Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, August 31, 2009

Are the Taliban Surrounding NATO Armies and Cutting them Off?
Why Washington Needs Iran and Russia

There is an old saying in military affairs, that everyone wants to do strategy and tactics, but real men do logistics. That is, moving persons and materiel around and managing supplies seems tedious, but they are crucial to success. The Obama administration has substituted the Logistics of War for the War on Terror. It is moving troops and equipment and assets around in the millions, on a vast scale, and therefore its enemies--whether the Sunni radicals in Iraq or the neo-Taliban, are also concentrating on logistics. The staccato, desultory news items of bombings here and air strikes there, make sense if the individual incidents are viewed as struggles over supply lines-- whether supply lines for military purposes, or supplies of intangibles such as international legitimacy. And in this context, the gingerness with which Washington is now approaching Russia and Iran makes perfect sense.

The logistics war in AfPak were on full view Sunday, with the long fingers of blazing conflagrations jabbing the sky amidst billowing waves of jet black smoke both in Chaman in Pakistan near the Afghan border, and in Kunar Province. The bombing of supply trucks is to this war what u-boat attacks on supply ships were to the two world wars.

In Chaman, Dawn reports, "At least 15 oil tankers, trailers and containers caught fire in Chaman on Sunday night after a blast in a vehicle carrying supplies for Nato forces in Afghanistan." The NATO supply vehicle became a sitting duck because the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been closed for the last few days over a dispute about whether Pakistani border guards may search Afghan fruit trucks.



Meanwhile, a different sort of supply line was hit in Mingora in the Swat valley, when a Taliban suicide bomber killed 16 recent police recruits and wounded 5 others. The Pakistani Army had attacked the 4,000 Taliban fighters that were dominating Swat this spring, much to the annoyance of the people of Swat, and had largely expelled them. But obviously furtive Taliban terrorist cells are still able to operate there, even against police stations. The point of these special operations police recruits was to make the expulsion of the Taliban permanent.

On the Afghan side of the border, militants from the Hizb-i Islami or "Islamic Party" of Gulbadin Hikmatyar "stormed a NATO supply convoy and torched at least 10 vehicles in the troubled eastern province of Kunar," according to Pajhwok News Service.

Meanwhile, the Taliban have used pockets of Pashtun populations in the north of the country as a base to take over three districts that allow them to block supplies coming in from Tajikistan, according to McClatchy.

These setbacks are taking place even as US missiles slammed into a base of the militant Haqqani group in eastern Afghanistan, allegedly killing 35 guerrillas. The Haqqani group is cooperating with the Hizb-i Islami and with the 'old Taliban' of Mulla Omar in attempting to undermine the Kabul government and its NATO backers.

Both Hikmatyar and Jalal al-Din Haqqani were assets of the Reagan administration in the 1980s fight against the Soviets and they received large amounts of monetary aid from Washington, but have now turned on it.

In any case, the Taliban are obviously attempting to cut the supply routes that allow the US and NATO to keep their troops supplied with ammunition, fuel and food.

The hundreds of ballot fraud complaints now flooding into the offices of election monitors in Afghanistan threaten to deny legitimacy to the presidential election and thence to the Kabul government itself. In essence, the Obama administration and NATO intended those elections to form a supply line of international and domestic legitimacy, which has now been disrupted, apparently in some large part by partisans of President Karzai.

At the same time that NATO and the US are trying to move troops and materiel into Afghanistan, the US is attempting to move 1.5 million pieces of equipment out of Iraq, according to AP. Moreover, all but 40,000 US troops out of 130,000 now in country should be out by next year this time. Just as the supply trails into Afghanistan are vulnerable, so too are those out of Iraq. Much of the materiel is being put on trucks and taken south through Mahdi Army and Badr Corps (Shiite militia) territory to Kuwait in the south. Other trucks ply the once-perilous road between Baghdad and Aqaba in Jordan, going through sometimes hostile Sunni Arab territories. As the US forces and military equipment in Iraq dwindle, the remaining troops become more vulnerable.

As for the southern route, the major forces that can convince the armed Shiites to let the US leave in peace via Kuwait are the government of PM Nuri al-Maliki, which has been positioning the new Iraqi Army in the south and cultivating tribal levies there, and the Iranian government of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Should relations take a very bad turn for the worse between the US and Iran, the danger of Shiite militia attacks on the US convoys would spike.

Also in Afghanistan, the US increasingly depends on Russian good will, and Iran is influential in Herat, Mazar, the Hazarah regions and Kabul. Iran can play a positive role in its two neighboring countries, de facto acting as an ally of the US. Or it could play spoiler.

The United States has been made a hostage to Iran and Russia by George W. Bush's fooling miring of the US military in the midst of 300 million hostile, anti-imperialist Middle Easterners,

Obama's presidency may succeed or flounder on his success in the recondite art of logistics, both in the strict military sense and in a wider metaphorical sense, of putting the right personnel and "assets" in place for political victories.

In that regard, Iraq could well be a big win.

AfPak, so far no so much.


End/ (Not Continued)

9 Comments:

At 4:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

.
I confess that I'm having trouble picturing a big win in Iraq in my mind.

an avid student
.

 
At 11:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The United States has been made a hostage to Iran and Russia by George W. Bush's fooling miring of the US military in the midst of 300 million hostile, anti-imperialist Middle Easterners,

but Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney ( and his fellow neocons ) ( and his usa corporate cronies who dreamt of untold riches and spoils of imperialist aggression ) thought it a grand idea to surround Iran and poke Russia with the sharp end of a stick.

and now all that fat gout ridden War Criminal has to worry about is trying to stay one step ahead of the growing investigation into his Torture schemes.

funny how things sometimes work out.

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “[anti-occupation guerrilla fighters] are obviously attempting to cut the supply routes that allow the US and NATO [occupation forces] to keep their troops supplied with ammunition, fuel and food. bingo. To be sure, the essential feature and expenditure (I daresay The Mission, sans illusion) of the occupations in both IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN has been characterized by that effort to simply "be there," in an existential sense. and imho The truly weird irony and historical legacy of these occupations is that for the what, 500,000+ troops that have already served Over There, few, if any will have ever actually been there-there: That is to say, very few of these Western "occupiers" will have immersed themselves within the culture of the Middle East, living among its peoples, etc. Their War Stories = actual experiences will consist either of living & working on bases resembling middle-class suburban American sprawl-spaces, complete with brand-named chain/fast-food stores; or memories of being terrified security guards, running the logistical losers' games that are these daily gauntlets of IED's, RPG's and never-I.D.'d snipers, all to ensure by their seemingly endless efforts the ability to sustain their own delusional State of being "based" securely within the harsh reality of a hostile, brutal desert space (which it would continue to be so even if it had no enemy in it). Truly hideous are the blood and treasure expenditures simply to satisfy the absurd logistics required to sustain this bizarre AngloAmerican delusion of the self-righteous, 21st century "occupier" = alien, but not enemy combatant, in their self-prescribed rôles as "New Kind Of War" Warriors, not. In the final analysis They, Over There serve US without any purpose or promise destiny of Old Glory, whatsoever.

 
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Reagan's'brave freedom fighters' turning on us in Afghanistan:

They have and they will. However it's important to remember that the US had little direct contact beyond Pakistan, in that era of 'secret war' and arms deals. We did put up scads of money and used our connections to ship deniable soviet-style arms. But the local cash payout, mostly to Pashtun proto-taliban, was handled by Islamic Republic of Pakistan generals.

IRP and its military rulers broadly view the US with concealed hostility. We're seen as allies of nuclear zionists who helped the Indian bomb program. IRP nuclear proliferation policy is integral to a national identity focused on armed confrontation with India; in Kashmir, India proper, and now Afghanistan. IRP-stan was born out of refugee anti-Hindu blood-rage that cried for A-bombs. Little has changed on that score.

Re Af-Pak war logistics:

Great point. Insurgency succeeds when empires go broke fighting them. That's what China is banking on, literally.

The US fuel burn for Af-Pak and Iraq-gulf wars amount to 68 million gallons/month. According to the defense energy policy analysis linked below, the supply line to Bagram alone LOST 45 fuel trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel in June alone. They Khyber was closed for a month this Spring, hundreds of vehicles destroyed before they reached the Afghan border.

The Department of Defense is a huge portion of total US petro consumption, perhaps 30-50% of our total national oil imports. We are positioning ourselves to wage global resource wars, in order to protect the debt-purchase of oil necessary to wage global resource wars.

Did no one warn us of foreign entanglements and the military industrial complex?

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/030409kp1.htm?oref=rellink

 
At 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Moreover, all but 40,000 US troops out of 130,000 now in country should be out by next year this time."

Really?

Obama's plan (Bush's SOFA) states that:

Early 2010: 128,000
August 2010: 35,000 - 50,000
By the end of 2011: Complete withdrawal

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963054650513164.html

Yet Obama has also pledged not to withdraw forces faster than 1-2 brigades per month.

Brigade strength typically ranges from 1,500 to 4,000 personnel.

If withdrawal only starts (from the level of 130,000) in Jan. 2010, and we withdraw 2 brigades a month with a maximum range of 8,000 troops (two brigades at maximum levels), we wind up withdrawing 64,000 troops by August 2010. Leaving a minimum of 66,000 troops in Iraq. Not 35,000 - 50,000.

So now we get closer to the truth.

Brigadier General Heidi Brown, in charge of overseeing the US withdrawal from Iraq says:

"No Change in Iraq Troop Levels Until After 2010 Election"

"Gen. Brown also hinted that the August 2010 goal had been significantly revised, however. Whereas before President Obama had planned to leave up to 50,000 troops “indefinitely” beyond the official end to combat missions, she suggested the target level was now “50,000 to 75,000 troops.” Furthermore, the remaining troops “would pick up additional duties from departing troops.”"

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/30/us-general-claims-iraq-pullout-moving-forward/

Leaving 75,000 troops + an unknown number of contractors (over 190,000 in early 2008), is NOT leaving Iraq.

Saying that we "hope" to be fully out by 2012 (unless "conditions on the ground change" is tantamount to Cheney's famous assurance that the insurgency was in it's "death throes" or Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

 
At 11:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not analysis, it's just the usual media hype.
How many Taliban fighters are there?
An estimated 20000.
Population of Afghanistan 33 million.
This is far from lost. If the military and NATO seem paralyzed, it's because our generals are incompetent.

Logistics was a problem in the US Civil War, too. They have to chase the Taliban down,demoralize them and finally beat them.

Take the campaign against the Germans in East Africa(Lettow-Vorbeck) in WW1.
True, they never caught him but the Allies always kept up the pursuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Emil_von_Lettow-Vorbeck

Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam.
We can win it and need to.
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are dangerous fanatics who will be embolden by a victory. There's no choice here.

 
At 1:01 AM, Blogger Peter Attwood said...

It was obvious from the outside that Argentina needed to be beaten in the Falklands to be freed from its military, Greece needed to be beaten in Cyprus to be free from its torturing colonels, Japan needed to be beaten to be freed its militarists, and Germany needed to be beaten to be freed from Nazism. The peoples of these nations could not recognize this until after the fact, when the bewitchment had been broken.

It sucks to lose in war, but it can be more corrupting to win. Success in dominating others cannot fail to enslave the oppressor people. It's worth noting that many of the American founders recognized this and tried to guard against it in their Constitution. It should be obvious to anybody that for the United States to be freed from its imperial delusions and to rejoin the company of nations like these others, it too will have to be thoroughly defeated in its imperial pursuits.

Thus to the degree that you hope for the success of American arms and devices, you pursue the destruction of what remains of the American republic and its liberties.

 
At 4:04 AM, Anonymous Alex_no said...

I don't know whether anon. at 7.58 is the same as the one we had the other day delivering standard sourpuss material on the withdrawal from Iraq. It could be that these people are right, who knows? We will only discover when the US has to stand up to its international obligations or not. You can be sure that the Iraqis will insist that the US does.

But there is a serious logical error in the antiwar.com article. That is to presume that when a minor American general says something in conflict with the stated policy of the White House, the general is right and the White House is lying. American generals in Iraq have no idea what they are doing and why, never have had. Soldiers are ever so, one can say. Odierno is the proof. If the top man doesn't hack it, is a minor administrator likely to be better?

What Gen. Brown says is no proof of anything. Antiwar.com was just doing its standard job of putting up scares at any moment, without evaluating its material. That's fine, but we don't have to believe it.

 
At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Steve said...

A commenter on Abu Muqawama puts forward an interesting estimate that most of the Taliban's operating costs are coming from various shakedowns along the logistics routes.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/08/afghanistan-easy-lose-hard-win.html#comment-36023

Bernhard at Moon of Alabama (sadly no more but at least the blog is still up) did terrific work on stringing this together and exploring the geo-political consequences of keeping the Nato and US military in the Afghan field.

It's worth noting that the Afghan's used similar tactics against the British in their 19th century wars and extracted a mighty price on the Soviets using the same methods. It's called guerrilla war!!!!!!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home