Taliban give US occupiers a "New Viet-Nam"

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Thursday March 04, 2004 11:34

by JMcK

jimmymac61 at hotmail dot com

"I play the Terminator, but you guys are the real terminators." Arnold Schwarzenegger, Baghdad, 4 July 2003

Back to take on the once great "superpower"

The US "Terminators"

US military deaths in Afghanistan ~ 110
US military deaths in Iraq ~ 530
Cumulative Afghan civilian deaths ~ 4,000
Cumulative Iraqi civilian deaths ~ 10,000
Monthly cost of occupation Afghan ($ 950 mn - ) $ 1 bn
Monthly cost of occupation Iraq ($ 3.9 bn - ) $ 4.4 bn
Total forces involved Afghan 44,000
Total forces involved Iraq 222.000

Mullah Omar remains firmly in control of Taliban operations, directing such through a 10-man leadership council that was formed in June 2003. The reorganized rebels appear well-funded and highly motivated. The ample cash served to acquire sophisticated equipment including satellite phones and night-vision goggles.

By mid-2003, the Taliban resistance was making use of remote-controlled devices which increase the effectiveness of the guerrillas. They had set up mobile training camps in the border regions. In later 2003, the Taliban formed four committees - on political, military, cultural and economic affairs - to make their resistance against coalition forces more effective. By August 2003, the reorganized Taliban appointed a military commander for the northern region, (including Faryab), Mullah Mohammad Asim Muttaqi. A couple days later, a convoy of vehicles traveling on a road between Maimana and Almar in Faryab was attacked at night, killing 11 persons.

Taliban spokespersons have publicly elaborated upon their politicoal-military strategy. The group's goal is to tie down the US and NATO (including Irish Army) in Afghanistan and force it to spend huge sums on the occupation, responding to limited though geographically dispersed hit-and-run attacks,. The mujahideen employ the classic pattern of insurgent warfare:
"The enemy attacks, we retreat; the enemy camps, we raid; the enemy tires, we attack. When the Russians came here we fought to save our liberty and independence."

The US would gradually be sapped by such a slow, costly and grinding conflict and would abandon Afghanistan after 2 or 3 years. The Taliban have increasingly directed their attacks precisely at the 'softer' proxy forces, killing 400-500 Afghan troops between June 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004, while only killing less than ten American soldiers. For example, such sporadic, small unit attacks killed nine US soldiers in the Shkin area of Paktika alone in 2003.

The heavy-handed US search-and-destroy forays over time swell the ranks of supporters, as the battle for Afghan hearts and minds tipped in favor of the Taliban. US aerial 'decapitation raids' frequently devastate small villages and families. In January 2004, two US raids killed 15 children and not a single Taliban was either captured or killed. The reality of living daily in fear is captured in the words of a young girl in Loi Karez, Zabul

Feb. 12/13, 2004 - Khost - 21 rockets fired at Camp Salerno on Khost airport
Feb. 13, 2004 - Khost -Remote-controlled mine kills 1 policeman and a shopkeeper
Feb. 11, 2004 - Khost - Khost deputy intelligence chief killed
Feb. 13, 2004 - Ghazni - mine under Humvee killing 1 and injuring 9 US troops
Feb. 14, 2004 - Faryab - Taliban attacked convoy killing 4 Afghan deminers

The prospect is of war without end, elusive guerrilla fighters, persisting violence, use of ineffective local proxies, corruption and impoverishment. The non-stop mantra in the mainstream corporate media about "remnants" of the Taliban being at the source of this conflict, misrepresents the depth and organization of resistance to the US occupation and is part of the US propaganda war. About all the US occupation force could report on optimistically was its new 20-house military headquarters opened on February 3, 2004 in the posh Wazir Akbar Khan area of Kabul. That evening, two rockets slammed into Kabul.
Afghanistan is now referred to as a "humanitarian disaster" with more social and political problems than when the Taliban had taken over from warlords and criminals

save preference

Comments (8 of 8)

Damn right!

by righteous pragmatist

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:17

Bush will mount his Saddam's stuffed head on the Oval office wall and carpet the room with his tanned hide. Rumsfeld will hand out phials of Ossama DNA at his next dinner party

Best chuckle I've had

by Lone gunman

Sun Mar 07, 2004 17:02

The Taliban give the US a new Vietnam.A rag tag bunch who are now manging a few ineffective shoot and scoot operations against the coalation forces.[For those of the terrorist lovers out there who have forgotten that there is a multi national force in Afghanistan.Not just the US.]
You really got to read up on some history RE Vietnam and Afghansitan.One slight difference there was a friendly country supporting the war in S Vietnam,called N Vietnam,who was being sponsored by China in arms &material. So which country is sponsoring Al quieda?Missed that bit.
The latest news is bin liners second in commands son has been lifted and is singing like a birdie as to where his dad and bin liner are hiding under a rock somwhere.
Wont be long before ol bin liner will be doing a guest apperance on the news being checked for fleas by US special forces.Before he goes off to join his pal Saddo in an undisclosed location.

Heresy

by Will

Sun Mar 07, 2004 16:09

"the will of god"???
Despite what we are told about "Man being made in the image of god", the fact is that man has defined 'god' in man's image.
I put it to you, that if you claim to know 'god', or to define what 'god' wants, then you are a heretic.

Your choice

Sun Mar 07, 2004 09:29

You may be right! Perhaps there is no onus on us to thank or work for the One who made us. Bang on about religion all you want, no matter what the religion or none it is the will of God we must follow not the will of earthly "kings" or gurus of political belief.

Do we not treat cliches and ideologies like religions? With even more fanatacism in most cases and why? Because the Labour Court says so? Because it is law? Because some focus group has made a recommendation?

The other thing of course is that following the will of God will result in what is best for us. Following what the earthly ones say will only result in further suffering and slavery. Your choice. It is only yourself you will damage.

Make a choice, if you have the guts, because one thing is for sure these Mujahideen have somethng George Bush and Bertie "el coco" Ahern don't................magairlie!

God is Great

C'mon the Taliban!!!

by Free Thinker

Sun Mar 07, 2004 01:18

Up the Rebels!! Kill them yankee scumbags!!!

Reject ALL religious fundamentalism

by Humanist

Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34

And what of the xtians who would also want to turn back the clock? I heard a catholic priest recently lament that they were no longer respected, he said that the whole child abuse thing was being exagerated. Clearly he was in denial, but it does show the dangers of giving any ground to religious fundamentalists. So we should be aware that the xtians too would wish to turn back the clock and return us to a "Hobbesian premordial Dark Ages"
Having said that, I think it appropriate to point out that those prosecuting the war on behalf of "Western Civilisation" are not to be trusted on that very issue. Bush and his cohorts are promoting a brand of xtian fundamentalism which is every bit as deranged as anything al quaeda can throw up. The Bushites are trying to roll back any gains made by the Womens' movement over the past thirty years, and are trying to undermine the Humanist movement.
If as 'Righteous Pragmatist' says - "Our civilisation is based on Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Voltaire, Mill, Keynes, Hayek - Reason, Science, Philosophy,the individual conscience, litteracy. education, democracy and freedom- The Enlightenment." - then I don't see how he can back a regime which is clearly antagonistic to those same values.
It is not a case of "My enemies enemy is therefore my friend". We should not choose between one set of fundamentalist nutters or another, we should reject them all.

Obedience to God

Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:54

Perhaps that should be the bottom line of the "War on Terror": Belief and obedience to God is the true sign of a "terrorist" a-la-USA.

So let the bastards win then, is that what your saying?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:23

Lets let them impose extremist Islam on ordinary Afghans?
Let the Taliban invite Al-Qaeda to train moronic ideologically psychotic terrorists how to kill innocent people worldwide?
These fucking bastards all need to be captured or killed.
The War on Terror is very very real.
These fuckin religious nuts are out of their fuckin minds.
All the freedoms which Westerners enjoy are under threat from these fuckers.
if they had their way there would be a worldwide Islamic Empire.
No human rights only blind obedience to ALLAH and religious horseshite and superstitious supernatural babble.
If you dont accept this Flintstone government they'll kill you.
Our civilisation is based on Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Voltaire, Mill, Keynes, Hayek - Reason, Science, Philosophy,the individual conscience, litteracy. education, democracy and freedom- The Enlightenment.
These bastards are trying to return the world to a Hobbesian premordial Dark Ages.
Fuck them. FUCK THEM.
Id rather fight and kill these bastards than let them execute another 9/11.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Taliban give US occupiers a "New Viet-Nam"

Comments (8 of 8)