February 9, 2010 8:33 PM

U.S. Tightens Noose around Taliban Town

(AP)  U.S. and Afghan forces pushed Tuesday to the edge of the southern Afghan town of Marjah, poised to seize the major Taliban supply and drug-smuggling stronghold in hopes of building public support by providing aid and services once the insurgents are gone.

Instead of keeping the offensive secret, Americans have been talking about it for weeks, expecting the Taliban would flee. But the militants appear to be digging in, apparently believing that even a losing fight would rally supporters and sabotage U.S. plans if the battle proves destructive.

No date for the main attack has been announced but all signs indicate it will come soon. It will be the first major offensive since President Barack Obama announced last December that he was sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan, and will serve as a significant test of the new U.S. strategy for turning back the Taliban.

Marjah Marines Brace for Offensive
Afghanistan: Life on the Frontline

About 400 U.S. troops from the Army's 5th Stryker Brigade and about 250 Afghan soldiers moved into positions northeast of Marjah before dawn Tuesday as U.S. Marines pushed to the outskirts of the town.

Automatic rifle fire rattled in the distance as the Marines dug in for the night with temperatures below freezing. The occasional thud of mortar shells and the sharp blast of rocket-propelled grenades fired by the Taliban pierced the air.

"They're trying to bait us, don't get sucked in," yelled a Marine sergeant, warning his troops not to venture closer to the town. In the distance, Marines could see farmers and nomads gathering their livestock at sunset, seemingly indifferent to the firing.

The U.S. goal is to take control quickly of the farming community, located in a vast, irrigated swath of land in Helmand province 380 miles southwest of Kabul. That would enable the Afghan government to re-establish a presence, bringing security, electricity, clean water and other public services to the estimated 80,000 inhabitants.

Over time, American commanders believe such services will undermine the appeal of the Taliban among their fellow Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in the country and the base of the insurgents' support.

"The military operation is phase one," Helmand Gov. Gulab Mangal told reporters Tuesday in Kabul. "In addition to that, we will have development in place, justice, good governance, bringing job opportunities to the people."

Marjah will serve as the first trial for the new strategy implemented last year by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. He maintains that success in the eight-year conflict cannot be achieved by killing Taliban fighters, but rather by protecting civilians and winning over their support.

Many Afghan Pashtuns are believed to have turned to the Taliban, who were driven from power in the U.S.-led invasion of 2001, because of disgust over the ineffectual and corrupt government of President Hamid Karzai.

"The success of the operation will not be in the military phase," NATO's civilian chief in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, told reporters Tuesday. "It will be over the next weeks and months as the people ... feel the benefits of better governance, of economic opportunities and of operating under the legitimate authorities of Afghanistan."

To accomplish that, NATO needs to take the town without causing significant damage or civilian casualties. That would risk a public backlash among residents, many of whose sons and brothers are probably among the estimated 400 to 1,000 Taliban defenders. U.S. aircraft have been dropping leaflets over the town, urging militants not to resist and warning civilians to remain indoors.

Provincial officials believe about 164 families - or about 980 people - have left the town in recent weeks, although the real figure could be higher because many of them moved in with relatives and never registered with authorities.

Residents contacted by telephone in Marjah said the Taliban were preventing civilians from leaving, warning them they have placed bombs along the roads to stop the American attack. The militants may believe the Americans will restrain their fire if they know civilians are at risk.

Mohammad Hakim said he waited until the last minute to leave Marjah with his wife, nine sons, four daughters and grandchildren because he was worried about abandoning his cotton fields in a village on the edge of town. He decided to leave Tuesday, but Taliban fighters turned him back because they said the road was mined.

"All of the people are very scared," Hakim said by telephone. "Our village is like a ghost town. The people are staying in their homes."

Sedwill said NATO hopes that when Marjah has fallen, many Taliban militants could be persuaded to join a government-promoted reintegration process.

"The message to them is accept it," he said. "The message to the people of the area is, of course, keep your heads down, stay inside when the operation is going ahead."

Mangal, the governor, said authorities believe some local Taliban are ready to renounce al Qaeda and give the government a chance.

"I'm confident that there are a number of Taliban members who will reconcile with us and who will be under the sovereignty of the Afghan government," he said.

Ali Ahmad Jalali, a former Afghan interior minister who lectures at the National Defense University in Washington, said the U.S. had little choice but to publicize the offensive so civilians could leave and minimize casualties. He said it would have been impossible to achieve complete surprise because "an operation of this scale cannot be kept secret."

But Jalali added that publicizing the operation may have encouraged hard-core Taliban to stand and fight to show their supporters and the international community that they will not be easily swayed by promises of amnesty and reintegration.

"Normally the Taliban would leave. They would not normally decisively engage in this kind of pitched battle. They would leave and come back because they have the time to come back," Jalali told The Associated Press.

"If there's stiff resistance in Marjah, this could increase the recruiting power of the Taliban or at least retain what they have in that area," he said. "It's become the symbol of Taliban resistance. So I would suspect it's possible there would be stiff rearguard resistance. If it becomes bloody, it would affect opinion in Europe and the U.S."

Jalali also said that success would depend on whether the Afghan government can make good on its promise of services once the battle is over.

"If the coalition can stabilize Marjah, rebuild it and install good governance, that can be an example for other places," he said. "If not, it would be another problem."

Echoing this theory, McChrystal told reporters at a defense conference in Turkey last weekend that it was necessary to tell Afghans that the attack on Marjah was coming so they would know "that when the government re-establishes security, they'll have choices."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 44 Comments
by TheHerd1969 February 13, 2010 12:48 PM EST
Go U.S. Marines! Be advised, if you (USMC) should run into any problems during this engagement, you can rest assured the U.S. Army WILL rescue you guys - again. Just like we did during the Vietnam War (Battle of Khe Sanh) when a brigade of the U.S. Army's 101st "Airmobile" Division came to your rescue. I'm sorry, maybe now is not the time for some friendly inter-service rivalry remarks. Anyway, May God Bless EVERY member of our armed forces during these very difficult times.
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou February 9, 2010 5:33 PM EST
"He decided to leave Tuesday, but Taliban fighters turned him back because they said the road was mined."
"Residents contacted by telephone in Marjah said the Taliban were preventing civilians from leaving, warning them they have placed bombs along the roads to stop the American attack. The militants may believe the Americans will restrain their fire if they know civilians are at risk."

So the Taliban is openly using human shields, sort of makes you understand why there are civilian casualties at places like, I don't know - stranded fuel trucks?
Reply to this comment
by curse914 February 9, 2010 3:34 PM EST
Sorry about the invective, I was a little pissed. I thank you for your service too.

The Taliban practice Deobandi Islam, but Osama Bin Laden is Wahhabist. The only way I can see that these two belief systems would join ranks is against a common "enemy". The men on the planes were all educated Saudis with the exception of one Egyptian. That is really pretty good evidence that a highly toxic, fringe, group was behind the towers. Not sheep herders. As far as I know, we had no military bases in Afgahnistan prior to 911. Osamas primary beef with the United States was our "occupation" of muslim lands by having military bases in place. I think Afgahnistan was just a convenient place for Osama, the Wahhabist , to plan and ultimately hide from the repercussion of his offensive.
As ****** and oppressive as the Taliban belief system is, I do not think these bastards were the masterminds behind the attacks. What we have done is given fringe, Wahhabist and Deobandi a War that has legitimized their hatred and swollen their ranks.
Not one word or reprimand to the Saudis for exporting Wahhabism, nothing. But we have spilled the blood of our men, Iraqis, Afgahns of all different faiths; what of the Saudi responsibility in this?

I have to go, later.
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou February 9, 2010 5:38 PM EST
curse914 - The country of birth is not necessarily of interest as much as the ideology that someone adopts - Bin Laden went to Afghanistan during the turmoil of the Russian occupation, he funded rebel groups but reportedly never engaged in military strikes himself. He set himself up as a pipeline for money, in compensation he was given free rein to set up his operations. The Taliban had their agenda, he had his - the only reason the Taliban is involved in a fight with the US is because they supported and sheltered him, and refused to run him over following 9-11. If the Taliban surrendered him to US custody the fight would be over - we'd have no defensible reason for remaining.
by cowardlyimbecile February 9, 2010 3:00 PM EST
When the Taliban are dead, bury them face-down so that we can use their butts as bicycle racks. As far as their supporters and allies, those butts are already taking abuse.
Reply to this comment
by maistir February 9, 2010 3:32 PM EST
Too bad that many of those who comment here do not seem to condemn the Taliban for their refusal to accept the Afghan elections, for their failure to wear insignia visible from a distance, failure to separate themselves from civilians whom they use as cover and their failure to allow civilians to leave the town they have turned into their military base -- some rather significant "war crimes".
by cowardlyimbecile February 9, 2010 3:50 PM EST
Many of those who post here either work for Jihad or are unemployable anywhere else.
by FauxNews February 9, 2010 2:48 PM EST
AOCGuy - Yes, 400 US Troops with air support could easily win against thousands. They will probably encounter a few remaining taliban that want their 72 virgins, secure the town, and then leave, since that little dust pit in the middle of nowhere is too expensive to occupy.
Reply to this comment
by FauxNews February 9, 2010 3:13 PM EST
That's the perfect word, Ms_enza
by FauxNews February 9, 2010 3:28 PM EST
Perfect word, Ms_enza
by cowardlyimbecile February 9, 2010 1:45 PM EST
by pythoncharlyten February 9, 2010 11:14 AM EST
JUST REMEMBER TO THANK BUSH/CHENEY AND THE MINDLESS REPUBLI'CON'
SHEEP FOR THIS MESS.
OBAMA IS PRETTY SLOW BUT AT LEAST HE PLANS TO END THE THING,
IF THE REPUBLI'CON's HAD THEIR WAY WE WOULD BE BACK IN VIETNAM
AS WELL, THEY JUST LOVE TO MAKE MONEY, EVEN IF IT KILLS PEOPLE,
DON'T BELIEVE IT, TAKE A LOOK AT THE HEALTH CARE ISSUE.


If only some Jihad fanatics and their slaves were sucking on a Glock.
Reply to this comment
by thesevenveils February 9, 2010 1:54 PM EST
Did you forget that 911 was spawned in Afghanistan? did you forget that the Taliban had taken over the country by terror and murder, that the UN never recognized the core foreign elements (Saudis) that make, train and pay for the Taliban, as the political party ruling Afghanistan?
How did you you forget the terrorist attack on US soil? How can you think of health care when safety is a greater priority?
by cowardlyimbecile February 9, 2010 3:52 PM EST
He knows. Agit-prop and schizophrenia does the rest.
by curse914 February 9, 2010 1:32 PM EST
by native_warrior_USMC February 9, 2010 11:57 AM EST

"You can't win a war by appealing to the people you are fighting. Politicians should not be involved with war. Let the Generals decide how a war is fought. WW1-ended by mass boming raids on enemy supply and ammo depots. WW2-ended by 2 nuclear weapons killing millions. Vietnam-a mess because we could not bomb the h@#l out of supply and ammo depots. Iraq-still there trying to win hearts an minds. Afganistan-needs to be leveled and start from scratch, just like Japan in WW2 and Germany in both WW1 and WW2." by native_warrior_USMC

=========================

by nycsense February 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST

Obviously, you didn't have a position in the military that required any thought. Please stick to pealing potatos and shooting your gun when you're told. First of all, you can't carpet bomb this enemy like we did in WWII if you can't see them and you don't know where they are. Secondly, our military tried exactly that in Vietnam and got nowhere because that is where they learned that you can't carpet bomb an enemy you can't see. The Vietnamese dug out a vast tunnel system that succeeded in eluding the carpet bombing. That's why we lost that war, because they outsmarted us. Thirdly, if you are suggesting we Nuke Afganistan because, in your infinate wisdom, this is somehow the best approach, then you're a bigger moron than we all thought. When we "leveled" those 2 cities in Japan, the good 'ole USA killed 100,000 innocent men, women and children. THAT was an atrocity that should never be repeated. Period. Also when the allies "leveled" Germany in WWI, that gave rise to the likes of Hitler later on. So, do yourself a favor and stop trying to be a thinker and just continue to be a ditch-digger. Leave the thinking to those with the capacity.

[][[][][][[][][][][[][

He is not only proposing the bombing of the "enemy", he is proposing killing everything moving.

He is obviously stupid beyond redemption. The enemy who knocked down the towers were all Saudis (highly educated and well funded). But because Joe Generic here is easily duped, he thinks people who herd sheep for a living are his enemy. Did these Taliban enemies have a particularly good wool season and they pooled their money together to hire SAUDI ARABIANS to down the towers?

Had these "enemies" been born in America, they would be his uneducated relatives in Flyoverville.

This is not the "Right War" either.
Reply to this comment
by fleabag75 February 10, 2010 8:15 PM EST
One correction. The Spanish Flu, (misnomer), was the biggest reason for bringing an end to WWI.
by sean56v February 9, 2010 12:35 PM EST
There is no reason for the Taliban to fight for this city. Helmand is fertile ground for medical poppies and cannabis. Revenue from sale of the crop improves every year. Karzai will provide free elections of representatives. If Taliban cooperate, then NATO would leave.
Reply to this comment
by nasadawg February 9, 2010 1:40 PM EST
"There is no reason for the Taliban to fight for this city. Helmand is fertile ground for medical poppies and cannabis"

That is way they want it. Medical poppies LOL you have to be kidding right. What do you think finances them - goat milk?
by miami_don February 9, 2010 1:47 PM EST
Medical Poppies?!? Cannabis? Gosh, they are just peaceful farmers and I've been conviced by the wicked media pundits they were selling drugs to finance the Taliban. I'll bet your right they will not fight...they'll be to stoned too.
by native_warrior_USMC February 9, 2010 11:57 AM EST
You can't win a war by appealing to the people you are fighting. Politicians should not be involved with war. Let the Generals decide how a war is fought. WW1-ended by mass boming raids on enemy supply and ammo depots. WW2-ended by 2 nuclear weapons killing millions. Vietnam-a mess because we could not bomb the h@#l out of supply and ammo depots. Iraq-still there trying to win hearts an minds. Afganistan-needs to be leveled and start from scratch, just like Japan in WW2 and Germany in both WW1 and WW2.
Reply to this comment
by nycsense February 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST
"You can't win a war by appealing to the people you are fighting. Politicians should not be involved with war. Let the Generals decide how a war is fought. WW1-ended by mass boming raids on enemy supply and ammo depots. WW2-ended by 2 nuclear weapons killing millions. Vietnam-a mess because we could not bomb the h@#l out of supply and ammo depots. Iraq-still there trying to win hearts an minds. Afganistan-needs to be leveled and start from scratch, just like Japan in WW2 and Germany in both WW1 and WW2." by native_warrior_USMC

Obviously, you didn't have a position in the military that required any thought. Please stick to pealing potatos and shooting your gun when you're told. First of all, you can't carpet bomb this enemy like we did in WWII if you can't see them and you don't know where they are. Secondly, our military tried exactly that in Vietnam and got nowhere because that is where they learned that you can't carpet bomb an enemy you can't see. The Vietnamese dug out a vast tunnel system that succeeded in eluding the carpet bombing. That's why we lost that war, because they outsmarted us. Thirdly, if you are suggesting we Nuke Afganistan because, in your infinate wisdom, this is somehow the best approach, then you're a bigger moron than we all thought. When we "leveled" those 2 cities in Japan, the good 'ole USA killed 100,000 innocent men, women and children. THAT was an atrocity that should never be repeated. Period. Also when the allies "leveled" Germany in WWI, that gave rise to the likes of Hitler later on. So, do yourself a favor and stop trying to be a thinker and just continue to be a ditch-digger. Leave the thinking to those with the capacity.
by native_warrior_USMC February 9, 2010 1:12 PM EST
You are right on both accounts, I must say. However, if a suitable alternative cannot be achieved and war is begun, stay out of it. And generals do wears slippers. I've seen it. I should have said, let the field grade O's, advised by Staff NCO's using input from Cpl.s and Sgt.s, make the decisions. Believe me, Con-gress is the opposite of Pro-gress.
by wyodutch February 9, 2010 10:41 AM EST
Yeah.. let's all thump our chests with pride as we use a billion dollars in equipment to try to defeat the Afghani fighters who are armed with nothing but rifles and determination.
.
I wonder which side our Founding Fathers would be supporting.... The occupying empire or the Afghani farmer who is willing to die opposing us.
.
How far we've drifted from the foundations of the Republic.
Reply to this comment
by RedWings_ninety_one February 9, 2010 11:26 AM EST
In response to the comment you left on the other story about Al Queda..."Get up off of the sofa and waddle down to a recruiting station..."

I've done my share of serving my country, I'm 88 years old and I've served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. Just thought I'd let you know so that you don't try to say that to me again.
by thesevenveils February 9, 2010 12:14 PM EST
Redwing,
If what you say is true, your valor is greatly respected and appreciated. How old were you when you served in Desert Storm? Most warriors your age then were either buried or enjoying the freedoms they fought for and protected.
See all 44 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook