What's new

Taliban in 72 percent of Afghanistan: report

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan


And these losers blame Pakistan for a small tribal area with the presence of Taliban. They are harboring the Taliban in 72% of Afghanistan!!

What a disgrace these people are. Their lies and irresponsible behavior has cost us Pakistani lives.

Its true, Asim.... i have seen this report which issued by a UK based think tank "International counsil on security and development" formerly known as
"The Senlic council" showing the complete failure of NATO in Afghanistan and the reasons behind it. they have mentioned that: The Taliban now holds a permanent presence in 72% of Afghanistan, up from 54% a year ago. Taliban forces have advanced from their southern heartlands, where they are now the de facto governing power in a number of towns and villages, to Afghanistan’s western and north-western provinces, as well as provinces north of Kabul. Within a year, the Taliban’s permanent presence in the country has increased by a startling 18%.
Though Richard Boucher has rejected this survey, but I have heared about another detailed report prepared by an US based think tank (which they still kept confidantial, as such I am not confirmed as yet) saying 80% excistance of Taliban.

In fact that's the reason I kept on calling that US lead Nato now seek scapegoat to undermine their failure.... and its to be frank they now playing tactics to pressure up Pakistan !!!

Advance of the Taliban: Maps

Map: One year ago - November, 2007

929b1766e20266348bd57f7cb9c227ce.jpg


Map: One year later, November, 2008

145bdf8d33aade6ecc48d41dff940373.jpg


NOTE: Map statistics are based upon publicly recorded attacks and local perceptions of Taliban presence

Legend:

Dark Pink: Permanent Taliban Presence (72% in 2008)
= Average of one or more insurgent attacks per week, according to public record of attacks. It is highly likely that many attacks are not publicly known.

Light Pink: Substantial Taliban Presence (21% in 2008)
= Based on number of attacks and local perceptions (Frequency of Taliban sightings)

Grey Areas: Light Taliban Presence (7% in 2008)
= Based on number of attacks and local perceptions (Frequency of Taliban sightings)

The colour coded dots on the map represent civilian, military or insurgent fatalities since January 2008
Red = civilian fatalities
Green = military fatalities
Yellow = insurgent fatalities

Please check details at following link:The Taliban Advance
 
There are different parties in this conflict using the name of talibans, or being labeled as talibans (note the complication in the issue). I am not saying that the word talebans doesn't exist, I am saying that it is being labeled and used by several different parties for their personal agendas, while conveniently blaming all the crap on the Talebans, because they were the authenticated bad guys by the west, so to legitimize talebans 'evil crimes', they conveniently label all the criminal activities on the term "talebans" regardless of who committed the crime.

Now split those parties between two section:

1 - The ones labeled talebans by Media.
2 - The ones using the name of talebans.

So in #1, there are people like Mangal Bagh, Haji Namdar (in Pakistan) and then several other groups of Mujahideen inside Afghanistan, who are fighting against NATO and their subsidries, yet none of them call themselves talibans (or even associate themselves with talibans, they call themselves Mujahideen or their regular party names), but Media constantly call them Talebans, or associate them with TTP.

#2 category is supported by Anglo-Indo-American coalition financially, miliatrily and with manpower for the following reasons:

1 - Creating a (fake) threat of enemy to legitimize their illegal occupation and indiscriminate killing of Afghan civilians, so they carry suicide bombings, etc. etc. against civilians in Afghanistan.

2 - Destablization of Pakistan. Hence we see their (the so called TTP) target is military and security personals and installations of Pakistan.

And all of this they do by hiding behind the name of Talebans, so the blame is thrown at Islam and the local people (Pashtuns), while the real criminals (the allies) can get away with their crimes and can legitimize all future attacks by changing the perception of the common people in the world and even in our own country, by duping them in believing that the problem is local or with Islam.

With that they achieve three major goals:

1- Gaining international support against the (selfcreated) enemy to legitimize their illegal ocupation.
2- Destablization of Pakistan (to dismember it as per their future agenda).
3- Disrepute Islam, to stop the conversion/inclination of non-Muslims towards Islam, as you would know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and they had to stop that, since this WoT is in reality, war on Islam.

And all that, they want to achieve to exploit our resources and control our region and people. Typical Imperialism.

Unless and until we are going to understand the actual role of Allies and stop supporting them, Pakistan is not going to stablize in coming years, rather will plunge into more chaos, anarchy and a possible civil war.
 
The Taliban Advance

Norine MacDonald QC is the President and Lead Field Researcher for The Senlis Council
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Taliban Advance

Paul Burton is the Director of Policy Analysis for The Senlis Council

More videos covering talks on same issue, with different channels are available on youtube for further reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are different parties in this conflict using the name of talibans, or being labeled as talibans (note the complication in the issue). I am not saying that the word talebans doesn't exist, I am saying that it is being labeled and used by several different parties for their personal agendas, while conveniently blaming all the crap on the Talebans, because they were the authenticated bad guys by the west, so to legitimize talebans 'evil crimes', they conveniently label all the criminal activities on the term "talebans" regardless of who committed the crime.

Now split those parties between two section:

1 - The ones labeled talebans by Media.
2 - The ones using the name of talebans.

So in #1, there are people like Mangal Bagh, Haji Namdar (in Pakistan) and then several other groups of Mujahideen inside Afghanistan, who are fighting against NATO and their subsidries, yet none of them call themselves talibans (or even associate themselves with talibans, they call themselves Mujahideen or their regular party names), but Media constantly call them Talebans, or associate them with TTP.

#2 category is supported by Anglo-Indo-American coalition financially, miliatrily and with manpower for the following reasons:

1 - Creating a (fake) threat of enemy to legitimize their illegal occupation and indiscriminate killing of Afghan civilians, so they carry suicide bombings, etc. etc. against civilians in Afghanistan.

2 - Destablization of Pakistan. Hence we see their (the so called TTP) target is military and security personals and installations of Pakistan.

And all of this they do by hiding behind the name of Talebans, so the blame is thrown at Islam and the local people (Pashtuns), while the real criminals (the allies) can get away with their crimes and can legitimize all future attacks by changing the perception of the common people in the world and even in our own country, by duping them in believing that the problem is local or with Islam.

With that they achieve three major goals:

1- Gaining international support against the (selfcreated) enemy to legitimize their illegal ocupation.
2- Destablization of Pakistan (to dismember it as per their future agenda).
3- Disrepute Islam, to stop the conversion/inclination of non-Muslims towards Islam, as you would know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and they had to stop that, since this WoT is in reality, war on Islam.

And all that, they want to achieve to exploit our resources and control our region and people. Typical Imperialism.

Unless and until we are going to understand the actual role of Allies and stop supporting them, Pakistan is not going to stablize in coming years, rather will plunge into more chaos, anarchy and a possible civil war.

Execellent analysis buddy.Presently war satuation is almost turned in favour of mujahadeen fighting for liberation of Afghanistan.Present tension between India and pakistan and movement of PA from western boarders towards eastern boarder will also be in their favour.
NATO is also facing problem of blockade of their supplies and they have no alternate route further weaken control of NATO.

Now NATO is considering to bring all waring faction within political circle of Afghanistan.Which is right strategy.

Afghans never accepted any foriegn occuption ,so history is repeating itself.
 
US readying south Afghan surge against Taliban
By JASON STRAZIUSO and RAHIM FAIEZ
732d818cae3a9f59a6ea1e2dfc684b86._.jpg

Jan 02, 2009 (35 mins ago)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – Afghanistan's southern rim, the Taliban's spiritual birthplace and the country's most violent region, has for the last two years been the domain of British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers.

That's about to change.

In what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq, the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into the south, augmenting 12,500 NATO soldiers who have proved too few to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.

New construction at Kandahar Air Field foreshadows the upcoming infusion of American power. Runways and housing are being built, along with two new U.S. outposts in Taliban-held regions of Kandahar province.

And in the past month the south has been the focus of visiting U.S. and other dignitaries — Sen. John McCain, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, U.S. congressional delegations and leaders from NATO headquarters in Europe.

For the first time since NATO took over the country in 2006, an experienced U.S. general, Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, is assigned to the south.

He says U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, NATO's commander in Afghanistan, has made the objectives clear in calling the situation in the south a stalemate and asking for more troops, on top of the 32,000 Americans already in Afghanistan.

"By introducing more U.S. capability in here we have the potential to change the game," Nicholson said.

The Army Corps of Engineers will spend up to $1.3 billion in new construction for troop placements in southern Afghanistan, said the corps commander in Afghanistan, Col. Thomas O'Donovan.

Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the last two years, and Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.

U.S. officials hope to add at least three new brigades of ground forces in the southern region, along with assets from an aviation brigade, surveillance and intelligence forces, engineers, military police and Special Forces. In addition, a separate brigade of new troops is deploying to two provinces surrounding Kabul.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that Afghanistan could get up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in 2009, depending on the security situation in Iraq. Col. Greg Julian, a U.S. military spokesman, said Monday that one ground brigade should arrive by spring, a second by summer and a third by fall.
Nicholson said he expects the U.S. forces to be deployed in Kandahar city and along vital Highway 1, which links Kandahar to Kabul, and in neighboring Helmand province, the world's largest producer of opium poppies for heroin.

NATO forces are well positioned in three key areas of northern Helmand, said British Lt. Gen. J.B. Dutton, deputy commander of the NATO's Afghan mission.

"What we have not yet achieved is to join those areas up, so there is a security presence that allows locals to drive safely between those areas. That's the sort of thing we are going to want to improve," he said.

Since 2006, the U.S. has concentrated its forces in eastern Afghanistan, along the border with Pakistan, while the south is policed by 8,500 British troops, 2,500 Canadians and 2,500 Dutch.

Their overall commander is Dutch Maj. Gen. Mart de Kruif — who would also have command of any incoming U.S. forces in the south next year. By the fall of 2010 the top officer in the south will be American.

The infusion of U.S. power risks Americanizing a war that until now has been a shared mission of 41 coalition countries. But Dutton, the British general, suggested there was no choice. "It has to do with national capacity and a number of political considerations in those countries," he said.

In Canada and many European countries, governments face low public support for keeping troops in Afghanistan combat zones.

Dutton said the British contribution is "significant," as well as that of Canada, which he noted has lost more troops per capita in Afghanistan than any other nation.

Nicholson, the U.S. general, said the Canadians have fought "heroically" but simply don't have enough forces to secure all of Kandahar. The Canadian Embassy declined to comment.

More U.S. troops — 151 — died in Afghanistan in 2008 than any of the seven years since the invasion to oust the Taliban, and U.S. officials warn violence will probably intensify next year.

"If we get the troops, they're going to move into areas that haven't been secured, and when we do that, the enemy is there, and we're going to fight," said Nicholson, who spent 16 months commanding a brigade of 10th Mountain Division troops in eastern Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007.

That fighting should eventually clear the way for security and governance to take hold, he said.

"If you want to summarize that as it's going to get worse before it gets better, that's exactly what we're talking about," he said.
___

Straziuso reported from Kabul, and Faiez from Kandahar.
 
Main problem is that NATO failed to understand that Talaban have very strong cammand and control and they have their own jirga system which is responsible for justice and all decision of futhur in Afghanistan
when NATO decided to attacked Afghanistan they treathen Mullah omer who told them Afghans love to live in mud houses and their diet is dry bread and tea.He told them that Afghan dont need imperialism in Afghanistan ,they can live without these facilities and plastic money and living from thausand of years.He also said that he is not afraid of USA miltery power and believe on power suprior then USA which is power of Allah.
He told them if you have solid proof against OBL we will provide you justice but will not hand over to you.
After seven years there is no improvement in Afghanistan all efforts are looking will be in vain.

If some body dont want to drink water no body can force him to drink water.There is will there is way.

I suggest NATO should involve all waring factions in political process and transfer them power.
 
pakistan does noyhing on terrorism.so many were killed in mumbai and you do not have any guilt for that.if you cant fight terror india will come and fight in place of you
 
pakistan does noyhing on terrorism.so many were killed in mumbai and you do not have any guilt for that.if you cant fight terror india will come and fight in place of you

Yes and a fine mess you would make of it too ....but it would be amusing to watch inept troops trying to fight in Afghan.......after all they have managed to stamp out all their homegrown problems right??:lol:
 
If US and allies continue with the same policies, I think Taliban may take over all of Afghanistan, Their ambitions to harm Pakistan are also very very risky not only for the region but for the whole world.
 
Afghanistan is land lock country they need pakistan more then we need them ,they can not afford to make pakistan their enemy.
 
In Afghanistan, Terrain Rivals Taliban as Enemy

Mountainous Region in East Especially Challenging

By Candace Rondeaux

Washington Post Foreign Service

Saturday, January 24, 2009; Page A10

KHUGA KHEYL, Afghanistan -- It was near sunset when the tire on one of the armored vehicles blew out on the way back through the village of Khuga Kheyl this month. The U.S. Army convoy stopped dead in a narrow, rocky cleft between two small mountains. A gang of Afghan boys ran down a nearby slope toward the convoy as it jerked to a halt near the border with Pakistan.

That morning, Capt. Jay Bessey had warned his platoon not to waste time and to stay tight. There was word that a suicide attacker might try to infiltrate his small base in a remote district in the eastern Afghan province of Nangahar. There was also a rumor that Taliban forces may have planted more than a dozen bombs along the convoy's route near another isolated district close by.

A flat tire an hour before sunset was the last thing Bessey needed. Yet there he sat, waiting for another unit to arrive with a spare. The incident underscored what all U.S. forces operating near the 1,500-mile-long border know: that the tyranny of the terrain is almost as formidable an obstacle to their goals here as the treachery of the Taliban.


The plan had been to meet with district tribal elders, deliver food aid and drop off a few benches and tables at a new school, creating a little local goodwill for U.S. efforts to stabilize the region, then get back to base before dark. Instead, Bessey sat listening to a village elder who had scrambled down the mountain from Khuga Kheyl with cups of tea and a laundry list of demands while the sun set on the convoy.

The mission in Khuga Kheyl was textbook counterinsurgency -- the kind of approach Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, has been trying to drive home to U.S. troops since he was a field commander in Iraq. There, under Petraeus, U.S. troops reached out to Sunni tribal leaders in the western province of Anbar to form community-based militias that helped reverse the tide of violence. The so-called Anbar Awakening, combined with an increase in U.S. troops, gradually created pockets of security in areas previously dominated by insurgents.

Petraeus, who is now in charge of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has said he plans to launch a similar approach this year in Afghanistan in a bid to retake the initiative from a resurgent Taliban. For that strategy to succeed, U.S. troops will have to broaden their presence in areas of Afghanistan where development has been slow, security precarious and confidence in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited.

Many of those areas lie in eastern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan, which has become a gateway for the insurgency. With U.S. troop levels set to double to about 62,000 in Afghanistan in the coming year, American military officials here say the struggle to win tribal allegiances in remote, isolated places such as Khuga Kheyl will define the success or failure of Petraeus's plan. But in far eastern Afghanistan, where tribal loyalties often trump national interests, that is no easy task.

Rough, often impassable mountain terrain has made it tough to make inroads into border areas where thousands of Pashtun tribesmen teeter between support for Karzai and support for the Taliban. Last year, Afghanistan's eastern border provinces witnessed some of the bloodiest battles between coalition and insurgent forces. Insurgent incursions in the east increased by nearly 45 percent in 2008, according to the U.S. military. And many of the 151 U.S. troops killed last year died in combat in areas bordering Pakistan.

The conditions have made for a tense atmosphere for Bessey's men in the 6th Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based in Fort Hood, Tex., but he has pushed hard to counter their fears. "I try to tell our guys, 'You know, we're not going to win this thing by killing people,' " Bessey said. "We're not going to win by being the ugly Americans out there."

Bessey, a tall, athletic-looking West Point graduate from Michigan, glanced over at the stalled convoy while he settled in on a pile of rocks and waited for help to arrive. He vigorously worked a plug of tobacco in the corner of his mouth while he listened to Malik Dalawar, the Khuga Kheyl tribal elder, plead his case.

Thick-fisted and balding, with a stubbly white beard, Dalawar took Bessey's measure with a long, hard look. We need guns, he said. At night, there are few NATO forces or Afghan police or troops around to safeguard local villagers. Dalawar said he and his people needed some way to defend themselves against the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters who regularly sweep into the area from Pakistan. But Bessey was not entirely convinced.

Dalawar, a member of the Mohmand tribe, said he is no fan of the Taliban. But in places such as Khuga Kheyl, the pressure on tribal elders to join the Taliban is intense. Electricity is scarce. Paved roads are nonexistent. And insurgent hideouts are abundant on both sides of the border. Dalawar said insurgent commanders regularly try to entice him to join the fight against coalition forces.

"They tell us to fight alongside them. They say: 'We will give you roads. We will give you electricity.' The Taliban, they tell us: 'Look, the Afghan government has given you nothing. If you fight with us, you can have everything,' " Dalawar said. "When we tell them, 'No, we will not do this,' then they tell us they will take our villages by force if they have to."

The threat in Khuga Kheyl is serious. A day before Bessey's convoy passed through the village, about 600 Afghan Taliban fighters had overrun a Pakistani military base in the Mohmand tribal area just across the border. The assault left 46 Pakistani troops dead. Regional experts and military officials speculated that many of the attackers came from an area not far from Khuga Kheyl.

"I am an elder, so if someone has a gun and I don't, I can't do anything," Dalawar said.

"If the area is secure, then you don't need a weapon," Bessey replied.

Dalawar tried again: "If something happens and I do not have an AK-47, it could be a problem."


"If you have a weapon, it could be a problem for someone else," Bessey said.

In other parts of Afghanistan, the debate over whether to arm local tribal leaders has been largely settled. In southern Afghanistan and in provinces near the capital, Kabul, where the Taliban is strongest, the training and arming of local tribal militias will soon be underway.

Nevertheless, some Afghans have said they fear that arming local militias will lead to abuses and could reignite the same intertribal frictions that sparked a protracted and brutal civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Lt. Col. Patrick Daniel Jr., commander of the U.S. battalion based in Nangahar province, said many American officers in the field support the idea of allowing responsible Afghan tribal elders to arm themselves. But such an approach carries risks and might not work in every province, Daniel said.

"For a lot of us out here, we recognize that it's much like how we feel about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the States," Daniel said. "But we already have tribal disputes that are resolved by violence, and when you give them more weapons, that could mean those disputes could get resolved with those weapons. So it's a roll of the dice. Still, you can't rule it out . . . because people here need to protect themselves."

When another U.S. convoy arrived with a spare tire, Bessey deferred the decision on Dalawar's request for a few weeks, saying he would bring it up with the incoming U.S. commander in the region. He brushed the mountain dust from his pants and called for his troops to mount up.

Dalawar looked the American soldiers over one more time. He frowned slightly. The sky darkened as the sun dropped behind the mountains. He shook Bessey's hand and said he would be glad to see him again.
 
NATO Calls for More Cooperation With Pakistan to Combat Taliban

By Michael Heath

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called for greater cooperation between the alliance and Pakistan to combat Taliban militants in Afghanistan, saying extra U.S. troops alone won’t defeat the insurgency.

The NATO-led force of about 50,000 soldiers in Afghanistan is battling militants trying to topple the Afghan government. The U.S. plans to deploy as many as 30,000 additional soldiers to try to turn the tide of the insurgency.

Pakistan is a key element in the Afghan struggle as western supply lines run through the country and militants shelter in its north, infiltrating the border to attack international troops in Afghanistan.

NATO wants to set up “coordination centers” along the border to allow better cooperation between Pakistani and international troops, de Hoop Scheffer told reporters in Islamabad yesterday, according to the official Associated Press of Pakistan. He said military force isn’t the only solution to extremism, calling for economic development in the tribal areas.

Thousands of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters sought shelter in northwestern Pakistan after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

Opium Crop

At a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and de Hoop Scheffer discussed combating opium cultivation in Afghanistan, which is the main source of finance for the Taliban insurgency.

Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium, the raw ingredient for heroin, and the Taliban may have generated $100 million from last year’s crop, according to the United Nations.

The NATO chief and defense minister also discussed tensions between Pakistan and India following the November terrorist attack on Mumbai. India blames Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for the attack that left 164 people dead and further strained ties between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

The tensions have jeopardized Pakistan’s campaign against extremists in the west as the country can only completely focus on the frontier with Afghanistan when its eastern border with India is peaceful, Mukhtar told de Hoop Scheffer. Pakistan has deployed extra troops to its border with India since the Mumbai attacks.

Mukhtar said Pakistan is investigating the events in Mumbai and India needs to understand Pakistan’s position as it is also a victim of terrorism.

Pro-Taliban Cleric

Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships killed 11 militants and wounded nine others in two battles in the Swat Valley yesterday, APP said.

Pakistani forces are fighting supporters of Maulana Fazlullah, a pro-Taliban cleric who started an armed campaign to impose Islamic law in Swat, a once popular tourist resort located north of Islamabad.

Militants in the region last month demanded an end to classes for girls above Grade 4 and threatened to blow up schools that violate the ban. The Taliban banned girls from attending school during their rule of Afghanistan.

A girls’ school was attacked with explosives in the Swat city of Mingora on the night of Jan. 21-22, destroying the building, APP said. It is the 184th school to be attacked by militants, 169 of which were for girls, according to the report.

Students in Swat are on vacation until March 1 and no one was hurt in the attack, APP said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Heath in Sydney at mheath1@bloomberg.net.
 
Hisbe Islami claims killing 15 US troops in Afghanistan
Updated at: 8010 PST, Thursday, January 29, 2009


KABUL: Hisbe Islami group in Afghanistan Wednesday claimed killing 15 US soldiers in an attack on US army camp located in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

Former president Afghanistan and commander Hisbe Islami Gulbadin Hikmatyar made this claim in his statement to media persons.

According to statement, Hisbe Islami militants attacked on a US army camp killing 15 US troops and wounding many more.

However, no US confirmation was reported immediately after Hikmatyar’s statement.

Hisbe Islami claims killing 15 US troops in Afghanistan
 
pakistan does noyhing on terrorism.so many were killed in mumbai and you do not have any guilt for that.if you cant fight terror india will come and fight in place of you

We look forward to your deployment in Afghanistan. You have been saying this for a year when are you going to deploy those mighty soldiers. It took them 60 hours to kill 10 people. Lets calculate how much time they shall need to kill taliban or get themselves killed :lol:
 

Back
Top Bottom