Moreau writes: "The threat of endless war doesn't seem to faze most Taliban - they've known nothing else throughout their adult lives. 'I started in the jihad when I was 18,' says the senior commander. 'I'm 48 now, with a white beard. Even if we succeed in overthrowing the Karzai puppet regime, there won't be peace. Like snakes, our neighbors will continue to fight us.'"
An Afghan soldier covers his face against a dust storm. (photo: Balazs Gardi/basetrack.org)
War Without End
30 December 11
eace in Afghanistan has never seemed more distant. After a full decade of combat, even after the start of America's phased military withdrawal, no one has the upper hand, let alone a realistic prospect of actually winning the war. Each party in the conflict - the Americans, their Afghan government allies, and their Afghan Taliban adversaries - has weaknesses and vulnerabilities that preclude a decisive victory. Although peace negotiations might seem like the only sane option in such a stalemate, efforts to bring the insurgents to the table have repeatedly failed. The Taliban's top leadership has shown not the slightest interest in meaningful talks, or in peace at all.
The insurgents' rejection of negotiations has nothing to do with how they're faring on the battlefield. Far from it: in the past two years the U.S. military surge in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban's traditional heartland, has mostly driven the guerrillas to the peripheries of far-flung villages, if not all the way back to their sanctuaries in Pakistan. The insurgents themselves admit that the coalition's relentless nighttime commando raids on their hideouts have decimated the ranks of mid- and lower-level Taliban commanders, bomb makers, and operational facilitators. The danger is so great that senior guerrilla commanders rarely set foot on Afghan soil. Instead, the insurgents' hierarchy spends most of its time hiding in plain sight across the border, safe in Pakistani territory. A senior Taliban commander admitted as much recently while on a rare visit inside Afghanistan. "Taliban fighters can live in Afghanistan, but our leaders can't," he told a Newsweek correspondent. "The reason is the night raids."
That's not keeping Hamid Karzai from publicly demanding an end to the American-led surprise attacks. Addressing a hand-picked gathering of more than 2,000 Afghan tribal elders and political leaders at a loya jirga (grand assembly) this past November in Kabul, the confident-sounding but increasingly erratic Afghan president announced his willingness to grant U.S. forces a 10-year extension beyond President Obama's 2014 withdrawal date - on condition, he said, that the Americans no longer be allowed to participate in night raids. Guerrilla leaders dread the thought that the Americans might remain for another decade, crushing the insurgents' dreams of a final victory. "Permanent U.S. bases will mean permanent trouble for the Taliban," says a former Taliban ambassador who has quit the insurgency.
Even so, the insurgents responded gleefully to the suggestion that the night raids might stop. As effective as U.S.-led operations have been in crippling the insurgency, they nevertheless are hated by most Afghans, who regard the commando assaults as an insult to the sanctity of Afghan homes and an unacceptable threat to innocent civilians. To the Taliban, the cessation of U.S. night raids means far more than that. "If Kabul puppet soldiers alone carry out these operations in the future, we'll be able to cause a lot more trouble in and around Kabul," says the senior commander, declining to be named for security reasons. "The difference between these raids by Afghan puppets and the Americans is the difference between being attacked by birds or by falcons."
The truth is, even the night raids haven't kept the Taliban from causing plenty of trouble in and around Kabul. The past year's headline-grabbing incidents have included a Mumbai-style assault on the Inter-Continental Hotel in June; a massive truck bombing in September that injured nearly 80 U.S. soldiers and killed five Afghans at an outpost roughly 40 miles outside the capital; coordinated strikes two days later on NATO headquarters, the U.S. Embassy, and other targets, leaving at least six dead, along with nine insurgents; and a suicide car bomb that took out a Rhino armored bus in late October, killing 12 Americans, a Canadian soldier, and four Afghans (two of them children). Security in Kabul is so dodgy that Karzai rarely leaves the Presidential Palace at all - he traveled the two kilometers from there to the loya jirga by helicopter. "People feel that as the U.S. withdraws, security is clearly deteriorating," says a senior Afghan diplomat. As much as Afghans dislike the foreign military presence, they fear that the fighting will only intensify without it.
The threat of endless war doesn't seem to faze most Taliban - they've known nothing else throughout their adult lives. "I started in the jihad when I was 18," says the senior commander. "I'm 48 now, with a white beard. Even if we succeed in overthrowing the Karzai puppet regime, there won't be peace. Like snakes, our neighbors will continue to fight us." The former Taliban ambassador can only shake his head. "There will be no end to this war," he says. "No one among the Taliban believes in peace." A lot of them seem practically addicted to war. "Many Taliban are fanatical and enjoy fighting with no ultimate goal other than the power it brings them personally," says a former Taliban Foreign Ministry official who remains committed to the cause. "Thoughts of peace never cross their minds."
But what about all the news reports over the past two years telling of secret preliminary peace talks? The senior commander dismisses the thought with a wave of his hand. The Taliban are committed to an endless struggle, he says, and the Americans' efforts to peel off defectors are useless. "We remain united and have plenty of fighters enjoying high jihadi spirits," he says. "We have never seriously considered the peace option." And he doesn't see much chance that the Taliban will begin considering it now. "If Mullah Omar would ever express a willingness for peace talks, it would be a surprise bomb dropped on the heads of all of his followers."
No one can be sure just what Mullah Mohammed Omar thinks. The Taliban's supreme leader hasn't appeared in public since he fled Afghanistan a decade ago. At present the question of peace talks is academic anyway. Karzai suspended all overtures to the Taliban after the assassination in September of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was tasked with exploring peace talks with the Taliban as head of Karzai's High Peace Council. The assassin gained entrance to Rabbani's home on the pretext of bringing him a flash drive containing conciliatory messages from the Taliban's ruling council, the Quetta Shura - and then set off a suicide bomb concealed in his turban. Kabul's intelligence service is convinced that the Quetta Shura was behind the assassination.
Still, the biggest obstacle to peace may be the lack of leadership in the guerrillas' top ranks. The Taliban are formidably tenacious fighters, but their insurgency is badly divided, with no apparent overall direction. Nothing really unites them beyond their hatred of the Americans and their public declarations of allegiance to Mullah Omar, the Amir-ul-Momineen - "leader of the faithful." And Omar himself might as well be a ghost. Even his top lieutenants have no more than fleeting or indirect contact with him - assuming he's even alive. "One of our weaknesses is that the [Quetta] Shura is not in constant contact with Mullah Omar," the senior commander admits. "And no one else has the authority to talk."
That leaves a power vacuum at the top. There is no authoritative guidance on the most important questions of war and peace and the country's future. This past October, a small group of senior Taliban political leaders wrote a 3,000-word memo and circulated it among top-ranking insurgent commanders, urging them to start thinking beyond 2014 about issues of governance, national reconciliation, education, the economy, and relations with Afghanistan's neighbors. "We have to begin saying something positive about the future, about life after the war, about peace," says the former Taliban Foreign Ministry official. "The Taliban's prime weakness is that it is not a political movement," says the former ambassador. "Our military leaders have no idea of how to give the insurgency a political and peace agenda. They just love to fight, even if the fight is endless and meaningless."
Nevertheless, there is someone who just might be able to take the fight out of the insurgency: Pakistan. As long as Pakistan provides safe haven to the Afghan guerrillas, allowing them to plot, rest, refit, and resupply, they can't be defeated. But by extending such hospitality and support, Islamabad wields the power of life and death over the insurgents - and they know it. "Pakistan could arrest us, even slaughter us, at any time," says the former Foreign Ministry official. "We have experienced Pakistan's nasty habit of suddenly changing friends in Afghanistan."
The Taliban have not forgotten how former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf abandoned his previously solid support for Mullah Omar's regime in late 2001 - a reversal that helped precipitate the Taliban's collapse. "The Taliban tree would die if Pakistan stopped watering it," says the former ambassador. If the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani family - the leaders of what is widely regarded as the insurgency's deadliest faction - were sent home to Afghanistan as things stand there now, they likely wouldn't last long.
The trouble is that Pakistan has its own genuine strategic interests to consider in any discussion of whether to push the Taliban to make peace. And those interests do not always coincide with those of Washington. Islamabad is leery of the kind of government the Americans are trying to foster in Kabul: one that is strong, centralized, independent-minded, and nationalistic. Pakistan's greatest fear is that it could find itself encircled by its old adversary, India - and for that reason the Pakistanis view even Karzai's feeble and ineffectual regime as a potential threat. Karzai has welcomed India's economic involvement in Afghanistan and has signed a strategic partnership with New Delhi. More than that, Islamabad is worried that a strengthened government in Kabul could revive Afghanistan's old territorial claims on Pakistan's western border - or perhaps even encourage Pakistan's ethnic Pashtuns to seek autonomy or independence, as the Afghan government did after Pakistan's birth in 1947. Kabul was slow to recognize the new Pakistani state and has never accepted the Durand Line, the international border between the two countries that was drawn up in the 19th century by the British Raj. Pakistan's leaders regard the Taliban as a way to protect what Islamabad sees as Pakistan's legitimate interests.
To hear the Taliban tell it, Pakistan is promoting war rather than encouraging peace. Insurgent commanders and officials tell Newsweek that over the past few months, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate has stepped up its direct involvement with the Taliban. As recently as two years ago, only a few Taliban commanders had direct contact with the ISI, according to the former Foreign Ministry official, who remains active as a planner in the insurgency. Now he estimates that at least half the insurgency's hundreds of commanders are working closely with Pakistani intelligence operatives, receiving military advice and even shipments of arms and explosives from Pakistan via civilian intermediaries. An insurgent subcommander in Helmand province agrees. In the past the ISI dealt only with senior Taliban commanders, he says, but now its operatives are talking directly to small fry like himself - and urging everyone to fight harder.
What's more, according to the subcommander and other Taliban sources, the Pakistanis have begun supplying high-powered explosives to insurgents in southern and eastern Afghanistan. Taliban commanders used to be responsible for procuring their own explosives, mostly shipments of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer from Pakistan via insurgent channels, along with some military-grade explosives provided by Al Qaeda. Recently, however, the Qaeda connection has been all but severed, thanks largely to the Americans' relentless drone attacks, and the gap is being filled by regular supplies of a new, more powerful explosive, apparently manufactured in Pakistan's sophisticated munitions factories. Commanders say three kilograms of the new stuff gives the same bang as 20 kilos of more conventional explosives.
The new munitions have helped the Taliban to counteract their past 18 months of battlefield setbacks. The upgraded explosives are more portable than the old stuff and easier to conceal. "They're keeping the Taliban alive" in the south, the subcommander says. Another Taliban commander theorizes that the new explosives may have powered the suicide car bomb that tore apart the heavily armored Rhino in Kabul in October.
As always, Pakistan denies aiding the Afghan insurgents. (Never mind that U.S. intelligence claims to have direct evidence of ISI involvement in the assault on the Inter-Continental Hotel and other specific attacks in Kabul.) Relations with Washington have only continued to deteriorate, hitting new lows this past November after NATO airstrikes on the border killed at least 24 Pakistani troops. Amid furious anti-U.S. street protests, Islamabad shut down the main U.S. supply routes into Afghanistan. The crisis effectively sank America's already slim hopes of gaining Pakistani support in pushing the Taliban into negotiations. After more than three decades of relentless bloodshed, the people of Afghanistan seem headed inexorably for more of the same.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
"Although peace negotiations might seem like the only sane option in such a stalemate, efforts to bring the insurgents to the table have repeatedly failed. The Taliban's top leadership has shown not the slightest interest in meaningful talks, or in peace at all."
Why not tell the truth -- efforts to bring the "invaders" to the table have failed. It is not the Taliban which has not shown the slightest interest in talks but rather the US.
The American government wants to control Afghanistan forever for three basic reasons --
1. a base for launching campaigns into the rest of the oil rich central asia and Iran.
2. a pipeline route for oil that will avoid Russia and Iran.
3. the production of heroin, which has always been the drug controlled by superpower militaries.
These are the issues. All of what you write is just an effort to repeat distractions in the hope that if something is repeated often enough people will believe it. Sorry, no one believes you. '
In my opinion our BIG mistake was that we sent in troups. We should only have used our special forces to rid the country of Al Queda and Talliban, and then we should have gone home.
Where did you get the idea that we invaded Afghanistan in the seventies????
We sent stinger missiles to help the Afghans defeat the Russians. No troups were sent
The old adage that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't always work so well, for the missiles we gave to the Afghans, they later used AGAINST us!!
It was congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas who worked hard to get the weapons into Afghaniatan.
Our government wanted to embarass Russia by having the Afghans beat them. How ironic. We would have been a heck of a lot better of if we had let the Russians and the Afghans fight it out.
What we did was bite off our nose, and we sure did spite our face. It could be called nemesis.
Our generals have a lot to learn. You don't fight terrorists with tanks and conventional weapon, for you create many, many more than you kill.
After the end of the cold war it became a totally new ball game, but our military geniouses have not cought up to that yet.
Some military expert remarked once that we were constantly fighting the last war.
It certainly looks like it.
Our war crazy hawks do not understand that they are destroying our country, for while we are figting unwinnable wars in the Middle East, we are zapping our strength, and serously weakening the country.
And China is zooming ahead of us. They are gladly loaning us the money that we use to kill our young and sow hatred against us in the whole Muslim world.
God help us. The insane are running the country.
Time to revolt, worldwide. Occupy liberty and justice for all.
Another so-called soldier saying the Taliban are addicted to war! If i want this crap I can get it in the mainstream media thanks very much.
At base, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had anything to do with 9-11 -just the lying rationale put out there by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush the twit-Blair, assisted in their push for destruction by the likes of this rag and it's well-compensated punditocracy from a safe desk. Not even a hint of Saudi complicity.
Neh! -We have better information to hand from many other sources. Empires and their puppets will fall like dominoes but the US and it's dependent "allies" will sell arms to all sides for profit of the few and destruction of nations and the planet as long as they are "our good guys, the appalling Taliban include (Remember Rummy shaking hands with Saddam? Bush Sr. with Noriega? -and so on).
Si vis a priori!
A few years ago I saw a program about Afghanistan, I think you know that warlords have been fighting each other fiersely for many decades. they were in a civil war. Still I was more than surprised to hear that it was some of the warlords, who asked the Russians for assistance. Of course they lived to regret that. Look into it if you don't believe it
As a citicen, who hates war. I think we should have used our special forces to route the al Queda, and Taliban. And then we should have got out of there, since it is well known that Afghanistan has not been conquered by anybody, not even Alexander the great.
Pakistan is a very complicated country because of it's enmity with India, as you know they are protecting the terrorists who did the horrible attacks on Mumbay, and they are certainly behind a lot of attacks on our forces.
They are constantly playing both ends aginst the middle. But there is no way we are going to war with Pakistan, for the same reason we did not want to attack North Korea. A country with Nukes is relatively safe from our hawks.
You didn't comment on what I mentioned, that some of the Afghans asked the Russians to come to their aide?
I was blown away when I heard it. The program I saw, was a very serious one that had a lot of interesting information. I doubt that very many was aware of it.
In regard to what you said about the terrorism. It is a very difficult problem, which can land us in a lot of trouble, for since it obviously is a matter of secrecy,...when we learn of eventual attacks, we could look really bad, when we take evasive..and or punitive.. action. We will no doubt look like nasty bullies...(which we sure are too often) Still that IS the way we have to conduct the fight against terrorists.
It is so stupid to hear it called a fight against terrorism, when it is a fight against people who COMMIT acts of terror.
RSS feed for comments to this post.