Taliban might replicate IS success after western troop withdrawal: Expert

[webfact]

Taliban Might Replicate IS Success After Western Troop Withdrawal: Expert

WASHINGTON, October 28 (RIA Novosti) - The Taliban might repeat Islamic State (IS) accomplishment after the NATO force pullout unless the Afghan government learns Iraq's lessons, Bradley Moss, national security lawyer has told RIA Novosti.

"If the Afghans make the same mistakes that were made by the Iraqi Government after the US withdrawal in 2011, it would be rather easy to see the Taliban replicating in Afghanistan the success of ISIL in Iraq," Moss warned in the wake of the ongoing western troops pullout from the country.

The drug trade has not been eradicated and the central Afghan Government still has a lot to prove about its ability to effectively govern beyond Kabul, particularly in the rural areas, he explained.

Moss stressed that the continued drawdown of remaining Coalition Forces in Afghanistan serves as a stark reminder that the writing is on the wall for the Afghan Government.

"After 13 years of supported operations, the day is drawing closer and closer when the Afghan Army will have to largely handle the counter-offensive against the Taliban – as well as the stabilization of the country at large – without Western assistance," he explained.

"One can only hope that the extensive resources provided, as well as sacrifices made by the Coalition Forces, will not have been in vain," Moss stated.

Full story: http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20141028/194707803/Taliban-Might-Replicate-IS-Success-After-Western-Troop.html

-- RIA Novosti 2014-10-28

[Anthony5]

Good thing, withdraw the troops and all Western workers as soon as possible, and let them kill each other. Ever heard of the "far from my bed" phrase?

That is what Western governments should keep in mind, it is only their issue when the get involved.

[NeverSure]

I never understood why, if the US and allies were going to have a campaign in Afghan, they didn't spray herbicide on those opium poppy fields and cut off the Taliban's cash flow.

It seems as if every time we engage someone we now do it with one hand tied behind our backs. It's either war or it isn't.

So which is it?

[puck2]

Herbicides .... like agent orange ???

[puck2]

Before the US and their allies started the Irak invasion the late and famous German journalist Peter Scholl-Latour, a Middle East expert and longtime war reporter, predicted that the Islamism will be the winner.

He also said, you cannot win the war in Afghanistan by weapons against religion, partisans and old (square) culture, because not adopted to this kind of war. Just before dying (this year, ~90 years old) he told an Afghanistan panel of the Bundestag (German parliament) "The Afghanistan War is lost - we should admit it."

And some of his other remarcable words. Now he wouldn't leave Kabul without any protection, it got so dangerous. So you can guess how dangerous it is now to do a job there. The election was only a "ballot-fetishism", the slates are dominated by the war lords. The West with its troups didn't learn anything from the Russian fiasco. Leave the faite of Afghanistan to the Afghans. In a nutshell, forget the troups and NGOs.

My idea ... Wasted money and - more important - sacrifice of lives of so many innocent people for nothing.

[hawker9000]

Good thing, withdraw the troops and all Western workers as soon as possible, and let them kill each other. Ever heard of the "far from my bed" phrase?

That is what Western governments should keep in mind, it is only their issue when the get involved.

The problem is, the muslim cult tentacles reach out to countries everywhere, and kill people in NYC, Oklahoma, UK, Ottawa, etc.... Troops WERE removed from Iraq, against the best military advice, and of course the U.S. rejected out of hand any idea of sending troops to Syria against Assad (red lines notwithstanding), but ISIS actually WANTS our troops over there, and carries out its beheadings of our citizens, and encourages lone wolves to act, as provocation to try and make that happen! So we should repeat this debacle in Afghanistan with the Taliban?

I would truly love to believe in what you say. It's hard to imagine a worse situation into which to introduce our serving men & women. But events have shown it's just not the way things work to think we can sit back and say it's "far from my bed". Does it have to actually be your own friend or relative who's beheaded or murdered before you consider the violence close to home???

[Kerryd]

Having worked (and by extension, lived) in Afghanistan for a little over 10 years (from fall 2003 until now minus a 9 month break between contracts) I have not the slightest bit of hope for this country after we (the "west") leaves here. In fact, the (unofficial) betting pool has already been running for how long it will take the Taliban to take over (again) after the last of the western troops leave.

The popular opinion is - less than a year (until they are in control of the whole country).

13 years of blood, sweat, tears, training and financing will be erased in the blink of an eye. In all that time, corruption has not been reduced at all. The drug production still provides an estimated 80% of the European heroin market. There is NO domestic industry aside from some low level subsistence farming. There is virtually NO government revenue (95% of ALL government expenditures are financed by the west). That means, when we leave the Afghan government will have to try and figure out how to run the country and pay their people on 5% of the money they currently budget every year.

People that aren't even getting paid their $5 a day salary are not likely to be willing to lay their lives on the line defending their country. Especially not for a government they have little faith in. Especially not against fellow Muslims. Especially not against fellow tribesmen.

I've (jokingly) recommended that the US plant explosives under every building/facility/runway on the Kandahar Air Field so that this time next year, all they have to do is send a coded message from a satellite and boom ! One less problem to deal with.

This is a country where religion comes first and foremost, period. Family and tribalism come a distant second. Nationalism is so far down the list they probably don't even have a word for it (of course, it would take proper schools and education for them to understand that idea any ways, and that isn't going to happen soon either). (I was being facetious of course, as they no doubt do have a word for Nationalism, as in "One nation under Allah" or something to that effect.)

When we were in Croatia and Bosnia in the early 90's, I said it would take 20 years of peace before you would see tangible results. You need to have an entire generation of children grow up in an "war-free" environment, with a sense of security and hope. Education, jobs and goals go a long way in turning people from the idea that war solves everything. Judging by some of the Bosnians I see working over here (the ones in their 30s/40s) they still have a ways to go as that generation is but a cross word or angry stare away from going back to war again. Hopefully the generation currently in their late teens/early 20s will have a different outlook on things.

Afghanistan never got to have that period of peace though. It didn't have the infrastructure in place when the west invaded in 2001, thanks in large part to the previous Russian occupation and war to drive them out, followed by the internal civil war that eventually lead to the Taliban controlling most of the country. Poorly educated people with no jobs and few options make easy pickings for the religious leaders. People who grew up only knowing violence and only receiving guidance from their religious leaders, are not easily turned from their paths later in life.

Those leaders want, nay, need to keep their followers poor and uneducated in order to foster future generations of the same. That is why they burn the schools as fast as the west builds them. They destroy the hospitals, roads and bridges built by the west so that the people have to depend on them. Any who should speak out against them are killed both as a lesson to others and to instill fear. It doesn't matter that they are "good" Muslims (and that the Koran says you aren't supposed to kill other "good" Muslims), all they have to do is claim they are (heretics/infidels/possessed/spies/etc) and that makes it all OK ! Poor dumb people make much better cannon fodder (and suicide bombers) than people who can think for themselves, have decent jobs and hope for the future.

There is no one in this country strong enough to take charge and throw off the shackles of religion, and until someone comes along that can do so, this place will remain a festering pile of violence and oppression. It is sad because I have met some "good" Afghanis here. Just ordinary men that want to work and provide for their families, no different than millions of men in the west or other places. Condemned to a life of poverty and violence by the same people they look to for guidance and inspiration. Sad too because once upon a time, this was actually a decent place apparently. I'm talking back in the 60s/70s. Women went to school, shared classrooms with men, dressed in modern fashions. Tourists (including loads of "hippies") travelled freely about the country. Ancient monuments weren't being blown to bits by religious zealots.

One thing that is so scary about places like this, is the way that certain groups of people in other countries seem to think that they would be better off if their governments based their policies on religion as well. There were very definite reasons why the western countries finally forced a separation between church and state. Unfortunately those reasons seem to be forgotten, especially by people whose main inspirations seem to come from the same people that would like to see the church run the state as it used to in days of old.

If those places ever succeed in installing religious-based governments, it won't be long until they too end up somewhere between Pakistan/Iran and Afghanistan/Iraq/Sudan/Libya/etc, etc as far as violence and oppression (and regression) are concerned.Those places should be shining examples of exactly why religious-based governments are a bad idea but the sheep are too blind, and too stupid, to realize it. Just the way their religious leaders like them......

[EnglishJohn]

This truly is a war on religion - but by Islam against non-Islam. Nobody will say it of course because one criticism in the wrong direction means half a dozen non-Muslims will get murdered somewhere around the world.

If you read up on the war in Afghanistan, you quickly realise the Afghans could teach Thailand a few things about corruption. The massive aid we will no doubt be supplying will make a few generals very wealthy and powerful. They will not, however, bother to actually fight Taliban if they can avoid it. Better to get the weapons and sell them - maybe even to the terrorists.

Meanwhile the usual victims - the ordinary, innocent folk - will be the ones who suffer at the hands of these people. They will grow to hate the West for simply abandoning them. Anyone who actually helped the Allies will have to leave the country or get murdered.

Meanwhile I keep reading that the support which makes all of this possible is mainly from Saudia Arabia. However they have lots of oil so we never hear much about that.

We either go to war or we don't. Our soldiers cannot fire unless actually fired upon otherwise they risk being charged with murder so Taliban walk around freely with weapons concealed until they are ready. They send kids out wearing suicide jackets and detonate by remote control. It is not possible to wage a 'politically correct' war and win. One UK soldier shoots a dying Taliban after a battle and it is all over the press for weeks - and he goes to jail. ISIS murder thousands including beheadings of children (boys and girls) and it barely even makes the news - and when it does it is dressed up neat and clean like chicken in a supermarket so as not to upset people.

What a monumental <deleted> up this world is today.

[puck2]

Having worked (and by extension, lived) in Afghanistan for a little over 10 years (from fall 2003 until now minus a 9 month break between contracts) I have not the slightest bit of hope for this country after we (the "west") leaves here. In fact, the (unofficial) betting pool has already been running for how long it will take the Taliban to take over (again) after the last of the western troops leave.

.............

Dear Kerry, thank you very much for your insight into the cruel reality of Afghan life and into the background.

[JockPieandBeans]

WASHINGTON, October 28 (RIA Novosti) - The Taliban might repeat Islamic State (IS) accomplishment after the NATO force pullout unless the Afghan government learns Iraq's lessons, Bradley Moss, national security lawyer has told RIA Novosti.

Perhaps this so called Security Expert, could tell the world how many of the AP and ANA are infact also members of the Taliban ?

What a clown.

Kerry D

Well said.

[simple1]

I never understood why, if the US and allies were going to have a campaign in Afghan, they didn't spray herbicide on those opium poppy fields and cut off the Taliban's cash flow.

It seems as if every time we engage someone we now do it with one hand tied behind our backs. It's either war or it isn't.

So which is it?

Since 2002 the US has invested US$7.5 billion on counter narcotics, with very minimal success. An extract from a report below.

"While eradication accounted for a significant component of US counter-narcotics strategy during the mid-2000s, the US-led coalition shifted away from it in recent years, owing to a conclusion that crop destruction drove farmers and those dependent on them into the hands of the Taliban".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/afghan-opium-production-explodes-billions-spent-us-report

[Bwanatickey]

So We won the war on Drugs, or was it Terror.

[MJP]

Okay, let them kill each other, but have extremely well defended green areas and refugee camps to accept the non-combatants, women and children.

Here's Afghanistan in the 1960's . . .

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/1960s-afghanistan#1

http://www.upworthy.com/afghanistan-in-the-1960s-prepare-to-be-very-very-surprised

<deleted> happened?

[bigjules007]

What puzzles me is that Saudi Arabia actually have 700 war planes at there disposal, so why dont they use there own planes?why have we sent 6 planes out there? totally futile operation, we need to learn from previous mistakes and get the hell out of there, the western world needs to stop fighting other peoples wars. It makes the country poorer and the warmongers richer, the whole thing stinks.

Edited November 1, 2014 by bigjules007

[Lissos]

What puzzles me is that Saudi Arabia actually have 700 war planes at there disposal, so why dont they use there own planes?

why have we sent 6 planes out there?

the western world needs to stop fighting other peoples wars.

I believe you already know the answer to your first two questions, BigJules. Gulf Arab nations are simply clever enough to sit back and watch, playing a waiting game, knowing full well that the west will eventually step forward first and expend their lives and our hardware, letting strong regional players off the hook. All they have to do is be patient enough, knowing that leaders in our nations can't help ourselves and are compelled by some strange tractor beam of white man's burden to dive in and get involved in trying to solve out what others shy away from intentionally, for self preservation. Lobbing endless amounts of cash towards those projects is what they do because they are swimming in it, so it is no loss for them.

Living in ivory towers, nobody in their nations dies in their global game of chess played out in air conditioned palaces eating dates and burning the luxury grade al-lubbān while western troops on the ground do all the donkey work and are maimed as western economies are bled dry by the operations being bogged down in a quagmire of damage limitation. We've got to hand it to them, the Gulf nations are smart chess players.

Long term strategy, using proxies to do their dirty work for them, is what they do best. I see today that the FCO has essentially warned the British public that we are now at super high risk of terrorism everywhere in the world because of air strikes on ISIS. Many of our troops believed the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were to keep us safe back at home. Today, the FCO says we're all now at the highest risk we've ever been.

[Lissos]

Here's Afghanistan in the 1960's . . .

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/1960s-afghanistan#1

http://www.upworthy.com/afghanistan-in-the-1960s-prepare-to-be-very-very-surprised

It is always interesting to see photos from that time, but I'm not sure if they prove what some people tend to believe that they prove. In almost every photo you see there, the kind of uber conservative Islam that exists there today, is shadowing everything. It was there and was always there, deep rooted, just as it is in the bulk of Egypt while liberal students of both sexes facebook each other in Cairo and hang out together in coffee shops.

During the uprisings in Egypt, the western media was only interested in talking to those, not the majority, the every day Egyptian. It wanted to show that Egypt wants the West and all things West, when in actual fact it doesn't (hence the overwhelming victory of the MB). Neither Cairo in 2011 or Kabul in the 60s represented the rest of the country, nor did the opulent jet setting era of the Shah in Iran represent the rest of Iran.

It could be said that the secular appearance we see in those 60s photos was evidence not of a local majority going through a natural evolution, but the fiddlings by a leadership that was starting to align itself with Soviet Russia in all sorts of ways and trying to change Afghan culture in the same way that our nations were trying to do in the last 13 years. Outside of the Kabul Elite, Afghans will have looked on at that in the 60s with anxiety and various forms of resistance, in a culture where men expect to rule and expect women to know their worth and their place in the home. I visited Afghanistan in 2003, non miltary and with nobody sending me there. I can only agree with others here that although there are Afghans who are interested in the sort of alterations attempted for the last 13 years, the bulk of the culture there was, and still does, fiercely defend the status quo.

Afghan culture had a rich deep heritage of admirable art, music and poetry, but all resting upon a profound Islamic conservatism that many who admire the former, may not find so admirable. After the brain drain exodus of some of the best, for the most part only that raw foundation persists.

[simple1]

Pakistani intelligence (ISI) were / are using cash supplied by Arabs (I presume also aid monies from the West) to provide cash rewards for members of the Taliban & other terrorist networks in Afghanistan for killing ISAF forces, equivalent to more than a years’ income for each ISAF member killed. ISI officers also provide targeting info, safe haven, training, re-supplies etc etc.

After ISAF forces withdrawal has been completed, if the commitments are kept by the donors, someone around US$15 billion in civilian aid over the next four years; plus funding for the Afghan military, has been committed to assist with transitioning / rebuilding Afghanistan. Agreed at the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan, URL below.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18758148

When one reads books / reports by ex-serving military in Afghanistan they all say the Taliban are dedicated fighters and without overwhelming fire power would have been in a fair amount of strife. I understand Afghan military will still have access to US airpower, but what about meaningful medivac timelines for those injured?

Perhaps kerryd may like to provide some input of whether the non-Pashtun ethnic groups – 55% of the population – are represented in the Afghan security forces & government in any meaningful numbers. Is Afghanistan still heavily divided along ethnic lines with the resultant oppression by Pashtuns & the serious challenges for national cohesion?

Edited November 1, 2014 by simple1

[Lissos]

"Chief of Defence Staff General Sir Nick Houghton says "primary strategic purpose" in Afghanistan had been achieved of making UK streets safer" ~ BBC

According to the MI5 website, right now, the current threat level from interntional terrorism for Britain is - "severe", one notch below 'critical'.

If he wanted to show respect on rememberance sunday, he should have kept his mouth shut (IMO) rather than use this opportunity for spin.

[umbanda]

I never understood why, if the US and allies were going to have a campaign in Afghan, they didn't spray herbicide on those opium poppy fields and cut off the Taliban's cash flow.

It seems as if every time we engage someone we now do it with one hand tied behind our backs. It's either war or it isn't.

So which is it?

Wrong...Before the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban Government punished the grow of opium in the country, and also prostitution was punished. The Taliban Government was a very conservative Muslim regime. Too conservative sometimes. I agree, but opium, prostitution, crime, corruption, fraud, etc, etc, was what the US brought back to Afghanistan with the excuse to end with Al Queda and terrorism. After the US invasion, Al Queda and Taliban supported the opium trade and heroin export to finance the resistance and terrorism, but also westerners drug dealers got into the opium business, and many western companies in the corrupted "reconstruction business".

That's the legacy the US will leave to the Afghan people after 13 years of ocupation with the excuse to find Bin Laden. Anyway....all that waste of lives and money will be in vain.

The Taliban, like it or not, will regain control of is country. Sooner or later. I hope the US will learn some day to leave other cultures alone with its problems, and take care of his own people.

Edited November 9, 2014 by umbanda

[Lissos]

That's the legacy the US will leave to the Afghan people after 13 years of ocupation with the excuse to find Bin Laden.

Calling it an occupation is not how I'd define it.

The Taliban, like it or not, will regain control of is country.

It may regain control of Afghanistan, but to refer to Afghanistan as "its" country (if that was your intention) is a half truth.

A friend of mine even referred to them as a National Liberation Movement, something I don't believe is an accurate label.

[japsportscarmad]

I never understood why, if the US and allies were going to have a campaign in Afghan, they didn't spray herbicide on those opium poppy fields and cut off the Taliban's cash flow.

It seems as if every time we engage someone we now do it with one hand tied behind our backs. It's either war or it isn't.

So which is it?

Wrong...Before the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban Government punished the grow of opium in the country, and also prostitution was punished. The Taliban Government was a very conservative Muslim regime. Too conservative sometimes. I agree, but opium, prostitution, crime, corruption, fraud, etc, etc, was what the US brought back to Afghanistan with the excuse to end with Al Queda and terrorism. After the US invasion, Al Queda and Taliban supported the opium trade and heroin export to finance the resistance and terrorism, but also westerners drug dealers got into the opium business, and many western companies in the corrupted "reconstruction business".

That's the legacy the US will leave to the Afghan people after 13 years of ocupation with the excuse to find Bin Laden. Anyway....all that waste of lives and money will be in vain.

The Taliban, like it or not, will regain control of is country. Sooner or later. I hope the US will learn some day to leave other cultures alone with its problems, and take care of his own people.

The problem with Afghanistan is it's impossible to achieve your goal, the Russians who weren't tied by human rights legislation like us couldn't and had to withdraw, we supported the mujaheddin?? against the Russians and armed them did they then become the Taliban?

Edited November 9, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[Lissos]

the Russians who weren't tied by human rights legislation like us couldn't and had to withdraw

Yet that withdrawal was for reasons similar to ISAF withdrawing. Our popular narrative in Europe and the US is that the Russians were mauled so decisively that they fled with their tails between their legs, but that is fantasy and is what jihadis believe they managed. Rather, just as with ISAF today, it ended up as a stalemate situation. Militarily the Russians won continous battles and inflicted far more damage on their opponent than their opponents inflicted on the Russians, as did ISAF, but the overall 'point' of each war and the financial cost of it began to increasingly be questioned back home. It was hugely unpopular, and politicians could only ignore that up to a point, as has happened back here in Europe and the U.S

In this sense I agree with you that this is the problem with Afghanistan. It is so fiercely protective of the status quo in the culture, it has a bottomless pit of will power and fodder to keep on with no matter how long it takes and no matter how many 'martyrs' are shovelled forward in order to live up to something in its cultural mythology that it 'repels all comers' no matter how long it takes. It is a mythology that may end up with the country dragged into total destitution, but all they care about is the 'strength to repel' mythology. I believe that ISAF recognised there can be no 'total' victory there.

'If' the core point was to destroy al Qaeda camps, then they managed that (or at least kicked it down the road to re-appear in other parts of the world) and did that in a very short time, but then it got bogged down trying to reconstruct Afghanistan in its image. Opening a few girl's schools? I'm sure it was appreciate by girls, but 13 years and 19 billion pounds for a few token schools and building projects out in highly conservative areas?

Vladimir Putin, the wiley fox that he is, ultimately understood how to solve Chechnya. Instead of total overwhelming military strength from afar that only bleeds a nation dry each day, he poured resources into grooming a local young former militant then showered him with gifts, sports cars, palaces and all the bling he'd ever need, in return for him being - "our muslim strong man in the caucasus" who unleashes merciless dogs of war on any jihadists who want to combat Russia. Ramzan Kadyrov is that man, and thus far Putin's approach has worked. Kadyrov probably breaks every line of the geneva convention, but he wants to retain his goodies from Moscow and is willing to do absolutely anything to maintain his position.

It seems that for Putin, 'order' was his first priority for Chechnya.

For ISAF, a 'different' Afghanistan was their first priority, but eventually it switched to damage limitation instead.

I may be wrong.

[japsportscarmad]

No your right :-)