Taliban Go On Murderous Spree Of Bombings and Attacks Across Afghanistan and Pakistan

Everyone around the NYC metro area has seen the increased security ahead of 9/11 and the warnings about a potential, but unconfirmed attack planned in conjunction with the 9/11 commemoration.

Well, what if we got the right intel, but the wrong place.

The Taliban have gone on a massive murdering spree, with multiple attacks across Afghanistan targeting US and ISAF forces and additional attacks in Pakistan. There's the ongoing attacks against US facilities in Kabul



That follows an ISAF base hit on 9/11 itself. A suicide bomb truck detonated along a perimeter wall and the resulting explosion injured dozens of US soldiers and killed several Afghans.



Now, this could be coincidence, but I don't think it was. There was chatter about high profile attacks, and a mass casualty attack on a US military base and the US embassy would certainly fit that bill of al Qaeda/Taliban seeking to carry out mass casualty attacks against the US.

It doesn't have the same cachet as a bomb blowing up people in Times Square (and certainly wont get the same level of press if such a bombing occurred during the 9/11 anniversary week), but had this been a bombing that killed scores of Americans in Afghanistan, it would have fit the Taliban/al Qaeda goal of murdering Americans during the anniversary period.

This doesn't mean that American law enforcement should relax; just because the anniversary has come and gone doesn't mean that the terror cells haven't stopped proliferating or plotting further attacks. It means that the public has to remain vigilant and law enforcement has to continue working to disrupt plots before they can become operational.

Hamid Karzai Essentially Ends the Afghan War in Favor of Taliban?

The US and its coalition partners have frequently targeted compounds in Afghanistan where Taliban and al Qaeda are suspected of carrying on meetings or gathering. Some of those airstrikes have resulted in civilian casualties, but after the latest such incident, Afghan leader Hamid Karzai has called on the US and the ISAF to cease targeting housing compounds, according to USA Today:

"From this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed," Karzai told reporters in Kabul.

NATO says it never conducts such strikes without Afghan government coordination and approval. A spokesman for NATO forces in Afghanistan said they will review their procedures for airstrikes given Karzai's statement but did not say that it would force any immediate change in tactics.

"In the days and weeks ahead we will coordinate very closely with President Karzai to ensure that his intent is met," spokeswoman Maj. Sunset Belinsky said. Karzai has previously made strong statements against certain military tactics — such as night raids — only to back off from them later.

But if Karzai holds to what sounds like an order to international troops to abandon strikes, it could bring the Afghan government in direct conflict with its international allies.

"Coalition forces constantly strive to reduce the chance of civilian casualties and damage to structures, but when the insurgents use civilians as a shield and put our forces in a position where their only option is to use airstrikes, then they will take that option," Belinsky said.

Yet, the New York Times soft-pedals the report:

Speaking at a news conference at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai declined to offer specifics on what actions the government would take, saying only that Afghanistan “has a lot of ways of stopping it.”

In an admonishment that carried an air of threat, he said NATO forces were on the verge of being considered occupiers rather than allies.

“If they continue their attacks on our houses, then their presence will change from a force that is fighting against terrorism to a force that is fighting against the people of Afghanistan,” he said. “And in that case, history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”

Mr. Karzai has used similar language before, but taken with other recent statements, his comments could further threaten a relationship with his Western backers that has been strained over issues like night raids, corruption and the continuing scandal surrounding questionable loans and huge losses at Kabul Bank.

NATO officials responded diplomatically, saying they would continue to work with the Afghan government to reduce civilian casualties.

“General Petraeus has repeatedly noted that every liberation force has to be very conscious that it can, over time, become seen as an occupation force,” Rear Adm. Vic Beck of the Navy, a spokesman for the NATO-led military coalition, said in a statement, referring to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan. He added, “We are in agreement with President Karzai on the importance of constantly examining our actions in light of that reality — and we are doing just that.”

Karzai says that NATO shouldn't treat Afghanistan as an occupying nation. Nowhere does he make such harsh statements against the Taliban, which has been the bane of the Afghan's existence for so long:



That all but cedes the field of battle to the Taliban, who have no such interest in preserving civilian lives and who all too frequently target civilians and use civilians as human shields.

It makes going after the Taliban and al Qaeda increasingly difficult and means that further airstrikes against housing compounds would be bringing the US into a more direct conflict with Karzai and the Afghan government.

This puts the US in an untenable situation of trying to deal with the Taliban, who not only use the Pakistani frontier provinces as a safe haven, but use housing compounds inside Afghanistan to further destabilize the US-backed Afghan government.

Ongoing Afghan Operations Reveal Serious Flaws

The Afghan army still isn't capable to lead in military operations against the Taliban. That means that the burden will remain on the US and NATO forces for the foreseeable future.

However, that doesn't mean that NATO is cognizant of that particularly important fact. They're trying to puff up the Afghan capabilities beyond what is reasonable.

Michael Yon, who has been in Afghanistan has called out NATO for its propaganda. It notes that one metric of how successful the current operations are is whether the Taliban can control cell phone towers

That the enemy controls so many towers is proof they control the ground. Near Sangin, the enemy controls a power station within walking distance of three British bases (2009).

Trying to puff up the Afghan aspect of a recent operation in Helmand province does little to actually improve security on the ground. The gains were fully the result of ISAF and the US forces that participated whereas the Afghan forces involved were merely spectators. This is propaganda we can do without and it does nothing to improve the facts and security on the ground.

What we do know is that the Afghan military is still incapable of the heavy lifting necessary to deal with the ongoing Taliban threat. That's a huge problem and a major impediment to drawing down US or NATO forces in Afghanistan. Moreover, there are issues with the Dutch commitment to NATO's Afghan operation. The Dutch government collapsed yesterday over disagreement over continuing that commitment. Considering that the NATO obligation to help member nations is central to the premise of NATO, this is a huge blow to the organization and to the Dutch government.

Even as the allied offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marja continued Saturday, it appeared almost certain that most of the 2,000 Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The question plaguing military planners was whether a Dutch departure would embolden the war’s critics in other allied countries, where debate over deployment is continuing, and hasten the withdrawal of their troops as well.

“If the Dutch go, which is the implication of all this, that could open the floodgates for other Europeans to say, ‘The Dutch are going, we can go, too,’ ” said Julian Lindley-French, professor of defense strategy at the Netherlands Defense Academy in Breda. “The implications are that the U.S. and the British are going to take on more of the load.”

The fact is that the US and British have been carrying the heaviest load in Afghanistan all along both in terms of troop commitments and combat operations. Some NATO countries have attempted to limit their offensive military operations in an attempt to limit casualties (to mixed effect as the Taliban attack targets of opportunity). This is yet another test of the Obama Administration to maintain the NATO coalition efforts in Afghanistan and is a test of resolve for NATO planners and military strategists on both sides of the Atlantic.