Military Review

Washington will have to admit defeat in Afghanistan

25
The United States refuses to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. President Barack Obama endorsed the new regulations, which allow American troops to fight in Afghanistan, not only against Al-Qaida militants, but also against all those who resist Kabul since weapons in hand. This decision means that the United States is breaking with the practice of military non-intervention introduced in 2013 in the Afghan confrontation, which has all the hallmarks of a civil war. The US administration fears a repeat of the Iraqi scenario in Afghanistan, assuming that after the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the Taliban troops will follow the example of the Islamic State (IG) and begin to seize the country.



In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the boundaries of armed conflict after 13 years after the Americans launched Operation Enduring Freedom remain blurred, and the differences between supporters of the government and its opponents are often difficult to grasp. This concerns not only military, but also administrative control over the territory. In the south, southeast, and east of Afghanistan, there are areas where the power of the central government is extremely weak, and local governments, corrupt through and through, allow the Taliban to maintain leverage over the military-political situation. Despite the fact that only 20-25% of the population lives here, more than 80% of clashes in 2014 took place in these areas. The activity of the armed opposition is also growing in the west, north and northeast of the country. As dismissed by US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged, "no one can guarantee that the situation will remain stable." The Pentagon’s calculations of the ability of the Afghan army to independently ensure security in the country did not materialize.

The Taliban have increased their influence in most parts of Afghanistan. If five years ago, the Taliban’s military presence was noted on 62% of the country’s territory, by the beginning of the 2014 year - on 82%. Now in Afghanistan there is practically no province where the Taliban militant groups would not operate. Movement leader Mullah Omar appointed Shadow Governors in 30 from the country's 34 provinces.

Taliban combat units can move freely from one area to another and also return to their permanent bases. As in Iraq, control over the main areas of activity seems to be in the hands of local governments loyal to the Americans, but the Taliban operate with a long-range view, hoping to destabilize the situation after the withdrawal of ISAF troops.

The Afghan Taliban have another similarity with the Iraqi militants from the IS, who began their invasion of Iraq from the territory of neighboring Syria. The Taliban can easily compensate for the casualties of the fresh influx of recruits from the border areas of Pakistan - in the area from Khyber Pantuhwa and the Federal Administration Administration (FATA) Territories to Baluchistan. Pakistan has become a reliable logistics base for regrouping, reorganizing and rearming Taliban troops. Here they are supported by representatives of Al-Qaida, Pakistani extremist groups and the armed forces of Pakistan. The Taliban’s presence of the Pakistani rear is a weighty strategic advantage, and the insurgency of the Afghan Pashtuns living there is well known. This led to a decision by the US Congress to freeze plans for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan in 2016. Contrary to Washington’s previous statements about the change in the situation in favor of Kabul, against the background of the recent Iraqi events, the White House admitted that "today we can say with confidence that dozens of regions are controlled by the Taliban."

President Obama is forced to agree with Congress. The return of American soldiers to his homeland was one of his campaign promises. According to the original plan, in 2016, military personnel should have remained in Kabul only to protect the US embassy. The current decision of Obama to expand the US military mission in Afghanistan in 2015, says the rejection of the planned withdrawal of troops.

Another problem is the costly modernization projects of the Afghan army. By the end of 2014, more than 400 of such projects amounting to approximately 7 billion dollars are under implementation. In 2012, the US Congress allocated 11,2 billion to the Afghan Security Forces Development Fund, and 2013 billion in the 5,7 year [1]. Again, the Iraqi experience teaches Americans that this money can be wasted, and there is no guarantee of the reliability of the Afghan army. The IS invasion of Iraq showed that a significant part of the government forces was not capable and, moreover, many Iraqi servicemen went over to the side of terrorists. The same can happen in Afghanistan.

From the point of view of the interests of the United States, the option of further development of Afghanistan without the participation of the Taliban looks the most preferable, but also the most dangerous, leading to the uprising of the Taliban and other rebel groups after the withdrawal of the international coalition forces. In an environment where both the central government and local authorities are unreliable, mired in corruption, the Taliban often look more attractive in the eyes of the population. Their popularity is growing. Traditional Afghan society is not guided by American standards, but by its own understanding of who is worthy of power. And the Taliban are waging a war not only against foreign interventionists, but also against Western ideology.

With the political settlement of the intra-Afghan crisis on the basis of an agreement on the division of power between the main opposing forces of the United States hopelessly late. American policy in Afghanistan is devoid of strategy. Washington and Kabul have no common understanding of where, in what and how much a compromise is possible with the leadership of the Taliban. There is also no understanding that national reconciliation is a multifaceted process that requires the participation of other opposition forces, such as the Islamic Party of Afghanistan Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

In the final analysis, Washington will have to admit that even after the 13 years of war, the insurgency in Afghanistan is intransigent, successfully leading the partisan struggle and based on the majority of the local population that is traditionally hostile to any occupation.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2014/11/26/vashingtonu-pridetsja-priznat-svoe-porazhenie-v-afganistane-30611.html
25 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Deadmen
    Deadmen 27 November 2014 18: 57
    +10
    Obama, you balabol in life you yourself talked about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan)))
    Now I am firmly convinced that US presidents are no longer deciding anything.
    1. herruvim
      herruvim 27 November 2014 19: 02
      +8
      In the office of a psychoanolytic. A patient:
      - Doctor, she constantly terrorizes us with her teachings, teaches life, intervenes in all our affairs.
      - What should the doctor do?
      doctor:
      - Do not worry, many have such conflicts with mother-in-law. . .
      Patient:
      - Doctor, what a mother-in-law, it's me about America!
    2. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 27 November 2014 19: 05
      +11
      Washington did not lose the war in Afghanistan ... They won it .. Afghanistan turned into a sort of Saudi Arabia the world leader in the production of heroin! And all this nonsense goes first to Russia and then already further ... Remember the Americans what they said when we offered them to intensify the fight against poppy plantations (and even the special chemicals were offered safe for free ..) ??? And what they answered .. We will doom the people of Afghanistan to starvation because this is their main occupation! What .. am
      1. GUS
        GUS 27 November 2014 19: 12
        +7
        Quote: MIKHAN
        Washington did not lose the war in Afghanistan ... They won it .. Afghanistan turned into a sort of Saudi Arabia the world leader in the production of heroin! And all this nonsense goes first to Russia and then already further ... Remember the Americans what they said when we offered them to intensify the fight against poppy plantations (and even the special chemicals were offered safe for free ..) ??? And what they answered .. We will doom the people of Afghanistan to starvation because this is their main occupation! What .. am


        Maybe I’m not right, but according to my personal observations, the amount of drugs available to us increased precisely after the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan.
        1. hz123
          hz123 27 November 2014 19: 17
          +7
          after the collapse of the union, it increased
        2. Vitaly Anisimov
          Vitaly Anisimov 27 November 2014 19: 26
          +5
          Quote: GUS
          Quote: MIKHAN
          Washington did not lose the war in Afghanistan ... They won it .. Afghanistan turned into a sort of Saudi Arabia the world leader in the production of heroin! And all this nonsense goes first to Russia and then already further ... Remember the Americans what they said when we offered them to intensify the fight against poppy plantations (and even the special chemicals were offered safe for free ..) ??? And what they answered .. We will doom the people of Afghanistan to starvation because this is their main occupation! What .. am


          Maybe I’m not right, but according to my personal observations, the amount of drugs available to us increased precisely after the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan.

          Everything is correct ... I always remember (I wrote more than once already) during the withdrawal of ours from Afghanistan, interviews were taken with the "letekha" ... Are you glad that the war is over and the Soviet contingent is being withdrawn from Afghanistan ..?
          And the answer is short, hard, and as it turned out later, it came true for all 100500 .. That's how this officer answered:
          DON'T KNOW BUT "THEY" WILL FOLLOW US TO US ...!
          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 27 November 2014 21: 39
            0
            Quote: MIKHAN
            This is how this officer replied: I DON'T KNOW BUT "THEY" WILL FOLLOW US TO US ...!

            That is exactly what happened. According to the plan of Brzezinski. He, with his master and his lackeys, planned the transfer of hostilities from the territory of Afghanistan to the territory of Russia, then the USSR.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. воронов
          воронов 27 November 2014 20: 26
          0
          Quote: GUS
          the availability of drugs increased with us precisely after the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan.

          And especially after the collapse of the USSR, the borders are open.
        5. biron
          biron 27 November 2014 22: 06
          0
          This is the time Gorbachov’s anti-alcoholic campaign divorced mink addiction, substance abuse, and everything else is shit. am
          1. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 28 November 2014 06: 33
            0
            That is, you think that normal people cannot do without liquor and other poison? Why should all the people be considered "shit" or "shit-eaters"?
      2. Renat
        Renat 27 November 2014 19: 13
        +3
        All is correct. Why chop the head of a hen laying golden eggs. And the fact that he once promised someone, well, this is ridiculous, comrades. He is a politician. Moreover, the head of one of the most lying countries in the world. Yes, and the deadline arrives. And from Afghanistan you can still squeeze a lot of juice. They would start investing there without dividends.
      3. Deadmen
        Deadmen 27 November 2014 19: 13
        +1
        In addition to turning a blind eye to cultivation, the Americans were sure and were accomplices in the distribution of corridors. In addition, they themselves had some money for which they bought weapons for supplies to the same groups.
      4. demon1978
        demon1978 27 November 2014 19: 19
        +5
        Quote: MIKHAN
        What ..

        Unfortunately, EXACTLY so !!!yes
      5. APASUS
        APASUS 27 November 2014 19: 35
        +4
        Quote: MIKHAN
        Washington did not lose the war in Afghanistan ... They won it .. Afghanistan turned into a sort of Saudi Arabia the world leader in the production of heroin! And all this nonsense goes first to Russia and then already further ... Remember the Americans what they said when we offered them to intensify the fight against poppy plantations (and even the special chemicals were offered safe for free ..) ??? And what they answered .. We will doom the people of Afghanistan to starvation because this is their main occupation! What .. am

        After the Americans left, the production of heroin began to go under the roof of the Taliban, and therefore the money passed by the American box office. Now you can safely predict a drop in heroin prices, an increase in production, and a sharp increase in the transfer to the EU and Russia.
        Don't you see the agronomist come?
        1. AKM9
          AKM9 27 November 2014 20: 26
          +1
          Michurin in the "military" style.
      6. the villain
        the villain 27 November 2014 21: 12
        +1
        Quote: MIKHAN
        And what they answered .. We will doom the people of Afghanistan to starvation because this is their main occupation! What ..

        Maybe I’ll say it cruelly, but for me, it’s better that the people of Afghanistan bend over from hunger than the people of Russia from their drugs am
    3. Civil
      Civil 27 November 2014 19: 10
      +2
      The increase in control over Afghanistan has the following advantages:

      1. Distraction of the US Army from other theaters of operations.
      2. Inevitable losses.
      3. Financial expenses.
      Cons:
      1. Base for attacks on Central Asia.
      2. Support for the hostile regime of the Russian Federation.
      1. max702
        max702 27 November 2014 21: 37
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        The increase in control over Afghanistan has the following advantages: 1. Distraction of the US Army from other theaters of operations. 2. Inevitable losses. 3. Financial expenses. Cons: 1. Base for attacks on Central Asia. 2. Support for the hostile regime of the Russian Federation.

        Not quite so, for Russia there are practically no pluses. But the cons ..
        1 Another branch of ISIS is organized in the underbelly of Russia, when mattresses leave Afghanistan leaving a bunch of weapons and equipment, who will take it all in their hands, and in which direction will the only true religious teaching be headed?
        2 A sickly gesheft on heroin, debugged the supply of drugs to the countries of the most likely enemy of Russia, and the EU for the heap, thereby putting the operation in profit.
        3 Training of their troops was carried out in conditions as close to combat as possible, and losses are known to be present at any exercises. But how many new weapons and equipment they tested, plus they worked out the logistics and tactical schemes for wars of this type (in the near future it will be the main one on earth, a la prokhorovka will not)
        4 Whatever they say, and after leaving in that region, strong US influence will remain (agents, drug gesheft and others)
        Does anyone seriously believe when this bootlegg was started in 2001 by the Taliban at least somehow threatening the United States and the entire Western world? No way! The only thing is that they have deviated somewhat from the party’s general line, here they are brains and adjusted along the way killing a bunch of hares ..
        So all the goals in Afghanistan, the United States achieved .. It would be possible to break the raspberries with a second Vietnam, but for this, other people should have been in the country's leadership.
    4. Denis fj
      Denis fj 27 November 2014 19: 15
      0
      Take any zone of political conflict - states with their own "democracy" are present everywhere. Surely, the presence of their troops in Australia is more than covered by profits from raw materials for drugs and arms trade. And the fight against terrorists is a cover.
    5. Giant thought
      Giant thought 27 November 2014 19: 19
      0
      Mattresses in Afghanistan hit, like chickens in the pluck.
    6. Junior, I
      Junior, I 27 November 2014 20: 17
      0
      They are just puppets in the hands of financiers.
    7. воронов
      воронов 27 November 2014 20: 24
      0
      Quote: Deadmen
      US presidents do not decide anything

      They never decided anything, these are temporary elected managing managers.
    8. siberalt
      siberalt 27 November 2014 20: 41
      0
      They already admitted their defeat when they asked Russia to "Ulyanovsk transit" What's the news then?
  2. dimdimich71
    dimdimich71 27 November 2014 19: 01
    +1
    Deadmen (2) SU Today, 18:57 New
    Obama, you balabol in life you yourself talked about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan)))
    Now I am firmly convinced that the US Presidents are no longer deciding anything. - It has long been clear that this is a puppet ...
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 27 November 2014 21: 21
      0
      Quote: dimdimich71
      Deadmen (2) SU Today, 18:57 New
      Obama, you balabol in life you yourself talked about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan)))
      Now I am firmly convinced that the US Presidents are no longer deciding anything. - It has long been clear that this is a puppet ...

      A monkey can’t be a puppet by definition! SHE SHOULD SIT ON A BRANCH!
  3. hz123
    hz123 27 November 2014 19: 02
    +2
    what nonsense, in my opinion all their idea of ​​all the igilas to muddle in the region, so that not for us not for Pakistan ..... not be bored.
  4. milann
    milann 27 November 2014 19: 02
    +1
    Soon the states will have to admit defeat everywhere, and their very existence - a grand mistake and an annoying misunderstanding. drinks
    1. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 27 November 2014 19: 19
      +4
      Quote: milann
      and its very existence - a grand mistake and an annoying misunderstanding.

      Columbus is probably ashamed. And it was necessary to send a loser to India to look for !!!! fool
  5. Dimkin
    Dimkin 27 November 2014 19: 02
    +2
    As required to prove wherever Uncle Sem crawls, everywhere devastation and deterioration of life
  6. Yaroslav
    Yaroslav 27 November 2014 19: 05
    0
    Afraid of losing control of drug trafficking ?! What does pin dos hold so tight there? In essence? Your assumptions gentlemen?
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 27 November 2014 21: 40
      0
      Quote: Yaroslav
      What does pin dos hold so tight there? In essence? Your assumptions gentlemen?

      Opium milk for the "monkey"



      Reply
  7. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 27 November 2014 19: 09
    +1
    Nothing, the Union fought in Afghanistan for ten years, but Pindo .... thirty years will have to.
  8. Strezhevsky
    Strezhevsky 27 November 2014 19: 20
    +2
    It was rightly noted that Afghanistan is a cemetery of empires, the United States is for you ..... without cheating !!!
    1. Penelope
      Penelope 27 November 2014 19: 32
      +1
      But how beautifully we left there, and the mattresses still sit in the Afghan swamp for a long time.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Karabas
    Karabas 27 November 2014 19: 20
    +1
    Wow, a strong Soviet rake!
  10. KOH
    KOH 27 November 2014 19: 25
    0
    They were thrown out of Kyrgyzstan, and they need a base in the underbelly of Russia, they will in every way intensify the situation in Central Asia ...
  11. Zoldat_A
    Zoldat_A 27 November 2014 19: 32
    +3
    US refuses to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
    Paraphrasing an Eastern proverb and adjusting it to the interests of the United States - if you stand at halva for a long time, will your mouth feel sweet? Is it really possible to be so moronic that in a situation where they go wherever they go, there is failure everywhere, and even further dig in? Smart all these Afghanistan-Iraqi-Syria-Libya would close quickly and quietly. No, you need to loudly, in front of the audience, plunge into the sump deeper and deeper! They hope that "I am not the only one who tumbled in the field?" Then only our minds can be advised not to run into a pair with the United States, and the former Stasi informant, citizen Merkel, is a little less afraid that Obama will present some interesting piece of paper from the GDR archives.
  12. Leonidych
    Leonidych 27 November 2014 19: 36
    0
    The Soviet Union in 1979 did not need to send troops into Afghanistan, but had to wait for the Americans to occupy it and then act on the principle of Vietnam ....
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 27 November 2014 20: 02
      0
      Quote: Leonidych
      The Soviet Union in 1979 did not need to send troops into Afghanistan, but had to wait for the Americans to occupy it and then act on the principle of Vietnam ....

      How is it now in Ukraine ..? We prompted after the collapse of the USSR .. Treasures on our borders are pouring .. The bases were imposed by the military .. now sanctions ..! Oh Russia is a trusting soul and generous ..
  13. avvg
    avvg 27 November 2014 20: 01
    +1
    Anyway, AFGHANIS remembers us (ABOUT SHURAVI) with kind words.
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 27 November 2014 20: 35
      +3
      Quote: avvg
      Anyway, AFGHANIS remembers us (ABOUT SHURAVI) with kind words.

      Remember ..! Soviet troops broke into villages, cities and forcibly built schools, factory hospitals, etc. They took out "slaves" en masse to "work" in the country's Universities, making them high-quality specialists (engineers, doctors, scientists ... many were simply illiterate ...) Many of them are now in power and prosper in business ... These are we occupiers at all times there have been .. (to the detriment of themselves, most often they did all this hoping for minimal gratitude though) .. hi
  14. 511
    511 27 November 2014 20: 18
    +2
    And in which country did these under-winners win? Unless in the Hollywood action movies.
  15. Venier
    Venier 27 November 2014 20: 39
    +1
    According to Fashington, the international tribunal has been crying for a long time. And I believe that their hour of reckoning for everything will come anyway.
  16. Sanya Rus
    Sanya Rus 27 November 2014 20: 51
    +1
    And where did the American males win? Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or where else? Shamelessly merging everywhere ...
  17. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 27 November 2014 21: 19
    0
    Traditional Afghan society is not guided by American standards, but by its own understanding of who is worthy of power. And the Taliban are waging war not only against foreign interventionists, but also against Western ideology.

    The Yusovites do not want to leave Afghanistan themselves, which means they will kick them in the ass, as they kicked them out of Vietnam and no military bases will help them.
    Sitting at the bases you won’t win the war, but they have a weak point to fight in the mountains.
    The Yusovites themselves trained militants for terrorist attacks against the OKV of the USSR, they themselves did not allow the USSR to stabilize the situation in the country, let them now sit under the Taliban’s bullets, not sticking their nose out over the base fences.
  18. Deadmen
    Deadmen 27 November 2014 23: 02
    0
    let's go, now the alkaida has rallied with the igil, you won’t have time to import zinc.