US general claims 30 percent of Afghanistan population is controlled or contested by Taliban

The Taliban and allies control about 10 percent of the population. However, another 20 percent is contested leaving the Afghan government with control of 70 percent of the population.

The claim above is made by General John Nicholson, the commander of NATO's Resolute Support and US Forces in Afghanistan. Nicholson characterized the situation as a positive development since the Taliban are operating primarily in rural areas. At a press briefing Nicholson said to reporters:

“We believe the Afghans control or heavily influence 68 to 70 percent of the population. We believe the enemy control or influence about 10 percent of the population. And then the balance, roughly a quarter, is in play, is contested. This is a positive in the sense of the majority of the population is under control of the government forces and this primarily the population centers, and so on, and the enemy is primarily in more rural areas that have less impact on the future of the country.”

Although Nicholson downplayed the importance of the Taliban presence in rural areas, the Taliban raises funds in the areas, recruits and trains fighters. The Taliban then launch punishing attacks on urban areas including the capital Kabul. Nicholson also claimed that recent reports of concerted attacks on some provincial capitals were exaggerating the security situation, When asked what percentage of Afghan territory the Taliban control, Nicholson would not answer and said only that his estimate is based upon population control.

The Long War Journal estimate based on press reports, military and government statements, and the claims of the Taliban, is that the Taliban control about 10 percent of the districts and contests another 12 percent. Control means the Taliban are openly administering a district providing services, security, and running their own court services. In contested areas, the government may be in contol of the central city of the district but little else. The Taliban often occupy a center briefly and then leave as the cost of holding it is regarded as too high. The Journal also says it is likely that additional districts are also contested or controlled by the Taliban. These additional districts could very well bring the total population contested or controlled close to that of Nicholson. The Taliban control and contest more territory than at any time since US-lead forces invaded after the 9/11 attack.

Nicholson also said that there were up to 1,300 Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan. He claimed they received aid and guidance from the leadership in Syria. While Nicholson still described the overall situation as positive since the Afghan government controlled most of the population and larger cities, General Joe Dunford Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the situation was a stalemate in remarks to the U.S. Senate. As well as controling more territory than ever since the invasion, the Taliban is closing in on a number of important provincial capitals including Talin Kot, Lashkar Gah, and Kunduz. Kunduz already was taken once by the Taliban and then recaptured.

NATO to keep about 12,000 troops in Afghanistan through next year

NATO has decided to maintain a steady level of about 12,000 troops in Afghanistan during 2016. It also launched a campaign to fund 350,000 Afghan forces it hopes will be able eventually to secure Afghanistan against the Taliban.

Even 14 years after the United States first sent troops to Afghanistan, many NATO members still doubt the ability of the Afghan armed forces to defend against the Taliban. Just recently, the Taliban took over the city of Kunduz in the north. The U.S. bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital using an AC-130 gunship, killing 30 people. In spite of serious questions about the military report on the incident, neither the U.S. nor the Afghans have given approval for an independent investigation. The security situation appears to be getting worse rather than better with the U.S. embassy warning U.S. citizens that there may be an attack in the capital, Kabul, in the next 24 hours. Officials claimed the attacks could include multiple assailants and car bombs throughout Kabul but no specific targets were identified.

Originally, the 28-member NATO alliance had intended to slash the number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year but given recent attacks by the Taliban and the apparent inability of the Afghan forces to fend off the Taliban on their own NATO has decided to leave a considerable force in the country. The rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan also concerns NATO. Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg said: "We are in Afghanistan to prevent that Afghanistan again becomes a safe haven for international terrorists ... that is also in our security interest to make sure that that doesn't happen." The NATO operation, Resolute Support will continue with no end date given by Stoltenberg: "Today, NATO allies and Resolute Support operational partners have agreed to sustain the Resolute Support presence ... during 2016. The mission ... will continue to be kept under review and, if necessary, will be adjusted to ensure its effectiveness."The 12,000 NATO forces will consist of about 7,000 from the United States and 5,000 from other NATO members as well as Georgia. The number does not include US counter-terrorism forces. NATO wants to raise about 3 billion euros to help pay for Afghan forces after 2018. The Afghan security forces budget is funded by the US and NATO allies and is already set up to the end of 2017. In accordance with an agreement reached in 2012, NATO allies and partners give $1 billion a year to fund the Afghan security forces. The United States contributes a further $4.1 billion annually. The US has already spent about $65 billion training and preparing Afghan security forces and Afhganistan has received a further $100 billion in aid from international donors. As shown on the appended video, Russia provides some help to Afghanistan's security forces as well.

Eric Margolis on NATO defeat in Afghanistan

Margolis has an article here on the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He begins by citing the dictum of the U.S. philosopher Santayana who said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. He thinks that the NATO mission in Afghanistan illustrates this well.

Margolis also includes a famous painting by Lady Elizabeth Butler called the retreat from Kabul. The painting shows the sole survivor out of 16,500 of the British Occupation Force alone on his horse outside of Kabul. This was in 1842.

Of course the NATO forces will not encounter a situation such as that but Margolis point still stands that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The Soviet Union too met disaster in Afghanistan but aided by Western support for the same jihadists who are not targets in the war against terror.

Margolis holds that NATO has met neither its military nor political objectives in Afghanistan and is now in full retreat. The much vaunted transition Margolis says cannot hide the fact that again what he calls mountain warriors from the 12th century have defeated the U.S. and its western allies.

While Margolis has a point this is only part of the story. After all the U.S. has an agreement to keep troops in Afghanistan for another decade and the west is going to spend billions each year on supporting the Afghan military. What is happening is a tactical retreat from very costly and politically unpopular intervention to a much reduced mode of military operations that will still include special forces, air cover, and drone strikes. This is much more palatable to the U.S. public and that is what counts especially in an election year. The retreat will be hailed as keeping promises and ending an unpopular war. For much more see the full article.

Former Taliban disillusioned with Afghan government program

A number of Afghans mired in poverty supported a government program that paid them to leave the insurgency but they are now returning according to reports. See this article.

The former supporters of the Taliban were promised payment and also a chance to train for jobs in return for leaving the Taliban. However, those who participated claim that the government broke promises and are disillusioned with the program. Some have returned to support the Taliban.

The Afghan Peace and Reconciliation Program was started in 2010 and is supposed to have helped wean a number of Afghans away from the insurgents. But as with many programs there is corruption and a failure to meet expectations.

Families claim they have not received promised benefits including a monthly stipend of 75 dollars for three months and job training.

The mother of a former insurgent says:"When we were living in the mountains, other fighters helped us," "They brought us food and provided us with shelter. Now we have been accepted back by the government, we don't have anything." , "The government hasn't paid any attention to us. We are very poor people. We have nothing. If we go back to the opponents of the government, maybe we will have a good life, a better life." If as much attention were paid to programs such as these as to the battle with the Taliban the NATO forces would probably be much better off.

Pakistan protests four deaths by NATO artillery fire

This is from wiredispatch. Don't expect to see this is in any mainstream press headlines. As the article mentions this is not an isolated incident. Events such as these help recruit suicide bombers in tribal societies who feel bound to revenge such killings.


ROUNDUP: Pakistan protests four deaths by NATO artillery fire


dpa
dpa - International News Service in English

Mar 13, 2008 07:37 EST

Islamabad (dpa) - Pakistan lodged a "strong protest" with the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan after one of their artillery shells killed four people on the Pakistani side of a remote border region, an army spokesman said Thursday.

Two children and two women were killed early Wednesday when coalition forces fighting militants in Afghanistan fired artillery shells into Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency and destroyed a house, Pakistan army spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas said.

It took a day to confirm the deaths because the remote area along the mountainous border has little infrastructure and it took time for Pakistani troops to get there, but once confirmed, "we lodged a strong protest," Abbas told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

"It was an accident. It didn't happen by design," he added.

Pakistan's tribal areas have experienced similar attacks since Taliban and al-Qaeda militants fled into the area after US-led forces attacked Afghanistan in late 2001.

In June last year three rockets which were fired from Afghanistan hit a madrassa in a small village south of the Dattakhil area of North Waziristan, killing more than 30 people, a local security official told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa at the time.

Wednesday's attack sparked a protest by around 2,500 angry tribesmen in Khar town of the neighbouring tribal district of Bajaur.

The demonstrators chanted slogans like "Death to American" and "Death to Musharraf," and set ablaze an American flag.

"This is not the first American attack in tribal areas. They carry out at least one such attack in every 15 to 20 days," a member of parliament from the tribal district, Kamran Khan, told the rally. "We condemn the killings of innocent people." dpa me ns jh

Swan Song for NATO

This is from Information Clearing House. Whitney is usually interesting and provocative but this as many of his articles loses some credibility through exagerration and inflated rhetoric. The Taliban control is limited to certain areas and it is only partial control. The Taliban is unable to resist a concerted attack and so uses for the most part classic techniques of guerilla warfare. Any attempt to actually exert complete control will result in being driven out by occupying forces and attempts to resist would be costly for the insurgents.
In spite of very little support for missions some European countries such as France and Poland seem anxious to curry favor with the U.S. Popular antipathy to the mission even in democracies is not determining of policy. The same is true in the U.S.

Swan Song for NATOThe Real Cost Of Defeat In Forgettistan By Mike Whitney"It is our right to defend our country. We are not a threat to other countries. But we have to use our rights when our country is occupied by foreign forces." - Mullah Omar, Taliban leader13/02/08 "ICH" -- - It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's state of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It was supposed to demonstrate—once and for all-- that the world's only superpower could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script. The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that America would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored. Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity to Afghanistan; just occupation. Seven years have passed and the country is still ruled by warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has gotten better. The country is in shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight. War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in Zabul, Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up operations and mount a Spring offensive. That means the hostilities will progressively intensify. The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they can survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over a better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause is just. After all, they're not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago. No difference. The US occupation will just be another grim footnote in the country's tragic history. The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people. That won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical level; victory is impossible. The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up like this: "The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic goals in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan’s freedom can only be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation." (RAWA www.rawa.org) Gradually, the Allies are beginning to see that Bush's war cannot be won and that continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting murkier all the time. The lack of direction just adds to the growing frustration. Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to bully the allies into sending more combat troops to fight in the South, but he met with stiff resistance . He said:"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance." But public support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their energy needs. Their economies are thriving and they can simply pay for their fuel on the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a crazy geopolitical "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed. Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few years, they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in Afghanistan has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is using the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control pipeline-routes from the Caspian Basin while surrounding Russia and China with military bases. Putin is right. Naturally, he'd like to persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to withdraw from Afghanistan which would strike a blow against the US-led alliance. And, that is the way it will probably turn out, too. Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO will disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall apart. The cracks are already visible. President Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country will become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are fighting a “poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to become a global movement”.But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan has fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down, malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of people have been internally displaced by the war. The occupation has created plenty of misery, but no democracy. The war was a failure. Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other country. The booming drug trade is the direct corollary of the US invasion. No one even denies this. Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success? Presently, there are no plans to improve the lives of ordinary Afghanis or to remove the warlords. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghanis now understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all. The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech, laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back. And now we are embroiled in an “unwinnable” war with a tenacious enemy that grows stronger and more resolute by the day. Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And that will be the end of NATO.

Report: NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.

NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place nor should there have ever been the misnamed Operation Enduring Freedom. Karzai's government is dependent upon the occupiers but he is nevertheless not a reliable puppet. In fact, he is trying to make deals himself with the Taliban even offering posts in his government. After all, someone who can live with former warlords and "reformed" Taliban in his present government will not care about the sensibilities of his Western handlers if it can save his own skin. The sooner that the US and allies come to their senses and the U.S. gives up its imperial designs wrapped up in flowery moral rhetoric the better. What they have produced is a government that produces most of the world's opium, condemns a journalist to death for distributing material on women's rights. It also condemned a Muslim convert to Christianity to death and kicked a female legislator out of the legislature because she criticised her fellow legislators. Even if NATO wins what you will have is a government that will be far from having any of the religious and human rights associated with western democracies. But face it that is not the point, the point is that the government goes along with US policy and interests for the most part. This is from the Washington Post.

NATO's Not Winning in Afghanistan, Report Says
By Ann Scott TysonWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 31, 2008; Page A18
NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.
"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO.
"Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state," warned the report, which called for "urgent action" to overhaul NATO strategy in coming weeks before an anticipated new offensive by Taliban insurgents in the spring.
The Atlantic Council report was one of two strongly worded assessments of the war in Afghanistan -- both led by Jones -- released at a Capitol Hill news conference yesterday. The second was by the Afghanistan Study Group, co-chaired by Jones and Thomas R. Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and other nations.
Jones said several steps are needed to "regain the momentum that appears to have been lost" in Afghanistan: a comprehensive campaign plan that integrates security and reconstruction work; the appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner to coordinate international efforts; and a new regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan that would include conferences with neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran.
Progress in Afghanistan "is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country," said the report by the Afghanistan Study Group, created by the Center for the Study of the Presidency, which was also involved with the Iraq Study Group.
"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the report said. It highlighted the lack of a clear strategy needed to "fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."
The study group said the United States should "decouple" Iraq and Afghanistan to establish a clear distinction between the funding and programs underway in the countries, which, it said, face different problems. It also called on Washington to appoint a special envoy for Afghanistan.
Violence has risen 27 percent in Afghanistan in the past year, with a 39 percent increase in attacks in the nation's eastern portion -- where most U.S. troops operate -- and a 60 percent surge in the province of Helmand, where the Taliban resurgence has been strongest.
Suicide bombings rose to 140 in 2007, compared with five between 2001 and 2005, according to official figures. U.S. and other foreign troop losses -- as well as Afghan civilian casualties -- reached the highest level since the U.S.-led invasion overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.
Amid the rising violence, the Pentagon announced this month that it would deploy 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan to help counter the expected Taliban offensive.

U.S. rejects more troops for Afghanistan

The US, along with Canada, Britain, and the Dutch, are trying to put pressure on other NATO members to contribute forces to areas in the south where the Taliban are resurgent. In most countries there is considerable opposition to sending troops period. A recent report in Canada, the Manley Report, would see Canadian troops move out of their combat role in Kandahar if there were not a thousand more troops sent there and also better equipment including helicopters. Our prime minister however is very pro-Bush and could very well say that the US troops already being sent to the south by the US constitute over a thousand troops and certainly the US could provide helicopter support. This is from the Globe and Mail.


U.S. rejects more troops for Afghanistan
The Canadian Press
January 29, 2008 at 3:47 PM EST
Washington — The United States won't be sending more combat troops to Afghanistan despite Canada's demand for NATO reinforcements as a condition for staying in the battle, a U.S. Defence Department spokesman said Tuesday.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told a briefing that the deployment of 3,200 American marines announced earlier this month is the limit for now.
Just over two-thirds of them, 2,200, are scheduled to arrive in March in the dangerous region in southern Afghanistan.
“That's as much and as deep as we're going at this point,” said Mr. Morrell.
“We've got a number of allies with us there. And hopefully they can see to it to dig deeper and find additional forces to help this effort,” he said.
“Hopefully, we'll make some progress there that will help the Canadians extend their commitment to the mission.”
U.S. Defence Secretary Roberts Gates hasn't talked to Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay since John Manley's commission report on Afghanistan was released last week, said Mr. Morrell.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has endorsed the report's chief recommendation — that Canada stay in Afghanistan for the duration of the war as long as NATO provides a modest increase of 1,000 soldiers for Kandahar.
Canada is also demanding more battlefield helicopters and surveillance aircraft.
About 2,500 Canadian troops are involved in the Afghan mission, most of them operating in Kandahar province.

Think tank claims NATO mission failing in Afghanistan

Perhaps one of the main reasons that the mission is failing is that the Afghans really do not take kindly to occupation or occupation promoted governments. Ask the Russians or earlier occupiers.


Thursday » February 15 » 2007

Think-tank claims lack of trust behind Afghan mission's failure

Richard Foot
CanWest News Service


Thursday, February 15, 2007



CREDIT: AFP/Canada and its allies in Afghanistan are waging a losing war against the Taliban that's killed thousands of innocent civilians, harmed the reputation of coalition forces and fuelled support for the insurgency in the past year, says a new report on the conflict by the Senlis Council.

The council is an independent, London-based think-tank specializing in security and development issues. A team of researchers led by the council's president - Canadian Norine MacDonald, who lives in Afghanistan - interviewed more than 500 ordinary citizens in the war-torn south over the past two months.

The results of that research were released on Wednesday in a 186-page report titled, "Countering the Insurgency in Afghanistan: Losing Friends and Making Enemies."

The report is a withering indictment of the war's conduct by NATO governments, especially through 2006, the first year of Canada's mission in the volatile province of Kandahar.

In particular, it says coalition governments have failed to heed the fundamental rule that a counter-insurgency can't be won at the point of a gun, but rather with policies to win the trust and confidence of local people.

Instead, the council says failed coalition policies - such as the bombing of villages, the poppy eradication program and the lack of school or hospital construction - are directly responsible "for the rise of the insurgency."

MacDonald says coalition governments have shown a "blatant disregard for established counter-insurgency theories," and their ongoing mistakes have generated an army of "resentful and poor young men who cannot feed their families.

"Through these misguided policies, the international community has turned southern Afghanistan into a recruitment camp for the Taliban."

Officials at both the Defence Department and Foreign Affairs declined comment on the report Wednesday.

The council is particularly critical of the use of aerial attacks in southern Afghanistan, where it says NATO carried out more than 2,000 bomb attacks in 2006, leading to the deaths of an estimated 4,000 civilians.

Senlis officials, however, support NATO's military presence in the area and are in favour of calls for increased troop numbers.

Last fall, MacDonald appeared in Ottawa before the House defence committee, where she praised the courage of Canadian soldiers in the battles around Kandahar.

Canadian troops frequently called in air strikes during those battles last year. Air strikes are used not only to intimidate and destroy the enemy, but also to shield and protect troops who have come under Taliban fire.

MacDonald says the bombing is the result of having too few troops on the ground. When coalition forces become overwhelmed in a firefight, they call in an air strike to clinch the battle.

But because the Taliban live and hide among local populations, bombing also destroys villages and kills and maims civilians.

The Senlis report says while coalition forces whisk wounded soldiers off to sophisticated army field hospitals, NATO makes no effort to provide medical care to wounded civilians - a violation of the Geneva Conventions on minimizing the suffering of civilian war victims.

"Why did the Canadian government and CIDA not say, 'let's get some assistance to people who are being injured by air strikes,'" said MacDonald in an interview Wednesday. "It's a complete lack of either concern for local people, or a complete lack of understanding of how to fight a counter-insurgency."

The report includes a photograph of the mobile Burger King trailer at Kandahar Airfield, where NATO troops can buy fries and burgers. It says such a trailer "would make an excellent mobile surgical clinic for civilian victims of war."

Worse, the report says coalition governments have done almost nothing during five years in southern Afghanistan to build basic health facilities for the local population.

In an accompanying case study, the council says hospitals in the capitals of Kandahar and Helmand provinces remain "dilapidated, barren and filthy," and lack "basic war zone trauma treatment, medical diagnostic equipment, medicines, oxygen, and trained staff."

The council says such oversights are typical of the coalition's failure to mount an effective campaign for the hearts and minds of Afghans.

While a hard core of the Taliban are religious jihadists that can only be defeated by force, the report says many insurgents are recruited because of grinding poverty, or because of resentment bred by coalition actions on the ground.

These people represent a "grassroots insurgency," the report says, which can best be solved by serious efforts to develop the economy, build local infrastructure, schools and hospitals, and rid the Karzai government of corruption.

"The Taliban are a very competitive employer, offering wages with which no other employer can compete," says MacDonald.

An average Taliban fighter is paid the equivalent of $400 US a month, compared to $60 for an Afghan army soldier and only $50 for a doctor in an Afghan hospital.

To succeed in Afghanistan the international community must "urgently reassess" its strategy before an anticipated Taliban offensive this spring, the report says. Its recommendations include:

- Ending the U.S.-sponsored poppy eradication program, which hurts farmers and breeds resentment in rural areas. Instead, a pilot project should be started to license the production of opium, thereby legalizing the poppy crop, taking its profits out of the hands of the Taliban, and producing essential medicines such as morphine for local hospitals;

- Instituting a program of widespread food aid in the south;

- Compensating civilian victims of air strikes and sending mobile field hospitals to help civilian casualties;

- Increasing the coalition aid and development effort at least to the level of the military effort.

© CanWest News Service 2007








Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.