The big headlines yesterday were U.S. military says Taliban set to retake power: report and Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban – Nato. Center of those pieces was a report by the U.S. Special Forces Task Force 3-10 in Bagram. Its assessment is allegedly based on 27,000 interrogations of more than 4,000 captured Taleban operatives and civilians. The report describes the opinions caught "Taliban" and civilians have about their fight. It "leaked" to the London Times and the BBC.
When the news appeared yesterday I asked myself who was "leaking" this to what purpose. The answer came with today's headlines: U.S. to Shift Afghan Role in '13, Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year and NATO Focuses on Timetable for Afghan Withdrawal.
I am pretty sure that the "leaking" of the report yesterday was intentional and was done in preparation for Panetta's announcement of an earlier than planed partial retreat from Afghanistan. Interestingly there are signs that the "leaked" report has been cleansed ar sanitized likely to allow for an argument of a permanent stay of some U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
General Allen, accompanying in Panetta's press conference that generated today's headlines, makes clear that while the U.S. wants to stop the counterinsurgency fight it still wants to stay in Afghanistan:
As the president has said, we're committed to an enduring presence there. We have the missions we're going to be involved with — those CT operations. We'll be involved with training, advising and assisting, not only the Afghan forces, but we'll continue to have to provide enabling forces for ISAF as well as Afghanistan. And there'll be a large civilian presence there involved with development. So there clearly is going to be a continuing presence in Afghanistan for the long term, and that's something, you know, we'll want to discuss again at this ministerial.
Parts of the original report which "leaked" to the BBC and the Times have been published on the site of London Times reporter Jonathan Boone. Notice the motives:
In the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from GIRoA members, in joining the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taleban governance over GIRoA, usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders. The effectiveness of Taleban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses.
Later in the report it looks on "Why the Taleban Fight":
The Taleban will not accept any government which is perceived to exclude the Pashtuns, who constitute the largest tribe among the Afghan population. GIRoA corruption, abuse of power, and suspected lack of commitment to Islam continue to provoke significant anti-government sentiment.
The Taleban will be hostile to any government that appears to act as an agent of foreign powers to instill “Western” values. The Taleban do not fight for financial gain.
The eventual overthrow of GIRoA remains their primary motivator.
As Kate Clark of the Afghan Analyst Network points out that these descriptions of motives are astonishingly incomplete:
What the report appears to be silent on is the other huge factor driving the war, the ten year foreign occupation – as many Afghans, whether they welcome international forces or not, call it. Night raids, killing civilians, detentions – even when all three of these actions may be legal and/or militarily necessary – upset people. Then there was the torture, mainly by US forces, in the first couple of years and the support the international military gives to abusive Afghan actors. Curiously, there is no mention of this – did the detainees not mention the foreigners?
We can make a safe bet that the prisoners did make the point that the occupation itself, the night raids, killing, detention and torture of compatriots, are a rather large motivation for them to fight and for civilians and Afghan government agents to support them. The seems to intentionally leave out the major motives of the fighters and their supporters.
The "leak's" purpose was to support the now announced decision of the Obama administration to cut short the planned continuation of the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. But if it had included the major motive for the Taliban to fight it could have been used to argue against the planned continuation of the counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, which will require a continued occupation by some 30,000 U.S. soldiers, and to support the necessary total retreat from the country.
To "leak" a sanitized version of the report shows that the whole splash of "retreat from Afghanistan" announced now is likely a mere election ploy to deceive some anti-war liberals into again electing Obama.