Taliban Withdrawal Was Strategy, Not Rout
November 14, 2001 7:35 AM Subscribe
This seems to be simple common sense on the part of the Taliban -- they were getting hurt badly in the static trenches, and were spread very thin in the northern part of Afghanistan (an area where there is a lot of sympathy for the United Front/Norther Alliance). By pulling back in orderly fashion, the saved a lot of their armor, heavy artillery, and their best troop formations.
The US and Northern Alliance commanders are not stupid -- they know the Taliban is not surrendering, only retrenching to fight a war they think they can win: a bloody war of attrition in the mountains and southern strongholds.
I don't think the Northern Alliance will play as large a part in the second phase of this war because they are predominately Tajiks and Uzbeks, whereas the southern Afghans are mainly Pashtuns. The US and its allies may have to engage the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces directly to defeat them, which means we will have to get many more troops on the ground.
The Taliban are counting on the harsh winter as a deterrent to heavy military action, but the US is an all-weather military force. We may surprise them by continuing to attack even in bad weather. This is something even the Soviets couldn't do, and the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces may not be prepared to weather a winter-long offensive.
posted by mrmanley at 7:47 AM on November 14, 2001
The US and Northern Alliance commanders are not stupid -- they know the Taliban is not surrendering, only retrenching to fight a war they think they can win: a bloody war of attrition in the mountains and southern strongholds.
I don't think the Northern Alliance will play as large a part in the second phase of this war because they are predominately Tajiks and Uzbeks, whereas the southern Afghans are mainly Pashtuns. The US and its allies may have to engage the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces directly to defeat them, which means we will have to get many more troops on the ground.
The Taliban are counting on the harsh winter as a deterrent to heavy military action, but the US is an all-weather military force. We may surprise them by continuing to attack even in bad weather. This is something even the Soviets couldn't do, and the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces may not be prepared to weather a winter-long offensive.
posted by mrmanley at 7:47 AM on November 14, 2001
Yes the Taliban are apparently adopting the strategy I successfully used in my last barfight where I struck my opponent repeatedly on the fist with my eye and executed several strikes to the foot with my groin.
posted by quercus at 7:57 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by quercus at 7:57 AM on November 14, 2001
The reality is somewhere in between. What we're seeing is an attempt to recover strategically from a rout. For one thing, substantial numbers of the warlords who had previously supported the Taliban have turned on them. For another, there are wholesale desertions among the men who had been forcibly impressed into Taliban service. The few reliable troops they have remaining will now attempt a guerrilla war -- that's true.
But to try to claim that most of the events of the last few days were planned by the Taliban is horseshit. What they're looking at is a nearly unmitigated military disaster.
The war isn't over -- but it's far from true that this is some sort of trap the Taliban are setting for us because they're crafty and we're gullible. This was a victory for us, not a defeat.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:59 AM on November 14, 2001
But to try to claim that most of the events of the last few days were planned by the Taliban is horseshit. What they're looking at is a nearly unmitigated military disaster.
The war isn't over -- but it's far from true that this is some sort of trap the Taliban are setting for us because they're crafty and we're gullible. This was a victory for us, not a defeat.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:59 AM on November 14, 2001
This was a victory for us, not a defeat.
This old fogey enjoyed this morning's Daily Telegraph editorial saying exactly the same thing.
As far as the Taliban's strategic retreat is concerned, I was yet again reminded of cockney Mandy Rice Davies's retort when the judge told her that some government grandee had denied he had ever paid her to join him in some 60's swinging London orgy: "Yeah, well: he would[say that], wouldn't he?"
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:10 AM on November 14, 2001
This old fogey enjoyed this morning's Daily Telegraph editorial saying exactly the same thing.
As far as the Taliban's strategic retreat is concerned, I was yet again reminded of cockney Mandy Rice Davies's retort when the judge told her that some government grandee had denied he had ever paid her to join him in some 60's swinging London orgy: "Yeah, well: he would[say that], wouldn't he?"
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:10 AM on November 14, 2001
Taliban's strategic retreat
What exactly would be the strategic benefit of abandoning their tanks and artillery?
Man, we are SO falling right into that trap!
posted by UncleFes at 8:23 AM on November 14, 2001
What exactly would be the strategic benefit of abandoning their tanks and artillery?
Man, we are SO falling right into that trap!
posted by UncleFes at 8:23 AM on November 14, 2001
Daniel Boone, the great tracker & hunter a\& scout was once asked if he had ever been lost in the woods. He replied No, but I had once been bewildered for two weeks.
posted by Postroad at 8:35 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by Postroad at 8:35 AM on November 14, 2001
I don't think that's what this analysis implies, Steven. The article merely explains why this move makes strategic sense for the Taliban. That it makes sense to them does not imply that they were not driven to it. They are simply responding to the situation as it unfolds, exactly as the United Front commanders were when they took over Kabul.
The reality *is* somewhere between. Obviously if the Taliban had the strength to hold the area they occupied, they would have continued to occupy it; this action acknowledges that they have neither manpower nor resources to defend such a large territory. So you're right, it's not just some devious trap cooked up by the Taliban to lead United Front and U.S. military commanders astray. But it's also not necessarily evidence that the Taliban are being crushed. They've made an orderly retreat and taken their weapons with them, which implies that they maintain at least some discipline and have the resources to move troops around - not exactly evidence of a wrecked army.
This was a victory for us, not a defeat.
It certainly wasn't a defeat, but it isn't a clear victory either. An opportunity, let's say, an opportunity with some risks.
-Mars
(not part of "us", at least not if I can help it...)
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:36 AM on November 14, 2001
The reality *is* somewhere between. Obviously if the Taliban had the strength to hold the area they occupied, they would have continued to occupy it; this action acknowledges that they have neither manpower nor resources to defend such a large territory. So you're right, it's not just some devious trap cooked up by the Taliban to lead United Front and U.S. military commanders astray. But it's also not necessarily evidence that the Taliban are being crushed. They've made an orderly retreat and taken their weapons with them, which implies that they maintain at least some discipline and have the resources to move troops around - not exactly evidence of a wrecked army.
This was a victory for us, not a defeat.
It certainly wasn't a defeat, but it isn't a clear victory either. An opportunity, let's say, an opportunity with some risks.
-Mars
(not part of "us", at least not if I can help it...)
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:36 AM on November 14, 2001
Call it a victory if you want. Seems more like strategy to me.
Standing up to American airpower on the plains and cities wasn't the way for the Taliban to acheive their goal: prolonging the conflict and making the U.S. commit forces to get chewed up piecemeal in the mountains.
The Soviets too controlled huge amounts of territory, Kabul, etc. while the guerrillas took to more defensible territory. Now as then, time is on the Taliban's side.
Can the U.S. forces learn from the bloody lessons inflicted on the Soviets? I hope so, but the answers won't become clear for months, or years.
When the U.S. goes into the hills looking for bin Laden, then we'll see. I fear that what happens after that will make today's cries of "victory" ring hollow.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:59 AM on November 14, 2001
Standing up to American airpower on the plains and cities wasn't the way for the Taliban to acheive their goal: prolonging the conflict and making the U.S. commit forces to get chewed up piecemeal in the mountains.
The Soviets too controlled huge amounts of territory, Kabul, etc. while the guerrillas took to more defensible territory. Now as then, time is on the Taliban's side.
Can the U.S. forces learn from the bloody lessons inflicted on the Soviets? I hope so, but the answers won't become clear for months, or years.
When the U.S. goes into the hills looking for bin Laden, then we'll see. I fear that what happens after that will make today's cries of "victory" ring hollow.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:59 AM on November 14, 2001
Blairs view as see through the BBC. "...And he rejected suggestions that the Taleban had simply made a tactical withdrawal, saying the claim was a "lie"..."
posted by Voyageman at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by Voyageman at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2001
The Soviets too controlled huge amounts of territory, Kabul, etc. while the guerrillas took to more defensible territory. Now as then, time is on the Taliban's side.
The Soviets also were contending with Afghan forces funded and armed by the U.S.
posted by gazingus at 9:08 AM on November 14, 2001
The Soviets also were contending with Afghan forces funded and armed by the U.S.
posted by gazingus at 9:08 AM on November 14, 2001
where has this idea that the northern alliance are interested in the liberation of afghanistan come from?
i would like to see any evidence that they are at all interested in liberty or freedom, or indeed anything other than money and power. remember, the taleban, aparently, stopped opium production in the areas they controlled, whilst the northern alliance increased production at the same time.
there is no difference in the core values of these two groups, so why side with one or the other, if you find them both repelent? this cannot conceivably help free the world of terrorism in the long term.
this was not a victory for the cause of liberty and freedom, to which the western governments have been laying sole claim to recently.
posted by asok at 9:09 AM on November 14, 2001
i would like to see any evidence that they are at all interested in liberty or freedom, or indeed anything other than money and power. remember, the taleban, aparently, stopped opium production in the areas they controlled, whilst the northern alliance increased production at the same time.
there is no difference in the core values of these two groups, so why side with one or the other, if you find them both repelent? this cannot conceivably help free the world of terrorism in the long term.
this was not a victory for the cause of liberty and freedom, to which the western governments have been laying sole claim to recently.
posted by asok at 9:09 AM on November 14, 2001
"I don't think the Northern Alliance will play as large a part in the second phase of this war because they are predominately Tajiks and Uzbeks, whereas the southern Afghans are mainly Pashtuns. The US and its allies may have to engage the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces directly to defeat them, which means we will have to get many more troops on the ground."
Another possible option seems to be to stop at a defensible "demarcation" line and concentrate on the civilian recovery in the north, while containing the Taliban in the south in an organized and enforced political and economical isolation.
posted by semmi at 9:19 AM on November 14, 2001
Another possible option seems to be to stop at a defensible "demarcation" line and concentrate on the civilian recovery in the north, while containing the Taliban in the south in an organized and enforced political and economical isolation.
posted by semmi at 9:19 AM on November 14, 2001
there is no difference in the core values of these two groups, so why side with one or the other, if you find them both repelent?
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, no?
posted by locombia at 9:29 AM on November 14, 2001
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, no?
posted by locombia at 9:29 AM on November 14, 2001
Another possible option seems to be to stop at a defensible "demarcation" line and concentrate on the civilian recovery in the north, while containing the Taliban in the south in an organized and enforced political and economical isolation.
That would be stupid. Fight them before they can reorganize. Fight them while the winter and Gortex, etc. give us a decisive advantage.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 AM on November 14, 2001
That would be stupid. Fight them before they can reorganize. Fight them while the winter and Gortex, etc. give us a decisive advantage.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 AM on November 14, 2001
and now this as we keep debating thier soo very clever strategy Kandahar has fallen
posted by Voyageman at 9:36 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by Voyageman at 9:36 AM on November 14, 2001
That would be stupid.
you have a good point, Paris; taliban disorganization and cold would be to our advantage.
but i like Semmi's idea very much (and 'stupid' is certainly never a good word to describe another's post). on the larger scale, beyond the taliban...beginning the humanitarian rebuilding process as soon as possible would be a great victory in the greater war on terrorism.
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:50 AM on November 14, 2001
you have a good point, Paris; taliban disorganization and cold would be to our advantage.
but i like Semmi's idea very much (and 'stupid' is certainly never a good word to describe another's post). on the larger scale, beyond the taliban...beginning the humanitarian rebuilding process as soon as possible would be a great victory in the greater war on terrorism.
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:50 AM on November 14, 2001
they've taken control of jalalabad, too. and it looks like there're uprisings in the southern provinces. i thought this was interesting:
The action among local leaders came as the Pentagon said U.S. special forces in the south were working on the next phase of the war. U.S military planners think the best course is to persuade Pashtun tribal leaders unhappy with the Taliban to defect. The CIA has led the effort by trying to identify individuals or groups for the Pentagon to equip and arm, officials said.
and this:
The alliance's foreign minister, Abdullah, said international peacekeepers would not be needed in Afghanistan once the Taliban are defeated across the country. The top U.N. envoy on Afghanistan has said a multinational force should be deployed in the country.
posted by kliuless at 10:10 AM on November 14, 2001
The action among local leaders came as the Pentagon said U.S. special forces in the south were working on the next phase of the war. U.S military planners think the best course is to persuade Pashtun tribal leaders unhappy with the Taliban to defect. The CIA has led the effort by trying to identify individuals or groups for the Pentagon to equip and arm, officials said.
and this:
The alliance's foreign minister, Abdullah, said international peacekeepers would not be needed in Afghanistan once the Taliban are defeated across the country. The top U.N. envoy on Afghanistan has said a multinational force should be deployed in the country.
posted by kliuless at 10:10 AM on November 14, 2001
As the Taliban concentrates in their southern stronghold(s) the question becomes, how well supplied are they and how easily can they replenish?
If they're sealed off, its only a matter of time before they run out of guns and butter.
And all of this still fails to contemplate pre-programmed AlQieda operatives all over the world, and the other terrorist friendly states such as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and of course Iraq.
Its way premature to be talking an end game strategy, since we're not even far enough into the conflict for unforseen complications to arise yet.
IMO, I think they want large numbers of ground forces in place against them. a few nukes would make for a devastating loss of GIs, and they can use a donkey as a delivery vehicle-IOW, there's not much chance of stopping them if they want to use it in-country.
So a blockade is the way to go, and that lets us deal with more pressing matters elsewhere. Also, keep in mind that Saddam has been lobbing a mortar or two over the Kuwaiti border of late. Coincedence? If you start a fire on the west bank, Iraq/kuwait, maybe throw in some Kashmiri strife, the US military approaches the limits of its defensive capabilities. Limbaugh was saying its the beginning of the end of the conflict yesterday. He's so insightful....
posted by BentPenguin at 10:28 AM on November 14, 2001
If they're sealed off, its only a matter of time before they run out of guns and butter.
And all of this still fails to contemplate pre-programmed AlQieda operatives all over the world, and the other terrorist friendly states such as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and of course Iraq.
Its way premature to be talking an end game strategy, since we're not even far enough into the conflict for unforseen complications to arise yet.
IMO, I think they want large numbers of ground forces in place against them. a few nukes would make for a devastating loss of GIs, and they can use a donkey as a delivery vehicle-IOW, there's not much chance of stopping them if they want to use it in-country.
So a blockade is the way to go, and that lets us deal with more pressing matters elsewhere. Also, keep in mind that Saddam has been lobbing a mortar or two over the Kuwaiti border of late. Coincedence? If you start a fire on the west bank, Iraq/kuwait, maybe throw in some Kashmiri strife, the US military approaches the limits of its defensive capabilities. Limbaugh was saying its the beginning of the end of the conflict yesterday. He's so insightful....
posted by BentPenguin at 10:28 AM on November 14, 2001
Since the Soviet withdrawal, there's been a history of quick large-scale advances followed by periods of bogged-down artillery exchange around major cities. At least I suspect this won't happen in this case.
Saira Shah's astonishing Channel 4 documentary "Unholy War" included an interview with a very eloquent regional commander from the Northern Alliance, who noted that previous NA gains led to internecine conflict among the different groupings. "Every street in Kabul was held by a different warlord." His solution? Bring in the UN, and take away the guns. And while that will get Second Amendmentists twitching, when you hear Afghan men compare RPGs to jewellery, and see little boys toting AK-47s, you have to suspect that he has a point. War culture -- not gun culture -- is so engrained in the place.
If they're sealed off, its only a matter of time before they run out of guns and butter.
Judging from "Unholy War", there's still plenty of cross-border smuggling from Pakistan: "guns, drugs, goats, cans of Pepsi". How that's to be challenged, I'm unsure.
posted by holgate at 10:32 AM on November 14, 2001
Saira Shah's astonishing Channel 4 documentary "Unholy War" included an interview with a very eloquent regional commander from the Northern Alliance, who noted that previous NA gains led to internecine conflict among the different groupings. "Every street in Kabul was held by a different warlord." His solution? Bring in the UN, and take away the guns. And while that will get Second Amendmentists twitching, when you hear Afghan men compare RPGs to jewellery, and see little boys toting AK-47s, you have to suspect that he has a point. War culture -- not gun culture -- is so engrained in the place.
If they're sealed off, its only a matter of time before they run out of guns and butter.
Judging from "Unholy War", there's still plenty of cross-border smuggling from Pakistan: "guns, drugs, goats, cans of Pepsi". How that's to be challenged, I'm unsure.
posted by holgate at 10:32 AM on November 14, 2001
isn't it kind of, well, common sense? if you're getting defeated, retreat and regroup? hell, i do that in 'kessen' for playstation 2 and i'm far from an experienced commander.
my response to this article is 'duh.'
posted by aenemated at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2001
my response to this article is 'duh.'
posted by aenemated at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2001
Based on the overheard radio transmissions, Mullah Omar was begging his troops to regroup in an orderly fashion, but there is no evidence that they have done so. Yes, they are now concentrated in a smaller area, but they have sacrificed most of their conscripts and a good portion of their foreign volunteers, and many of their allies have already left. They are consequently a much smaller force, and one which will be much more easily encircled.
And gazingus: We were not the only ones funding the mujahedin; money and volunteers came from Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and others. It was a cause célèbre.
In any case, now is not then. The Six Plus Two group includes all their bordering neighbors, including China, and Russia and the US.
posted by dhartung at 11:20 AM on November 14, 2001
And gazingus: We were not the only ones funding the mujahedin; money and volunteers came from Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and others. It was a cause célèbre.
In any case, now is not then. The Six Plus Two group includes all their bordering neighbors, including China, and Russia and the US.
posted by dhartung at 11:20 AM on November 14, 2001
Perhaps the taliban is like 'an angry rabbit, running to go fight in another fight, away from the first fight'.
posted by justgary at 12:26 PM on November 14, 2001
posted by justgary at 12:26 PM on November 14, 2001
while containing the Taliban in the south in an organized and enforced political and economical isolation.
Ah, yes, the ever-effective Saddam Solution....
posted by rushmc at 4:16 PM on November 14, 2001
Ah, yes, the ever-effective Saddam Solution....
posted by rushmc at 4:16 PM on November 14, 2001
while containing the Taliban in the south in an organized and enforced political and economical isolation.
Ah, yes, the ever-effective Saddam Solution....
posted by rushmc at 4:16 PM on November 14, 2001
Ah, yes, the ever-effective Saddam Solution....
posted by rushmc at 4:16 PM on November 14, 2001
Ack, my finger twitched. I didn't know it could do that! Sorry.
posted by rushmc at 4:17 PM on November 14, 2001
posted by rushmc at 4:17 PM on November 14, 2001
Not quite comparable. I liken it more to what Cambodia did to the Khmer Rouge: isolate them, and let them wither away. It took 15 years, but they are no longer a factor in Cambodian politics.
Equally, if the Taliban spend several years huddled in the mountains, with little supply and no support from the locals and no international patron, they soon won't be a threat even if we don't fight them on the ground.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:10 PM on November 14, 2001
Equally, if the Taliban spend several years huddled in the mountains, with little supply and no support from the locals and no international patron, they soon won't be a threat even if we don't fight them on the ground.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:10 PM on November 14, 2001
This is somewhat along the lines of DSSi's strategic scenario analysis. STRATFOR says they predicted the Taliban withdrawl back in October. Ramadan starts in a couple of days, and given all the political concern about bombing through Ramadan, I am surprised at the timing of the Taliban withdrawl. As well, I can't see the advantage of the Taliban putting their armour and troops on roads where they can be picked off by American warplanes, which seems to be happening.
That being said, one has to wonder about the ultimate aims of the Taliban and Al-Queda. There are an awful lot of assumptions being made about Al-Queda's plan at this point, and I doubt bin Laden has traditional military objectives in mind.
Last evening I watched an MSNBC interview with Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside The Secret World of Osama Bin Laden. He thought that bin Laden may well intend to die in the current conflict and that he has a "nasty surprise" -- a weapon of mass distruction -- that will be used as a last resort. Hamid Mir, the editor of Pakistan's Ausaf newspaper who interviewed bin Laden last week, was of a similar opinion.
BBC has a transcript of an interview with Taleban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in which he states "the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America... If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction." Bin Laden claims he has nuclear weapons, and Western intelligence agencies say they have discovered evidence of transactions involving sophisticated laboratory equipment, along with a new bioterrorism manual distributed to cells of the al Qaeda terrorist network.
posted by tranquileye at 5:08 AM on November 15, 2001
That being said, one has to wonder about the ultimate aims of the Taliban and Al-Queda. There are an awful lot of assumptions being made about Al-Queda's plan at this point, and I doubt bin Laden has traditional military objectives in mind.
Last evening I watched an MSNBC interview with Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside The Secret World of Osama Bin Laden. He thought that bin Laden may well intend to die in the current conflict and that he has a "nasty surprise" -- a weapon of mass distruction -- that will be used as a last resort. Hamid Mir, the editor of Pakistan's Ausaf newspaper who interviewed bin Laden last week, was of a similar opinion.
BBC has a transcript of an interview with Taleban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in which he states "the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America... If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction." Bin Laden claims he has nuclear weapons, and Western intelligence agencies say they have discovered evidence of transactions involving sophisticated laboratory equipment, along with a new bioterrorism manual distributed to cells of the al Qaeda terrorist network.
posted by tranquileye at 5:08 AM on November 15, 2001
The Times reports that "detailed plans for nuclear devices and other terrorist bombs" have been found in al Qaeda's abandoned Kabul headquarters.
posted by ferris at 5:26 AM on November 15, 2001
posted by ferris at 5:26 AM on November 15, 2001
« Older Weblog tools overview | Google told me Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Hopefully we are pursuing and not letting them fall back and regroup. There are reports we are doing just that.
posted by argon405 at 7:44 AM on November 14, 2001