How Americans Do the Taliban’s Job

May 13, 2007 at 5:34 pm 9 comments

My May 1st post on the Omar Khadr case continues to draw debate and comments, 25 as of this writing. I think I’ll just stand back and watch, as the arguments are familiar and the debate fierce.

Today a new question: what happened to the Taliban’s much-heralded “spring offensive” that NATO was preparing for? The news has mostly been items on small-scale skirmishes, and reports of large numbers of civilian casualties inflicted by NATO troops, including by Canadians. No less august a publication than the Sunday New York Times devotes a feature article to this subject.

Why are so many civilians being killed by NATO? Going in, NATO planners realized that winning over the Pushtun clan leaders would be the key to success in southern Afghanistan. Civilian deaths provoke them to fury, triggering the blood-feud response rooted in their culture.

But a more important goal of NATO forces – for obvious political reasons at home – is to minimize their own casualties. This leads to “rules of engagement” that tell our soldiers, in effect, to shoot first and ask questions later. Even more deadly for the Afghanis is the American use of air power: when it comes to a firefight, the Americans call in an airstrike rather than fighting their way out, minimizing the risk to their own soldiers at the cost of mutiplying civilian dead. It is the military equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

A conjecture: the Taliban leadership knows it can’t go toe-to-toe in large unit engagements with the vastly better equipped NATO forces. Instead, it hits and harasses with IED’s, car bombs and mortar attacks, knowing that NATO retaliation will kill civilians and provoke fury against it. In effect, they are provoking NATO into doing the insurgents’ work for them, while not risking crippling casualties among their own forces.

Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail notes that the mounting civilian casualties is producing a groundswell of popular opinion against NATO’s conduct of the war, and growing demands for a negotiated settlement that now are starting to emerge even from the western-supported Afghan government itself. Meanwhile, NATO press releases focus on body counts, just as the Americans did in Vietnam. And – as the Americans discovered there – winning battles may actually result in losing the war.

The “spring offensive”? You’re seeing it, and so far, it’s working.

Mike 

Entry filed under: Mike Wallace.

Lawrence Martin joins growing consensus for diplomacy in Afghanistan Relations with Russia could “spin out of control”

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. OfficialPro  |  May 13, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    I defer to Walid Shoebat and Noni Darwish’s assessment of the situation we find ourselves in with not only the Taliban but Islamic Extremist terrorists in general, since they both know exactly what the hell they are talking about. A “peace treaty” or “negotiations” with the Taliban would be totally useless. The dude said, for example, what we called the Oslo Peace Treaty, was called The Oslo Hudna (sp?) Treaty. He made it clear that in the format of Jihad, lying or covenant-breaking is perfectly acceptable–they use the time to rearm and regain strength.

    It’s interesting you mention the blood-feud tradition in the Pashtun culture. The Taliban is certainly using this to their advantage because they have a good idea that we’ll get weak-kneed from the backlash. In fact, they’re COUNTING on that. And if we pull back now, we will be seen as WEAK from the TALIBAN cultural perspective. And that will not do us any good either. So yeah, it’s really a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, but what you have to realize is that taking the path of least resistance will have worse ramifications down the road.

    Winning battles only results in losing wars if one side totally pusses out. If you don’t have the heart to win, you will lose. And make no mistake, if we lose this, it won’t just make us look weak. If only that were the worst of it. No, making the West look weak isn’t just some face-losing cosmetic proposition. It has far-reaching consequences that will result in Islamic extremist terrorists being emboldened, since they will see victory within their grasp. As long as they see hope for their own victory, they will continue. What we must do is REMOVE that hope for their victory COMPLETELY. If we do not do that, we will never be able to stop them. There is no middle ground, there is no possible compromise. Either they lose and we win, or we lose and they win. Because if we don’t stop them, not only do we embolden the Taliban, but every other Islamist-based terror organization out there. Don’t think they’re not watching this very closely, looking for signs of weakness. When Israel goes to the bargaining table, suicide bombings there go UP. When Israel shows strength, suicide bombings go down. This is not a coincidence.

    Don’t blame the Americans (or Canadians or whoever) for the civilian casualties. Place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Taliban.

    Now here’s something that’ll NEVER be shown at “Eye Opener Films” in a million years: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

    Reply
  • 2. Johan  |  May 13, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    It seems you advocate a “strategy” of surrender.
    No doubt, the stand-off attacks (using IEDs, etc.) by the Taliban are a dangerous evolution from their inability to fight NATO standing.

    However, to suggest that civilian casualties (more often than not, the result of Taliban action/bombs) should render Western forces toothless is inane. It would simply confirm to the Taliban (as it did in Lebanon to Hizbullah) that placing weapons or troops in civilian centres and areas is a good way to prevent NATO strikes.

    That will only beget more exploitation of civilians as human shields – can this ever be justified?

    Reply
  • 3. OfficialPro  |  May 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    btw my guess is the “spring offensive” wasn’t so offensive because the Taliban doesn’t have the means to mount such an ambitious campaign. Which means, WE ARE WINNING!

    Reply
  • 4. Wonderbread  |  June 28, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    As a Canadian Soldier recently returned from Afghanistan I have seen American airstrikes first hand, including the Friendly Fire incident of 4 Sept 2006. I was on the ground at the time and had been a friend of Pte Graham who was killed, and had a number of other friends wounded.

    But ya know what? NONE of the guys who were there hold any grudges against that American pilot. They saved our asses on a number of occasions. They are – in my opinion- responsible for saving many Canadian lives.

    I’ll admit, there were many times when we chose to call in an airstrike instead of pushing through an enemy position on foot. The Taliban operate in very complicated terrain and it would have been VERY costly if we had to clear them out any other way. I have NO regrets about any of the airstrikes we called in because I believe in my heart that it was the best option we had at the time. We always tried to avoid civillian casualties whenever possible. We’re not dummies. We KNOW that hurting civillians hurts our cause. But we do the best with what we have. So before you criticize our tactics how about YOU push through that Taliban position on foot. YOU fight through the grape fields and farm complexes with a rifle in your hand. Then we’ll see how your values change.

    Yes, our rules of engagement allow us a considerable flexability to open fire. But you need to understand: Canadian Soldiers are NOT jack booted thugs. We all have a conscience and we all have to live with our decisions. We require our current ROEs to defend ourselves, but we do not abuse the power because we’re just decent folks who grew up in regular homes like you did. I’m just your average kid from suburban Toronto. I always did what I felt to be morally right and I feel that I did the best I could in the horrible situation we call war.

    Next point: The Taliban are civillians. They are NOT any part of a uniformed army. They are guerillas. You can quote all the figures you want of civillian deaths in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean anything untill you find out how many of those civillians were carrying AKs and RPGs when they died. You’re taking things out of context to spread your propaghanda. Enough said on that.

    For every innocent we kill by accident, the Taliban kill many more. In alot of cases Canadian soldiers try to maintain a safe distance from innocents. It makes it easier to spot a suicide bomber heading towards us and allows us to control the situation through the use of Afghan interpretors. But of course we NEED to interact with the population to accomplish our mission. We plan very carefully to make these interactions as safe as possible, but it is well known to the Taliban that when we are in close proximity to the population a suicide bomber has the best chance of killing us. The situation has happened again and again where the Taliban have detonated suicide bombers amongst crowds of civillians in an attempt to kill a single Canadian. Unlike the Taliban, we DO NOT treat innocents as cannon fodder. If we kill an innocent, it is by accident. The Taliban activly use regular Afghans to get close to Canadians, killing them in large numbers. Saying that Canadians are playing into Taliban propaghanda is irresponsible and totally out of context because in Afghanistan it is well known that the Taliban are the ones who don’t give a shit for the people.

    We cannot allow the Taliban to use innocents as human shields. The best we can do is weigh the tactical value of a target with our moral obligation to non-combatants. War is a shitty thing, and sometimes your best option is the lesser of two evils.

    As for the lack of a “spring offensive”. Maybe we’re just winning. We gave the Taliban a real bloody nose last summer. Could that be a good reason we’re not seeing the same aggressive behavior?

    Reply
  • 5. mmckeil  |  June 30, 2007 at 8:06 am

    The point is”what is your mission” or “what is your cause”. The mess is being created because foreigners go in to the country to change their governments. R.Regan started this latest war there. He wanted to create a problem for the Russians during the cold war. He armed any and all groups he could find and sat back while they messed everything up. Now we are there doing the same thing. Our interest is just the resources there. We follow the americans, they want Iraqui oil and need to ship it through Afghanistan in a pipeline.
    Look at Venezvala?, they have finally gotten the oil companies to leave, they will just go to Iraq where the oil is now privatized for them after the war there.

    Reply
  • 6. OfficialPro  |  July 2, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Oh man I gotta just laugh at the total ignorance posted by mmckeil. Reagan didn’t start the last war in Afghanistan! The Russians (USSR) invaded Afghanistan and wanted to take it over! The Afghanis were not about to take that lying down because USSR was atheist and would have not respected their religion. They got offered US help and by god they TOOK it. Just as they are taking US help to drive out the Taliban. And our help, too. Driving out the Russkies was by NO MEANS any sort of “screw-up.” Would you rather that Afghanistan was just another Tibet? Say, how’s that liberation of Tibet going, by the way? 😛

    This nonsense about a pipeline to Afghanistan–that’s ridiculous. Not only is it dead in the water (it died before Clinton left office), it GOES IN THE WRONG DIRECTION for the conspiracy theory to work. It does NOT go to Iraq. Dude, don’t you have a map? In order to take Oil from Iraq and send it to Afghanistan, they’d pretty much HAVE TO GO THROUGH IRAN. And that’s NOT going to freaking happen. No, the oil pipeline was to take oil and gas to India and Pakistan, NOT FROM Iraq to Afghanistan. Taking oil to Afghanistan from Iraq doesn’t make ANY freaking sense. Whoever you’re listening to is an ignoramus who never look at, nor can read, a map. It would be easier just to ship the oil to a port with waiting tankers in Iraq–who the hell needs a pipeline TO Afghanistan from there to pick up the oil? It makes NO sense whatsoever!

    Yeah, look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez took out the favorite TV channel because it dared to criticize him. They sell gas for 4 cents a litre, which can’t be good for the environment or GHG emissions 😛 😉 Watch him run that country into the ground like Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Just ask yourself–if Chavez can sell gas to his people at 4 cents a litre, why isn’t he selling his oil for peanuts on the market? It’s very simple. He’ll have a double standard so that he can still get money. And with 4 cent a litre gas at home, he’s paying his oil workers peanuts. Those guys aren’t getting ANYWHERE NEAR what they would have gotten if the “evil” private oil companies were paying them instead. Hugo’s just another Fidel Castro–enslaving his people with slave wages. I wonder how long it will take Chavez to do as Castro and enslave the children to work in the fields.

    Reply
  • 7. Unofficial Amateur  |  July 3, 2007 at 9:29 am

    Must agree that mmckeil does not have facts particularly straight. Neither does OfficialPro, however. Carter and Brzezinski actually started it. Reagan/Weinberger/Brzezinski executed the “Afghan Trap” perfectly to ensnare the USSR.

    In Brzezinski’s own words:

    “Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

    OfficialPro (although obviously a slimy imperial apologist) is correct about some aspects of the pipeline deal, however. The deal to bring oil and natural gas to Pakistan/India (refused by Taliban in 2000) was signed about a year after the illegal invasion of Afghanistan started.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

    The Iraqi oil pipeline plan (and I have read nothing that says it has ever become more than just a plan) was to move Iraqi oil out of Mosul, over the Jordan Valley to Haifa:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html

    As far as Hugo Chavez goes, he actually did not have to do anything to take RCTV out of the market – they did it themselves! All Chavez had to do was to deny RCTV’s broadcast license renewal request. I, for one, believe he had adequate reasons for doing so (April 11-13, 2002 coup). He would have just cause if he denied a broadcast license to GloboVision next year, too.

    As for Venezuelan oil profits, Venezuela’s share in oil profits went from 41% to 100% when Chavez nationalized the industry. I have a hard time believing that the Venezuelan people will be the losers in this deal. There is also a perfectly good reason that Venezuela cannot sell gasoline for $0.04/litre outside their country: They are a member of OPEC, and do not set export prices. How much do you think that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, Qatar and Libya sell their gasoline for internally, nitwit?

    Reply
  • 8. Davis Mirza  |  July 29, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Message from Davis Mirza
    Hi Ceasefire…I tried to download Steven’s Americanization of Can. Military but I was blocked…I am sure the military (like South of the border) has been surveilling activist email accounts…I have tried to send this message across the Internet for the from 3 weeks ago but it has been blocked….even had a servive rep for Bell (in India) working on it for an hr. but still can’t send it so…what are the military elites scared of…a War on Terror that is truly terrorizing our Constitutional rites (See Below)
    In solidarity with all war resisters ~ davis
    ————————————————————————–
    Support the Canadian War-Resistors: Wear Black this Friday, July 13th, 2007.

    As a war-resister, I urgently ask all my City of Toronto Co-Workers (& all peace-loving Torontonians) to wear BLACK this Friday July 13th, 2007 as a show of solidarity & support for Canadian war-resistors and as a protest against the City of Toronto’s continuing support for the Canadian military occupation/war in Afghanistan. Canadian war resisters continue to build a national campaign to ensure that the Canadian government immediately brings Canadian troops home before more soldiers and Afghani civilians have to die!

    Here’s is a video of what 37 Toronto City Councillors voted to support…

    Click video to view bombing of an Afghan wedding party:

    ~peace

    Davis Mirza -Youth Worker/ City of Toronto

    War Resisters Canada: http://www.resisters.ca/index_en.html {get your black War-Resister T-Shirts from resisters@sympatico.ca or Phone: 416.598.1222}

    Support War Resisters Links:

    Military Families Speak Out Canadian Peace Alliance
    Toronto Coalition to Stop the War StopWar.ca, Vancouver
    Traveling Soldier Iraq Veterans Against the War
    Canadian Friends Service Committee Soldiers Say No
    Thank You Lt. Watada

    Reply
  • 9. OfficialPro  |  August 13, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Oh so I’m a slimy imperialist apologist, eh? Could I then fairly call you a slimy communist apologist, amateur n00b? The idea that Carter had something to do with it doesn’t surprise me. Carter, hello, a liberal DEMOCRAT? History’s greatest monster? If you think I’m goona be an apologist for that incompetent noob, think again. That guy buggered up everything he touched. Although, I wouldn’t call Brzezinsky the world’s most trustworthy source. The guy was a total commie, after all. Nobody ever said a damn thing about Carter/Brzezinsky starting Afghanistan, so how the hell would I have known?

    This still doesn’t take the whole Afghanistan issue out of the realm of the Cold War, which was what that was all about (pandering to anti-imperialists aside).

    Ummm, and yeah, I KNOW why Chavez can’t sell gas for peanuts as a part of OPEC. 😛 This does not mean he can’t act unilaterally. There is such a thing as a black market, you know. 😉 And how about all that heating oil christmas present to some parts of USA? That wasn’t exactly part of the OPEC deal.

    A TV channel that isn’t free to speak out against its own government? Geez, by this logic, Dan Rather and SeeBS and company should have been thrown off the air ages ago.

    With 4 cent a litre gasoline, I’m sure the oil workers are getting much smaller paycheques, regardless of what they’re selling crude oil for under OPEC.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 27,292 hits