Taliban just about beaten, Brits say

posted at 6:20 pm on June 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The defeatist rhetoric on Iraq has just about been discredited, and its cousin — that we’re losing in Afghanistan — may be just as endangered. The Telegraph reports that the aggressive counterinsurgency tactics adopted by NATO have “decapitated” Taliban leadership, and that cross-border attacks have taken the fight out of the rebels. Helmand province may be on the cusp of an economic rebirth:

Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have “decapitated” the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a “tipping point”, the commander of British forces has said.

The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.

In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the “very effective targeted decapitation operations” that have removed “several echelons of commanders”.

The NATO effort had begun to stall in 2006, mirroring the American/British efforts in Iraq. NATO had attempted to negotiate with local Taliban commanders to see if accommodation would end the war. Instead, the Taliban used the cease-fires to seize control over villages, especially in Helmand, and conduct offensive operations against NATO.

In the winter of 2007, American commanders decided on a much more aggressive policy, using NATO’s advantage in close air support. The military no longer just defended against Taliban attacks, but used air power to chase down and destroy Taliban forces once they withdrew. NATO also significantly increased the attacks across the border in Pakistan, and has increased them more in 2008.

As a result, the Taliban has failed to conduct spring offensives for two years in a row. Now it looks as though they have lost their grip on the last portions of Helmand, and their leadership has degraded to the point where the Brits think that they cannot withstand any more NATO pressure. A new airport in the region and other infrastructural improvements will help solidify local opposition to Taliban insurgents and possibly end the opium trade as crops can get to global markets for the first time.

This means that another meme in the American presidential election may soon get pre-empted. It has been an article of faith that the efforts in Iraq have “distracted” the US from the war in Afghanistan. However, this shows that the US and NATO can conduct operations successfully in multiple theaters. That would be a key demonstration of power, especially if both theaters stabilize, as regional actors could not rely on current operations giving them a window of opportunity for michief.

In terms of the presidential election, it also puts to rest the offensive notion that America had no strategy other than “air-raiding villages” and killing civilians. Obama floated that notion last fall, which outraged CENTCOM and NATO. The aggressive strategy and tactics in both theaters instead became the basis of successful counterinsurgency operations, which indicates that Obama should have held a few meetings of his subcommittee before issuing his faulty analysis.

We now have encouraging news from both major theaters in the war on terror. That will make everyone happy except those invested in defeat.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That is some pretty mind blowing spin, Ed.

Try a little balance by talking about the heroin trade. No one pretends it has been impacted and it is still wreaking death across the western world. 90% of heroin on UK streets comes from afghanistan.

There probably have been gains but tbh this sounds like you’re blowing sunshine up your own ass.

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Coming from the Brits, don’t hold your breath.

THE CHOSEN ONE on June 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Weird. I remember Michael Yon saying that we were losing in Afghanistan (which surprised me).

Good to see that we are winning in both countries…which will make it easier to focus on dealing with Iran (presuming McCain wins in November).

Exit Question: If Al Qaeda loses in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will they flee to Iran or stay inside Pakistan?

Darnell Clayton on June 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM

You mean our armed service can multi-task?
The Dems will be glad to hear that…

right2bright on June 2, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I’ve been talking about the heroin trade for some time, Ares. I talked about it again last week, noting that a couple of “ag specialists” won’t help in Afghanistan. I don’t think I need to cut-and-paste each post into the next.

As far as the source of the sunshine, take it up with the Brits. That’s why I linked to the Telegraph.

Ed Morrissey on June 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Time to turn Petraeus lose on Afghanistan. :)

ThePrez on June 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Of course they’re losing.
Why else would they ‘allow’ women to join in the suicide brigades?

bridgetown on June 2, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Maybe Barack should hold a meeting of the sub-Committee he chairs on Afghanistan so that he can update himself.

But then he might have to throw another large chunk of his foreign policy bs under the bus.

Or not.

Maybe he can do a lunch with Arachnid to learn the same update AND talk him out of all things bad before dessert… after flying directy over where Patreaus is working to continue getting the job actually done.

Shivas Irons on June 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM

I’ve been talking about the heroin trade for some time, Ares. I talked about it again last week, noting that a couple of “ag specialists” won’t help in Afghanistan. I don’t think I need to cut-and-paste each post into the next

Fair point, Ed – I did miss that post of yours.

That said I think your analysis is rather optimistic. Heroin pays far more than any arable farming would do, even if farmers were minded to make a switch. One could be forgiven for thinking that ‘co-operation’ in this area (that is to say the cessation of opium and heroin production) would come at a price as it almost always does. A price payable by the west. We have had to pay, in cash and goods, for our good will from every muslim country that pretends to show us good will – pace Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, and so forth.

To supplant the heroin trade we would have to buy them out – perhaps even buy the stuff ourselves and destroy it. There is no reason for the Afghans to stop supplying the kuffar with death that they will only too happily pay for.

This links to the greeter problem our politicians have in understanding the basic tenets of Islam and Jihad in particular.

Pity.

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM

How about the Westerners stop using that heroin, Ares. So long as there are steaks, there will be wasps. See our illegal aliens problem.

We can hold multiple thoughts in one head. The Taliban can be defeated, the WoT can still rage for many, many years, and the heroin trade is also a challenge.

Entelechy on June 2, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Oh boy, sounds like and echo, echo, echo to me … Probably not true.

tarpon on June 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM

This is how it works, Ed (or Allah) posts a subject and we respond.
If you want to start a new subject about heroin, no problem go ahead and hijack; but saying it was “spin”, well, what facts do you have that says these are not accurate:

The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.

In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the “very effective targeted decapitation operations” that have removed “several echelons of commanders”.

What makes these insignificant or inaccurate…focus, focus…

right2bright on June 2, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Exit Question: If Al Qaeda loses in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will they flee to Iran or stay inside Pakistan?

They’ve no reason to bug out of Pakistan so I figure they’ll stay put.

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Ya know, there is a gameplan with a timetable in place, and an ability to adapt. I didn’t understand Yon’s doom and gloom either. There is a lot going on in both theaters that we, the public, are not privy to, that includes Yon. He’s great but not all knowing.

There had better be a big ass parade in San Fransiko when this is all said and done, no matter how it turns out. The U.S. military is outstanding.

dingbat on June 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM

In Iraq, people were fighting against us until we paid them to fight for us. They needed money and when the money started flowing from the right side, they jumped on board. In Afghanistan, we need to build infrastructure to support farming of other crops first. Then, we bring in ag specialists, and then we start burning poppy fields. The Afghans will make the right choice then. If you burn the poppy fields first, the Afghans will have no money and they will look for another source for it and we probably won’t like where they get it from since it will probably involve AK-47s and suicide vests.

Kafir on June 2, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Darnell Clayton on June 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Did Saint Mc confuse you gents too?

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

J_Gocht on June 2, 2008 at 7:47 PM

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

The 9/11 Commission Report (in part on the Iran/AQ relationship):

In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations

Guess they can get along if they want to.

As to their relationship now, it appears to be quite strained although there was a recent report that Iran was going to release some AQ prisoners they were holding.

In any event, this simplistic view that the Sunnis and Shia’s could never cooperate with one another is just that: simplistic.

SteveMG on June 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM

The military no longer just defended against Taliban attacks, but used air power to chase down and destroy Taliban forces once they withdrew.

Wow, imagine that, here we are with millions of dollars worth of shiney airplanes and somebody gets the crazy idea to USE them.

There is nobody more deadly than the U.S.A.F. Tactical Air Controller and the pilot flying above him. I wish we were seeing live footage of their strikes every night the way we did during Desert Storm.

Tony737 on June 2, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Have you noticed that armies that speak English just know how to fight?

Mojave Mark on June 2, 2008 at 8:46 PM

I am just so sick of the BS we must endure from the MSM, and their lefty minions. At this point, I have no idea who to believe on Afghanistan. I am disgusted and confused.

ParisParamus on June 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Did Saint Mc confuse you gents too?

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

I’m not confused. I didn’t say that AQ had any connection with or could get along with the Shiites in Iran.

I wouldn’t expect the world’s foremost Sunni terrorist organisation to rub along well with “Rafidite dogs”.

You might be a little less confused yourself if you stopped trying to put words into my mouth.

I said “[AQ have] no reason to bug out of Pakistan so I figure they’ll stay put.”

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 9:02 PM

AQ where ever they maybe

That should read “AQ wherever they may be” in order to make any sense.

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 9:03 PM

I’m very skeptical. The Taliban and AQ have those safe havens in Pakistan (we’re hitting them, but I question how effectively), and Helmand is just one province. The Long War Journal just today carried an article on the struggle with the Taliban in SW Afghanistan, where they look far from “decapitated.” Michael Yon, who, all other things being equal, has much more credibility with me than the Telegraph reporter, says we’re losing in Afghanistan.

Maybe the Telegraph is right, but I wouldn’t be too quick to put out the “Mission Accomplished” banners. I’ll be very interested, however, to see how General Petraeus changes operations there.

irishspy on June 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM

SteveMG on June 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM

“The historic background of the Sunni-Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world.
Over the years Sunni-Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs as well as religious belief.”

While in Sadden Hussein’s Iraq the sectarian Bathist Hussein; placed the minority Sunni into positions of both military and political power and dominance and thusly exacerbated a schism that had existed just below the surface for hundreds of years, once Hussein was unceremoniously removed.

That Hatfield and McCoy juxtaposition of 632, exists to this very day.

J_Gocht on June 2, 2008 at 9:30 PM

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Thanks, aengus!

J_Gocht on June 2, 2008 at 9:31 PM

I found a related article about the efforts in Afganistan:

Violence Skyrocketing in Afghanistan

Brandon Friedman
Vet Voice
June 2, 2008

While U.S. hostile fire fatalities in Iraq last month dropped to their lowest level since December, the news has been far grimmer coming out of Afghanistan. In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.

14 Americans were killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan last month (equal to the same number killed in June 2006). The deadliest month of combat in Afghanistan for U.S. troops was in June 2005 when 25 died–16 in a single helicopter shoot-down.

While 14 hostile fire fatalities may not seem significant when compared to the fighting in Iraq, there are two facts that we must take into consideration:

1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire–by far.

99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007. The previous 12-month high was 70–between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.

2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.

One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy. This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.

While hostile fire casualty rates in Iraq have been higher than .04 percent in about half of all months since the invasion, this shows us one fact that cannot be overlooked: The violence in Afghanistan only seems minimal to Americans because there are a mere 33,000 troops there. But the rate of violence there is clearly comparable to that in Iraq–where 155,000 troops are now serving. For those 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, for the first time now, life has become more dangerous than in Iraq.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq is clearly much lower now than it was last summer. But while conservative pundits and Bush Republicans are patting themselves on the back for the ebbing violence (relatively speaking, of course), these idiots have managed to give away the game in Afghanistan. Iraq is–and always has been–a distraction from the Real Global War on Terror, and now those chickens are coming home to roost. We can see it in the casualty rates. Osama bin Laden is still free and Ayman al-Zawahiri is too. Extremism is flourishing in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it’s something that represents a much greater threat to the U.S. than does anything in Iraq. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have said so themselves. After such a deadly year, that should be plain for anyone to see.

This is why John McCain must not be elected. We’re on the wrong track now with our primary focus on Iraq, and McCain aims to keep it that way. Because of his ignorance in terms of foreign policy and current events, McCain represents a severe threat to our national security–when we can least afford it.

We must now redirect our efforts toward international development and the eradication of extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we must let the Iraqis take the lead role in their own country. We have other, more pressing, problems.

RMC1618 on June 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM

RMC1618 on June 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Interesting. But why should we not trust General P to do what is necessary in Afghanistan, just like he did in Iraq? Seems to me that his promotion was primarily so he could change the Afghani war front strategy to match the Iraq progress.

Seems to me that the only real difference is that the Demon-crats are not going to be squawking about the surge won’t work (before it ever got rolling).

I’m betting on a surge of mostly Predators into Pakistan frontier territory under the doctrine that it is open territory if the Pakistanis cannot control it.

McCain is unlikely to emulate LBJ and his West Wing war room lunacy that cost us so much in Vietnam. To me, McCain understands the chain-of-command much better than the looney libs ever dream about.

platypus on June 2, 2008 at 11:17 PM

At this point, I have no idea who to believe on Afghanistan. I am disgusted and confused.

Mission accomplished! Are we good, or what?

The MSM.

drunyan8315 on June 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Great news.

A few questions:

1. The Taliban seems to be winning in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP). If they are able to push the Taliban over the brink of defeat in Afghanistan, will British and American forces then target them in Pakistan?

2. The Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan in 2002. How is this defeat different from that one, such that we may be sure that they will not experience yet another resurgence?

3. What study is being undertaken or has been undertaken of the Taliban’s ideology, and the prevalence of elements of it among non-Taliban groups in Afghanistan?

4. What pressure is being brought to bear upon the Karzai government to remove the provision in the Afghan constitution that no law will be made that contradicts Islamic law — a provision that infringes upon the freedom of conscience (as we saw in the case of the Afghan convert to Christianity, Abdul Rahman), the rights of women, and the rights of non-Muslims?

Robert Spencer on June 3, 2008 at 7:10 AM

That should be 2003, not 2002.

Robert Spencer on June 3, 2008 at 7:20 AM

While I praise the Brits for their courage and tenacity, I wonder if it is too much to ask if they would give credit where credit’s due.

BohicaTwentyTwo on June 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM

That Hatfield and McCoy juxtaposition of 632, exists to this very day.

The evidence is overwhelming – I cited some of it that you ignored – that the Sunnis and Shi’a doctrinal splits does not preclude them from working together in their best interests or against the US and Israel.

SteveMG on June 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM

DON’T.STOP.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 3, 2008 at 10:08 AM

“SteveMG on June 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM”

Hey Steveo…thanks for the slap up side the head!
What did I say…?

“Over the years Sunni-Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs as well as religious belief.”

The Iraqi situation is one of conflict, Steve!

J_Gocht on June 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 3, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Hey Doc, are you an instigator or protagonist?
What’s your mind?

J_Gocht on June 3, 2008 at 7:49 PM