Bill Roggio nails the core reality of the Afghan front, as he discusses the failed British 'peace agreement' with the elders of Musa Qala, which has led to the town being overtaken by the Taliban. A local NATO offensive is imminent:
"As long at the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain the sanctuaries in Quetta and the Northwest Frontier Province, the Afghan government and NATO forces will remain fighting a holding action. All of the offensive actions inside Afghanistan cannot destroy the massive Taliban infrastructure that has been built up over the past several years during the Pakistani government's neglect of this serious problem."
Roggio describes NATO ISAF's effort to keep up the pressure by going after the Taliban now, before the spring. In fairness, they are having some success. The USA is also involved, and their new winter clothing set is paying dividends. But Roggio's reality remains, NATO is several thousand troops short of the alliance's commitments in Afghanistan, and the latest reports say there is little likelihood that European countries will actually meet their declared obligations.
On a potentially brighter note. Roggio adds that Pakistan may be about to undertake operations in Waziristan again, following a string of suicide bombings in Pakistan. Their last operations led to the surrender of control over Waziristan and other western provinces, and the release of 2,500 al-Qaeda and Taliban cadre - more or less everyone they'd captured over the last 5 years. It also the suicide attacks, attempts on Musharraf's life, the murder of quite a few Shi'ites in all likelihood, and pretty much what you'd expect devotees of Deobandi Islam to do.
Perhaps this time, Pakistan will use regular soldiers instead of frontier irregulars. Perhaps this time, they won't lose 3,000 people trying. If they fail again, however, the USA is going to have to undertake a radical rethink of its Afghanistan strategy. In all likelihood, however, that won't happen until Afghanistan proves to be the graveyard of the NATO Alliance as well as the Soviet empire.
UPDATE: Wolf Pangloss has some near-term thoughts, all good. See again Roggio's depiction of the fundamental long-term reality.
I can't answer Schuler's question, however I wrote about the other issues in Helmand and the other southern provinces here.
I find it utterly disgusting that Europe and the American Left will gripe and moan about how the US is doing worse in Afghanistan - but Europe won't fulfill their troop commitments by significant amounts. Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
Dave --
The question of Europe's fecklessness is irrelevant (and also predictable, Europe could not muster troops to Bosnia much less Afghanistan).
The Taliban is a merely a proxy for Pushtu tribes and tribal organizations in Pakistan.
The solution would be:
Punish the Pashtun people. Severely.
Since the Left, Euros, Media etc. has labeled the US Nazis anyway for the most trivial of issues while fawning over Castro and Saddam, why not punish the Pashtun People? They've made war on the US anyway with the Al Qaeda-Taliban alliance and ought to be made aware of the costs in unmistakeable terms to deter their actions.
Punish the Pashtun people? Seriously? First of all, "Pashtuns" are not a homogeneous group. Secondly, the Afghani President is a Pashtun - he might have something to say about "punishing" his people. Thirdly, punishing the populace in an insurgency is the quickest way to lose.
The border is THE issue in Afghanistan in my view. Afghanistan would be largely pacified if not for the Pakistani safe haven.
Why Andy? Punishing the people if you are ruthless enough is the surest way to WIN.
Witness: Ghengis and Hulagu Khan who piled up the bodies in Baghdad and elsewhere and killed the insurgency there. It certainly worked.
Witness: the Soviet Union versus the German "werewolves." Whole villages were killed when Soviet Red Army soldiers were killed. One incident resulted in the execution of all men over 18 in a minor city.
Witness: Suharto's destruction of the Ethnic Chinese Communists in Indonesia. Stopped that insurgency dead.
Witness: American Marines and Soldiers suppressing the Moro insurrection in the early 20th century, by such means as executing fighters with bullets dipped in pig fat and burying them with pigs, along with expulsion of Muslims and importation of Christians in the Southern Philippines. Including using artillery and machine guns on Judamentado villages.
Punishing the people so they are so sick of fighting they will stop ALWAYS works. I would argue that brutal though it is, it is the ONLY way to stop the fighting. Short of nuclear fire performing a Carthage "salt the earth" on a strategic scale.
Yes Karzai is a Pushtun, but his Northern Alliance is of minority tribes like the Tajiks who can be relied upon to oppose the Pushtuns.
The problem is not the border so much as the Pushtuns dominating both Pakistan and the Taliban. The Talib were the creatures of the Pakistani Pushtuns, and remain so to this day. Untouchable due to Pakistan's nuclear shield but support for the Baluchi insurgency, support for the Indians in Kashmir, and perhaps even "Mysterious" explosions that punish the people (power plants, roads, water, etc) could get the point across.
Jim,
I can see you are big on WINNING - at any cost. Hard to argue against the idea that killing everyone who opposes you is not a surefire way to victory. The idea of 'punishing' them in as brutal a fashion as we can imagine has its adherents as well, you mention a few stellar examples such as Ghengis Khan and Stalin (by reference). Why are you leaving out the illustrious contemporary example of Osama Bin Laden and al-Queda? I thought that bit about beheading on video was brutal enough to make your dream team. If you are looking to back a 'winner' [as you describe them] I think you need to consider rooting for the terrorists. Peace through terror - that oughta work.
Welcome, Ian. As I guess you noticed, Jim's from the "Let's do it to them before they do it to us" school of genocide justification.
Our Mr. Rockford only seems extreme because the war on terror is still young. The longer the conflict continues, there will be more and more of him. Looking at him, you are seeing the future.
Terrorism only exists because western states operate under self-imposed restraints, like no indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. Eventually, terrorism will become a victim of it's own success, because every terrorist attack erodes the veneer of civilization. So, when that veneer finally falls, we'll start seeing what a real Hobbesian world looks like.
Lurker,
I see your point, but the inevitable slide you are predicting is partly based on the assertion that "western states operate under self-imposed restraints, like no indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians". The Dreseden firebombing raids and Hiroshima could be evidence that such restrictions are not absolute. More recently, one could cite 'Shock and Awe' as patriotically correct 'terrorism'. Terrorsism is a technique, not an opponent. You could have a 'war on terrorism', but it would be akin to the movement to outlaw anti-personnel land mines. I think it more accurate to say that every war [the kind that results in a bunch of people getting killed] erodes the veneer of civilization.