S. and Pakistani forces -- and to provide him with the ability to deny that there were U.S. incursions going on. It should be added that, given the security issues that remain inside the Pakistani military, the United States is likely not to want to share operational information at the field level lest U.S. plans leak to the Taliban. Therefore, Olson's report allows us to make sense of Musharraf's redeployment.

But the story is more complicated than that. Russian President Vladimir Putin is on a visit to India this week. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov warned Wednesday against the "Pashtunization" of Afghanistan. According to Itar-Tass, Ivanov warned that, "This is a way to start a new war. The so-called radical members of the Taliban movement are safe and solid when moderate members are going on streets and pretend to be involved in a new Afghan government." What Ivanov was saying is that there is no such thing as a moderate Taliban. He was charging the United States with allowing Taliban members into the Afghan government in the hope of splitting the Taliban. Ivanov was saying that rather than splitting the Taliban, all the United States was doing was making the radical Taliban more secure.

The Russians seem to regard the Afghanistan offensive as a variation on the Iraqi offensive. In Iraq, the United States is trying to split the Sunnis by waging offensives against the guerrillas. If we are to believe Ivanov, the purpose of the Afghanistan offensive is not so much to defeat the Taliban as to split them. This would leave Russian non-Pashtun allies in the north in a precarious position. It would also leave the Taliban secure.

If this were the strategy, it would explain the unusual publicity given to a surprise offensive. The United States does not have the force needed to do more than disrupt the Taliban. It cannot defeat them militarily, but the United States might think it can disrupt them politically. The Russians are in the odd position of wanting the United States to take a less subtle, hard-line position and simply confront the Taliban militarily.

The Russians might find a receptive audience in India. However, the United States needs, if not an exit strategy, then a pacification strategy toward the Taliban -- and splitting them appears to be the only option. In any event, forgetting the Taliban for the moment, the offensive will also leave the United States in a good position to begin raiding deep into Pakistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden and his command cell. To achieve that end, the United States is prepared to do a lot of horse trading.

Gypsy
12-02-2004, 20:04
AM, is this from Stratfor.com?

sandytroop
12-04-2004, 09:22
No surprise the Russians want us to take a harder line approach. They treied "cordon and thump" for 10 years and it didn't get them anywhere, but they are becomming fascinatingly unimaginative, given their other Cold War experiences.

And you have to love the line "it would explain the unusual publicity given to a surprise offensive." Unusual? Anyone remember the 1980's? I used to just shake my head everytime the press commented on the "clandestine war" in latin America. Nobody telegraphs a "clandestine" action quite as loudly as we do. It is a comforting thought though, that every time we announce an offensive from the roof tops, we still win decisively. Imagine if anyone in the decision making process, the self-promoting press, or the seive known as Congressional oversight could, for just a couple of days, put their egos aside for the good of the nation and not be in a bloody sprint to be first to publish their "leaks."

Can't defeat them militarily? I'd love to see the evidence that we "can't". Statements like that make me wonder if the source isn't the Islamic branch of Stratfor.

Ambush Master
12-04-2004, 09:56
AM, is this from Stratfor.com?

I checked with the person that sent it to me and he said: Strategic Forecasting, Inc. .

Gypsy
12-04-2004, 10:07
Thanks AM!

The verbiage re pacification of the Taliban and the "can't defeat them militarily" got my ire up when I read this.

CommoGeek
12-04-2004, 13:17
Don't forget that before we went into Fallujah we stated that troops were on the offensive. They weren't but the bad guys reacted anyway and MI got to see how that played out.

I wouldn't be surprised if we did the same thing here to see who came out of their hole.

Besides, our guys patrol enough that an "offensive" wouldn't be vastly different from the day-to-day tempo.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-05-2004, 06:36
Thanks AM!

The verbiage re pacification of the Taliban and the "can't defeat them militarily" got my ire up when I read this.


I don't think that the question is that we cannot defeat them head to head in any military action. I think the point being made here is that in any counterinsurgency operation that the military action is most effective when it compliments those efforts taken by other agencies within a country that either quells the reason for the organization to exist and/or removes the support that an insurgent needs for the movement of survive. You can always pound an insurgent organization militarily and when it cannot stand up to the fight it will just go to ground and rebuild it's organization and support until it feels that the time is right politically or militarily to rise again. There is a lot more here than meets the eye or can be captured in a short article.

Jack Moroney

Gypsy
12-05-2004, 10:02
Thank you, Sir. That does make sense in that wars are fought on several levels, some known and some not.