Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 3, 2012
Taliban Announce 2012 Fighting Season Schwerpunkt

Each spring the Taliban set and announce a preferred tactic and/or preferred targets for their summer fighting season. Two year ago there were more direct attacks on small western outpost and patrols. The last year was also mostly a fight against the foreign troops though seldom in direct attacks but through IEDs.  Additionally the last year saw some spectacular attacks on high profile targets in Kabul and other cities.

On Sunday Al Jazeerah published an interview in which a Taliban announced a new schwerpunkt for the coming fighting season:

Mullah Dowran, a regional Taliban commander in eastern Afghanistan, has told Al Jazeera that the organisation is now targeting Afghan security forces.

“We announced we would forgive them many times. We showed them leniency many times in the fight. We tried to make American targets the priority, but the damage created by Afghan forces has become more and more every day. Now they are our priority,” Dowran said.

The usual western media have yet to pick up on this change from last year even though there is already proof that this new line is followed in various parts of Afghanistan.

Helmand: Afghanistan: Militants ‘kill police by poisoning food’

Militants killed four Afghan policemen and two civilians inside a police checkpoint by poisoning their yoghurt and launching an attack, officials say.

Bagakhshan: Insurgents kill 3 Afghan police, abduct 11 in attack on checkpoint in the north

Bagakhshan province spokesman Abdul Marouf Rasekh says the militants attacked the outpost Monday night in Wardoj district.

Uruzgan: At least nine Afghan police killed, infiltrator suspected

Nine Afghan police were killed in an insurgent attack that authorities said on Thursday was believed to have been facilitated by a fellow officer and suspected Taliban infiltrator.

This new line of targeting is an addition to another tactic we see in the series of “isolated incidents” (as ISAF likes to call them) in which men “in Afghan army uniform” kill their western mentors.

Combined these two variations of infiltration attacks will make the planned transfer of security tasks to Afghan forces nearly impossible. Attacked from the inside the Afghan security forces are likely to see increased desertion rates, new problems with recruiting and a general lack of moral.

As usual ISAF will be slow to react to this new problem. It is still planing for a much too centralized Afghanistan with a force that is far too large for the country and can not be sustained even when the west picks up a large part of the bill. The Taliban will always be able to wear such a force down.

A more sustainable strategy would be to decentralized the government, give more power for local leaders and to give the center in Kabul only a small force at hand that then could be used to whack this or that provincial warlord down if he would become too recalcitrant. This of course would have to be based on a political compromise with the Taliban.

It would be the way Afghanistan has been run for centuries and the way it is likely to revert to anyway.

Comments

This plan for the fighting season seems really smart. Why focus on attacking Afghan national army instead of US-NATO forces? Three main reasons I see.
1) The US are a temporary force in Afghanistan that everyone knows will be gone by 2014 (or sooner). The mainly Tajik, Afghan National Army however will be around for the long term. If your goal is to restore Pashtun dominance of Afghanistan, better to set your sights on the Tajik ANA then on the people who won’t be around in 18 months time anyway.
2) It’s easier to target Afghan National Army troops, armed with AK’s and no body armor, than it is to target NATO forces hiding in bases. The Taliban will certainly lose less fighters during operations against ANA than against NATO.
3) The Taliban ARE in peace talks with the Americans. From a political viewpoint it is hard to have peace talks when you are killing half a dozen Americans a week. Smarter to target their puppet force while talks are ongoing. That way you are still weakening them but not directly hitting them.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Apr 3 2012 23:47 utc | 1

Can’t really fault your reasoning.
As an aside it was announced on TV here in New Zealand last evening that another of our “Regional RECONSTRUCTION Force” soldiers (5 now dead) had died in “an incident”. I suspected an Afghani shoots mentor” scenario, but looks like he took his own life. I know the N.Z. S.A.S have been involved in dodgy shit/probable war crimes, but our ordinary guys are in Bamiyam Province and been pretty much left alone and have been doing alot of reconstruction, so don’t know whats brought the suicide on.

Posted by: DontNeedNo… | Apr 4 2012 0:13 utc | 2

o’toole, i would imagine the best reason it’s a smart plan is it would encourage afghan troops working with the americans to rethink their choice, fast.

Posted by: annie | Apr 4 2012 2:54 utc | 3

I agree that b’s analysis is closer to the truth than anything we’re likely to hear from the obedient stenographers in the MSM Press Corps(e).

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 4 2012 4:17 utc | 4

There’s something deliciously ironic about the Taliban adapting a Yankee idea and taking time out for some R & R. One wonders if the Yankees might have done better in Vietnam if they had used their R & R the way the Taliban do, instead of retreating into a twilight zone of whiskey & whoring?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 4 2012 6:21 utc | 5

Afgh. is a semi-occupied country. The occupation is not very powerful or well-coordinated, or solidly installed. – Afgh. is rural, poor, mountainous, large, daunting, incomprehensible, etc.
The occupation does not control the territory, or the ppl, but works rather from a top-down scheme from the capital (typical of the US, attempting to control money, banking, stooges, the gov, agriculture, funding, its own transport, food, and prisons for the natives, etc.), there are no bottom-up efforts at all, except for training police and military to take care of ‘security’, but what security? Security in favor of what, whom?
The Gvmt. is an apologia for the invaders, but given lee-way to protest, negotiate, etc. It has not performed for ordinary Afghanis in any way. The Gvmt was always joined with the Occupation forces, because that is its only legitimacy. (see Vichy Gvmt, say.)
I’m surprised it took so long for the ‘Taliban’ – local potentates, peasants, Pashtuns, etc. – to turn on their own. The delay to their credit, perhaps. Or it represents a new escalation in formented confusion.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 4 2012 15:43 utc | 6