Taliban running out of ammunition

[walker 0]

Hi all

Like the title says:

Page last updated at 14:05 GMT, Thursday, 18 February 2010

Taliban ammunition 'running low'

Taliban militants battling coalition troops in Marjah, Afghanistan, are running out of ammunition, Nato officials say.

A BBC correspondent in Kandahar says that from eavesdropping on Taliban communications, Nato understands militants have called for support.

On Wednesday, an Afghan general said Taliban fighters were increasingly using civilians as "human shields"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8521503.stm

As always follow the link for the full story

Rumours are that western intelligence services after removing the likes of Viktor Bout and other arms dealers from the equation have begun to control both ends of the Taliban's logistics train. Capturing data on those supplying capital and finance and either turning them or "removing" them. While at the other end providing damaged and traceable ammunition with "Smartwater â„¢" like capabilities in order to foul weapon barrels and trace convoy routes back through their sources. They can of course continue to recycle the same batches of damaged and track able munitions, so it is a very low cost operation.

I would suggest the next stage is probably to make IED precursors traceable and also to introduce inhibitors into things like fertilizer. A chemical that causes say diesel to froth and produce an easily identifiable smell when added together and something that causes its explosive capability to decrease rapidly. Introducing something like "Smartwater â„¢" to IED precursors would also be good allowing their sources to be tracked.

That Al Qaeda is becoming increasingly extreme and foreign fighters are using Afghan children, the very sons and daughters of Afghans as "human shields" shows the increasing desperation of the Wahhabi Arab Al Qaeda.

It is through investigative CSI and police style methods that the best effects will be seen on the Taliban in turning those that can be turned and capturing or killing those that cannot.

Anyway good to see some proper use of Intelligence operations. This may also be why their has been a lot of success against Al Qaeda lately, with over ten senior operatives killed recently and according to Bin Laden's son his father suffering a near miss recently.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 1, 2010 by walker

[bangtail 0]

Hi all

Like the title says:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8521503.stm

As always follow the link for the full story

Rumours are that western intelligence services after removing the likes of Viktor Bout and other arms dealers from the equation have begun to control both ends of the Taliban's logistics train. Capturing data on those supplying capital and finance and either turning them or "removing" them. While at the other end providing damaged and traceable ammunition with "Smartwater â„¢" like capabilities in order to foul weapon barrels and trace convoy routes back through their sources. They can of course continue to recycle the same batches of damaged and track able munitions, so it is a very low cost operation.

I would suggest the next stage is probably to make IED precursors traceable and also to introduce inhibitors into things like fertilizer. A chemical that causes say diesel to froth and produce an easily identifiable smell when added together and something that causes its explosive capability to decrease rapidly. Introducing something like "Smartwater â„¢" to IED precursors would also be good allowing their sources to be tracked.

That Al Qaeda is becoming increasingly extreme and foreign fighters are using Afghan children, the very sons and daughters of Afghans as "human shields" shows the increasing desperation of the Wahhabi Arab Al Qaeda.

It is through investigative CSI and police style methods that the best effects will be seen on the Taliban in turning those that can be turned and capturing or killing those that cannot.

Anyway good to see some proper use of Intelligence operations. This may also be why their has been a lot of success against Al Qaeda lately, with over ten senior operatives killed recently and according to Bin Laden's son his father suffering a near miss recently.

Kind Regards walker

More western propaganda that will only serve to make NATO/US look even more inept than they already do when they are eventually forced to leave that place.

There is a reason why that place is referred to as "The Graveyard of Empires".

Edited March 1, 2010 by BangTail

[TRexian 0]

Even terrorist organizations have logistics "tails."

Good on the allies for going after that part.

However, I tend to agree that the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan needs careful definition. It does not mean what most people would think it means.

[walker 0]

Hi TRexian

For me victory would be a politically and economically stable state with an increasing GDP able to look after its own borders and prevent external and criminal groups from using it as a base.

Kind Regards walker

[TRexian 0]

Prepare for failure. ;)

There is not one example with which I am familiar of such "nation building." To be successful, there has to be a pre-existing culture of such stability.

Somalia? Never had it, won't for the foreseeable future.

Iraq? Most absolutely had it, and is on the road to getting back to it.

To be successful in those terms, there must be an indigenous, natural effort to achieve it. It cannot be imposed from the outside - as the main impetus will always be against the external force.

Success in Afghanistan should be roughly defined as providing sufficient security so as to deprive international terrorist organizations a safe haven. After that, set a timeline to either withdraw and use friendly bases outside the country for temporary incursions, or set up permanent bases.

Afghanistan has never been stable, and shows no ability to become so.

All IMHO. :)

[bangtail 0]

Prepare for failure. ;)

QFT

/10 chars

[walker 0]

Prepare for failure. ;)

There is not one example with which I am familiar of such "nation building." To be successful, there has to be a pre-existing culture of such stability...

Hi TRexian

You are incorrect.

Nation building does work and history proves it.

Post colonial Malaysia. Post WWII German Marshall Plan and Japan the work of Douglas MaCarthur. Post Napoleonic France. Uganda after Tanzania war of liberation that threw out the Gadafi backed Idi Amin's regime. Post Mau Mau Kenya. You can go back through history right back to Classical Greece and peloponnesian wars when Sparta allowed Athens to survive.

The Nation building does not work argument often comes most vociferously from those companies and people involved in the sale weapons and preys on the inherent racism of those stupid enough to listen to such crap. Essentially it is contrick to prevent the nations involved from finishing the job so the conflict festers and they can sell you more weapons.

Wars happen and Peace happens history of the world mate, history of the world.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 1, 2010 by walker

[TRexian 0]

Wars happen and Peace happens history of the world mate, history of the world.

Absolutely agree with this. :)

But, sticking to modern history ;) (I don't think the nuances of politics in ancient Greece are particularly applicable, except in the abstract) I don't see "post-colonial Malaysia" as a particularly good example. Certainly Germany, Japan and France were economically successful cultures before the world wars. Any success Uganda and Kenya have had (which I submit is limited) is due to the LACK of external military presence.

My point is not that "third world" countries are destined to remain that way. Quite the contrary. My point is that those countries that have achieved escape from such status have done so ON THEIR OWN, without the "benefit" of an occupying military. Economic help, access to resources, finding a way to tap into their "inner capitalist" - those things are what is necessary. Not having a foreign army provide security.

Granted, there is a risk to other nations in allowing such countries to succeed or fail on their own. Afghanistan is a good example of that, too. Left to their own machinations, the Taliban came to power. Plenty of other despotic gov'ts to point to, also.

Sending in a foreign army is not the long-term solution. We couldn't get it done in Vietnam, USSR couldn't do it in Afghanistan, and we're certainly having problems doing it there, too.

Edit:

To more directly counter your implicit racist/weapon-mongering straw man, my proposition is that "nation building" only works in the sense of "nation-rebuilding." There is a prerequisite that there be a cultural norm of stability - both military and economic - upon which to build.

Edited March 1, 2010 by TRexian

[bascule42 10]

Peace in Afghanistan has always meant the local factions not fighting each other. Prior to the Soviet invasion, these factions were at relative peace, (Arguments between faction leaders - called "Warlords" by our media - and skirmishes resulting from these notwithstanding). I say relative, as a lot of the time it was one step short of Civil war.

Before the fall of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan that is. When Mujahid fighters attacked the pro Soviet government at the time, president Taraki requested help from the Soviets the various factions of Mujahideen coalesced to fight the Russians. It was during this time, that several factions ties became stronger and eventually became the Taliban. Religious and political ideals were also strengthened. It was after the Soviet-Afghan war that Afghanistan "enjoyed" one of its most peaceful periods. (The fact that it was under an iron rule and a very fundamental interpretation of Islamic values by the Taliban is a for another point - one that hardly needs to be made). Why am I saying this? Because if one thing from the history of Afghanistan is clear, it is that outside influence - from the British Empire to the Soviets to the current Coalition - is very unwelcome, and any progress in the exercise of nation building will in this case inevitably lead to failure, not through the lack of will, (though it's possible), or incompetence, (very possible), or even "the inherent racism of those stupid enough" to believe the nay sayers.

Because the Afghans would rather tear down all work done by the coalition, US & UK especially, than admit to needing our help.

It's also worth remembering the Islamic/Middle Eastern maxim: "A thousand years of tyranny is better than a day of turmoil".

Also we tend to make the mistake, when talking about things such as this, of applying western ways of looking at things and expecting other people to think like we do - for better or for worse.

In this case nation building is futile. But, having said that we have to make the effort. In Iraq, we have a chance, enough people agree with the removal of Saddam, in Afghanistan...its another matter.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Bascule42

[walker 0]

Hi TRexian

Allow me to expand on what I said. The military have to be there for a specific purpose of bolstering a nations own police and military. Once they are in a positions to sustain them selves the external force should withdraw to bases and then back to their own nation.

That true nation building requires an increasing transfer of budget away from military support and to building roads, power and water infrastructure, schools and health centers as well as supporting and ensuring an equitable political process and general education that reduces the power of external and internal disruptive influences.

You start with Roads, water and power, you pay enough but work the people hard so they are too tired to do anything else and give them a visible success to feel invested in. Their Town now has a road, now it has clean water, now it has electricity. You build a school and make it mandatory for every child below say 14. you have the school teaching adults as college. You employ the local welder to teach engineering. You build a health center, you put the doctor on the local government committees along with that welder who has started to think of himself as a teacher.

If necessary you circumvent old political structures by creating new towns. You tax the local population to pay for maintenance of local school and health centers. You begin to build a nation.

Yes you invest about one tenth of what you are doing in war. In my opinion a 10% tax on all arms companies would be the best source of income.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 1, 2010 by walker

[bangtail 0]

Peace in Afghanistan has always meant the local factions not fighting each other. Prior to the Soviet invasion, these factions were at relative peace, (Arguments between faction leaders - called "Warlords" by our media - and skirmishes resulting from these notwithstanding). I say relative, as a lot of the time it was one step short of Civil war.

Before the fall of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan that is. When Mujahid fighters attacked the pro Soviet government at the time, president Taraki requested help from the Soviets the various factions of Mujahideen coalesced to fight the Russians. It was during this time, that several factions ties became stronger and eventually became the Taliban. Religious and political ideals were also strengthened. It was after the Soviet-Afghan war that Afghanistan "enjoyed" one of its most peaceful periods. (The fact that it was under an iron rule and a very fundamental interpretation of Islamic values by the Taliban is a for another point - one that hardly needs to be made). Why am I saying this? Because if one thing from the history of Afghanistan is clear, it is that outside influence - from the British Empire to the Soviets to the current Coalition - is very unwelcome, and any progress in the exercise of nation building will in this case inevitably lead to failure, not through the lack of will, (though it's possible), or incompetence, (very possible), or even "the inherent racism of those stupid enough" to believe the nay sayers.

Because the Afghans would rather tear down all work done by the coalition, US & UK especially, than admit to needing our help.

It's also worth remembering the Islamic/Middle Eastern maxim: "A thousand years of tyranny is better than a day of turmoil".

Also we tend to make the mistake, when talking about things such as this, of applying western ways of looking at things and expecting other people to think like we do - for better or for worse.

In this case nation building is futile. But, having said that we have to make the effort. In Iraq, we have a chance, enough people agree with the removal of Saddam, in Afghanistan...its another matter.

The US forays into Iraq and Afghanistan have undermined her as a superpower and continue to erode her support as more and more NATO soldiers return home in boxes.

I suspect that much of the "push" by the US MIL/IND complex to stay there is simply an attempt to prove that the US can succeed where the Soviets failed (along with the opium trade etc etc).

NATO will never prevail using the present model. I can definitely agree with some of the long term, small scale alternatives that TR presented, those could prove to be workable in some capacity.

As long as NATO stays there in force and numbers, with the misplaced objective of trying to win "hearts and minds", is as long as the indigenous people will continue to fight them at any cost.

~18 year old kids with no clear idea of why they are fighting are no match for indoctrinated, religious fanatics who are defending their families, homes, land and way of life.

You better believe that the Soviets were far more prone to "taking the gloves off" than the US are and they left rather than continuing a pointless fight that they knew they could never win.

Edited March 2, 2010 by BangTail

[Takko 10]

You better believe that the Soviets were far more prone to taking the gloves off

After being more years in Afghanistan than the Nato since 2001.

[maturin 12]

~18 year old kids with no clear idea of why they are fighting are no match for indoctrinated, religious fanatics who are defending their families, homes, land and way of life.

Oh, no, our professional killer 18 yr olds are incredibly skilled at defeating those types. It's the 17 yr old kids with nothing better to do than defend their families and homes that are the problem. We're practically fighting market forces.

A U.S. puppet regime can probably withstand a low-level insurgency, but not one with broad public support.

[bangtail 0]

Oh, no, our professional killer 18 yr olds are incredibly skilled at defeating those types. It's the 17 yr old kids with nothing better to do than defend their families and homes that are the problem. We're practically fighting market forces.

Funny stuff ;)

Edited March 2, 2010 by BangTail

[riffleman 20]

taliban not going to defeat in easy way,nato advancing but now time is come to face trouble.nato soldier now face real twist of talban.

[HyperU2 11]

More western propaganda that will only serve to make NATO/US look even more inept than they already do when they are eventually forced to leave that place.

There is a reason why that place is referred to as "The Graveyard of Empires".

Your heroes are in trouble. Suck it up.

[bangtail 0]

Your heroes are in trouble. Suck it up.

And just who do you think my heroes are exactly?

I seriously hope you aren't implying that they are the Taliban or AQ because you'd be catastrophically wrong.

Now, with regards to who is in trouble, I think you've got that backwards and it will become increasingly apparent as the weeks, months and possibly years go by without any kind of decisive victory for NATO.

And then, finally, when the casualties get unacceptably high, there'll be an avalanche of excuses, "buck passing", claims of some kind of half assed "victory" and ultimately, a withdrawal.

Edited March 2, 2010 by BangTail

[Zipper5 74]

I just don't see how we can win such a war as this. In a perfect world I would love to see terrorism defeated once and for all, but that's not the case unfortunately. We may capture/kill bin Laden, we may destroy a large part of Al-Qaeda, but more will just take their place.

Terrorism is something that I don't think can be defeated, especially in a part of the world such as the middle east. I have personally believed we're fighting a losing battle ever since we went to Afghanistan. I do not, however, devalue our troops in any way, shape, or form. I cannot express in words how much respect I have for all the brave Canadians, Americans, British, Australians, etc. who are over there.

[olro 0]

My friend who serves with the ISAF forces in Afghanistan told me this story about a well being built by ISAF in one of the villages;

Instead of having the local women walk miles to get water they could now have water very close to their village.

The week after the well was built ISAF forces noticed it was now full of rocks.

So ISAF removed them.

Some days later they came back and noticed the same thing had happened.

It turned out was actually the women themselves who had put the rocks in there.

Why?

The mile long walks to the well outside the village was the only time the women had a chance to socialize properly, without the watchful eyes of the men.

Moral of the story?

Im not quite sure, BUT it might show how our western ideas of collective nation building - schools - electricity - running water - police - public order, arent entirely what works when you have such deeply ingrained social structures in place.

[TRexian 0]

"Victory" (in the sense most people use) in a war on terrorism will be achieved, if at all, at least 2 generations from now.

For now, we must be incremental. There will be no "decisive" victory, as every such win in battle creates a defeat on the other side. Such defeat creates the seeds of anger and frustration that provide the fertile soil for terrorists to grow.

[walker 0]

Hi TRexian

The victory in the war on terror is already won; there is not a country called terror.

There is not a war on terror other than in the mouths of politicians and people wanting others to fight their wars for them, such as Al Qaeda.

Terrorism and I include 9/11, are crimes pure and simple. There has always been crime there always will be crime. All you do is detect the culprits and put them in jail. You fight Al Qaeda and terrorism with police and intelligence services, you might institute martial law, but that is not the same as war.

Deifying Al Qaeda terrorists with the status of warriors was what lead to the stupidity of Guantanamo and was what gives Al Qaeda more protection under the Geneva convention than it deserves.

Notice I distinguish between the Wahhabi Al Qaeda Foreign Fighters and the Taliban here. I Consider the Afghan Taliban to be the losers in a Civil War.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 2, 2010 by walker

[TRexian 0]

The issue of "terrorism" definition raises its ugly head.... terrorism is not the same as a simple crime. It cannot be. To class a suicide bomber, acting at the behest of an authority figure, as a murder or homicide is to both ignore the structural aspect of it and demean its importance.

Granted, the act of terrorism often includes a criminal act. But, it cannot be effectively addressed within a "western" criminal justice system.

These are clearly not easy issues. But "terrorism" is a hybrid of military and criminal concepts (as you concede). It requires a response that involves both, too.

Martial law may not be war, but it is not peace, either. Nor is it the response of a criminal justice system. It is a military response - that's why it is called "martial." :)

Perhaps it is a language issue on my side, but it seems as though you are talking in circles. Your assertions that terrorism is purely a criminal act, yet a response could be martial law, are contrary to each other.

Victory in the war on terror? Then "Mission Accomplished" I guess. :)

[walker 0]

Hi TRexian

War is something that happens between nations. Or in the case of civil war within a nation.

Terrorism is just crime pure and simple. Application of Martial Law is just that military support for the rule of law (the clue is in the name). A rioter is not a soldier. Nor is a looter. Nor is a terrorist. They are all just criminals.

By ascribing the terrorist the status of one engaged in war ie Warrior you permit them the protections of a warrior; those of the Geneva convention. You are doing the terrorists work for them.

You cannot beat a terrorist in war because there is no country to capture and occupy by which one can declare the war won.

You beat a terrorist by removing their local support and investigating and convicting them of crimes.

Kind Regards walker

[TRexian 0]

I have spent many years working in the criminal justice area in various capacities, and it is singularly unable to address the issue of terrorism.

One thing that separates terrorism from crime is ideology. Terrorism has, as its root cause, some higher principle - liberation, punishment, anarchy, etc. Crime has very little such ideology - maybe greed, maybe a crime of opportunity or passion. Unfortunately, you cannot convict someone of having dangerous ideologies (vagaries of local laws notwithstanding). At least not in most of the "civilized" world. You must wait for them to act in a criminal way for the justice system to become involved.

And war is not something that happens simply between nations. Your mention of civil wars is an example of that. Civil wars, by definition, happen within a single nation. In the days of sailing ships, piracy was fought through wars by many nations. Still is, if you use some recent dramatic examples.

"War" most often does require at least one nation-state, of course. Indeed, it is diplomacy by violent means.

But in the case of modern terrorism, wars can and should be fought to deny organized terrorists the opportunity to practice their craft. One huge failing by "civilized" nations was turning a blind eye to post-Soviet Afghanistan, as it became a safe haven for terrorists.

We ought not repeat that mistake.

We can also discuss the problems of gathering intelligence in a criminal justice system without proof of any crime, and the fact that in most "civilized" nations, conviction means a defined term of incarceration, after which someone is released. Often, they are released more motivated and better skilled at whatever sent them inside....

[gulag 10]

I don't think they will run out of ammo, they know how to make money, and money = ammo. For example in Chechnya they get money by selling drugs and kidnappings. They demanded money from the families of prisoners in exchange for freedom, and who could not pay was beheaded or crucified. I know one case, a woman went to Chechnya to search her son (russian army soldier) who was taken prisoner on the Dagestan border, and before being found he was beheaded with a saw and they demanded $ 2,000 for returning of the body, and for the head they demanded extra money. We were the same age.

Edited March 2, 2010 by gulag