Afghan Taliban Declare Spring Offensive Again Coalition Troops

News_Editor · April 28, 2013

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- The Taliban on Saturday announced the beginning of its so-called spring offensive against coalition forces in Afghanistan, vowing to carry out deadly bombings at military bases and to continue insider attacks while attempting to avoid civilian casualties.

A statement from the Leadership Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the official name of the Taliban, said this year's spring offensive will be called "Khalid bin Waleed," a reference to a famous Arab general of the Muslim army during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century.

"The Afghan Mujahid nation, in defense of their religion and country, has occupied the trenches of Jihad and resistance for the past eleven years against the invading crusaders and their spineless backers," the council said in a statement e-mailed by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. "During this lengthy period, with the Grace of Allah Almighty, the Jihadi determination and patience has only increased in perseverance by the day and, with the divine help of Allah Almighty, has handed the world a memorable defeat in every field."

The insurgent group said the offensive will begin across the country on Sunday and aims to defeat the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The Taliban each year announces spring offensives against coalition forces, with an offensive called "al-Farooq" in 2012 and "Badar" in 2011.

"This year's spring operation, in accordance with its combat nature, will consist of special military tactics quantity and quality wise while successful insider attacks, to eliminate foreign invaders, will be carried out by infiltrating Mujahideen (Taliban fighters) inside enemy bases in a systematic and coordinated manner," the council said.

The statement added: "Similarly, collective martyrdom operations on bases of foreign invaders, their diplomatic centers and military airbases will be even further structured while every possible tactic will be utilized in order to detain or inflict heavy casualties on the foreign transgressors."

The insurgent group further called on Afghan civilians to stay away from military bases or areas frequented by foreign troops to avoid civilian casualties. It also called on Afghan officials to abandon the government of President Hamid Karzai to "conform to Islamic commands, national interests and protection of yourselves."

Previous spring offensives have been largely described as failures as the number of coalition deaths has continued to drop in recent years. Offensives "Badar" and "al-Farooq" were both considered to be failures as, with the exception of mostly low-profile attacks, they resulted only in hundreds of highly exaggerated and false statements from the Taliban.

A total of 39 coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year, according to official figures. A total of 402 ISAF troops were killed in Afghanistan in 2012, down from 566 fatalities in 2011 and 711 in 2010. A majority of the fallen troops were American and were killed in the country's south, which is plagued by IED attacks on troops and civilians.

There are currently more than 100,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including some 68,000 U.S. troops and 9,000 British soldiers. Approximately 3,800 British soldiers are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2013, with all foreign combat troops due to leave by the end of 2014.

F430murci · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

Naam · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

F430murci · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.
2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.
using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

I don't think US or anyone in the US would want to occupy the s hole. Better to spend tax dollars stomping out terrorist than sending to countries in Asia who don't appreciate. I candidly think we need to stop sending money to all these countries that cannot take care of themselves. Maybe they will learn to if they have to rely upon themselves.

These dudes can declare whatever they wish. They end killing no one and just get blown to smithereens. My earlier point is their coming out of the wood work just gives us accurate targets.

Edited April 28, 2013 by F430murci

Steely Dan · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

I think you are being a little harsh on the colonial British, who quite rapidly concluded that butcher and bolt tactics were the best policy in Afghanistan. As for drones, I have yet to read of a green on blue attack on a drone, and they do upset the liberals. Perhaps the cost of missiles can be reduced by dropping pressure cookers on their heads, then everyone is happy, well almost.

Potosi · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since Otto Skorzeny. Just 700 of their special forces in Afghan uniforms took all the essential governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul. The operation began at 19:00 on 27.12.79, and was concluded the next morning. The country was theirs. 100.000 troops entered from the Northern border or were flown in to major towns, and met no resistance. The next ten years were spend dispatching rag wearing Jihadis sent their way from all over the Islamic world.

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. How did that go?

folium · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.
2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great,
Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag

wearing Jihadis.

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since

Otto Skorzeny. Just 700 of their special forces in Afghan uniforms took all the essential governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul. The

operation began at 19:00 on 27.12.79, and was concluded the next

morning. The country was theirs. 100.000 troops entered from the Northern border or were flown in to major towns, and met no resistance. The next

ten years were spend dispatching rag wearing Jihadis sent their way from

all over the Islamic world.

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in

Iran. How did that go?

While the Soviet Operation Storm in Dec 1979 was an impressive coup de main the comparison with the attempted hostage rescue effort in Iran is disingenuous and somewhat irrelevant given the completely different scenarios,

The main difference being the presence of large numbers of Soviet troops, SF and hardware in Kabul, Bagram etc, some of whom had been there for 8 months.

The Afghan leader, Amin, had been begging for Soviet intervention and assistance for much of 1979 to support him against the growing internal insurgency. Classic case of "beware what you wish for".....

Very full account below:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGrau.htm

Naam · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since Otto Skorzeny. Just 700 of their special forces in Afghan uniforms took all the essential governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul. The operation began at 19:00 on 27.12.79, and was concluded the next morning. The country was theirs. 100.000 troops entered from the Northern border or were flown in to major towns, and met no resistance. The next ten years were spend dispatching rag wearing Jihadis sent their way from all over the Islamic world.

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. How did that go?

may i presume that nearly 15,000 Soviet soldiers committed suicide and another 35,000 wounded themselves out of frustration because they did not meet any resistance? or were these casualties caused by Jihadis before they were "dispatched" ?

by rag wearing Jihadis do not count?

Naam · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.
2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.
using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

I don't think US or anyone in the US would want to occupy the s hole. Better to spend tax dollars stomping out terrorist than sending to countries in Asia who don't appreciate. I candidly think we need to stop sending money to all these countries that cannot take care of themselves. Maybe they will learn to if they have to rely upon themselves.
These dudes can declare whatever they wish. They end killing no one and just get blown to smithereens. My earlier point is their coming out of the wood work just gives us accurate targets.

does that mean you support the shitty story that those who were killed on sept 11, 2001 were victims of a concerted CIA/Mossad action?

for the record... there's hardly any "wood work" in Afghanistan "to come out".

Scott · April 28, 2013

Let's keep the discussion on topic and civil.

Potosi · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since Otto Skorzeny. Just 700 of their special forces in Afghan uniforms took all the essential governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul. The operation began at 19:00 on 27.12.79, and was concluded the next morning. The country was theirs. 100.000 troops entered from the Northern border or were flown in to major towns, and met no resistance. The next ten years were spend dispatching rag wearing Jihadis sent their way from all over the Islamic world.

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. How did that go?

may i presume that nearly 15,000 Soviet soldiers committed suicide and another 35,000 wounded themselves out of frustration because they did not meet any resistance? or were these casualties caused by Jihadis before they were "dispatched" ?

by rag wearing Jihadis do not count?

You need to be more factual. The Russians faced a coalition of the West and Islamic world, today's Taliban don't have anywhere near this support. The 100,000 Russians and 55,000 Afghan troops allied to them faced 250,000 Mujaheddin. 100,000 allied and almost half a million Afghan troops fight a mere 25,000 Taliban in the current war. Allies and Afghan Security Forces have now as many casualties combined as the Russians had, and that is stunning considering the overwhelming numbers, far greater superiority in armaments, etc. If a war can't be won with a superiority of 24:1, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that winning isn't on the agenda, but to make it as long and expensive as possible?

simple1 · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.

2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since Otto Skorzeny. Just 700 of their special forces in Afghan uniforms took all the essential governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul. The operation began at 19:00 on 27.12.79, and was concluded the next morning. The country was theirs. 100.000 troops entered from the Northern border or were flown in to major towns, and met no resistance. The next ten years were spend dispatching rag wearing Jihadis sent their way from all over the Islamic world.

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. How did that go?

What an understatement! Not just fighting the Mujaheddin, but also killing Afghan civilians, estimates vary from 850,000 to 1,500,000. 5–10 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country, and another 2 million were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half of all refugees in the world were Afghan. As you know millions of Afghans still in refugee camps.

With NATO forces pulling out I assume the extremely corrupt Afghan government will be able to hold on to some major urban centres, so long as NATO air power is committed, with the rest of the country falling under Taliban control. Nearly back to square one, with the exception being Afghanistan now supplies 90% of the world's illegal heroin market.

Potosi · April 28, 2013

Jihadis don't have qualms to kill civilians indeed, sorry I forgot the large number of civilian casualties and refugees caused by them. We don't want to blame them all on the Russians, do we? Don't we know better by now?

Steely Dan · April 28, 2013

All in all I'm not sure if many of us could endure the Freedom created by operation Enduring Freedom. I would observe that a job is either worth doing properly, or not at all. Judging by this photo of 1970's Afghanistan I see progress has been of the retrograde variety.

F430murci · April 28, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.
2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.
using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

I don't think US or anyone in the US would want to occupy the s hole. Better to spend tax dollars stomping out terrorist than sending to countries in Asia who don't appreciate. I candidly think we need to stop sending money to all these countries that cannot take care of themselves. Maybe they will learn to if they have to rely upon themselves.
These dudes can declare whatever they wish. They end killing no one and just get blown to smithereens. My earlier point is their coming out of the wood work just gives us accurate targets.

does that mean you support the shitty story that those who were killed on sept 11, 2001 were victims of a concerted CIA/Mossad action?
for the record... there's hardly any "wood work" in Afghanistan "to come out".

No of course not about twin towers, but the topic is about declaring their nutso battle cry against coalition troops and an not attack 12 years ago on American soil. They are pretty impotent when it comes to their ability to conduct direct attacks against colaition trips.

Wood work was a term of of art and not meant in the literal sense. Point being, all of those so called civilians that are really terrorist may be identified as targets if they attempt to directly attack coalition troops. I would have thought easy logic when making original post on subject.

I see their battle cry as making our job a bit easier and helping to confirm great targets for the drones. While perhaps not particularly prudent or smart, it's nice of them to tip us off as to their upcoming activities so we can be ready.

F430murci · April 28, 2013

I think the fact that both the Russians and the US or UN felt the need to attack this country is very telling. They simply present to many world problems and offer very little constructive benefit to the world. What do they supply: raisins, wool, drugs and terrorists. Great contributions and they suck money and resources out of everyone else.

simple1 · April 29, 2013

Jihadis don't have qualms to kill civilians indeed, sorry I forgot the large number of civilian casualties and refugees caused by them. We don't want to blame them all on the Russians, do we? Don't we know better by now?

Wrong again, the vast majority of civilian killings was carried out by the Soviets. If you wish to have a better understanding of the tactics used by the Soviets and the Mujaheddin go to:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/miredinmount.htm

An edited quote from the above URL:

"The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home" and this seems to be the message being communicated by the Taliban in the OP.

Edited April 29, 2013 by simple1

Exsexyman · April 29, 2013

I think the fact that both the Russians and the US or UN felt the need to attack this country is very telling. They simply present to many world problems and offer very little constructive benefit to the world. What do they supply: raisins, wool, drugs and terrorists. Great contributions and they suck money and resources out of everyone else.

News breaking in Western media today would suggest that the US role in Afghanistan over the past decade has been very murky indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/millions-cia-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-presidents-office-105518747.html

I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is an extremely corrupt country, and it would appear that your "tax dollars" are the cause of a lot of it.

From the link ' The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan', one American official said, 'was the United States'. Tens of millions of dollars in cash, delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and shopping bags to the office of Hamid Karzai for more than a decade. 'Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drugs trade and in some case the Taliban'. Laughably at the same time Karzai was also receiving bags of cash from Iran! According to one American official, the CIA were supporting the same networks that US diplomats and the FBI were struggling to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organized crime! As another poster noted, Afghanistan now supplies 90% of the worlds illegal heroin, a percentage that has increased massively over the last few years. The CIA have clearly played a major role in this, presumably they, and their paymasters, consider it tens of millions of dollars well spent! Meanwhile, the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have been paying the price, either coming home in a bodybag, or minus a limb or two. And the saddest thing of all is that the average man on the street doesn't express outrage, or demand accountability for this corruption, for fear of being labelled 'Unpatriotic'. "If you are not with us, you must be against us". That was the mantra as i recall. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

F430murci · April 29, 2013

I think the fact that both the Russians and the US or UN felt the need to attack this country is very telling. They simply present to many world problems and offer very little constructive benefit to the world. What do they supply: raisins, wool, drugs and terrorists. Great contributions and they suck money and resources out of everyone else.

News breaking in Western media today would suggest that the US role in Afghanistan over the past decade has been very murky indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/millions-cia-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-presidents-office-105518747.html

I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is an extremely corrupt country, and it would appear that your "tax dollars" are the cause of a lot of it.

From the link ' The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan', one American official said, 'was the United States'. Tens of millions of dollars in cash, delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and shopping bags to the office of Hamid Karzai for more than a decade. 'Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drugs trade and in some case the Taliban'. Laughably at the same time Karzai was also receiving bags of cash from Iran! According to one American official, the CIA were supporting the same networks that US diplomats and the FBI were struggling to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organized crime! As another poster noted, Afghanistan now supplies 90% of the worlds illegal heroin, a percentage that has increased massively over the last few years. The CIA have clearly played a major role in this, presumably they, and their paymasters, consider it tens of millions of dollars well spent! Meanwhile, the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have been paying the price, either coming home in a bodybag, or minus a limb or two. And the saddest thing of all is that the average man on the street doesn't express outrage, or demand accountability for this corruption, for fear of being labelled 'Unpatriotic'. "If you are not with us, you must be against us". That was the mantra as i recall. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

RE: Heroin

Who supplies 90% of worlds heroin. Mexico and Columbia supply the vast majority of US's heoin and I thought India was the largest producer and consumer of heroin.

RE: The US stuff

This is no revelation. Iran Contra, Columbia and etc. CIA and US has always funnelled money or weapons for influence or information. The article you quoted states:

"The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying."

We got ripped off. Duh, what did you expect dealin with folks like these.

What relevance is this to terrorists activities and declaring a spring offensive? Did US's misdirected money cause guys to fly planes into buildings? Seems like they would graciously accept the money and send us Christmas cards, not bombs or terrorists.

US does what they think is in the best interests of the US. Does it always work, no. Esecpially when you are dealing with people like these.

Edited April 29, 2013 by F430murci

simple1 · April 30, 2013

I think the fact that both the Russians and the US or UN felt the need to attack this country is very telling. They simply present to many world problems and offer very little constructive benefit to the world. What do they supply: raisins, wool, drugs and terrorists. Great contributions and they suck money and resources out of everyone else.

News breaking in Western media today would suggest that the US role in Afghanistan over the past decade has been very murky indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/millions-cia-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-presidents-office-105518747.html

I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is an extremely corrupt country, and it would appear that your "tax dollars" are the cause of a lot of it.

From the link ' The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan', one American official said, 'was the United States'. Tens of millions of dollars in cash, delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and shopping bags to the office of Hamid Karzai for more than a decade. 'Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drugs trade and in some case the Taliban'. Laughably at the same time Karzai was also receiving bags of cash from Iran! According to one American official, the CIA were supporting the same networks that US diplomats and the FBI were struggling to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organized crime! As another poster noted, Afghanistan now supplies 90% of the worlds illegal heroin, a percentage that has increased massively over the last few years. The CIA have clearly played a major role in this, presumably they, and their paymasters, consider it tens of millions of dollars well spent! Meanwhile, the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have been paying the price, either coming home in a bodybag, or minus a limb or two. And the saddest thing of all is that the average man on the street doesn't express outrage, or demand accountability for this corruption, for fear of being labelled 'Unpatriotic'. "If you are not with us, you must be against us". That was the mantra as i recall. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

RE: Heroin

Who supplies 90% of worlds heroin. Mexico and Columbia supply the vast majority of US's heoin and I thought India was the largest producer and consumer of heroin.

RE: The US stuff

This is no revelation. Iran Contra, Columbia and etc. CIA and US has always funnelled money or weapons for influence or information. The article you quoted states:

"The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying."

We got ripped off. Duh, what did you expect dealin with folks like these.

What relevance is this to terrorists activities and declaring a spring offensive? Did US's misdirected money cause guys to fly planes into buildings? Seems like they would graciously accept the money and send us Christmas cards, not bombs or terrorists.

US does what they think is in the best interests of the US. Does it always work, no. Esecpially when you are dealing with people like these.

After the NATO forces occupation, opium production again became a major crop in Afghanistan. The arrival of NATO troops in Afghanistan only aggravated the situation, because coalition troops were instructed not to eradicate poppy crops for fear of driving the farmers into the ranks of the Taliban. The above is relevant to the OP as revenue generated from opium/heroin would be used to fuel the Taliban insurgency

Currently Russia has been identified as the largest per capita consumer of illegal heroin. Some 2.5 million Russians are addicted to drugs, and 90 percent of them use the heroin that has flooded into Russia from Afghanistan.

The Regional Breakdown for Heroin Consumption 2010:

Europe - 26% at 88 metric tons
Russia - 21% at 70 metric tons
China - 13% at 45 metric tons
Africa - 7% at 24 metric tons
U.S.A. & Canada - 6% at 21 metric tons
Pakistan - 6% at 21 metric tons
India - 5% at 17 metric tons
Southeast Asia - 5% at 17 metric tons
Iran - 5% at 17 metric tons

Edited April 30, 2013 by simple1

Scott · April 30, 2013

I spent a number of years working in areas similar to Afghanistan (including Iraq and Bosnia). Nearly everything is done in cash. so there are large amounts of cash by nearly all agencies working in the country. It's not like there is a functional banking system where you can transfer in a few million dollars and write checks to contractors, employees etc.

theblether · April 30, 2013

It's all about the money.

It's always about the money.......the cartels will do anything to ensure that the drugs keep flowing and if that includes encouraging Jihad then so be it.

The oxymoron is so great that it's breathtaking...........even under the so called iron grip rule of the Taliban pre-9/11, the drug trade was thriving. A brutal ultra-Wahibist sect in power selling drugs......I mean seriously, it's an oxymoron that defies belief.

It's all about the money, religion is a front, a handy weapon to keep the masses in a ferment while the cartels fill their boots up.

F430murci · April 30, 2013

I think the fact that both the Russians and the US or UN felt the need to attack this country is very telling. They simply present to many world problems and offer very little constructive benefit to the world. What do they supply: raisins, wool, drugs and terrorists. Great contributions and they suck money and resources out of everyone else.
News breaking in Western media today would suggest that the US role in Afghanistan over the past decade has been very murky indeed.
http://news.yahoo.com/millions-cia-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-presidents-office-105518747.html

I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is an extremely corrupt country, and it would appear that your "tax dollars" are the cause of a lot of it.

From the link ' The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan', one American official said, 'was the United States'. Tens of millions of dollars in cash, delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and shopping bags to the office of Hamid Karzai for more than a decade. 'Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drugs trade and in some case the Taliban'. Laughably at the same time Karzai was also receiving bags of cash from Iran! According to one American official, the CIA were supporting the same networks that US diplomats and the FBI were struggling to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organized crime! As another poster noted, Afghanistan now supplies 90% of the worlds illegal heroin, a percentage that has increased massively over the last few years. The CIA have clearly played a major role in this, presumably they, and their paymasters, consider it tens of millions of dollars well spent! Meanwhile, the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have been paying the price, either coming home in a bodybag, or minus a limb or two. And the saddest thing of all is that the average man on the street doesn't express outrage, or demand accountability for this corruption, for fear of being labelled 'Unpatriotic'. "If you are not with us, you must be against us". That was the mantra as i recall. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

RE: Heroin

Who supplies 90% of worlds heroin. Mexico and Columbia supply the vast majority of US's heoin and I thought India was the largest producer and consumer of heroin.

RE: The US stuff

This is no revelation. Iran Contra, Columbia and etc. CIA and US has always funnelled money or weapons for influence or information. The article you quoted states:

"The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying."

We got ripped off. Duh, what did you expect dealin with folks like these.

What relevance is this to terrorists activities and declaring a spring offensive? Did US's misdirected money cause guys to fly planes into buildings? Seems like they would graciously accept the money and send us Christmas cards, not bombs or terrorists.

US does what they think is in the best interests of the US. Does it always work, no. Esecpially when you are dealing with people like these.

After the NATO forces occupation, opium production again became a major crop in Afghanistan. The arrival of NATO troops in Afghanistan only aggravated the situation, because coalition troops were instructed not to eradicate poppy crops for fear of driving the farmers into the ranks of the Taliban. The above is relevant to the OP as revenue generated from opium/heroin would be used to fuel the Taliban insurgency

Currently Russia has been identified as the largest per capita consumer of illegal heroin. Some 2.5 million Russians are addicted to drugs, and 90 percent of them use the heroin that has flooded into Russia from Afghanistan.

The Regional Breakdown for Heroin Consumption 2010:

Europe - 26% at 88 metric tons

Russia - 21% at 70 metric tons

China - 13% at 45 metric tons

Africa - 7% at 24 metric tons

U.S.A. & Canada - 6% at 21 metric tons

Pakistan - 6% at 21 metric tons

India - 5% at 17 metric tons

Southeast Asia - 5% at 17 metric tons

Iran - 5% at 17 metric tons

I guess I should google:

http://newsineye.blogspot.com/2012/03/indias-biggest-consumer-of-heroin-in.html?m=1

Damn, poor Russians. I guess Afghans are getting their revenge now billing killing millions of Russians slowly. Gotta hand it to those Afghans. They give the world terrorist and a boat load of heroin. Great contributions, great people!

simple1 · April 30, 2013

It's all about the money.

It's always about the money.......the cartels will do anything to ensure that the drugs keep flowing and if that includes encouraging Jihad then so be it.

The oxymoron is so great that it's breathtaking...........even under the so called iron grip rule of the Taliban pre-9/11, the drug trade was thriving. A brutal ultra-Wahibist sect in power selling drugs......I mean seriously, it's an oxymoron that defies belief.

It's all about the money, religion is a front, a handy weapon to keep the masses in a ferment while the cartels fill their boots up.

There are conflicting analysis on the Taliban ban on opium production. Many state that the Taliban ban on growing poppies was highly effective. Others pose a view that with Al Qaeda financial adviser guidance, the ban drove up prices from $40 a kilo to $400 a kilo thereby generating outstanding profits for the acquisition of weapons. The product was stored in Taliban controlled warehouses. Also it is alleged the poppy growing areas switched to territory controlled by the Northern Alliance (US supported warlords). You can easily claim, that besides "following the money", opium production in Afghanistan is an effective economic weapon.

Some timeline info, analysis and impacts at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/narcotics-the-best-known-afghan-business/19715

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0700poppyban

maidu · April 30, 2013

It's Springtime, cherry blossoms in Tokyo and Wash.DC, May Pole community rites in Norway, Luau on the beach in Hawaii, Flower Festivals around the world. Yet, in Afghanistan, Spring is the time to announce another military offensive. It's like shooting off your foot to save money by only buying one shoe instead of a pair.

Potosi · April 30, 2013

It's all about the money.

It's always about the money.......the cartels will do anything to ensure that the drugs keep flowing and if that includes encouraging Jihad then so be it.

The oxymoron is so great that it's breathtaking...........even under the so called iron grip rule of the Taliban pre-9/11, the drug trade was thriving. A brutal ultra-Wahibist sect in power selling drugs......I mean seriously, it's an oxymoron that defies belief.

The Taliban ruled for 7 years only. Towards the end of their rule, Opium production was reduced by 99%. Maybe their only positive achievement, but at least one.

The claim that the Taliban are the sole producers of Opium/Heroin is a lie. Most is under control of Karzai, and of warlords allied with him and the foreign allies. They allow their allies to make money in drugs in exchange for their allegiance.

Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan and scroll down to 'Present War in Afghanistan'.

The situation is seriously screwed. Expect a further dramatic rise in Opium production after the retreat of the allies.

Scott · April 30, 2013

The topic is about the spring offensive declared by the Taliban. The issue of heroin production is interesting, but probably a side issue, although very interesting.

If you are going to stray from the topic, then please keep your comments civil and the discussion constructive.

SteeleJoe · April 30, 2013

Cool. Bring in the drones and stomp them out.
2000 years of history tell us that no invaders were able to occupy Afghanistan for a lengthy period. that applied to Alexander the Great, Genkhis Khan, the Mughals, the British Empire and last not least the former mighty Soviet Union who's armed forces got àss kicked by rag wearing Jihadis.

using drones might not work either. they might be useful to kill innocent civilians but quite inefficient to "stomp out" the Taleban.

p.s. it is good to know that no tax dollars of mine are used to pay for launching drones which fire hellfire missiles (each costing $58,000).

A couple of minor quibbles...

1) If history were a reliable guide of what military force can or cannot do forever more, then the world would be a very different place than it is now. It's odd to me how often otherwise intelligent and educated people repeat this cliched meme. As it happens counterinsurgency is extremely difficult ANYWHERE and while there are geographical, cultural and political factors that make Afghanistan extremely difficult if not impossible to shape into something more palatable to the rest of the world - especially given that no one wants to do what that would require - it's absurdly simplistic to suggest that somehow it's a magical place that alone of any region in the world can't ever be conquered and that we know that based on various strategic circumstances over centuries, each vastly different from any that exist now.

2) Rag wearing Jihadis? Hardly. They dressed as Afghanistan locals do (with the occasional excpetion of the Arab fighters) and they were EXTREMELY well funded and equipped. (I'm reminded of the equally false rhetoric about the communist forces in Vietnam).

3) There are some very legitimate questions about the policy behind the use of drones and no one with any real knowledge would deny that there are inherent limitation as to what they can or can't do. It is also an undeniable fact that innocents have been killed by them and some would argue that is intolerable regardless of anything else. However, it is ridiculously inaccurate to suggest that killing innocent civilians is all or even primarily what they've done or that they have been otherwise ineffective.

SteeleJoe · April 30, 2013

The Soviets actually executed the most ingenious military operation since Otto Skorzeny...

At about the same time, the Americans tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. How did that go?

Absurd comparison. Truly.

Sign In

Afghan Taliban Declare Spring Offensive Again Coalition Troops

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US