Taliban dig in for big assault, say Afghan villagers

Hey, this shit is looking better than the Super Bowl. Is it too late to get some fucking tickets? We'll have a tailgate party outside town and then hunker down for some macho kick ass fighting.

USA!, USA!, USA! NATO! NATO! NATO!

Football people speak in military jargon all the time. Attack! Kill! Assault! Enemy! No prisoners! You probably know most of the rest.

But this is the real shit. Real combat with real killing and something the NFL doesn't have... things exploding. Fireworks? We'll give you fireworks up the ass until you can't hobble to work on Monday.

Taliban militants are massing and preparing for a big fight ahead of a major NATO offensive in an insurgent stronghold in southern Afghanistan, villagers fleeing the area said on Sunday.

U.S. Marines are set to launch a massive operation within days to take Marjah, a dense warren of canals and lush farmland in the centre of Helmand, the country's most violent province.

Military commanders are dubbing the area the last big Taliban enclave in the province. The offensive, one of the biggest of the eight-year-old war, will mark the first major show of force since U.S. President Barack Obama ordered in 30,000 extra troops.

Washington hopes the Marine operation will help decisively turn the momentum this year in a war that commanders accept has not been going their way. They have also not kept the planned offensive a secret, hoping the militants will give up the fight.

"It has to do with letting people know what's coming in the hope that the hardcore Taliban, or a lot of the Taliban, will simply leave, and maybe there will be less of a fight," U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said in Turkey on Saturday.

According to some of the villagers escaping Marjah in fear of their lives, fighters are digging in rather than fleeing.

Two questions: Will there be cheerleaders? Will they have on undies?

I always find dark humor preferable to unmanly crying or actually cheering for death and destruction.

...
Note: Headline links to source.

U.S. weighs new covert push in Pakistan - NY Times

It seems slightly preposterous this wasn't already happening.

Just how many other tools in the toolbox are not being used against al Qaeda and the Taleban?

Sort of makes me curious just how serious Dim Son is taking all this.

Senior U.S. officials, concerned over intelligence reports that al Qaeda and the Taliban are more intent on destabilizing Pakistan, are considering expanding the authority of the CIA and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations there, the New York Times said on Sunday.

Citing senior Bush administration officials who spoke off the record, the Times said that while no decisions had been made, the options under discussion included the CIA working with the military's Special Operations forces.

Several participants in a meeting on Friday argued that the threat to President Pervez Musharraf's government was now so acute that Musharraf and the country's military leadership were likely to grant Washington more latitude, the Times said.

Among those reported at the meeting were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top national security advisers to President George W. Bush.

Via Reuters.

Opium in Afghanistan: Eradicate or subsidize?

This is working in Turkey. The report I saw (and lost) stated almost no one grows opium and sells illegally to drug dealers. They lose their licenses to grow opium for, I believe three years, and the farmers can't afford that. The government also closely watches over the farmers.

Its good income for the farmers and for the government which buys the crops and produces morphine.

Eradication causes loss of income, resentment and pushes the people to embrace the Taleban.

As opium harvests in Afghanistan have steadily increased, some politicians and think tanks have raised a trenchant question: Rather than trying to eradicate Afghanistan's poppies, why not buy them and make morphine?

Now there has to be some graft and corruption. I mean huge sacks of morphine have to be tempting.

Via IHT.

Taliban 'to bomb Bhutto when she returns'

Well, now Musharraf has his cover. If something happens to Bhutto, he can claim the Taliban did it.

Pakistani Taliban militants vowed to launch suicide bombers against Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, when she returns home after eight years of self-imposed exile.

Via Telegraph.

Questions requiring answers

Warning: Following some links will open cans of worms you may not want to know about. You've been cautioned.

President Hamid Karzai today offered to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

1. Is this a re-branding? Is this the same Taliban that was defeated?

2. Uh, what about this?

As part of a public relations offensive that has received extensive media coverage, President Bush declared in an August 31 speech in Salt Lake City that "[w]e have made it clear to all nations that if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account."

Does that mean Bush will cut off aid to Afghanistan?

3. Will the US talk with these terrorists?

4. Who provides the bottled water in these talks?

5. Does this mean its OK for the US to arm the Taliban?

6. Does this mean terrorism is a viable option in politics?

7. Am I the only one at a loss here?

I'm sorry, I do believe dialogue with any and all factions is productive and necessary, but offering government positions? Perhaps after a few talks and concessions it makes sense, but not right out of the box*.

* "out of the box" - US phrase meaning in the beginning or at the start.

Via BreakingNews.ie.

State sponsors of terrorism

This post over at Left I on the News reminded me of an item I've meant to offer.

No, they aren't a "state", but why in the fucking hell is the Taleban not on a State Department list of terrorist organizations?

Even the UN and EU recognize the Taleban as such.

I can find nothing stating the US classifies the Taleban as terrorists.

This shit doesn't count? Attack,attack,attack,attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack...

Folks, spell it "Taliban attack" and you get more than two million hits in Google® search. Other variations such as "Taleban", "kill", "behead", "bomb" would probably produce more.

They are fucking terrorists, but NoKo was is worse? Yeah, right.

Questions requiring answers

If the US has eliminated the Taleban, why the fucking hell are they still around?

Al-Qaida's next generation

Face it. What we're doing isn't going to stop terrorists. They're like the Hydra.

The news is alarming. U.S. and French intelligence agencies are convinced that terrorist network al-Qaida has reorganized and, what's more, developed new training camps in both Afghanistan and the remote tribal regions of northern Pakistan. They believe that a new generation of terrorists has come of age, and some are suspected of planning attacks in the West.

Five and a half years have passed since Sept. 11, 2001, and the beginning of the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The physical presence of Osama bin Laden's network was largely destroyed at the time -- the terrorist camps, which had trained an estimated 20,000 men, quickly reduced to rubble. Two years ago, the White House crowed that two-thirds of al-Qaida's leadership had been eliminated. "We're winning," President Bush claimed recently. "Al-Qaida is on the run."

But are those terrorists really on the run? Of course, there can be no doubt that the network no longer has nearly the capacity it had when it organized the 9/11 attacks. But the attempts to reorganize are obvious, and the new camps are an indication that the efforts have been successful. According to Time magazine, each of the camps has the capacity to train between 10 and 300 jihadists. "We know they exist, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack," the magazine quotes a U.S. military official in Afghanistan as saying.

If you can't kill all terrorists in 5-6 years, the 9-11 year olds will have come of age and have been indoctrinated in that time. That means the only way to stop terrorists is to kill all of them within a year which is ludicrous. It will never happen.

The only sensible thing to do is win hearts and minds (gawd I hate that cliché, but it works) which is what the Taleban and al-Qaeda do as well as Hizballah.

(via Salon - sponsor click required)

Taliban Defense Minister Freed Two Days after Capture

Was it all just for show because Cheney was in town? Sure looks like it.

Former Taliban defense minister Obaidullah Akhund, reportedly captured the day Vice President Dick Cheney visited Pakistan, is reportedly back on the loose.

A Swiss newspaper claimed Sunday that the Taliban’s former defense minister was free two days after his reported capture by Pakistani security forces. The Swiss weekly SonntagsBlick said one of its reporters spoke to Mullah Obaidullah Akhund on Feb. 28 unhindered in an Islamic school in the southwestern city of Quetta.

And BTW, isn't a member of the Taleban considered a key player in the terrorist networks? Just asking.

Also BTW, if you follow the link you will see, although probably true, this story hasn't been confirmed.

(read more)

Bush seeks 8,200 more troops for wars

What's truly sad about this is Bush and probably the Dems view this as a cost thing. It is a cost thing, but it isn't about the money, its about the lives of our military people.

And as Bush continues to float in his own little bubble he seems unaware he is asking for resources the military just doesn't have.

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

And this at the same time the Pentagon Struggles to Find Fresh Troops

Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.

Final decisions _ which have not yet been made _ would come as Congress is considering ways to force President Bush to wind down the war, despite his vow that he would veto such legislation.

In the freshest indication of the relentless demands for troops in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of coalition forces in the north, told reporters Friday that his troops have picked up the pace of their attacks on the enemy in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.

"Could I use more forces? No question about it," Mixon said, adding that he had asked for more.

(pic via Shakespeare's Sister)

Foreign troops kill eight civilians after Afghan blast: police

File under: What the fuck!? I was really trying to avoid posting about this, but I can't.

Coalition troops killed eight civilians when they opened fire on a crowd after a suicide car bomb struck a military vehicle in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, provincial police said.

Elsewhere, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) reported that two of its soldiers were killed Saturday in combat in the south of the country, which sees the most violence linked to a Taliban insurgency.

A large group of demonstrators gathered to protest the shooting of civilians after the bombing, in the eastern province of Nangarhar, witnesses said.

"Eight people have been killed and more than eight were injured. They were killed in coalition firing after the explosion," Nangarhar police spokesman Ghafoor Khan said.

The US-led coalition force, which operates alongside ISAF, confirmed a patrol had been struck by a suicide car bomb on the road between the provincial capital Jalalabad and the town of Torkham on the border with Pakistan.

A coalition spokesman did not have any information about casualties and would not say which troops were involved. US soldiers are deployed in the east of Afghanistan with ISAF and the smaller coalition. [emphasis mine]

"Fired on a crowd"? No, I'm not blaming the US military. They may have been involved, but no one knows right now from what I can find.

I don't actually blame the forces from any other country either. I'm sure every soldier in Afghanistan is as on edge as any other. Stretch out tours, send soldiers over and over to serve there and then throw in unbelievable heat and vicious fighters and these things are inevitable.

Tell me again, Cheney, how "winning" is preordained.

"Fired on a crowd"

(read more)

US, Pakistani agents interrogate Taliban leader

I'm sure "interrogate" is the correct word as opposed to, oh I don't know, "torture"?

(read more)

Afghan Taliban says sending fighters to Iraq: TV

Well lucky for you General. You now have a second chance to "defeat the Taleban".

The United Sates took over the rotating command of NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan Sunday amid growing concern over a surge in violence by insurgents during the coming spring.

General Dan McNeill assumed the rotating command of ISAF forces from British General David Richard in a Kabul ceremony attended by high officials including President Hamid Karzai.

The outgoing British General led the alliance forces for the past nine moths, during which Afghanistan experienced the worst year in 2006 since the fall of the Taleban in late 2001. Over 4,000 people, mostly insurgents, were killed last year.

Richards said that they had defeated the Taleban during his command and called the 2006 a success year for the allied forces. [emphasis mine]

Notice the juxtaposition of the two commanders' remarks. One says 2006 worst year and one says 2006 a success year? Are these clowns even in the same country? Which one do you think reports to Bush?

A senior Taliban commander said in remarks broadcast on Friday that the Afghan Islamist group was sending fighters to Iraq to support anti-U.S. insurgents.

"Whenever there is a chance the (Afghanistan-based holy fighters) mujahideen travel to Iraq and the opposite is also true," Mullah Dadullah told Al Jazeera television in an interview.

"We have very strong relations with the mujahideen in Iraq. The mujahideen stay in Iraq for a month for example then they come here," he added in remarks dubbed in Arabic. "We also share intelligence."

"Travel from and to Iraq is at a peak currently ... if any mujahid wants to carry out an operation in Iraq he can travel."

(read more)