Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
wiseguy

The US-NATO Forces Are Losing The War In Afghanistan

Recommended Posts

Please read the following news:

 

Bush to pull out 8000 troops from Iraq by Feb. - The Associated Press

 

My comment: The US regime encourages the US Iraqi regime to fight against Iraqi patriots so that the US regime could send more US soldiers to Afghanistan to fight Taliban soldiers.

 

George Bush announces plan to move US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan Telegraph.co.uk

 

Bush to Shift Troops To Afghanistan From Iraq Wall Street Journal

 

Bush will shift some forces from Iraq to Afghanistan Houston Chronicle

 

If the US-NATO forces are winning the war in Afghanistan, why does Bush send more US troops to Afghanistan? Based on the news above, I am sure that the US-NATO forces are losing the war in Afghanistan and they are suffering very heavy casualties in Afghanistan.

 

So, last year, violence up by 50 percent; 140 suicide bombings in a country that had never really seen suicide bombings as a phenomenon before December 2005; over 50,000 NATO troops, of which about half are US soldiers; US soldiers dying at a rate higher than dying in Iraq, that is, per soldier, more US soldiers dying in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Afghanistan is just as much a failure as Iraq. The US-NATO forces are using the same tactics. The US-NATO forces are rounding people up, detaining them, bombing civilians. Associated Press did a count earlier in the year of how many civilians officially killed by NATO. It found that NATO had killed actually so many civilians. And the Western media suppress the news to condone the US-NATO crimes. Afghanistan, just as much a failure as Iraq. - Pacifica radio host Sonali Kolhatkar, one of this country's leading voices against the occupation of Afghanistan and co-author of the book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of Silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

An attack by Taliban soldiers against a U.S. base in Afghanistan left at leats nine U.S. troops dead and 19 wounded. Since May, more U.S. and allied troops have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Thalia Assuras of CBS reports:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the countless atrocities committed by the US-NATO forces against innocent Afghan civilians in Afghanistan:

 

Frontline

Volume 25 - Issue 19 :: Sep. 13-26, 2008

INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE

 

 

WORLD AFFAIRS

 

American terror

 

JOHN CHERIAN

 

The U.N. has confirmed that at least 90 civilians were killed in the U.S. air attack in Herat province in the third week of August.

 

YET another attack by the United States Air Force on suspected Taliban hideouts has resulted in the death of innocent civilians. In one of the worst US atrocities witnessed so far after the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, at least 90 civilians were killed in an air strike on Azizabad village in Herat province on August 22. The victims had gathered there to commemorate the death of a local leader, and according to the government of Afghanistan, 50 of those killed were under the age of 15. Reports said the attack was carried out by a US AC-130 gunship.

 

Conclusion: The Afghan people hate the US regime, the NATO, and the US puppet Hamid Karzai very much because of the countless US-NATO massacres against Afghan people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontline

Volume 25 - Issue 19 :: Sep. 13-26, 2008

INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE

 

WORLD AFFAIRS

 

American terror

 

JOHN CHERIAN

 

Taliban fighters are now operating virtually at the gates of Kabul. Despite the presence of more than 70,000 Western troops, the Taliban has managed to gain territory in Maydan Shar, the capital of Wardak province, which is less than 40 km from the capital. Since July, the Taliban has also stepped up attacks on the Kabul-Jalalabad road, the main supply route for NATO forces.

 

The Western media have reported regular attacks in recent weeks on truck convoys carrying materials for NATO forces heading for Kabul. The road from Kabul to Kandahar is also very unsafe. Vehicles can only move if they are protected by units of the Afghan Army. In the third week of August, the Taliban killed 10 French soldiers in Sarobi, 50 km from Kabul, on the Kabul-Jalalabad road. French President Nicholas Sarkozy had, under pressure from Washington, agreed to dispatch 700 more soldiers to Afghanistan this year, sparking a controversy in France. The war in Afghanistan is unpopular in France and the other European countries that have troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

 

Around the same time as the attack on the French forces, the Taliban launched an audacious attack on the biggest U.S. military base in eastern Afghanistan. Ten suicide bombers, in a coordinated move, blew themselves up outside the base. According to many experts, the Taliban is trying to replicate what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed Mujahideen did against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul just before it fell in the 1980s – cutting off the main roads to Kabul and targeting the supplies of the occupation forces.

 

A spokesman for the Taliban said recently that its men “will surround Kabul politically and militarily to make it hard for NATO forces to receive logistics convoys”. In mid-August, there was a rocket attack on the Kabul airport. The casualty rate of U.S. troops this year in Afghanistan is higher than that in Iraq. As many as 194 U.S. and NATO soldiers have been killed so far this year, as against 232 last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former CIA Official: US Losing War in Afghanistan

 

April 14, 2008 - Washington, DC -- The U.S. is on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan, says a former top CIA official who was involved in attempts to capture and kill Osama bin Laden.

 

"Afghanistan of course is a terrible disaster for the United States and NATO. NATO seems to be dying in Afghanistan," says Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit when the war began.

 

Scheuer is no longer with the agency. His harsh assessment comes in his new book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq."

 

"What we managed to do was what invaders of Afghanistan always do. We took the cities and declared victory, but we didn't kill the enemy," Scheuer tells WTOP Talk Radio.

 

"The enemy escaped, the Taliban and al Qaida, now we have a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And, we certainly don't very many more troops to send there."

 

So, why is the war a disaster? Scheuer says the U.S. made some horrible miscalculations.

 

"We tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap," he says.

 

"We tried to win a war with several hundred intelligence officers and about a thousand special forces."

 

What does Scheuer think should happen now?

 

"Unfortunately, it would involve several major politicians saying we've lied to you for the last 15 years."

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetveteransforcommonsense(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articleid/9841"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetveteransforcommonsense(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articleid/9841[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US-NATO forces are so desperate now that they ask Bush to shift US troops to Afghanistan from Iraq.

 

Shift in forces to Afghanistan less than requested

 

by Jim Mannion 44 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The modest shift in US forces to Afghanistan announced Tuesday by President George W. Bush falls short of his commanders' requests despite signs the seven year-old US-NATO project there is at risk.

 

Bush admitted that things have not gone so well in Afghanistan, which is being shaken by an increasingly bloody Afghan resistance fueled from safe havens in Pakistan.

 

"The effort in Afghanistan must move to the forefront and once again become our top priority," said Representative Ike Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

 

Currently there are 33,000 US troops in Afghanistan, about 14,000 of them in a 53,000-strong NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

 

US commanders have said they need at least three more brigades, about 10,000 combat troops, to confront a better trained, increasingly sophisticated "syndicate" of Afghan patriots able to move across a rugged, open border.

 

"Given the numbers that we have here, they just don't work out totally," Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, the number two US commander in Afghanistan, told reporters on Friday.

 

Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has acknowleged commanders' requests for three more brigades but has linked meeting them to deeper troop cuts in Iraq.

 

"The fight in the east is a very tough fight. General Schloesser has asked for more troops; so has General McKiernan endorsed that. We've got that request and we're looking for ways to answer that," Mullen said less than two weeks ago.

 

Afghan attacks, meanwhile, have risen sharply and tactics have expanded to include suicide bombings, roadside explosions, and more recently complex assaults involving larger forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing the war in Afghanistan

 

By Robert I. Rotberg | April 2, 2007

 

THE UNITED States and NATO are about to lose the war in Afghanistan to Taliban. Deprived of sufficient firepower and soldiers, Allied forces are failing to hunt down and contain the Taliban, especially in the southern part of the country. Moreover, the crucial battle for Pashtun hearts and minds is also about to be lost.

 

Source: Globe Newspaper Company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US-NATO Military Death Toll Rises in Afghanistan

 

By MARK MAZZETTI

Published: July 2, 2008

 

WASHINGTON — More American and coalition troops died in Afghanistan last month than during any other month since the American-led invasion began in 2001, the latest evidence of a strengthening Taliban armed struggle that has menaced NATO forces and reclaimed control over some southern and eastern parts of the country.

 

Source: The New York Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ex-Diplomat: Afghan's Karzai Faltering

 

Saturday, April 28, 2007

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium —

 

Afghanistan's U.S.-backed government, tarnished by corruption and unable to control large swaths of its own territory, is rapidly losing the support of ordinary Afghans, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke said Saturday.

 

Holbrooke said NATO, which has committed 36,000 troops to Afghanistan, was at risk of losing the war against the Taliban. The United States has deployed an additional 11,000 troops in the eastern border region with Pakistan.

 

"I can sense a tremendous deterioration in the standing of the government. Afghans are now universally talking about their disappointment with (President Hamid) Karzai. Let's be honest with ourselves ... the government must succeed or else the Taliban will gain from it," he told the Brussels Forum, an annual trans-Atlantic security conference.

 

Taliban guerrillas have vastly expanded their activities during the past year. Insurgents have now returned to many regions outside their traditional strongholds in the east that were rebel-free since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allies losing Afghanistan war: Australian minister

 

(Agencies)

Updated: 2007-12-17 10:34

 

SYDNEY -- Australia's new government has warned NATO and its allies they will lose the war against hardline Taliban forces in Afghanistan unless they change tactics urgently, a report said Monday.

 

Australia's new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, seen here on December 03 in Sydney, has warned NATO and its allies they will lose the war against hardline Taliban forces in Afghanistan unless they change tactics urgently. [Agencies]

 

The country's new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon issued the stark warning at a meeting in Edinburgh last week of eight nations engaged in the conflict, including the United States, The Australian newspaper said.

 

The coalition of NATO and allied forces engaged in the conflict since 2001 must overhaul military and civil programmes aimed at fostering stability in the troubled country if they are to win the conflict, he cautioned.

 

The minister's comments to the closed-door gathering were based on classified intelligence assessments prepared for the previous Australian government of John Howard which painted a bleak picture of the Afghan conflict.

 

"The previous government would have us believe that good progress is being made in Afghanistan. The reality is quite a different one," Fitzgibbon told The Australian after returning from the meeting in Britain.

 

Source: chinadaily.cn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentagon says Afghanistan war could be lost

 

Afghanistan News(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

Wednesday 10th September, 2008

 

According to a top military officer at the Pentagon, US and international forces are not winning the war in Afghanistan.

 

Admiral Mike Mullens, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told a Congressional committee that victory in Afghanistan cannot be achieved solely by the military.

 

He told the committee the US military was not going to be able to kill its way to victory.

 

He said while he was not convinced US and international forces were winning at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I am grateful to brother Freeboy for the news below:

 

US, Saudi Arabia revive Taliban's comeback

M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian ambassador

 

October 07, 2008

 

CNN broke the story in a London datelined report on Monday quoting authoritative sources that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted high-level talks in Mecca between the Afghan government and the Taliban [images].

 

The reported intra-Afghan talks under the mediation of Saudi Arabia in Mecca on September 24-27 focuses attention to the hidden aspects of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan -- the geopolitics of the region.

 

Saudi mediation in the intra-Afghan talks will prove controversial, which is why protagonists have difficulty even acknowledging it. There is disquiet in Kabul that media reports may undercut the credibility of the political edifice housing Hamid Karzai [images], which could prove lethal as Afghanistan lurches toward presidential election in 2009.

 

According to the colourful former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan and a Guantanamo Bay detainee, Abdul Salam Zaeef, who actually sat in on the iftar in Mecca, it was a mere "guest celebration". But, then, Saudi Arabia is a leader of the Sunni Muslim world. It was one of the handful of countries to have recognised the Taliban regime.

 

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted the iftar which was attended by Taliban representatives, Afghan government officials and a representative of the powerful Mujahideen [images] leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

 

As CNN put it, quoting sources, the meal in Mecca took two years of "intense behind-the scenes negotiations" to come to fruition and the "US-and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia's involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties".

 

There has been a spate of statements in recent days underscoring the futility of the war. Karzai himself has invited Taliban leader Mullah Omar to step forward as a presidential hopeful in the election next year. Britain's military commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times newspaper that the war cannot be won. The British ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, has been quoted as saying the war strategy was "doomed to fail". To say the least, the timing of these statements is significant.

 

Clearly, inter-Afghan peace talks have finally begun. Several factors have contributed. One, the seven-year war is in a stalemate and time favours the Taliban. Two, the US is increasingly focused on the bailout of its economy, which leaves little scope both in terms of time and resources for Washington to indulge in the extravaganza of open-ended wars in faraway badlands.

 

Three, the US is having a hard time persuading its allies to provide troops for the war effort and even faithful allies appear uneasy about the US's war strategy. Four, Karzai's popular support is fast declining. Five, the Taliban has gained habitation and name on the Afghan landscape.

 

Six, the regional climate -- growing instability in Pakistan, tensions in US-Russia relations, NATO's role, Iran's new assertiveness including possible future support of the Afghan resistance, etc -- is steadily worsening.

 

All in all, a need arises for the US to calibrate the geopolitical alignments and shore up its political and strategic assets created during 2001-2008.

 

Against such a complex backdrop, Washington turned to its old ally in the Hindu Kush -- Saudi Arabia. The US and Saudi Arabia go a long way in nurturing the al Qaeda and the Taliban in their infancy in the late 1980s up to the mid-1990s.

 

Washington has no real choice. The Saudis undoubtedly know how to engage the Taliban. They can almost do what Pakistan, which had similar skills, was capable of doing until it began losing its grip and its self-confidence.

 

Of course, Washington is also unsure to what degree Islamabad [images] can be trusted with the central role. While President Asif Zardari is a predictable figure, far too many imponderables remain in the post-Pervez Musharraf power structure.

 

Arguably, the Saudis too would have their own sub-plots in the Hindu Kush but, on balance, Washington has to pitch for a mediator whom the Taliban leadership and the Mujahideen leaders would respect. Also, the Saudis can easily bankroll a peace process.

 

Afghanistan has always been in the ####pit of great power rivalry. The backdrop of the US-Russia [images] tensions is of great significance. Washington will be relieved if the Russia-NATO cooperation over Afghanistan altogether cases. There is simply no other way that NATO can cast Russia as an adversary. But Russia is not obliging.

 

The main challenge for NATO is that its dependence on Moscow [images] for logistical support in the Afghan war cannot be terminated so long as there is uncertainty about the supply routes via Pakistan. Here the Saudis can be of help. Their involvement in the Afghan peace process will discourage the Taliban from seriously disrupting the Pakistani supply routes.

 

From the US perspective, the immediate political advantage of the Saudi involvement will be two-fold: its impact on Pakistani public opinion and, secondly, in countering the expanding Iranian influence within Afghanistan.

 

The Saudi role would hopefully temper the stridency of 'anti-Americanism' in Pakistan, given their influence on the Islamic parties in Pakistan, especially the Jamaat-i-Islami.

 

Interestingly, CNN has quoted Saudi sources to the effect that "perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia's biggest concerns" in Afghanistan, which motivates them to mediate a peace process involving the Taliban currently.

 

Indeed, one of the attractions underlying the US-Saudi sponsorship of the Taliban in the early and mid-1990s was the movement's manifestly anti-Shia stance and its infinite potential to be pitted against Iran on the geopolitical chessboard.

 

Given the ebb and flow of the US-Saudi-Pakistani role in promoting the Taliban in the 'nineties, Teheran and Moscow are bound to sit up and take note of the current trends.

 

Prima facie, Teheran or Moscow cannot take exception to the Saudi role as that will run against the grain of their relations with relations with Riyadh at the bilateral level. Teheran, in particular, will be careful not to play into the hands of the US to turn Afghanistan into yet another turf of Sunni-Shia (Iran-Saudi) antipathy like Lebanon or Iraq.

 

But Iran and Russia will be deeply concerned about the US's strategic designs. What will perturb the two countries most will be that the US strategy, as it is unfolding, is only to make the war "cost-effective" so that NATO's permanent presence in Afghanistan is not jeopardised.

 

Apart from the cost-effective methods that ensure the war doesn't tax the US financially, the new head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, also seeks to make the war more "efficient".

 

The strategy demands co-opting the Taliban and setting Pashtun mercenaries to fight the "war on terrorism" so that Western casualties are minimal and Western public opinion doesn't inflame.

 

Actually, the Saudi involvement is a gamble by the Bush administration. In immediate terms, the Taliban violence against the Western troops may seem to diminish, which would give an impression that Afghanistan is finally coming right for the US. But it will not remain so for long.

 

The Saudis with all their petrodollars cannot bridge the hopelessly ruptured Afghan divides. At the very least, much time is needed. Meanwhile, Saudi involvement will almost certainly be resented by several Afghan groups, which viscerally oppose the Taliban.

 

Things could come to a boil in 2009, which is an election year in Afghanistan. But, then, that is not the problem of the present US administration.

 

Political events are seldom what they seem. A peace process predicated on return of the Taliban to power in one form or another may suit well the US at this juncture. But it is bound to be seriously challenged by Iran, Russia and the Central Asian states.

 

The debris could only be in the nature of more bloodshed and a radicalisation of the Afghan scene. That cannot be conducive to regional stability.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian ambassador

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=501630&st=0entry960497"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...mp;#entry960497[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×