Taliban Alive and Well in Afghanistan

As a vote nears, Taliban fight on

KABUL, Afghanistan -- After US-led forces began pounding Afghanistan with bombs in October 2001, the Taliban regime collapsed in less than six weeks.

But almost three years later, the coalition that dispatched the regime continues to battle its remnants, who are waging a violent campaign to disrupt elections in October that would mark an important step in Afghanistan's transition to democracy.

Almost daily, militants whom Afghan and US officials identify as Taliban or allies of the renegade former prime minister, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, attack remote police or government posts, plant mines on roads used by nongovernmental organizations or election workers, and ambush convoys of relief workers or troops in the south.

First of all, let me note that this long story is from the Boston Globe, a respected newspaper, not some fringe website like Rense. Isn't it amazing that we hear so little about Afghanistan these days? That's because the reality is all bad news for the Bush administration.

U.S. forces control Kabul, and the remainder of the country is controlled by the Taliban and various warlords with questionable loyalty or even hostility to the United States. President Karzai is, in effect, the mayor of Kabul. Even that city is so dangerous that Karzai cannot go out in public without a large contingent of heavily-armed bodyguards.

Although Bush would have you believe that the Taliban have been destroyed, the reality is that they control large areas in Afghanistan. No one knows how much of Afghanistan the Taliban controls, because the country is too dangerous for anyone to go out and do a survey. I have seen estimates of 1/3 the territory of Afghanistan, with significant additional areas controlled by warlords friendly to the Taliban. But these are guesses, because no one knows.

The reality is that, just like in Iraq, the United States is now bogged down in a guerrilla war in Afghanistan, and that war cannot be won without significant additional committment of troops and money. Please see my post Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought for details of why this is so.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Isn't it amazing that we hear so little about Afghanistan these days? That's because the reality is all bad news for the Bush administration.

It's really sad your not getting more news. There is lots of information available from outside US sources. The reason you don�t hear much is as you said. It�s mostly bad news and in my opinion US news sources are dropping the ball on this one.

Canada is currently in control of Kabul (From BBC)

That is how our government decided to support the US effort in Iraq. Free up US troops for transfer. We�ve lost four from friendly fire and three from hostile fire. Have you ever heard of this story?

Our one-year commitment comes up in about a month. There is currently a quiet debate here about extending it (the assumption seems to be yes).

US Special Forces remain as personal body guards to ex Unocal executive Karzai who essentially has no influence outside the city. There is also some fierce fighting going on in the mountain regions involving US troops and advisors. Several warlords are involved.

Things are not over �over there�.

Who do we think we are kidding? The Taliban is still just as active as before. Why else do we not hear anything more about our "wonderful" victory over there in this election year? Bush would be ranting and raving about the big wonderful mission accomplished. Didn't happen!

Gool says

US Special Forces remain as personal body guards to ex Unocal executive Karzai who essentially has no influence outside the city. There is also some fierce fighting going on in the mountain regions involving US troops and advisors. Several warlords are involved.

I believe Karzai was a Unocal consultant, not executive. Critics of Fahrenheit 9/11 are claiming Karzai was not even a consultant for Unocal. From Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the leftist French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.

[Moore response: Regading Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Apr�s Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a �tudi� le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un moment consultant de l'enterprise p�troli�re am�ricaine Unocal, quand celle-ci �tudiant la construction d'un ol�duc en Afghanistan." Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he completed his training in the United States where he was briefly (literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai.

From the referenced Knight Ridder story

Moore suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who took office after the United States toppled the hard-line Islamic Taliban regime following the Sept. 11 attacks because it was sheltering bin Laden, was to help seal a deal for the California-based oil conglomerate Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.

A Unocal spokesman denies it. "Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant," Barry Lane said. He said Unocal also never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline.

I wonder what the truth is on this story.

You're right donguillermo!

It's Condolezza Rice who is the ex-Unocal executive.

Karzai is an alleged former private consultant.

A Unocal spokesman denies it. "Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant," Barry Lane said.

A company spokesman?
Well that clinches it for me!

He said Unocal also never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline.

.

Well that is an outright lie. Back in 1998 they tried and then they pursued it

Originally posted by Jalengrma
Who do we think we are kidding? The Taliban is still just as active as before. Why else do we not hear anything more about our "wonderful" victory over there in this election year? Bush would be ranting and raving about the big wonderful mission accomplished. Didn't happen!

Really cuz I don't see it that way sure there are pockets f resistance but that doesn't mean they are in control or as active like before look at the US we have shootings killings murdering bombings and stabbing every day in America does that mean that the criminals are in control of the government or are "active" no every country in the world has these especially one that was liberated just 3 years ago.

The first post is the most accurate statement concerning Karzai.
The S.F. personell work out of Bagram along with the major U.S. military contingent in Afghanistan.

Karsai Protective Service is over seen by the U.S.State department and the Diplomatic Service, it has adjunct support via contractors.

Karsai is working hard to pull a fractionated country together and does risk his life regularly visitng historically denied areas to support a democractic government. If you actually knew the risks he takes in hopes of a free western style government you would respect his dedication.

The impeach Bush crowd gloss over the fact that we defeated the vaunted Taliban in about 30 days. They had turned from a guerilla style war and had turned into a more conventional military, with bunkers, strong points, tanks and vehicles. There are several books out about how the Green Berets worked with the local leaders and tribal chiefs to accomplish the task. The Green Berets worked an absolutely outstanding military victory and it's a big yawner with the media, not enough Americans killed to warrant any kind of great coverage. All we get is the occasional report from Jeraldo with the 10th up in some mountains. Bush did it right, used the forces the way they were supposed to be used and won a great victory.

If you Bush haters think that the Taliban are going to go away your confused. No one could wipe them all out and if they did more would simply replace them in a few years. They are a religious organization and the mullahs are constantly goading uneducated boys from Pakistan into fighting the infidel and winning their share of virgins in heaven. What boy could say no?

The mistake the Bush admin is making is bowing to Pakistan's sovereignty. This is the same horse# that happened in Vietnam. The Taliban have a refuge across a border to re-arm, heal and reinforce their ranks before heading back across the border. That's the error. That's what will come back to haunt the US in the future. If the Paki's won't allow us to clean out the nests of vipers then we should do it by force. This war cannot be won by a half measure.

If the dogs of war are to be unleashed then give them the free reign to hunt and kill the enemy. This isn't "tag your it," there is should be no "base" where you're untouchable.

Gools says

He said Unocal also never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline..

Well that is an outright lie. Back in 1998 they tried and then they pursued it

Well, Gools, I wish I could say that you have caught the Unocal Spokesman, Barry Lane in a lie. That would destroy his credibility, and blow a big hole in the Fifty-nine Deceits document. However, Lane is technically correct. Quoting again from the Fifty-nine Deceits Document

On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.

Remember, in the Knight Ridder article, Barry Lane was responding to the claim by Moore that Unocal wanted to build a pipeline starting in the Caspian Sea region of Turkmenistan. So Lane is correct when he says that Unocal never wanted to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. Apparently Moore got the original Unocal pipeline proposal confused with the 2003 pipeline plan, which does not include Unocal.

Originally posted by donguillermo Well, Gools, I wish I could say that you have caught the Unocal Spokesman, Barry Lane in a lie.

Not to nitpick too much, but I have.

Barry Lane said "Unocal ... NEVER had a plan to build ..." (emphasis mine).

That is a lie. See the links I provided.

I did not claim that Unocal was building the pipeline that was finally approved. It is being built by a consortium of different countries (Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan) and some "mysterious" investors not named in this article.

I would be curious to know who they presently are or who they may eventually be.

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by donguillermo Well, Gools, I wish I could say that you have caught the Unocal Spokesman, Barry Lane in a lie.

Not to nitpick too much, but I have.

Barry Lane said "Unocal ... NEVER had a plan to build ..." (emphasis mine).

Yes, Unocal had a plan to build a pipeline, but not a Caspian Sea pipeline. The Unocal plan proposed a pipeline originating in eastern Turkmenistan, 500 miles east of the Caspian Sea.

Notice the original quote, "He said Unocal also never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline." Google a map of Turkmenistan, and maybe this will be clearer to you. I can provide you a link, if you cannot find one.

jbmitch says

Karsai is working hard to pull a fractionated country together and does risk his life regularly visitng historically denied areas to support a democractic government. If you actually knew the risks he takes in hopes of a free western style government you would respect his dedication.

I respect Karzai and his dedication. I sincerely hope he succeeds in rebuilding Afghanistan and establishing a stable central government in control of the country.

Unfortunately, the United States has not supplied the financial and military support to enable Karzai to achieve his goals. If we had sent the money and troops we have wasted on Iraq to Afghanistan instead, Afghanistan would be a great success story right now, and we would likely have Osama bin Laden in custody.

Instead, the central government only controls Kabul. The rest of the country is lawless chaos, with large areas controlled by the Taliban. Yet those who get their news from American media think the Taliban is history.

The result of Bush's ineptitude is that we are now engaged in unwinnable guerrilla wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. See my post Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought for further details.

U.S. forces control Kabul, and the remainder of the country is controlled by the Taliban and various warlords with questionable loyalty or even hostility to the United States. President Karzai is, in effect, the mayor of Kabul. Even that city is so dangerous that Karzai cannot go out in public without a large contingent of heavily-armed bodyguards.

This sound like Iraq to me or is only my imagination, donguillermo, you are right about what part of Afghanistan is control by US, and it look to me like Iraq is going to be the same, US may keep control of Baghdad but the rest of the country will be rule by radicals. What a pity. Just like President Karzai can not leave the city without an attempt on his life that is going to be with Iraq. What a victory on terrorism by this administration

What ever keeps the terrorists over there and not here also you cant blame the US the lame Iraqi forces need to step up and act like soldiers they should fight the insurgents instead of running like little girls from a conflict same for the afgani forces also we might as well attack the terrorists instead of staying at home making out with interns you all know how that bites you in the arse later 9/11 thank you clinton

WestPoint23,

Being in a war and dream of war is two diferent things always remember that, my father saw his brother die next to him in corea that is something that you never forget, war is not like a movie you see on TV, war is hell and to stay alive you better run and hide.

Variable:

The impeach Bush crowd gloss over the fact that we defeated the vaunted Taliban in about 30 days. They had turned from a guerilla style war and had turned into a more conventional military, with bunkers, strong points, tanks and vehicles. There are several books out about how the Green Berets worked with the local leaders and tribal chiefs to accomplish the task. The Green Berets worked an absolutely outstanding military victory and it's a big yawner with the media, not enough Americans killed to warrant any kind of great coverage. All we get is the occasional report from Jeraldo with the 10th up in some mountains.

I don't know where you get your history, but it's full of holes.

The "vaunted Taliban"? Whaaa?

www.cnn.com...

"We suspect that the Taliban has a hundred useable tanks, which isn't that many," said Clifford Beal, editor of Janes Defence, a military magazine. "On the books they probably have 600, but most of those are inoperative."...

...With the support of clan leaders, the Taliban claim to have 300,000 fighters, but analysts said the regular Taliban force is about 45,000 soldiers.

Limited fighters and antiquated equipment are just two of the Taliban's limitations.

Beal classifies their air defense guns and shoulder-fired missiles as "low level." They have stingers that came into Afghanistan during the 1980s from the United States to help Mujahedeen fighters drive out the Soviet army. But resupply of such equipment is not likely for the currently isolated Taliban.

"They have some scud missiles, again about 20, 30 years old," said Amer Rashid, a Taliban analyst. "They were used a lot during the war against the Soviet Union. Kabul used scud missiles to bomb Pakistan a lot, but they cannot be targeted very effectively."

Vaunted indeed. My favorite quote from that article is:

Footage from 1997 shows Afghan fighters using a car battery to power up rockets, but analysts still warn that officials should not underestimate the unconventional-looking force.

LOL! A worthy foe indeed.

And the US relied heavily on the Northern Alliance. They were a decisive factor in the fall of the Taliban. Save your chestbeating and flagwaving for people who believe everything they hear.

If the Paki's won't allow us to clean out the nests of vipers then we should do it by force. This war cannot be won by a half measure.

If the dogs of war are to be unleashed then give them the free reign to hunt and kill the enemy. This isn't "tag your it," there is should be no "base" where you're untouchable.

First off, Pakis is a derogatory term, like calling a black person a coon or something. Secondly, what is this dogs of war BS? Life isn't a GI Joe cartoon.

It sounds all well and good as a sentence, but in practice, you have all these sovereign countries around, with their silly little notions of freedom and sanctity of their land, and you know what? It's NOT illegal in most countries to be anti-American. Heck, not even in America. In America people arm themselves against the government and form militias "just in case".

So if you're so deathly afraid of so many threats from so many foreign, non-American people, just put a giant wall around America and stay in there, quivering with fear and raising your Terror Level every time a mosquito flies into your airspace.

Because you sure as hell don't have any right to enter my or any other person's country with troops for some stupid "War on Terror". You have absolutely no respect for other people's freedoms why should I give a rat's tookus if people think your country is full of arseholes because of it. I KNOW most Americans are good, decent, liberal folks, but it's the loud obnoxious ones that give you all a bad name.

Wow, gotta switch to decaf. Erp.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you REALLY wanted to win the "war on Terrrrahhh!" you would treat other countries and other people the way you would want to be treated yourself.

Not freak out and get all childish when a country like France disagrees with you. "Oh YEAH?! Well we're renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries! And, uh, French Toast to Freedom Toast! HA!"

I know the French media was having a field day with the fact that neither of those foods are French, but underlying the glee was disbelief that America would totally denigrate an ALLY'S point of view. Like anybody with a differing opinion is an idiot or an evil, evil person.


Get a new President, things'll get better.

Originally posted by marg6043
WestPoint23,

Being in a war and dream of war is two diferent things always remember that, my father saw his brother die next to him in corea that is something that you never forget, war is not like a movie you see on TV, war is hell and to stay alive you better run and hide.

War is hell no doubt but sometimes it is necessary and effective like after 9/11 we had no choice but to attack back and start the war on terror and I fear our country is becoming full of anti-war and peace loving fools who are dreaming if they think the earth will be free of guns and just love everywhere get a reality check.