Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Routed Taliban flee territory north of Kandahar

GRAEME SMITH

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:30 PM EST 26/06/08

Despite Arghandab defeat, insurgents still capable of spectacular attacks in coming months, Canadian commander warns ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: All we know for sure from a local Afghan is that "Earlier in the week, he had seen 30 to 40 militants armed with assault rifles and rockets ride through the village on motorbikes." That would be the insurgent unit on its way to empty the Sarpoza prison, I expect.

    What we just saw had two parts:

    1) The insurgents wanted to make it doubly clear after the successful jailbreak that there is no security in Kandahar province and that they can strike any time they like. They have succeeded in spades.

    2) The humiliated Afghan government and embarrassed CF desperately tried to give the impression of a major counterblow against the Taliban.

    Except they only encountered a few Taliban (i.e., someone shot at them we are told); no one believes an Afghan government body count of enemy killed and wounded (the CF being significantly silent on the matter); the ANA went blundering in, and when they were shot at, the half of them who didn't run called in an airstrike, which killed someone, but we don't know who; but you can be sure the ANA was nowhere near the actual shooting.
  2. Chode Mcblob from Canada writes:
    Yup, victory is just around the corner...

    Support our Troops!

    BRING THEM HOME.

    No Blood for Oil.
  3. The Seeker from Toronto, Canada writes: Yay, we're winning again.

    What a season we are having...all the way to the championship.
  4. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: WAY TO GO CFB KANDAHAR!!!...GIVE 'EM HELL BOYS!!!!
  5. Dave Hasler from Canada writes: Such are the fortunes of an insurgent war. A force such as the Taliban can choose and plan carefully for each attack without maintaining a large presence in the field. They can "blend" in and more to positions. Spectacular single successes should be expected. Very small committment of resources compared to security forces in the opposition which by circumstance of numbers deploy thinly and respond to attacks post event.

    Having said that, the thinly spread deployment of NATO and the seemingly infrequent nature of the larger attacks may point to a Taliban that expends resources at an unfavorable rate during these operations and prefers to resort to low resource attacks such as bombs and suicide runs of some type.

    It may be wishful thinking to suggest the Taliban are running out of resources but it is safe to say the lack of significant activity shows a scarcity which works well in NATOs favor. Capitalizing on this scarcity however seems to be something NATO hasn't quite mastered yet.
  6. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: it's just so coooool to dis your country. Aren't we just the hippest people. soooo Like totally radical dude. Eh!
  7. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Were the Taliban really "routed" or did most of them get out while the going was good? One can be forgiven for believing the latter.
  8. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The prison break was a coup for the Taliban yes, but it was hardly a modern prison as people here might visualize. It had mud walls and a creek running through it - sometimes with mines floating in. Having had control of the area previously, the Taliban would be familiar with the layout and vulnerabilities of the prison which would make planning an attack fairly simple.

    While it appears that there has been some exageration of the numbers of insurgents sticking around after clearing out the villages, the contention that ANA members 'ran away' does not fit with what some of our soldiers have stated that they are ferocious fighters. They seem to have performed well in this situation and demonstrated that they are learning how to function as an effective military force.

    And as stated by Brig. Gen Thomspn, "The reality of the situation in Kandahar province is this: Taliban insurgents can cause temporary disruptions and intimidate the local population, but they cannot hold ground........."Every time we meet them on the field of battle, insurgents either flee or are destroyed."
  9. Dr Demento from Canada writes: If the prison in Kandahar was inadequate, why wasn't a new secure facility constructed since we are supposedly reconstructing Afghanistan's infrastructure . . . ?
  10. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax--are these your eye witness accounts and/or based on your own experiences in Afghanistan???
  11. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: R. M. from Regina: The above is my interpretation of events based on a study of Afghanistan's history and a close reading of current events.
  12. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: The Afghanistan National Army is learning. It is young and sees that the way that the Taliban can be defeated is by facing them. The Taliban/al qaeda terrorist murderers faced a determined foe and fled. They aren't holding ground and the people in the region are both fearful and tired of living under the threatening that comes from terrorist murderers. It would nice to see an accountinjg of the results of the battles. Seeing is believing. Military officials must be able to see the results and report on them. This is neither the time noir the place for fiction. Go troops. Go!
  13. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: It seems that "taking and holding territory" is not the insurgents' strategy; there is no way a concentrated force of them could hold anything for long against air and artillery bombardment. They tested that option in 2006 and paid dearly for it. Lessons learned.

    Instead they seem to be focusing on a strategy of creating a general sense of insecurity, by showing that they can suddenly strike anywhere, and with impunity. They are showing the locals that the opposing forces are either inept (the ANA and police) or spread too thin or unwilling to fight where they can't call in airstrikes (the foreigners).

    The most significant aspect of this current "occupation" is not that the ANA showed up, it is that once again, thousands of Afghan farm families have become temporary refugees--not so much from the Taliban, but from the threat of airstrikes and artillery fire.

    I think when NATO/ISAF commanders look back on this week and take stock, they will be forced to conclude that the losses far outweighed the gains--bodycounts notwithstanding.
  14. The Wight from Canada writes: Brendan Caron:

    "The Taliban/al qaeda terrorist murderers faced a determined foe and fled."

    This IS guerrilla warfare. You don't stick around to fight a superior foe unless you are retarded or have a death wish. The VC fled from virtually every encounter they had with US troops.
  15. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: We can expect to see many similar incidents - the Taliban striking out of the blue and then dispersing quickly (called fleeing by Khalid and his kind). The militants have learned that this war is mainly conducted from the air from which there is no escape, so they are inclined not to take refuge in houses but instead break up into very small groups and retreat to fight another day - in other words, they have adopted classic guerrila warfare.

    The figures for those killed vary wildly but whatever the figure no one knows for sure whether the body found is a civilian, a militant or terrorist. Anyone that thinks the insurgents are on their last legs has little idea how resilient the Afghan fighting for his own land can be. As for the Afghan army - it is an unknown quantity both in its resolve and capabilities over an extended period . Most probably it has been infiltrated by militants who are now gaining first hand intelligence as to the deployment of the occupation forces.

    Far too soon to know where all this going.....
  16. R L from Canada writes: The Taliban Afghans don't just sit around to get attacked; they're not that stupid. Most of them were probably long gone from these areas before the attack.

    But this is as good a time as any to just claim "we got 'em" and leave. Canada should not be there at "war" and spending billions of dollars helping out the NeoCon PNAC group to attain their geopolitical agenda.

    Why are we supporting other warlords, militants, etc. including the Karzai clan, and the Northern Alliance? These guys all believe in religious fundamentalism, stonings, etc. which is supposedly now why we are at war, or something (one of many stupid claims by the war propagandists)? Somehow we have been convinced that we are at war with the Taliban and should kill them like animals, for some reason about 9/11 which the Taliban were not responsible for.

    How's that pipeline coming along?
  17. Troy Ackerman from Canada writes: Actually David, the war is a mainly fought on the ground. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a constant cloud of aircraft circling the skies, ready to pounce. Most contact is initiated closer than 100m and a short and incredibly violent firefight ensues. Then as suddenly as it started, it stops. The enemy has gone and with him his dead and wounded. Perhaps aircraft will use their elevated position and optics to try and locate the enemy. But the idea that there are bombs falling all the time is ludicrous. The troops on the ground, the dismounted infantry, LAVs and their intimate support are the ones fighting and killing the enemy. And believe me, we always ensure that the target in our sights has a weapon and is firng at us before we hit them. David, your constant and uneducated assumptions as to how the war is being fought do you no favours.
  18. Bob Cajun from toronto, Canada writes: Well this has been a suprise - when did the ANA get the ability to deploy 1400 soldiers so fast? Will they be permanently stationed in the south? Will troop concentrations finally hit the level seen in Bosnia during the 90's?
  19. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: The evidence is that the Taliban have learned from their mistakes in 2006-07 and realize that determination isn't an antidote for NATO air power (without which neither the ANA or NATO can or will operate). They also realize that they alienated a lot of people when they were in power and have softened their position on girls education, music and beards etc. They are also playing up the incompetence and corruption of the government which getting worse not better. At best NATO is in an expensive stalemate and is in a terrible fix. The only likely solution to the insurgency is a political settlement that would bring the Taliban into the political process in return for a ceasefire but the chances of the US allowing Taliban commanders to sit in parliament (in a fair election they would win seats in several provinces) is nil so we are stuck with a gradually worsening fight without any end in sight and without a strategy to bring about a favorable solution.
  20. S Anderson from Canada writes: FT Ward

    Thats a pretty brave assumption that your making that the ANA or NATO will not operate without air support, care to provide a source for this information ? It would be nothing short of crazy to assume that every patrol or Strong Point or PSS has airpower readily avail, your statement is simply untrue.
  21. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Troy Ackerman - If I am to believe the military reports, the media and some of the troops own admissions that, as often as not, the clearing of houses suspected of holding insurgents who are firmly embedded is done not by troops breaking into the buildings but by calling up air strikes. A 500 pounder soon settles the matter. Now I want you to think - if that is not happening kindly explain why so many women and children are being killed? Surely not at the hands of Canadian troops?
  22. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: If you find yourself at war, negotiation has failed. Fight to win.

    If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

    If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading and maneuvering towards the enemy position. A war is to be won not negotiated.

    No one has ever won a U.N. led war. They are eternal stalemates with recurring periods of violence. Most directed against the civilian population.
  23. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: A army of 2,500 is accomplishing feats the russians could of only dreamed of , go get em boys. So much progress where are all the lets pull them out now supporters!
  24. Troy Ackerman from Canada writes: David, have you considered that the Taliban may have killed them. Yes, sometimes civilians get killed when going after a high level target with air delivered munitions. It is considered in great depth if the civilian losses can be reduced, but sometimes they aren't. As for your belief that women, children and elderly litter the battle field, you are wrong, very wrong. Visit a battlefield and have a look for yourself. Are you accusing CF troops of killing civilians when it can be prevented?
  25. The Phantom from Canada writes:

    GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW
  26. Mac the Knife from Canada writes: Some spin Nick Wright is putting on this story. Through his lens, the insurgents have "succeeded in spades," the Afghan Government has been "humiliated," the Canadian Forces have been "embarrassed," and, of course, the Afghan National Army "blundered in" and then half of them "ran away" when somebody shot at them. Then the body count, which isn't exactly in the insurgents' favour, is dismissed by him and he wraps up his report by stating emphatically that we can be sure the ANA was nowhere near the actual shooting. I couldn't help laughing out loud when I read all that. Based on the in-person immediacy of Nick Wright's writings, clearly he must be Our Man in Kandahar, reporting live. If not, then there's an air of desperation in his attempt to throw mud all over this story, which actually describes the insurgents as doing all the running.
  27. martha stewart from Canada writes: Bill Tweezer writes: "A army of 2,500 is accomplishing feats the russians could of only dreamed of "

    I guess. If you don't count all the help the Americans et al gave the resistance. You remeber when bin Laden was a 'freedom fighter' don't you?

    And the Russian bribes weren't nearly as rich and they really lowballed them on the opium prices.

    Wonder why the G & M got rid of the story about the deal to build the pipeline through Afghanistan so fast? I guess it just wasn't important. After all, this is really all about liberty and sending little girls to school. Oh yes, and finding bin Laden too. Almost forgot.

    Bring our troops home ASAP. This is an immoral and endless quagmire.
  28. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: The Nick Wright's of this country pray for national humiliation. For them it would justify their politics and excuse them of any political responsibility for being in Afghanistan in the first place. They want Dion and the liberal party before anything Canadian. Under a liberal party these people would be extolling the war as moral imperative. Not once was anything said against Afghanistan under the liberal government. Under a conservative government it's all Harper's fault and Canada's humiliation. Typical liberal two-faced moralism.

  29. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Mac the Knife: What problem do you have with this statement?

    "The insurgents wanted to make it doubly clear after the successful jailbreak that there is no security in Kandahar province and that they can strike any time they like. They have succeeded in spades (in doing so)." I think most military observers--including Canadians--agree with it.

    You might want to read the press reports; fom Reuters: "The infiltration of hundreds of Taliban militants this week into an area close to Afghanistan's second city was a tactical success for them and a setback for NATO, a NATO general said on Wednesday.

    "There are setbacks ... the prison breakout and the Arghandab operation, and there will be setbacks in the future," Canadian Major-General Marc Lessard, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, told Reuters in an interview.

    "They've definitely managed to achieve some kind of tactical success, there's no doubt there," he said."

    As to the ANA running away; from the CBC's reporter on the scene: "This whole process is about teaching the Afghans how to set up an army. About half the Afghans turned and fled (when the shooting started), so there's clearly some work to be done."

    Most reports state that helicopter gunships did most of the work and that there was little ground fighting.

    The Canadian military is obviously embarrassed that all this took place on their doorstep. That is no knock against them; they are just being realistic--as they must be. The Canadian government showed its state of mind when Peter MacKay immediately blamed the Afghans for the jailbreak, just in case anyone thought that the nearby Canadians were in any way at fault.

    We need to be honest with ourselves to be able to work with the realities we are facing over there.
  30. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Troubled Youth: This has nothing to do with domestic political partisanship. Personally, I think we should stay in Afghanistan, but I think we should be helping the Afghans reach a political solution, not playing the American anti-terrorism game with its huge emphasis on a military solution--the one thing a lot of people think is the single biggest obstacle to foreigners being able to help over there.
  31. Mac the Knife from Canada writes: Nick Wright....the problem I have with those statements is that they are yesterday's news. Today's news paints a somewhat different picture. I repeat, the ANA didn't exactly run away from this engagement, while the insurgents are doing exactly that. Yes, the insurgents got in a good kick at NATO and the ANA by pulling off that prison break and today's rout will not mean the end of them, but the response of the ANA, supported by NATO provides some interesting reading between the lines. It speaks of improvement and increased professionalism on the part of the ANA despite the best efforts of the Taliban to interfere with that over the years. Between the lines, one can also see signs of a PR problem developing for the insurgency. The villagers, whose pomegranate crops (livelihoods) had been threatened by this latest aggression, aren't exactly sounding supportive of the Taliban's activities. Some examples of what I'm talking about: "The Afghan military responded to the Taliban threat this week with signs of growing professionalism, the Canadian commander said. Hundreds of troops from Kabul were relocated to Kandahar and incorporated into the local fighting force with a speed that Gen. Thompson said was impressive." "A Taliban spokesman confirmed by telephone that most insurgents were pulling out of the district" "Many other insurgents escaped northward" "I have a good garden and pomegranate orchard at home, so I don't need anything. I just need my village back" "Some villagers had feared the fighting in Arghandab would resemble the kind of offensive launched by foreign troops in the Panjwai valley two years ago, when a large group of insurgents was routed by heavy bombing and many civilians were killed. By contrast, the Arghandab operation appeared to rely on an influx of 1,400 Afghan soldiers instead of aerial bombings, and few civilian casualties were reported"
  32. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Nick Wright, unless the Taleban give up their stated purpose to create a literal Koranic Sharia Law run Islamic State any political solution will be self defeating. One does not give power to the oppressor.

    And blaming the US for Afghanistan is the epitome of liberal partisan anti-Bush attacks. Just like those who run back to the old "the CIA supported Osama bin Laden so it's all the fault of the US of A." is twisting of events to support partisan politics.

    The Afghan have need of our assistance to recover from not only the years of Russian support of the communist in Afghanistan but the aftermath of the Afghan 4 year civil war. The Taleban are not fighting for a better Afghanistan but to return to the other oppressive Afghanistan they lost to the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan [Northern Alliance]. These various peoples came together for the sole purpose of getting rid of Taleban oppression.

    Remember. All the Taleban have to do is stop investing in a militant insurgency and there is no war. It is then a matter of reconstruction. The Afghan people and the Taleban benefit from a cessation of hostilities. That the Taleban don't find any benefit in peace is not a reason for the Afghan government to capitulate or for NATO to retreat from their security and policing measures while the Afghans catch their collective breath and get on their feet.
  33. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: S Anderson: Do you actually believe NATO would conduct a major operation if told that under no circumstances would aircraft be available? Are you under the impression that army tactical HQs don't all have air and/or aviation cells waiting for requests for assistance from ground units. That air support isn't a major part of planning operations? Airborne recce, re-supply, transport, air strikes and casualty evac are all integral to NATO operations. The basic assumption is that if you get into trouble the air force will come help.
  34. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: "John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: WAY TO GO CFB KANDAHAR!!!...GIVE 'EM HELL BOYS!!!!"

    Hell? Far from this. That not how "Utopians" see it!
  35. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Troubled Youth: I did not "blame the U.S for Afghanistan" (I'm not sure what you mean by that), although their sins are many. I pointed out that their strategy since 2001 has been an anti-terrorism one, with the American-led foreign efforts heavily weighted towards the military side, and very little on the reconstruction and development side. It is a symptom of the different and often conflicting agendas at work in Afghanistan.

    I am saying that the emphasis on hunting down Taliban and al Qaeda has so alienated ordinary Afghans that it has actually become self-defeating. Most credible observers have come to the same conclusion, and NATO is only recently trying to change tack, in the hope that it is not too late. Read the Manley report.

    The "Taliban" in the South is mostly made up of loosely connected groups of Afghan Pashtuns who want to kick the foreigners out and preserve a Pashtun-ruled South run on the basis of sharia and Pashtunwali--as it has been for centuries. The original Taliban arose in the South, and the locals there are not so different from them in basic values. They aroused resentment in the South, however, by imposing arbitrary justice, in trying to disarm the locals, and in forced conscription during the fight against the Northern Alliance.

    You should do some reading about the Northern Alliance; it was made up of the mostly Tajik warlords--including the former Communist supporter, Dostum--who tore the country apart long before the Taliban even appeared.

    There will be relative peace in the South when the Afghan Pashtuns are allowed to come to the table, not before, and no amount of killing by foreigners or the mostly Tajik-led ANA will change that.
  36. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Having raided Kandahar prison , my assumption is that the Taliban announced their intention to fortify and defend neighboring villages, to slow down Nato response . Nato called in extra tropps, and re took the villages which weren't really defended after all, giving the released prisoners several days head start .The question is , where did they go, and what are they doing ? Whatever Nato's plans were a week ago , it's now the Taliban's agenda

    During normalization talks , following the US war against Viet Nam, a US General said to a NVA general, " you know, you never beat us in battle", to which the VietNamese general responded, "That is true, it is also irrelevant"

    Note to warmongers . I don't support the Taliban. I don't support anyone who uses violence in pursuit of their goals .I support negotiation, debate, and elections .
  37. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: I say well done to the t-ban who executed the prison break. Perhaps there will be a made for TV movie...with Brad as a passionate yet confused t-ban fighter and Angelina as a hottie in a mini-burkha.
  38. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Nick Wright, well said. He seems to be the only commenter who did his homework.
  39. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear Geoffrey May - "I support negotiation, debate, and elections ". I support those tactics as well, but remember that when those aspects fail or are rendered useless due to the mind/motives of your opposition, then force as a tool of diplomacy is required. Violence is on the same spectrum as negotiation, its just farther to the right. Negotiating with the t-ban is probably a bridge too far....for now.
  40. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Boy! Talk about people being upset becuse the ANA has walked out into the field of battle. Incredulous would be a word most apt to describe most naysaying posters. It's a start. And there is more to come. Crime and religion do not go hand in hand except in the drug trade of Afghanistan. Glad all our troops are safe. Go troops. Go!
  41. Jeff T from Canada writes: Ahhh, goody. Another ignorance filled thread. And the entertainer of the hour is.... Nick Wright. Ladies and gentlemen, please put your hands togeather for Nick!
  42. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm glad to see this battle seems to be winding down without major loss of civilian life or Canadian casualties.

    Not that this silly conflict won't just continue elsewhere...

    ------------------

    R L from Canada: "How's that pipeline coming along?"

    Sigh.....

    It still doesn't exist, R L.
  43. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: " Crime and religion do not go hand in hand except in the drug trade of Afghanistan. Glad all our troops are safe. Go troops. Go!"

    Actually Brendan, the USA (and other western nations, the UN etc) gave aid to the Taliban government's heroin control programme right up to and including the Spring of 2001. Today more than 7 times the heroin is coming out of Afghanistan under Karzai than in 2001 under Mullah Omar. So it is not so much religion and drugs which go hand in hand in Afghanistan as it is our liberating help and drugs which do.
  44. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: "...including two fleeing Taliban shot by police near the bridge that connects Arghandab with the district of Shah Wali Kot..."

    How very brave and honourable of the Afghan security forces - shooting the enemy as it flees. I gather that this means that an order to give no quarter (i.e. take no prisoners) was given.

    Harper and Hillier and others may have full confidence in the Afghan government and its security forces - and by doing so they may have implicated themselves in war crimes, if such things are happening.
  45. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: I see a photo of British troops once again. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
  46. Random Observer from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, what bother me about your posts is the one side view that you try to present as objective. Why do you find it so easy to believe Taliban propaganda, but call information about CF as "govt white wash". I don't care if you want to insult any govt (con, libs, NPD or Bloc).

    When you use your non-objective views to insult CF, who are putting their lives on line so you can type your drivel, you are crossing the line.

    As to majority of Canadians, both Libs and Con (which represent majority of Canadians) voted on the mission to keep CF in A-tan. If you are pi$$ed that they did not ask for your opinion or ignored NDP and Bloc, get over it.

    Try supporting Canada for once.

    The details you provided about A-tan make up in general (and Taliban) is also flawed. You are selectively picking data that supports your preconceived views. I will provide more details with reference in my next post.
  47. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I sure hope that we were smart enough to have their retreat cut off?
    If so I hope we have arranged for a meeting between a whole bunch of them and their virgins.
  48. Real Name from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff T from Canada writes: Ahhh, goody. Another ignorance filled thread. And the entertainer of the hour is.... Nick Wright. Ladies and gentlemen, please put your hands togeather for Nick!

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What's your contribution to this thread, Jeff T (besides, of course, some pathetic attempt at humour?)

    At least Nick Wright put forward a well thought out position. If you disagree with him, by all means, counter with a rebuttal.

    Or is it easier and more convenient to attack him as opposed to his argument?
  49. sean smith from Canada writes: Another great victory for the occupiers of Afghaninam!
  50. sean smith from Canada writes: Another great victory for the occupiers of Afghaninam!
  51. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I.R - You need to go down to the beach for a walk and clear your head as this is war not some walk on the pier. The Afgans will fight their war as they always have which is not in accordance with some la la land ideals of a group here in Canada.

    Perhaps a good lunch at Moby Dicks would help.
  52. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: I R from White Rock,

    " "...including two fleeing Taliban shot by police near the bridge that connects Arghandab with the district of Shah Wali Kot..."

    How very brave and honourable of the Afghan security forces - shooting the enemy as it flees."

    Fleeing is not the same thing as surrendering! Retreating combatants are still valid miltary targets which makes the rest of your posting moot.

    CHeers

    Mikey
  53. Real Name from Toronto, Canada writes: Random Observer from Canada writes:

    'When you use your non-objective views to insult CF, who are putting their lives on line so you can type your drivel, you are crossing the line.'

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RO, with all due respect, our brave soldiers are not in Afghanistan so I can type my thoughts (or drivel).

    One has nothing to do with the other.
  54. S Anderson from Canada writes: FT WArd

    Thats not what you said, I'll refresh your memory for you

    " The evidence is that the Taliban have learned from their mistakes in 2006-07 and realize that determination isn't an antidote for NATO air power (without which neither the ANA or NATO can or will operate)"

    The bottom line is that ANA Forces and NATO Forces conduct operations everyday and in some cases, yes, without any air or aviation support (which are different by the way), just because its not in the G&M doesn't mean there are no ops going. Its not that I think your lying, more misinformed I would say.
  55. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Random Observer: I have never quoted the Taliban (they don't say much, and they are just as unreliable as any other interested party in a war, in my opinion). And I don't support the Taliban; I just try to take a nonpartisan view. If that looks to you like not supporting Canada, then I plead guilty.

    It is possible to support Canada--and Afghanistan--by developing one's own informed, nonpartisan point of view and considering the bigger and the historical picture. I wish more people would do so; and I certainly hope our military and our government do so. Two major crimes by military and government in war are wishful thinking and believing your own propaganda.

    By all means present your own views; I hope you do, and that I may learn something. In a democracy, informed debate is all people at our level have--between elections, of course.
  56. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Much better than the doom and gloom reports from earlier in the week. We were told that the reports of the Taliban "taking over villages" were much exagerated, but many posters claimed that was just "propaganda" from our military leaders. As it turns out, we easily drove them out of the villages and killed 36 of them, without a single casualty, either of our own soldiers or of civilians. Go get 'em boys.
  57. Troubled Youth from Canada writes: Nick Wright, You definitely have picked your side. Good luck.

    However I'll stick with my original posit that the onus is on the Taleban to stop killing and destroying and obstructing the good done by everyone else.

    You on the other hand place the onus on America, NATO, Canada, the Karzai government et al. Your idea that the Taleban is an innocent entity only seeking representation in a cruel atmosphere is laughable. The Pashtun are 16million strong and are not the victims you portray. They have dominated Afghanistan for the last 250 years and the Afghan Pashtun incorporating their Pakistani cousins into the fight as a tribal cause is the reason the Karzai government sent the message to the Pakistani government that if they don't curtail that insurgency then the Afghan government will engage in cross border raids.

    I don't NEED to read up on the tribal make up and politics of Afghanistan. While I don't profess to know it all. I do understand the relative issues at play. Principally that the Taleban have been routed from administrative power brought on by their religious dogma and social suppression of the people; even their own tribe. And that it is the Taleban engaging in terrorist and guerrilla war while the rest of the country is trying to improve itself. The Taleban are the ones attacking. The onus is on them to change NOT EVERYONE ELSE.

    Under a new democracy the Pashtun will have governing control over their tribal lands. What is detrimental to the Taleban is that under a democracy they will not be able to effectively oppress the whole of society nor dictate the religious expression of Islam in practice.

    You Sir NEED to drop the pretension. The onus for change and peaceful co existence is on the Taleban and it would be nice to see that reflected in your comments and not your usually dismissive almost anti-Canadian tone one usually reads.
  58. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Geoffrey May writes: "Having raided Kandahar prison, my assumption is that the Taliban announced their intention to fortify and defend neighboring villages, to slow down Nato response . Nato called in extra tropps, and re took the villages which weren't really defended after all, giving the released prisoners several days head start."

    I share your opinion, Geoffrey. It's clear now that the Taliban's supposedly dramatic push into the Arghandab was just a diversion. The Arghandab district is so vital to security in Kandahar that Canadian Forces had to take the threat seriously. That diversion provided more time for the former prisoners to make good their escape.

    BTW, has anyone noted the pictures of the pile of rubble formerly known as Sarposa Prison? The Taliban didn't just knock the doors down, they destroyed the place. That too is a message.
  59. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: I R, shooting a retreating soldier is not a war crime. Shooting surrendered or captured soldiers is. The US made an awful mistake in 1991 by allowing the remnants of Sadam's forces to escape back to Iraq and Bahgdad. In Dick Clark's book Against All Enemies, he describes the decision by Bush Sr. to call off the US offensive and allow Sadam's Republican Guard to flee and salvage much of their armaments, as a horrible mistake. In 48 hours, the US could have completely destroyed the rest of Iraq's forces, and prevented Hussein from slaughtering the Kurds when they rebelled. What a shame it would be if we came home without destroying the Taliban, or at least leaving Afghans with the ability to do that themselves.
  60. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Troubled Youth, you are a naive fool.
  61. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Mikey writes: "Fleeing is not the same thing as surrendering! Retreating combatants are still valid miltary targets which makes the rest of your posting moot."

    Mikey is correct. A fleeing enemy may live to shoot you later. Until a combatant surrenders or is rendered hors de combat he is a valid "military objective". Fleeing combatants may be dispatched in any lawful manner the other side chooses.
  62. Troubled Youth from Canada writes: Nick Wright, P.S. Not all Pashtun are Taleban nor believe in that Islamic extremist ideology. A democratic Afghanistan will speak for them too.
  63. Random Observer from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, agree with you "to developing one's own informed, nonpartisan point of view". We can start with the some details on Taliban and how much of A-tan do they represent. Most people assume Taliban represents all of A-tan and are the Mujahdeen who kicked out USSR. Taliban came into being much later (about 7-8 years) and only are small group in South (supported by AQ and Pakistan) that did not see too much action against USSR. Northern Mujah fought more against USSR and they are not aligned with Taliban, but are prosecuted by Taliban. Taliban military force prior to hostilities as per Janes http://tinyurl.com/3gqp6w Here is a quote from it: _ Of the 45,000 men available to the Taliban, Pakistani and Arab religious volunteers have played an increasingly important military role. By mid-1999 as many as 9,000 to 10,000 Pakistanis were believed to be serving in Taliban ranks. _ Another link regarding the Taliban’s ethnic cleaning in 1998 of other groups in A-tan. This is Human Rights Watch report for massacre in Mazar-i Sharif http://tinyurl.com/57r7m8 _ Taliban officials at the jail, who were reportedly all non-local "mainstream" Taliban, separated the prisoners on the basis of ethnicity; Hazaras and other Shi'as were kept on one side, Uzbeks and Tajiks on the other. ... In some cases the authorities required the detainees to prove that they were Sunni by reciting a Sunni prayer. _ Read the rest to see more gory details. Current Taliban leadership in Pakistan http://tinyurl.com/6jrvcd My point is that Taliban do not represent majority of A-tan only Sunni hardliners. My concern is that in the same article it says that Afghanis are happy that Taliban was kicked out in few days without too much of damage. This is good reflection on ANA and CF.
  64. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Troubled Youth, you stated that: "I'll stick with my original posit that the onus is on the Taleban to stop killing and destroying and obstructing the good done by everyone else."

    What is this "onus" you speak of? Where does it come from? Under what legal or moral imperative does it exist?

    Hate them or hate them, the Taliban are a RESISTANCE MOVEMENT, fighting to rid their country of foreign troops. (Reference: "Talking to the Taliban", Globe and Mail) Resistance organizations have existed throughout history, including that of Canada and the United States.

    Resistance organizations such as the Taliban are lawful combatants under international laws such as the Geneva Conventions. You may not care for their religious views, but the Taliban have every right- under international law and historical precedent- to fight the foreign soldiers on their soil.
  65. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Paul Thompson, perhaps, but that gives me at least some excuse. You Sir are just a fool and that is no excuse. Thanks for your informative and defining contribution to the article comments.

    P.S. An ad hominem attack does nothing to advance the conversation. It simply focus the light on your lack of cognitive dexterity and any grasp of the issue in discussion.
  66. LJ Brody from Canada writes: The Taliban have always avoided pitched battles with mechanized armies - something the people of Afghanistan learned fighting the Soviets. The Afghans are very smart, and very experienced at war....our soldiers will continue to die for no reason until something major happens, maybe it would be all for the best if the Afghans simply overran their base and Canadian forces were defeated outright...at least we could end this pathetic mission.

    I sure am glad I am not in the CF - those guys are suckers.
  67. Random Observer from Canada writes: Real Name from Toronto, Canada writes RO, with all due respect, our brave soldiers are not in Afghanistan so I can type my thoughts (or drivel).


    When are you guys going to figure out that A-tan is NOT Iraq. These are 2 separate issues. Canada is in A-tan and is NOT in Iraq. Stop creating this confusion.

    Canada is in A-tan as response to 9-11 and general war on terror. And some like to think Natural Gas pipeline!!!

    Iraq has to do with oil and PNAC strategy based on fabricated WMD. Nothing to do with 9-11 or "war-on-terror". At least before the occupation, now AQ is playing a big role in Iraq also.
  68. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    TROOPS OUT NOW!
  69. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Richard Roskell, I expect the worst knowing your anti-democratic pro-socialist idealism but you Sir never fail to out do yourself. I'm surprised you don't sit on a HRC tribunal. Not only could you unilaterally return Afghanistan to the Taleban but could award them damages in the billions of dollars as well. The poor Taleban, victims of a cruel oppressive burgeoning democracy which they are obstructing.
    Definitely a socialist cause eh Ricky. Your my hero.
  70. Random Observer from GTA, Canada writes: REPOST to fix format: Nick Wright from Halifax, agree with you "to developing one's own informed, nonpartisan point of view". We can start with the some details on Taliban and how much of A-tan do they represent. Most people assume Taliban represents all of A-tan and are the Mujahdeen who kicked out USSR. Taliban came into being much later (about 7-8 years) and only are small group in South (supported by AQ and Pakistan) that did not see too much action against USSR. Northern Mujah fought more against USSR and they are not aligned with Taliban, but are prosecuted by Taliban. Taliban military force prior to hostilities as per Janes http://tinyurl.com/3gqp6w Here is a quote from it: _ Of the 45,000 men available to the Taliban, Pakistani and Arab religious volunteers have played an increasingly important military role. By mid-1999 as many as 9,000 to 10,000 Pakistanis were believed to be serving in Taliban ranks. _ Another link regarding the Taliban’s ethnic cleaning in 1998 of other groups in A-tan. This is Human Rights Watch report for massacre in Mazar-i Sharif http://tinyurl.com/57r7m8 _ Taliban officials at the jail, who were reportedly all non-local "mainstream" Taliban, separated the prisoners on the basis of ethnicity; Hazaras and other Shi'as were kept on one side, Uzbeks and Tajiks on the other. ... In some cases the authorities required the detainees to prove that they were Sunni by reciting a Sunni prayer. _ Read the rest to see more gory details. Current Taliban leadership in Pakistan http://tinyurl.com/6jrvcd My point is that Taliban do not represent majority of A-tan or are trying to fight to push foreigners out (ANA is Afghan), only Sunni hardliners. My concern is that in the same article it says that Afghanis are happy that Taliban was kicked out in few days without too much of damage. This is good reflection on ANA and CF, somehow you are ignoring that.
  71. B A from Ottawa, Canada writes: I must say this patriotic/unpatriotic crap gets tired. General Thompson said it best. "There is no doubt in my mind, however, that further insurgent attacks will take place in the months ahead.” This is an insurgency, folks. Historically when a group of insurgents want to distract the occupying force and divert their attention they'll do something like..oh. I dunno... stage a prison break. Occupy a few villages. Put up a token resistance, anything to distract and divert a sizable chunk of the occupying force away from its usual territory/duties. Then when they've accomplished what it was they needed to do they fall back. Come on, kids it's basic military history. The Taliban you have to worry about aren't the ones shooting at you or terrorizing villages (heck, the Afghan Police Force can do that). The ones you have to worry about are the ones who you can't see or find because you're too busy engaging the "refugee for hire" with the rusty Kalishnikov. My question is, while all this is going down, what's happening at the border? What's happening in Kabul? They just pulled 1400 troops down to deal with this. Lovely PR move, kids. Now who's guarding the back door? For instance if I wanted to get a sizable crop of recently harvested Opium across the border to fund my insurgency for the upcoming year I'd make a big distraction right next to a NATO enclave and then pay a few refugees (conveniently sent back from Pakistan in the millions) to occupy a village or two. The locals scream for help. The NATO/ANA garrison is retasked and somebody, somewhere just made a whole whack of cash. For all those of you cheering like idiots, just try and realize what you are cheering for is the succesful distraction of our troops from the task at hand. Every time they do this it means someone on the other side just made a little more cash, or bought themselves a little more time or a few more weapons. That's what an insurgency IS. Sigh.
  72. Real Name from Toronto, Canada writes: Random Observer from Canada writes: Real Name from Toronto, Canada writes RO, with all due respect, our brave soldiers are not in Afghanistan so I can type my thoughts (or drivel). When are you guys going to figure out that A-tan is NOT Iraq. These are 2 separate issues. Canada is in A-tan and is NOT in Iraq. Stop creating this confusion. Canada is in A-tan as response to 9-11 and general war on terror. And some like to think Natural Gas pipeline!!! Iraq has to do with oil and PNAC strategy based on fabricated WMD. Nothing to do with 9-11 or "war-on-terror". At least before the occupation, now AQ is playing a big role in Iraq also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I never once mentioned Iraq in my post, so I don't know why you think I'm confused. In fact, I'm pretty sure I know the difference between the two countries and the struggles they are facing. You wrote: 'Random Observer from Canada writes: 'When you use your non-objective views to insult CF, who are putting their lives on line so you can type your drivel, you are crossing the line.' And I stated that the CF are not in Afghanistan so that I can write my comments (or drivel). They aren't there to protect my rights. I do that myself.
  73. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Troubled Youth, your opinion of me is of no consequence. Just answer the simple question posted above.

    Whatever you think of their religious views, the Taliban are a legitimate resistance organization under international law and historical precedent. So what is this "onus" on them that you state exists?
  74. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, the Taliban are NOT legitimate resistors. The Taliban are the creation of foreign Islamic extremists from the Pakistani intelligence services and Saudi Arabia's radical Wahabist Mosques. There is NOTHING in Afghan history that lends legitimacy to the Taliban. I would suggest the book "Ghost Wars" (2004) by journalist Steven Coll for a better understanding of who the Taliban are, how unrepresentative they are of Afghans in general, and how they came to rule Afganistan.
  75. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: B A. The opium your worried about is being grown and harvested in the Kandahar province. The Taleban insurgency is in the Kandahar province. Pakistan borders the Kandahar province.

    B A. The rise of the Taleban: Some local opium dealers, looking for a safe operational hub, joined forces with the more fanatic sections of the Mujahideen supported by Arab extremists like Osama bin Laden as well as the Pakistani secret intelligence service ISI to form the Taliban movement towards the end of 1994.

    Kandahar-opium-Taleban-Pakistan-al-Qaeda
  76. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: B A, you're absolutely correct in my view. While I don't know the ins-and-outs of the Taliban's larger strategies, it's clear that they can plan and mount complex operations in aid of their overall objectives. That is not a sign of an insurgency on its last legs or on the way out.

    Afghans are masters at this kind of war. NATO and the U.S. can expect a neverending series of feints, ambushes and remote attacks, interlaced with genuine attacks in key areas. The Taliban will do their best to keep the foreign armies on the move. They will carefully assess the NATO/US response to their feints and other ploys, and then adjust their tactics and strategies accordingly.
  77. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Alistair McL, I'm well aware of the Taliban's history in Afghanistan.

    The Taliban's legal legitimacy as a resistance organization is not determined by their factual history, nor by "Ghost Wars", nor by your opinion. Their status as a resistance organization is determined by international law. The Taliban are "lawful combatants" under the Geneva Conventions, and their goal is to rid their country of foreign soldiers. Their religious views, their popularity and their history is irrelevant in determining their status as combatants and as a resistance organization.

    The Taliban are doing precisely what resistance organizations have done since history began: fighting to get foreign armies off their soil. No one's asking you to like them, but what they are is a fact and can't be denied.
  78. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes: Richard Roskell ..."Hate them or hate them, the Taliban are a RESISTANCE MOVEMENT, fighting to rid their country of foreign troops."

    The Taliban didn't magically appear and won't disappear in response to the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban's rise to prominence wasn't until after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

    "Religious schools were established in Afghanistan after Islam arrived in the seventh century and taliban became an important part of the social fabric: running schools, mosques, shrines, and various religious and social services, and serving as mujahideen when necessary."

    The Taliban owe much of their military capability to Pakistan. I Paraphrase - " In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996."

    Now lets insert the following consideration of the "Osama" factor.

    Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996. origionally, he came without the consent of the Taliban and Mullah Omar but relations between the two groups became closer over time. Eventually, Mullah Omar ended his relationship with Saudi Arabia who was their patron up to that point. The Taliban still remain in a cozy relationship with Osama and company. Many Taliban leaders have been reported to say they welcome him.

    So now we have a dual problem. The Taliban say they are fighting to remove foreign forces from Afghanistan yet the response to criminal activity (9/11) reason we went there in the first place is still intact.

    So, are the taliban really a legitimate "resistance" as you say. The war has dragged on so long that there is a fuzzy line between criminal and legit.
  79. Random Observer from GTA, Canada writes: Real Name from Toronto: ... I never once mentioned Iraq in my post, so I don't know why you think I'm confused. In fact, I'm pretty sure I know the difference between the two countries...And I stated that the CF are not in Afghanistan so that I can write my comments...
    ____________

    Which part of my statement     Canada is IN A-tan and is NOT in Iraq. _ did you have difficulty with.

    If you are NOT aware that CF is in A-tan as a part of ISAF, where have you been in last so many years. Do some reading before putting your fingers on keyboard.
  80. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Random Observer, You're right about the Taliban massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif. But you missed the massacre of Taliban prisoners at the Qala-i-Janghi prison fortress in 2001, in which the US was an active participant, and the subsequent massacre of 3,000 Taliban POWs in a desert area nearby....

    Leaving the Taliban, in 1993 forces belonging to current parliamentarian Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, attacked a Hazara village to the west of Kabul in the middle of the night killing over 300, according to the UN. More, including boys and girls, were raped, abducted and tortured.

    One can easily find more examples. Why do you only see the victims of the Taliban?
  81. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Richard Roskell, why MUST I answer your question that you extrapolated from my previous post to Nick Wright? That post was inclusive to your question and all one needs to do is comprehend what I had posted in response to him. It doesn't require a separate discussion.

    But just for you. The onus is on the Taleban because it is the Taleban that wants as a minority to dictate to the majority. A majority of tribes united to over throw the Taleban. We are there to see that the majority rules and that the non Afghan terrorist like al-Qaeda aren't able to effect their will anymore than they have influenced the nature and intent of the Taleban. Even someone like you ought to be able to grasp that much.

    The Taliban can operate under a democratic Afghanistan. They will effectively control Kandahar and the opium as they are/have tribal relatives in that land. That is not of question. The question is why in the minds of the Taleban must everyone follow their will? That burden lies at the feet of the Taleban therefore the onus is on them. Capice ?
  82. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: What is missing is any indication of what the Taleban wanted out of this entire escapade. The prison break is largely understandable. Not only did it release hundreds of Taleban (and perhaps Taleban supporters), but it delivered a black eye to the Karzai family. Don't forget President Karzai's brother is the regional government.

    And perhaps the embarrassment to the Karzai family was more important than regaining lost comrades. Afghanistan will hold presidential elections next year. Taking potshots at the president, breaking into one of his prisons and whatever else is planned may be far more effective than taking a village or two for the afternoon.