Pentagon Expects More Taliban Attacks

Defense Officials Say Taliban Has "Coalesced Into A Resilient Insurgency"

(AP)  The Taliban has regrouped after its initial fall from power in Afghanistan and the pace of its attacks is likely to increase this year, according to a Pentagon report that offers a dim view of progress in the nearly seven-year-old war.

Noting that insurgent violence has climbed, the report said that despite U.S. and coalition efforts to capture and kill key leaders, the Taliban is likely to "maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008."

The Taliban, it said, has "coalesced into a resilient insurgency."

At the same time, the Afghan Army and national police are progressing slowly and still lack the trainers they need.

The report was released Friday along with a separate plan for the development of Afghan security forces. They are the first two comprehensive Pentagon reports to evaluate progress in Afghanistan.

Vast problems - corruption, the illegal poppy trade, human rights abuses and slow progress in reconstruction - were detailed, as well as the struggle to train and equip the Afghan Army and police.

The report described a dual terror threat in Afghanistan that includes the Taliban in the south, and "a more complex, adaptive insurgency" in the east. That fragmented insurgency is made up of groups ranging from al Qaeda and Afghan warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's radical Hezb-i-Islami group to Pakistani militants such as Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Insurgents will continue to challenge the government in southern and eastern Afghanistan, and the may also move to increase their power in the north and west, the report predicted.

The assessment was bluntly pessimistic as it described efforts to train the Army and police.

As of March, it said, just one Army battalion and a headquarters unit could operate independently, while 26 battalions, five brigade headquarters and two corps headquarters units could plan and execute counterinsurgency operations with the support of coalition forces.

In addition, as of the spring, the U.S. had provided only 44 percent of the nearly 2,400 trainers needed for the Afghan Army, and just 39 percent of the mentors for the Afghan police.

Development of the Afghan police is taking longer and has been hindered by "corruption, insufficient U.S. military trainers and advisors, and a lack of unity of effort within the international community," the report noted.

The recent deployment of 1,200 U.S. Marines to serve as trainers for the police has beefed up the totals, but when those troops leave in the fall, the need for 1,400 police mentors will remain.

Overall there are 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 14,000 serving with the NATO forces and another 18,000 conducting training and counterinsurgency. As of Friday, the Defense Department has confirmed the deaths of 527 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, along with 310 from other coalition members since the start of the war in late 2001.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates referred to the worsening problems in Afghanistan on Thursday, noting that when he traveled to the border area of Khost last year, security was better.

"It actually was not bad until a few months ago," said Gates. "This is a fairly recent phenomenon of seeing the numbers (of insurgents) come across the border. After all, Khost was an example of a successful counterinsurgency."

A key to the deterioration there, he said, has been recent efforts by Pakistan to negotiate peace agreement with tribal leaders along the lawless border. Those talks, he said, took the pressure off insurgent groups and "they've therefore been more free to be able to cross the border and create problems for us."

The report concurs, calling the insurgents' safe havens in Pakistan's tribal areas along the border "the greatest challenge to long-term security" in Afghanistan.

On a positive note, there is a nod to the economic and political gains in Afghanistan - including successful elections and improvements within the ministries of defense, foreign affairs and finance. It also that women are now holding government posts and teaching positions - although it said that challenges remain in eliminating human rights abuses.

In a separate report, also required by Congress and focusing on the U.S. approach to developing Afghan security forces, the Pentagon said the goal is to build a national police force of 82,000. The report said that once an assessment is made of recent reform efforts, there should be a decision on whether even larger numbers are needed.

"However, at this point in time, a lack of U.S. military trainers and mentors available for police mentor teams precludes the acceleration or expansion" of the training program, the report said.

The Afghan national army is scheduled to reach a strength of 70,000 by the end of this year, with an ultimate goal of 80,000 soldiers. The Pentagon's report offered no detailed assessment of the performance of either the police or the army; rather it described the structure of U.S. and international efforts to develop the forces and their importance to the overall goal of rebuilding Afghanistan.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Pentagon Expects More Taliban Attacks"

STOP THE PRESSES!

WHAT A BUNCH OF GENIUSES!

HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE LOSING?

[feelfree4u]

Last year was the deadliest year yet for Americans in Afghanistan.

This year''s casualties are already up by 50% from last year.

Are we "winning" in Afghanistan?

If so, what?

[ubrew12]

What exactly did these people do to us?

I mean, they rented land to Al-Qaida, out on the a*s-end of their country, in the mountains next to Pakistan.

While Al-Qaida should have been annihilated, the Taliban should have been FINED. Now, we''re killing our own soldiers trying to keep, basically, the Afghans from getting their country back.

For what?

For an oil pipeline between Central Asia and the Pakistani Coast. Once again, American war dead, traded for oil.

[feelfree4u]

ubrew12,

Re: "What exactly did these people do to us?"

Excellent question.

[starleo146]

Last year was the deadliest year yet for Americans in Afghanistan.

This year''''s casualties are already up by 50% from last year.

Are we "winning" in Afghanistan?

If so, what?

Posted by FeelFree4U at 09:25 PM : Jun 27, 2008
+ report a

You are so right this adm. has just screwed up once more, took our troops out, sent them to Iraq, let OBL get away, and here we are once again losing, because he won''t send enough troops in to get this thing over, but he wants this territory he will have Iraq, and Afghanistan with guess who in the middle. gheeze I will be so glad to see that helicopter carrying these two awful leaders off to never never land

[soldat44]

%u201CWhen you''re left wounded on Afganistan''s plains and the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, And go to your God like a soldier%u201D
Rudyard Kipling


Deja Vu all over again?

[fake-id-2009]

"Pentagon Expects More Taliban Attacks"


I''m SURE there will be some strategic attacks conveniently conducted in October (October surprise?) to bolster the rethuglicans'' "last minute" campaigning.

"Fear tactics" seem to work every time...

[cdfoxtrot]

Wasn''t the Taliban an offshoot of a CIA backed group that attacked Russians when they occupied Afghanistan? America created this problem.

[randynason]

Of course, it stands to reason that any and all insurgents in any of the Middle Eastern countries will attack us as long as we are there. They hate us, and with good reason. What we have done to the countries in that part of the world is despicable.

[randynason]

The talaban rag heads are just getting there butts kicked all over the sand, they have been hurt and want to try to save face, I don''''t care what the media says, these little camel jockeys are getting beat and bad, what else is there to say.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by zgomer

What else is there to say? Perhaps, that it is a-holes that think as you do that make this world a darker and unsafe, ignorant place.

[barbaraf4]

I suspect we are going to see more and more of this doom and gloom as we get closer to the election. This isn''t to say the Taliban isn''t a dangerous group of thugs; however, I thought we went over there to fight Al-Qaida. This administration has created a dangerous world for us to live in and then they throw out red herrings at election time telling us how much we need their protection.

[smurfcrusher]

Heck of a job.

[ubrew12]

zgomer said: "these little camel jockeys are getting beat and bad, what else is there to say."

I''d say that you''re so focused on beating the ''camel jockeys'' you don''t even see your country being sold out from under you. Three trillion dollars... for what? Doesn''t matter. You and your children will pay for it anyway. Way to sell out your own!!

[hungry1968]

So let''s see:

An enemy attacked us.

We did nothing about it.

We egged them on and urged them to FIGHT US in Iraq.

Our war in Iraq BOLSTERED their numbers by tens of thousands.

We withdrew from the ACTUAL war on terror in Afghanistan.

And somehow it''s NEWS that we''re expecting MORE attacks?

[libhater1]

"The Taliban has regrouped after its initial fall from power in Afghanistan and the pace of its attacks is likely to increase this year"

This is the awesome news!...The more these idiots regroup, the more of them we get to kill. They can keep fighting their lost cause and we''ll just keep sending them to Allah.

[libhater1]

AVSuvorov - "The only problem is that the vast majority of people killed are innocent bystanders"

Lets talk about all innocent bystanders that are killed by IEDs, suicide bombers, car bombs, mortar and rocket fire. Not to mention the innocent bystanders, women and children, that are used as human shields by these Taliban and Al Qeada thugs.
Your statement is far from the truth.

[riptide213]

Does your elected representative advocate your views?

Perhaps voters need more facts to highlight how our country sustains wars without having to demonstrate political fortitude to activate a draft via an official Selective Service System.

How much tax money is annually depleted to maintain, operate, and staff a dust collecting US Selective Service System?

Who has political chutzpah to use this paper tiger war support and troop bolstering resource?

Instead US cowardly and ingeniously shackle military volunteers and then burn them out legally. Land of the free?

STOP LOSS, In Lieu of Taskings (ILO), 8 year minimum service obligations for advertised 2,3,4,6, enlistment options, Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call ups, Army recruiting 17-41 years olds, and felony waivers all contribute to hazy smoke screen sham, a US government shanghai subterfuge to maintain war fighting troop numbers.

Would citizens support a formal Selective Service System draft call up for this war?

If answer is no, then why do citizens allow government manipulation to legally abuse loopholes to exploit and press gang those already serving in a supposed All Volunteer Force to serve at perpetual pleasure of Commander in Chief?

Why does American public allow President as Commander in Chief backed by Congress to shamefully get away with a read the fine print, covert war conscription ploys, and unofficial backdoor draft by stealth?

[libhater1]

hungry1968 - "We withdrew from the ACTUAL war on terror in Afghanistan."

To say we withdrew would suggest that we surrendered and that is not what has happen. We never went anywhere. We just never put in the amount of troops needed. There is a big difference!! Dont worry, troops freed up in Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan.

[libhater1]

Riptide213 - "STOP LOSS" is nothing new hero. And your posting stinks of Al Qeada enemy propaganda!

[hermitdave]

The Bush crime family sure better not let this happen. Their drug partners will be real upset. After years of record poppy crops theY can''t allow those evil TALLY-BAND guys to get back like they were before the illegal invasion and tell the Afghan people that drugs were against the teachings of ALLAH and *** near shut down the drug trade. All drug addicts get behind your fearless leader "w" the crusader and win one for the SNIFFER.

[libhater1]

hermitdave- "illegal invasion"??? "Bush crime family and their drug partners"????

You better just crawl back into your cave or under your rock.

[scnitelife]

Good! Let''s send in the whole armed forces and incinerate every last backward cave dwelling prehistoric arab in the place! Or at least round ''em up & put ''em in zoo''s or something so we can all feel safe around them. We can feed them peanuts and watch them throw feces at each other like the other primitive primates in our zoo''s. Muslim''s are like meth addicts, the only humane thing you can do for them is shoot them in the back of the head.

[hermitdave]

WOW--scnitelife I bet you have a copy of Mike Reagans blow up a Muslim baby tape that you play over and over and over. George sure sold you the phony terror bad guys gonna get you story hook line and sinker huh.

[ubrew12]

"Pentagon Expects More Taliban Attacks"

Pentagon experts have learned that when you take over someones backyard they get upset. Similar lessons are being learned in Iraq. The cost of these lessons, to the American public, is a bargain $3 trillion. Conservatives everywhere praise Bush for teaching us these valuable lessons for such a low price.