Reuters: Afghan Taliban say rearmed, ready for war

[Pirate Smile]

Afghan Taliban say rearmed, ready for war

23 Feb 2007 12:14:28 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Saeed Ali Achakzai

SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Rearmed with new guns the Taliban on Friday vowed this would be the deadliest year for foreign soldiers in Afghanistan since the Islamists were toppled in 2001.

"This year will prove to be the bloodiest for the foreign troops. It is not just a threat, we will prove it," senior commander Mullah Dadullah told Reuters by satellite phone.
"The Taliban's war preparations are going on in caves and in mountains. Our 6,000 fighters are ready for attacks on foreign troops after the change in weather and as it becomes warmer."

-snip-
Taliban leaders say they expect to be able to field 10,000 soldiers after the bloodiest year since the Taliban's ouster in 2001, with a big increase in suicide fighters after conventional pitched battles brought heavy losses for the rebels.

-snip-
Dadullah said the extra weapons the Taliban were being supplied -- he did not say from where -- included the ability to bring down the NATO and U.S. helicopters crucial to their operations in this rugged, mountainous country.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP100413.htm

[Hekate]

1. Afghan Taliban drove the Russians out & never surrendered; we had our chance & BushCheney FUBARed

The Afghan Taliban drove the Russians out & never surrendered; we had our chance & BushCheney FUBARed it all to hell.

I doubt if ever in our short history as a nation we have ever been so ill-served by such a cabal of incompetent, greedy, short-sighted, ignorant, death-loving, war-mongering, sons of bitches.

BushCheney are taking on countries where the people are tribal in organization and have lived there since the dawn of time. They know their landscape and can disappear into it. They don't like invaders, and we are invaders there. Short of bombing them all back to the Stone Age (which worked such wonders on the Vietnamese) we can't win this one now.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

Hekate

[Pavulon]

6. The dumb ones think that, sadly

charlie wilson, the cia, and isi provided them the modern weapons to fight the soviets. Before that they were slaughtered.

So they continue to sell the jihad myth, in reality modern weapons and training gave them the ability to remove air superiority from the Russian play book.

charlie wilsons war has a good bit of information on the muj and how it progressed.

[The Stranger]

8. Too true.

They have been fighting there for eons. It is not going to end. Our being there just puts us in harm's way. It calls to mind finding an ant mound and deciding to crawl through it, thinking that for some reason the ants will stop stinging at some point.

[Hekate]

2. kick

:kick:

[salin]

3. another kick

[Hekate]

4. last kick

:kick:

[Bragi]

5. Posted in error

[High Plains]

7. Well, they've been making enough money off opium...

to buy lots of shiny new weapons. American and Western assistance has been a bad joke in the eyes of the Afghans; all they see are lots of infidel soldiers racing down their streets in armored vehicles and smashing anything or anyone who gets in the way.

We've got ourselves in a real mess in Afghanistan. With opium half of the national economy, any moves against it will lead to violence and push peasants into the waiting arms of the Taliban, but if we don't move against it, the Taliban gets lots of black market cash. Unlike folks in the Afghan government, who use their opium profits to build mansions, the Taliban is buying war materiel.

And if they've got 6,000-10,000 fighters ready to go this spring, and those look like reasonable numbers after what they did last year, counterinsurgency doctrine says the West needs 60,000-100,000 troops to defeat them. I think we've got about 35,000 between NATO and US troops.

What can I say? It seems pretty well fucked.

[Pavulon]

9. CI doctrine

revolves around winning support from the population base. By not using excessive force, living among them, building trust with politicals and then leaving them to be killed by the opposing force.

Bernard fall and others have lots of information on how this works. To see how not to do it check iraq.

Defensive strategy, like that written by Longstreet, preach a 7 to 1 infantry superiority.

A small contingent of SF with a good CI strategy are capable of countering a force that size. Use of native force and precise massed force are workable. It can be done.

There is only so much war material available.

The only issue it strategy, a good ci strategy by nato is key. Without one all the force in the world is useless.

[High Plains]

11. You're right, of course, about CI having a political component.

I'm suggesting we have failed there. We've had five years to improve conditions in Afghanistan, we promised to do so, and they can't keep the lights on in Kabul, for Christ's sake. There are a few projects here and there, but for the most part, the only evidence of foreign assistance Afghans see (other than infidel soldiers) is people from Western NGOs riding around in Hummers with armed mercenary bodyguards.

As for Special Forces, haven't they been there for five years, too?

[Pavulon]

12. Cant say

but resources were moved to Iraq. Failure or "victory" a stable government could take a long time. Like bosnia, balkans are never stable just not creating a mess in europe. Still somewhat unstable.

[scavenger]

10. confused

What they say here, I'm a little confused ? Bring it on, or their going to pour it on?

Bush only told the Iraq insurgency to bring it on so what the hell gives here? These people were not invited to "bring it on", and should be disqualified from the war in my opinion for breaking the Bush rules. You just cant trust anyone these days anymore can you?

I think we should send Dick Chaney over there with a few beers and a shotgun and teach these cheaters a lesson!