Community | October 15, 2009 | 36 comments

Taliban strength in Afghanistan nears military proportion

Image
JanforGore
A recent U.S. intelligence assessment has raised the estimated number of full-time Taliban -led insurgents fighting in Afghanistan to at least 25,000, underscoring how the crisis has worsened even as the U.S. and its allies have beefed up their military forces, a U.S. official said Thursday.

The U.S. official, who requested anonymity because the assessment is classified, said the estimate represented an increase of at least 5,000 fighters, or 25 percent, over what an estimate found last year.

On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry assured Afghans that America would continue to fight until "extremists and insurgents" were defeated in the war-torn nation.

The new intelligence estimate suggests that such a fight would be difficult. Not included in the 25,000 tally are the part-time fighters -- those Afghans who plant bombs or support the insurgents in other ways in return for money -- and also the criminal gangs who sometimes make common cause with the Taliban or other Pakistan -based groups.

The assessment attributed the growth in the Taliban and their major allies, such as the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e-Islami, to a number of factors, including a growing sense among many Afghans that the insurgents are gaining ground over U.S.-led NATO troops and Afghan security forces.

"The rise can be attributed to, among other things, a sense that the central government in Kabul isn't delivering (on services), increased local support for insurgent groups, and the perception that the Taliban and others are gaining a firmer foothold and expanding their capabilities," the U.S. official said.

"They (the insurgents) don't need to win a popularity contest," said Michael O'Hanlon , a military analyst at the center-left Brookings Institution in Washington . "They are actually doing a good job in creating a complex psychological brew. The first part is building on frustration with the government. The second part is increasing their own appeal or at least taking the edge off of the hatred that people had felt for them before. But on top of that they are selectively using intimidation to stoke a climate of fear. And on top of that they have momentum."

James Dobbins , a retired ambassador who served as the first U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan , said the new estimate shows how the war, which entered its ninth year this month, has been intensifying.

"It tells you that things are getting worse, and that would suggest that the current (U.S.-led troop) levels are inadequate," Dobbins said. "But it doesn't lead you to a formula that tells you what the adequate troop levels should be."

The estimated increase in the insurgents' ranks occurred as the numbers of U.S., British and other Western troops also increased, possibly suggesting that the growth in international forces is bolstering an impression among many Afghans that they're under foreign occupation.

The new estimate comes as the Obama administration debates its new strategy for Afghanistan amid public divisions between senior officials and military commanders.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the U.S. commander in Afghanistan , is seeking as many as 45,000 additional U.S. troops, which would bring the number of U.S. soldiers to more than 100,000. There are 39,000 forces from other countries and an effort is under way to double the size of the Afghan army to 134,000 by 2011.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Webmash,   Afghanistan War
  2. tags:
    War Afghanistan Taliban Obama Administration 3 more
  3.     
    |

36 comments // Taliban strength in Afghanistan nears military proportion

  • GavinTheMother
    • 0
      GavinTheMother  
    • Where was Glenn Beck when GWB was in the process of destroying the Constitution. The Democrats get in office and all of a sudden the Republicans care so much about the Constitution all of a sudden. I can't believe the GOP haven't kicked Ron Paul out of the party. He makes too much sense to be a Republican.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • We have been giving money to Pakistan since the 60s. What have we gotten for our loan/gift/investment? It is a terrible joke. When will you Obamaheads see this guy for what he is---an extension of Bush?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • I read that Obama signed a bill behind closed doors with no fanfare yesterday giving billions in aid to Pakistan with conditions attached.... being that they can have the money if they work to catch insurgents. And here I thought we had deficits? How stupid are they? Do they really think those billions are all going to what they think it is? And what about people right here who are out of work? Or those who rely on social security who won't be getting a COL increase? Yes, just like Bush.

    • 2 years ago
  • RojoGatto
  • brandonthebuck
  • thecoyote23
  • iamfree
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • hunzedog
  • clayjj05
  • hunzedog
  • iamfree
  • Michael1973
    • 0
      Michael1973  
    • Why is the US and the so called 'coalition forces' pressing forward to change this terrible situation with a failed model, have the lessons of past conflicts not proved that you cannot defect guerilla forces with a visible army. I can only assume they believe that submission must be achieved first and then diplomacy and mutual understanding can begin. What are they keeping secret about this war? Is Obama a hypocrite? promoting understanding, unity and respect in other areas but following the tails of the war mungers when it comes to Iraq and afghanistan - are there sections of the US military more powerful than the president?

    • 2 years ago
  • Timmyeatworld
  • AndrewH13
    • 0
      AndrewH13  
    • War stimulates economy. Can you imagine what would happen if half the soldiers overseas came home looking for jobs? Production of weaponry and aircraft would plummet. Our pressure on foreign oil producers would lax.

      In the debate over military occupation and possible imperialism, nothing matters less than the ideals or the lives of our brothers and sisters.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
    • 0
      JonRaymond  
    • Image
    • Of course the Taliban are increasing. Our policy to kill innocent civilians has motivated survivors to join them to fight back, just as we would do in that situation, just as we did in the Revolutionary War. No occupation has ever succeeded.

      The worst thing we ca do is to escalate and make it even worse.

      Meanwhile someone profits from this.

    • 2 years ago
  • spacemikey
    • 0
      spacemikey [removed]  
    • It's funny one day this country is going to have to admit it's "worlds strongest military" was defeated by a bunch of sheep herding dope growers. Sad that the powers that be don't see that the only victory left is bringing the troops home in one piece, and providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • samthesixth
  • RaceBannon
  • AndrewH13
  • remanns
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Well, I have to concede I too am very concerned about the nukes in Pakistan due to the escalating destabilization there. The only reason why they haven't been fired is because India has them as well. MAD is the dictating policy there now. However, should they fall into the wrong hands MAD may simply not be a consideration. Obama talks about nuclear disarmament, then why is that not the focus here rather than sending billions of dollars into Afghanistan? Of course, should we one day diplomatically work it out where Pakistan, India, and other countries totally disarm their nukes, do you honestly ever see a day when the US and Russia will disarm all their nukes fully? I don't see that happening, and until that does happen you will have countries like Pakistan and even Iran looking to arm themselves. I think this is really where the focus should be. If Obama believes so much in diplomacy, then really prove it. What we are doing now is a fool's errand. The Russians were there for a decade and lost. I guess proving history does repeat itself when you don't learn from it.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • I agree, something has to be done about the nukes in Pakistan. South Africa peacefully and willfully gave up its nukes without a military conflict. Libya did also after Bush singled them out in a speech. I cannot think of any other examples of peacefully ending nuclear weapons programs.

      The nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran need to be dealt with as well. It will take a tremendous amount of leadership to carry this out peacefully. The Russians are already starting to opt out on Iran and the Chinese are starting to opt out on North Korea. That protection will keep those programs progressing. We must bring pressure to bear on the protectors.

    • 2 years ago
  • conservativelyliberal
    • 0
      conservativelyliberal  
    • I dont feel good about this report - for most of the reasons Jan points out. However, a majority of the problems we see in the world today does stem from Pakistan yet we accept this bad behavior and thus facilitate it by doing nothing.

      In the White House Situation Room: Joe Biden--
      --"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.--

      I want to see peace in the world as well but realistically, it will not be possible till we do something about Pakistan and their nukes.

    • 2 years ago
  • BoomChaka
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • What a coincidence(?) this report is coming out just as Obama is about to decide troop levels even after just sending 30,000. No doubt this will be spun until we're dizzy to validate a large increase in troops from a president who just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I see this if true as a huge failure. How is it we can be in Afghanistan for EIGHT years now going on NINE and the Taliban has the resources to get to military proportions? What the hell have we been doing there? Perhaps instead of taking over their infrastructure and farming and opening the door to corporatization, they should have been concentrating on the original goal... breaking up training camps that were provided to terrorists who supposedly trained there in relation to 9.11. I don't recall them saying any of the 9.11 hijackers were from the Taliban.

      However, just like Bush and Iraq we will now have Obama and Afghanistan with the same lines about how this will be a long battle but we will fight until every insurgent is gone. And of course, our own economy and unemployment rates will assure a nice steady flow of "recruits" for their pursuits. I really don't understand why the streets are not overflowing in this country with angry Americans regarding this war. To me it is an obvious set up for escalation to Pakistan and elsewhere in this area. They play peacemakers while waging war for profit and poll ratings and we pay for it. Some change.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos