Afghan Taliban's brazen attack eclipses Trump's "mother of all bombs"

By Josh Smith and Hamid Shalizi

REUTERS

 

Afghan national Army (ANA) troops keep watch near the site of an ongoing attack on an army headquarters in Mazar-i-Sharif, northern Afghanistan April 21, 2017. REUTERS/Anil Usyan

 

KABUL (Reuters) - Eight days after the U.S. military dropped its largest ever conventional bomb on suspected Islamic State fighters in eastern Afghanistan, Taliban militants breached an army base in the north of the country and killed scores of local soldiers.

 

To Afghan and other critics of President Donald Trump's apparent indecision over how to win a seemingly intractable war, Friday's assault - the worse of its kind since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 - was evidence he was getting it wrong.

 

"The biggest threat to the security and stability of this country is the Taliban insurgents, not Daesh forces," said Mirwais Yasini, an influential Afghan member of parliament from Nangarhar province, using an Arabic term for Islamic State.

 

"You drop your biggest bomb on Daesh, but what about the Taliban who kill dozens of our people every day?"

 

The American military command in Kabul did not respond to a request for comment, but in the wake of the base attack the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, promised to "continue to stand" with Afghan security forces.

 

Nearly 9,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, some 7,000 of them to train and assist local forces that Washington has spent billions of dollars to build virtually from scratch in the hope of one day handing over control completely.

 

While the advisers are seldom involved in direct combat with the Taliban or other militants, a smaller counter-terrorism unit of about 1,500 soldiers does engage insurgents, but its main targets are pockets of al Qaeda and Islamic State fighters.

 

They are estimated to number in their hundreds, while the Taliban number thousands or tens of thousands and have gained swathes of territory in the last few years.

 

Islamic State has claimed several deadly bombings in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan, but many experts believe the Taliban are the fundamental threat to the U.S.-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani.

 

Leaders in Washington and Kabul often had "almost diametrically" opposed views of the threat, said Christopher Kolenda, a former U.S. Army officer who served in Afghanistan and worked on American strategies for the conflict.

 

U.S. officials tended to focus on international groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda, while Afghan officials see Pakistan, and the Taliban as an extension of that, as the major threat, he added.

 

"With those differences, you can't possibly have a coherent strategy."

 

In the final years of former U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, American troops in Afghanistan were discouraged from directly targeting the Taliban, amid hopes the group could be brought to the negotiating table for peace talks.

 

"The Obama administration was very much existing in a parallel universe where if you don't call the Taliban terrorists then there's a chance you can reconcile with them," said Ioannis Koskinas, senior fellow with think-tank New America.

 

UNCERTAIN STRATEGY

 

Despite a surge of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers that ended in 2012, some Afghan officials became impatient with what they saw as an American fixation on withdrawal, and since then, a lack of focus on ending the war.

 

They say the lack of attention has continued in the first months of the new Trump administration, which has yet to appoint an ambassador to Kabul and some of the supporting officials at the State Department.

 

"It's very hard to have a coordinated policy and strategy when you don't have positions filled," Kolenda said. "From the Trump administration standpoint, Afghanistan is pretty far down the list of priorities."

 

In Kabul, some Afghan leaders are angry at what they see as a failure by the Americans to act as strongly as possible against the Taliban, as well as Pakistan, which they accuse of harbouring and supporting insurgents as a hedge against Indian influence in the region.

 

Pakistan denies this and instead says it is itself a victim of terrorism, including from groups operating from within Afghanistan.

 

"The Taliban are the single biggest challenge in the country, but unfortunately since the regime's collapse, the United States and the Afghan government have not had a clear strategy to eliminate them or push them to negotiation," said Mohammad Farhad Sediqi, a member of parliament from Kabul.

 

"As you dropped the 'Mother of All Bombs' on Daesh, there should be one dropped on the Taliban sanctuaries and training grounds on the other side of the border in Pakistan."

 

Some statements by incoming U.S. officials have hinted they may take a harder line on Pakistan, but the Trump administration has yet to outline clearly new strategies for the region.

 

LOST TERRITORY

 

Analysts say the recent U.S.-endorsed strategy of focusing on protecting major cities and other population centres in Afghanistan while consolidating forces will not be enough to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

 

With Afghan army units pulling back, and in some cases forced to abandon more scattered and rural bases, the government could only claim to control or influence 57 percent of the country, according to U.S. military estimates late last year.

 

Resurgent Taliban forces, meanwhile, control or contest 43 percent of the country, a 15 percent increase over the year before.

 

"In what universe does that not matter?" Koskinas said. "Territory means resources for them. You're giving away all the smuggling routes and opium and all the things that are enriching the Taliban and fueling the insurgency."

 

Retaking territory lost to the Taliban will be key to turning the tide, Koskinas said.

 

"At this point we almost don't need to talk about safe havens in Pakistan, because they have safe havens in Afghanistan."

 

(Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-24

Another Anti Trump hit piece from Reuters.

1 hour ago, Crowes said:

Another Anti Trump hit piece from Reuters.

Can you refute anything in the article?

Another Anti Trump hit piece from Reuters.

If it is bashing anyone it reads more negative towards the Obama administration than the Trump administration. Trump's problem is all the daft promises he made during the campaign.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Reading this bring back memories of another no win conflict America was in, sending advisers and troops to train solders VIETNAM ! that time it was in the guise of stopping communsim

Tech shit is not always the most effective! Simplicity sometimes wins also.

5 hours ago, tracker1 said:

Reading this bring back memories of another no win conflict America was in, sending advisers and troops to train solders VIETNAM ! that time it was in the guise of stopping communsim

Amazing how old enemies of yester year can become today's best buds. Trump has invited the Viet Nam Prime Minister for a visit in the upcoming weeks. I think the following is on their tour

8 hours ago, Crowes said:

Another Anti Trump hit piece from Reuters.

Maybe but never the less true.

7 hours ago, pee paub said:

Can you refute anything in the article?

its a clearly disingenuous piece aimed at making Mr Trump look ineffective on terror.

 

Still early days.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if plans are being drawn up to respond as we speak….but these cockroaches hide among women and children

so won't be easy...

It's a no-win situation. They have been fighting each other long before the USA  got involved.

1 minute ago, how241 said:

It's a no-win situation. They have been fighting each other long before the USA  got involved.

The fight dates back to the Russian invasion. The USA channeled Saudi military aid and its own into Afghanistan. The Americans largely followed the Saudis advice on who to arm. Naturally the Saudis chose Islamic fanatics. Hence the rise of the Taliban. Thank you Ronald Reagan. And Reagan did worse. And once it became clear that the Russians were going to withdraw, he and George H.W. Bush lost interest and gave the Saudis a chance to make further inroads.

Eventually, the Americans will go home and the Taliban will take over the country, until then we will senselessly go on killing a bunch of nobody's.

If there is a difference between the rent a government in power and the Taliban, I can't see it.

2 minutes ago, johna said:

Eventually, the Americans will go home and the Taliban will take over the country, until then we will senselessly go on killing a bunch of nobody's.

If there is a difference between the rent a government in power and the Taliban, I can't see it.

There is a big difference - the U.S. does not go about killing its own people (except with the tacit backing of the NRA) in its own country.  

11 minutes ago, johna said:

Eventually, the Americans will go home and the Taliban will take over the country, until then we will senselessly go on killing a bunch of nobody's.

If there is a difference between the rent a government in power and the Taliban, I can't see it.

Current President of Afghanistan has a fairly impressive background. Must be nightmare to try and stabilise the country and govern whilst navigating through all the competing tribal and ethnic loyalties, massive corruption, endemic narcotics addiction and production, bordering countries interference etc, etc,  etc

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Ghani

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

its a clearly disingenuous piece aimed at making Mr Trump look ineffective on terror.

 

Still early days.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if plans are being drawn up to respond as we speak….but these cockroaches hide among women and children

so won't be easy...

Well, the Trump administration brought this on themselves by publicizing the dropping of this bomb. As a general pointed out, the reason that the bomb was dropped was because it's best and possibly only use is to destroy shallow tunnels and caves. There is very rarely a need for it. I believe that this was the first it was ever used in combat. It's not strategically significant. Just like the attack on the Syrian air force base.

When will you guys realise neither Iraq or Afghanistan are Norway, where you can just mop up the baddies and expect a civil government and rule of law, democracy in your wildest dreams, because the populace is not ready for any of that or willing to bow to it, to take over just like that?

There are just two options in that rather mountainous not-at-all state, where even the Russian army failed miserably for some two decades and pulled out tail between their legs: be prepared to stay in there for at least half a century with more or less half your army, or forget about it. This is a Muslim non-state, if there ever was one, it hardly ever is going to be a state in the sense of the word again. Even in what is commonly "Pakistan" there are tribal areas where no central government holds sway. Deal with it, bomb terrorist camps, but don't waste resources there.

 

Sorry for the people, sorry for refugees from there, but there is nothing the "West" can do for them, unless they remedy things themselves.

How many times did Trump shout in the microphone, "I have a secret plan, folks, to destroy ISIS and all terrorists.  The moment I take office, you'll see a big big turn-around.  Believe me."

Afghanistan is still a tribal country with the drug lords as well who likely support the terrorists, so  I do not see any improvement in this country in my lifetime. To bad about the talibans successful attack though, guess they need more bombs in the mountains.

Geezer

                      The US may have to take some steps back and conclude; some parts of the world, particularly in M.East and north/central-west Africa are just going to be controlled by idiotic mean-spirited people.  It's a tough realization to fathom, but look at their histories.  

 

                            The US has its own problems, particularly with a dufus as head honcho, but it's just not feasible for Uncle Sam to force certain other countries to embrace decent leaders - who can lead their countries without constant problems from other factions.   

 

In sum, places like Afghanistan (and Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, N.Korea, ad nauseum) are going to be saddled with crappy leaders for the forseeable future.  It's like having a retarded sibling.  We're just going to have to accept it as best we can, warts and all.   Afghanistan is never going to be Arizona or New Mexico.  

Afghanistan, like some of the other countries, is very, very tribal in nature and the various tribes and factions are a law unto themselves.   They do not recognize the geopolitical boundaries or sense of national identity in the same way that many citizens of countries do.  

 

It doesn't make a lot of difference who the leaders are, you cannot lead people who will not follow and many of these groups will not follow.   They have their own leaders whom they follow.  

 

It's a lot like herding cats.  

37 minutes ago, Scott said:

Afghanistan, like some of the other countries, is very, very tribal in nature and the various tribes and factions are a law unto themselves.   They do not recognize the geopolitical boundaries or sense of national identity in the same way that many citizens of countries do.  

 

It doesn't make a lot of difference who the leaders are, you cannot lead people who will not follow and many of these groups will not follow.   They have their own leaders whom they follow.  

 

It's a lot like herding cats.  

Exactly. Purposely bad reporting doesn't help. The so called Taliban are I fact the Pushtuns. They makeup the largest ethnic group there. Over 1/3 of the population. This is a civil war that promises to go on indefinitely. Better to just divide the country otherwise this killing goes on for ever.  

https://ericmargolis.com/2016/10/afghanistan-fools-war/

 

On 4/24/2017 at 7:10 AM, pee paub said:

Can you refute anything in the article?

Try this one.

 

On 4/24/2017 at 6:00 AM, webfact said:

"You drop your biggest bomb on Daesh, but what about the Taliban who kill dozens of our people every day?"

 

 

Trump didn't start the war in Afghanistan, and he is after ISIS, what Taliban does to Afghans is the least of his concerns

On 4/24/2017 at 4:07 PM, lvr181 said:

There is a big difference - the U.S. does not go about killing its own people (except with the tacit backing of the NRA) in its own country.  

LMAO !