Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Afghanistan: Graphing the violence

  1. #1

    Afghanistan: Graphing the violence

    [url]http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/afghanistan_graphing.php[/url]

    [QUOTE][IMG]http://www.longwarjournal.org/images/Afgh-NATO-Map-2008-thumb-thumb.JPG[/IMG]

    NATO has made a renewed push to secure Afghanistan after attacks rose to their highest levels since the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar was ouster in early 2002. At NATO's annual summit in Bucharest, Bulgaria, members have committed additional troops to Afghanistan. France will send a battalion of infantry – more than 700 troops. Georgia will send 500 soldiers and Poland will send 400 additional soldiers. Czechoslovakia has committed 100 elite counterterrorism troops.Romania, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Britain agreed to add an unspecified amount of additional troops. The US will deploy two additional Marine battalions and supporting elements this year and committed additional forces in 2009. Canada has committed to staying in Afghanistan through 2011 after threatening to withdraw if NATO members did not step up and shoulder their fair share of the fighting.

    NATO has also secured supply line through Russian territory to resupply forces in Afghanistan after fears that the Pakistani supply lines through the Khyber Pass would be interrupted by Taliban attacks in Pakistan.

    According to NATO statistics, “More than 75% of [Afghanistan] experienced less than 1 security incident per quarter per 10,000 people, supporting the assessment that the insurgency is not expanding across [Afghanistan]. 70% of the events occurred in 10% of the districts. The population of these districts is less than 6% of the population of [Afghanistan].” NATO attributes the increase in violence to increased operations by NATO forces.

    Data provided by to The Long War Journal by Vigilant Strategic Services Afghanistan (VSSA) shows that the attacks by the Taliban and “Anti-Government Elements” such as Gulbaddin Hekmatyer’s Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin and other allied groups have increased from the first quarter of 2007 when compared with the first quarter of 2008. The eastern, southeastern, and southern provinces bordering Pakistan still remain the most violent areas in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]

    An interesting article about the current situation our troops and commanders face in Afghanistan. In some areas of the country security is improving, while in the south (Helmand, Paktika, etc...) it has been deteriorating ever since Pervez Musharraf signed the Waziristan Accords in 2006.

  2. #2
    Afghanistan should be the most important place to the U.S. right now. CIA Director Hayden has made that abundlty clear.

    But we are more worried about Obama's church right now.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=cr726;2466550]Afghanistan should be the most important place to the U.S. right now. CIA Director Hayden has made that abundlty clear.

    But we are more worried about Obama's church right now.[/QUOTE]

    Truth. But the thing with Afghanistan is that it is less of a country, in our terms, than Iraq is (if that was possible). It pretty much is a territory that has never been a united nation, whose tribes view outsiders with distrust, and whose borders are disregarded entirely. Even if violence goes down in some parts how can NATO cement these tribal loyalties together to form national unity? My guess is that we will be in Afghanistan for decades more.

  4. #4
    Two things have happend since we forgot about what we started in Afghanistan.

    1. They are now one of the world's best suppliers of heroin.
    2. Taliban is back up and running.

    These are not two things you brag about.

    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2466574]Truth. But the thing with Afghanistan is that it is less of a country, in our terms, than Iraq is (if that was possible). It pretty much is a territory that has never been a united nation, whose tribes view outsiders with distrust, and whose borders are disregarded entirely. Even if violence goes down in some parts how can NATO cement these tribal loyalties together to form national unity? My guess is that we will be in Afghanistan for decades more.[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=cr726;2466608]Two things have happend since we forgot about what we started in Afghanistan.

    1. They are now one of the world's best suppliers of heroin.
    2. Taliban is back up and running.

    These are not two things you brag about.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think we ever forgot about Afghanistan, but controlling a nation that size with 47,000 NATO troops is a daunting task to say the very least. If we do withdraw from Iraq (which I hope we don't) one positive may be that we would have more at our disposal to salvage the democratic experiment in Afghanistan but until the Waziristan district is controlled by the Pakistanis the Taliban can simply wait it out.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us