Jump to navigation
The talking heads on tv are saying this weekend that the Taliban control or in question control half the country. He is an older article of a single taliban victory.
I found this pdf file on SIGAR website Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction which provides congress quarterly updates about what is happening in Afghanistan and most importantly talks about the military situation in Afghanistan.
Here is the last quarterly report from Jan. 2017 for the congress.
I did not read the whole but looked the information in the secuirty part(starts on page 84). This report says that on page 90 table 3.6 november 26 2016. The taliban control 10% of the country and 30% is in flex.
Table 3.8,3.9 page 99
-The authorized strenght of the amry 203,500
-The authorized strenght of the paramilitary and regular police 157,000
Really strenght is 175,000 for the amry and 147,500 for the police. 10.5% short of full what should it should in Nov 2016.
Regular army loses- Page 102
"USFOR-A reported overall ANA attrition over the autumn months at 2.9% during August, 2.3% during September, and 3.1% during October.253 Corpslevel attrition figures have been classified this quarter and will be reported in the classified annex of this report.
Attrition clean word for losses, average 2.7% loses over 1 month, month after month that will cripple the afghan army unless new recruits join up.
Police loses.Page 111
According to USFOR-A, the overall ANP monthly attrition rate for the last quarter was:331 • August 2016 2.34% • September 2016 2.32% • October 2016 2.5%
Without replacement of losses, 12 months of 2% attrition would reduce a unit to less than 79% of its original strength.
The Afghanistan forces are being ground down. Regular forces are taking average 2.7% loses to action, diesase, destriton. That is serious losses.
A new report should be released at the end of the month. If the talking heads right then I assume that these losses are continuing but I save judgement until the new report is released. I am suprised that this information is availble to the general public.
At least 140 afghan soldiers killed in surprise attack, at the end of the month we get a new report. Government is saying 100 dead and wounded but sources inside the government say at least 140 dead. Those kind of loses will hard on the afghan army morale.
Mother of All Schemes: US Seeks More Chaos in Afghanistan To Justify More Intervention
"The US knows exactly what it is doing in Afghanistan. It is trying to egg on Taliban and ISIS fighters so that it can create more chaos, thereby justifying its intervention, says Catherine Shakdam, Shafaqna Institute of ME Studies. The number of people killed in a Taliban attack on a military base in Afghanistan, has risen to 140."
I am moving trump speech and reaction to afghanistan speech to related thread.
Talking heads on news channels are asking what will the current deployment 8,000 which is assumed will rev up do when Obamas surge to nearly 100,000 in 2010-2011 did not defeat the Talaban. Many cynics are saying that this a poltical exercise that on trumps term afghan situation does not worsen and trump not will do down in history as the President that lost afgahnistan.
Last night CNN reporter in Kabul mentioned the Afghan army at the moment 30 soldiers are killed a day. He mentioned that taliban are winning. I looked offical american estimates of taliban strength is 43,ooo and various off shoot terrorist groups. Afghan state soldiers and paramilitary police strenght 330,000 men. 8,000 American troops and grab bag of 4 to 5 thousand international troops on various missions. No word if the US is using mercenray troops.
Trump's newfound war fever is such a classic diversionary tactic from the trainwreck that we must not forget what dire consequences this will have for the Afghanis and other peoples of the region, and even for the US troops who are being sacrificed for the Big Orange Ego.
Yes, exactly. Not too concerned about the US troops myself (volunteer army and all). There is no serious antiwar movement within the Democratic party, they are currently applauding the ramp up in Afghanistan. Escalation of violence overseas is the best card Trump has left to play. Perhaps Van Jones will praise his presidential manner once again.
Fairly reasonable article by Rick Salutin on the Trumpian ramp up in Afghanistan.
And another article in the National Post, similarly critical of further Canadian involvement.
I hope that most Canadians remain opposed to further involvement. And hopefully openly supporting Trump or sending troops would be damaging politically for the Liberals. But I think they'll find a way to get some skin in the game, perhaps avoiding a PR mess by refusing further support in Afghanistan, and instead supporting the US missile defence program:
Of course is the US seeks involvement in the context of NAFTA talks can we be sure there will be no trade-offs?
I guess I am not a trusting person when it comes to some things.
Unworthy Victims: Western Wars Have Killed Four Million Muslims Since 1990
Last 8 Months Prove US A Bonafide Regime
"The only surprising thing about Donald Trump's recent U-turn on Afghanistan is that anyone should be surprised..."
"Ex-President Karzai tells Afshin Rattansi evidence suggests helicopters from US bases are helping IS in Afghanistan."
Scores Killed In ISIS Bombing Of Kabul
"Islamic State has killed at least 41 people and injured more than 80 others in an attack on a Shia cultural centre and news agency that share a building in Kabul. Islamic State's Amaaq news agency said the cultural centre had been targeted by Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the full name of the group's Afghan affliliate, because it was funded by Iran and used to spread Shia beliefs.
It was the latest sectarian attack in a capital that had once been relatively immune to such violence. For all the civilian deaths in Kabul over the four decades of civil war, until the rise of ISIS very few could be chalked up to the Sunni-Shia tensions that have claimed so many lives from Iraq to Pakistan. Now a group with a strong sectarian agenda appears to have outstripped the home-grown Taliban in inflicting violence on Kabul."
Hamid Karzai: On The Legacy of US Interventions (and vid)
"...From September 11, 2001 till today, do we have more of it [extremist terrorism] in Afghanistan and the broader region or do we have less of it? We clearly, clearly have more of it. And now we have IS or Daesh. Who did this (and what of US intelligence and military) and how come? We have the right to ask these questions...And I have more than suspicions, more than suspicions and have had Afghan people come to me and say they are supplied [from US bases] by unmarked helicopters. And that this is a daily occurrence and daily reports that we get from our people and sources within the government..." [4:05]
couldn't have anything to do with the plans of China to build a corridor through Pakistan to Afghanistan to develop their exotic mineral industry?
Afghanistan Ready To Play Connector Role in Eurasian Integration
"The inauguration of TAPI - the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline - signals Kabul is on-board with the grand project of Eurasian integration.
TAPI simply cannot exist without Taliban approval. According to a statement by Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yusuf Ahmadi, 'The Islamic Emirate views the project as an important element of the country's economic infrastructure and believes its proper implementation will benefit the Afghan people. We announce our cooperation in providing security for the project in areas under our control.'
So bye-bye Miss American Pie...
US Negotiates Retreat From Afghanistan
The US seems ready to give up on Afghanistan. The erratic empire failed in another of its crazy endeavors. The massive increase of the US military budget, which includes 15,000 more troops, points to a new large war..."
US 'War on Terror' Claimed Half A Million Lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Iraq -- Study
"...Between 480,000 and 507,000 including civilians, local military and law enforcement forces, militants as well as the US and allied troops have been killed since the US launched what it calls the 'war on terror' in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack, a study published by the US Brown University's Western Institute for International and Public Affairs says.
The report, however, considers only a fraction of the real toll resulting from US actions, as it does not count people who died because of the indirect consequences of war such as diseases, destroyed infrastructure or lack of access to food water or medicine. It does not take into account the number of people killed in the Syrian conflict and never mentions the 2011 operation in Libya, which technically does not count as part of the US war on terror...."
General Wesley Clark: Wars were Planned