Afghanistan insurgency may be spreading north.
Afghanistan insurgency may be spreading north.
“The attempted assassination of President Hamid Karzai Sunday came as the latest sign of a trend” that the insurgency in Afghanistan “is spreading from the Taliban stronghold of the south to the central and northern regions of the country,” Christian Science Monitor reports. The attack on Karzai was the “biggest in Kabul since mid-March”:
A recent study by Sami Kovanen, an analyst with the security firm Vigilant Strategic Services of Afghanistan, echoed this assessment. He reported 465 insurgent attacks in areas outside the restive southern regions during the first three months of 2008, a 35 percent increase compared with the same period last year. In the central region around Kabul there have been 80 insurgent attacks from January through March of this year, a 70 percent jump compared to the first three months of last year.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
31 Responses to “Afghanistan insurgency may be spreading north.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Of course it is. That’s what happens when you try to run a war like a corporate takeover.
It fails.
Support the Troops, Bring Them Home — Impeach Bush/Cheney
April 28th, 2008 at 8:56 pmThis can’t be. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pmWere these completely sensible and relevant comments advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan ?
BTW, I’m gonna guess that there’ll be a reason that the way in which the US invasion and coalition occupation of Afghanistan is like a corporate takeover will remain unexplained.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:00 pmKilo,
Google Rumsfeld.
And then get lost.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pmSo?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:54 amThere’s been a lot of rhetoric from the left that Iraq has been a diversion to the real front on the war on terror, Afganistan.
Taking that into consideration, what is the answer to the implication that the insurgency in Afganistan is spreading north? Retreat? Surrender? More troops?
P.S. Here’s a challenge. Let’s assume that just complaining about the difficulty of the situation is not really a solution.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:25 amTry Lao Tzu…When there is nothing to strike there is no reason…It is not a zero sum game…We declare victory and leave.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:33 amConcurrently we set up an offshore support base to provide aireal support which insurgents do not have.
Provide financial support through financial institutions, and choke the dope trafficking through financial means.
We know about the opium trade, we learned it from the British, taught it to the Laotians and practice it while typing.
Without Heroin, support for insurgents will shrivel.
kawika49.
That’s a thoughtful reply.
If I was more confident it would work, I’d be open to the idea.
The concern I would have is that whatever inroads have been made would be lost.
And the caveate to ‘nothing to strike’ would be terror organization safe havens.
Good post.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:38 amAfegahnistan and Iraq are being occupied by an evil, greedy and incompetent imperialistic force. Assassinating a puppet government is part of a legitimate fight for FREEDOM! Something the USA is lacking since after the WWII!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:39 amThere are NGO’s who can provide HUmanitarian support…The are funded thru legitimate means!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:40 amLet us not forget what the Peace Corpse is about!
They are not issurgents, nor terrorists, they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS! Their country is being occupied! The fight will remain until the invader is taken care of!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:41 amMeanwhile, in the very very very fortified green zone: Booommm!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:42 amIf someone wants to give you the right to self determination (the right to choose your leaders); is that consistent with evil or greed?
If the occupiers were really evil and greedy, why would they want the citizens to have the power to choose the leadership?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:48 amHow cute! You really believe the USA is a power of good and pro-democracy in the world!!!! Ooooohhhhhh! How very cute! Tell me, what was the reason giving to the World about invading Iraq? WMD. There was no talking about how good Freedom or democracy is. It was WMD. Remember the WAR CRIMINAL Rice phrase? Those lies about 45min attack and mushrooms clouds? Do you? All that talk about ’spreading democracy came after the Lies about WMD fell through. Now… Lets have a look into the USA’s historical record as a ‘Democracy promoter’, shall we???? Lets have a look in South America’s military governments. who was behind them? Oh yes… the democracy promoter number one! Iraq and Afegahnistan are being occupied for OIL! Not democracy! Really really cute of you in believing in your criminal governmet!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:59 amBackup, I would agree with your statement, If on the other hand, we would be comfortable with their choice of Gevernors…We have meddled in their internal politics (Chalabi and the gang)…Lord forbid that the Shiite should have afinity for Iran…Look if we’re going to have a puppet government in Iraq…Lets do it right!…Or leave it and let them do it to themselves…We tried it in Nam, didn’t work.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:59 amand they are being occupied by an arrogant government who so far has been completely incompetent! The USA can stay in Iraq for a 100 years, however, as an occupying force, it will never prevail. “Iraq is going to be a piece of cake”, That statement was 5 years ago! So was ‘Mission acomplished’. So was Rumsfeld say the war was going to last weeks not months, and it would cost very little. Indeed! How much you are paying for your petrol now? How is your ressecion doing? Unswer those questions and them let me know who is winning what!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:04 amsince i happen to be sitting at my desk here in kabul, afghanistan, typing this, i want to point out that there are a number of different perspectives on afghanistan, and you have presented one of them… visit here and see a few others…
April 29th, 2008 at 2:05 amAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
Oh yeah! The dollar! How much it is worthed now??!!! Well done Bush!!!! Mission accomplished!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:06 amProfmarcus…I know from where u speak…thank you for your post…Been there done that!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:16 amkawika49.
Your posts are reasonable. I agree we have meddled in their internal affairs. The argument could be made that we meddled in their affairs, because the organization that claimed responsibility for the attacks on our country (9/11) were being harbored within Afganistan. And we had a desire to intercede and prevent future attacks.
If you buy that premise, the meddling is not entirely unjustified.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:20 amAgain (backup) my friend,
April 29th, 2008 at 2:26 amI wish you could convince the Admin on that…the emphasis is on Iraq. And I have yet to see meaningful, respect for the Afghani’s from our front…They have labored under harsh conditions for over 30 years. Yet we throw away lives and trasure on Iraq.
So backup…what do we do with the Heroine?
kawika49.
In hindsight the effort in Iraq was misplaced. Concentrating on Afganistan would seem to have been more productive (less alienating).
I haven’t spent much time considering Heroine and it’s implications on the future of Afganistan.
Not knowing any better, I assume that Afgan’s need money. Heroine production provides that money. To counter heroine, you would either have to reduce demand for it (provide a cheaper substitute) or (more likely) offer some other means for Afgan’s to make money.
Maybe the answer is to stimulate alternative industry in the country. Americans bare a responsibility to reduce demand at home, but, it seems that stimulating their economy (to combat heroine) may be beyond our scope. I don’t know.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:41 amBackup, we taught the Afghani’s on how to use the heroine trade to pay for their arms needs…we set them up while they were embroiled with the Russians, while we trained them on use of our weapons and tactics…We did that.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:54 amYet like today…we did not or do now have an exit strategy on the drug and weapons trade.
It is not a simple thing…We stuck our nose in…And hopefully, we will use history, and knowlege (rather than gut feelings) to get us out of this mess.
Aloha
Because of Iraq, Afghanistan is a shambles–thanks to Cheney-Bush & Rummy!
April 29th, 2008 at 7:53 amHow predictable.
No explanation for how your characterisation of that campaign makes any sense anywhere outside of your skull.
Now not even a clue as to why we would be googling “Rumsfeld” in connection with the invasion (which he wasn’t involved in planning or implementing) and occupation of Afghanistan.
And we could do with a hint considering the 11000 word article on Wikipedia for the current Afghanistan campaign, features the word “Rumsfeld” not once. Pivotal figure that he was.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:27 amLMFAO. What planet are you from ?
WTF do you think the Afghan opium farmers — who’ve been operating since the 4th century BC — were doing with the currency they received in exchange for their crops for 2 and a half millennium until the CIA informed them of the basics of trade in the 1970s ????
Literally no part of that theory has involved you using your brain. Apart from the the concept of trade being introduced to the silk road by the US in the 1970s, they had to do this for the Afghans why ? To buy their own weapons ?
Well which Americans did this then ? Because most people are familiar with one well known account of US funding and arming of the muj (matched by the Saudis) during the Soviet-Afghan war, but it can’t be those Americans. It would have to be someone else.
There really is no scenario where the US and Saudis could supply more funding than could ever be spent for arms to the muj, THEN even supply the arms the US has purchased as well but the Afghans still need to fund their own purchases. When you involve your brain it simply doesn’t make any sense champ.
Likewise, the idea that the US had anything to teach the Afghans about guerrilla warfare. It’s astounding. Apart from the fact everyone involved in that conflict says no such thing ever happened, it would take merely seconds of thought to figure out this is nonsense.
Seriously, have you never wondered how many tens of thousands of years did the Inuit sat around gawking wide eyed at snow and seals until the US paid them a visit to teach them how to live off the land ?
What ? What would an exit strategy from a drug trade look like ? What weapons trade are we talking about ?
Why are you typing this nonsense ?
Dear god, let nobody use your idea of history and knowledge for anything, let alone foreign policy decisions.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:55 amkawika49.
You make good points that I hadn’t spent any time thinking about. Mahalo.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:58 amKilo. That’s hard to deny. The heroine was there long before America. It’s possible we overreach when we try to put America (faulty as it may be) at the center of all blame.
That being said, kawika brings up an important issue. Regardless of America’s role in heroine, it is something that fuels interests contrary to our (Americans) interest.
If we don’t deal with that source of funding, the fuel, will the conflict abate any time soon, despite our best military efforts?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:08 amThe Taliban receive funds from the opium trade but it’s a minuscule proportion of that trade (as you’d expect, what can be extorted/taxed from those growing/trafficking in Taliban controlled areas).
To put it bluntly, the only thing that has ever stopped Afghans growing poppies was the Taliban behedding every grower they could find. And that worked for 1 year out 2500. Think about that.
Either the US starts cutting off the heads of the growers (who aren’t drugs traffickers), and REALLY carries out that policy with zeal like the Taliban did, or it doesn’t stop.
Illicit trade funds anti-US interests regardless of what it is, be it drugs, money laundering, smuggling, counterfeiting kidnappings, whatever.
Frankly, I’m inclined to give a pass to the people who’ve lived through hundreds of years of war and oppression and are trying to grow fkn anything on what every interviewed US serviceman describes as “it looks like Mars here”.
The fact is the Taliban are more than capable of getting these funds from elsewhere and it isn’t the reason they are able to operate. They are able to operate because they are provided shelter by Pakistanis and Afghans. Once that stops, they stop.
You can have all the drug money you like, those mountains are still just as bad as they look on google earth. You are either supported by the locals on your way to the battlefield or you die of starvation on your way there. There’s no 3rd option. It’s that simple.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:14 amKilo. I see your point that if it weren’t heroine, it would be something else.
It’s a challenging situation. I suggest that because it is so challenging (and much of the precieved threat has abated), more and more people are tiring of it. Or doubting the chances for any kind of real success.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pmhi everybody, this is my first time i have a written on Thinkprogress. well anyway i would just like to say that i find it amazing that conservatives like to trash liberals as traitors. yet they support a war that is impairing our efforts to fight terrorism elsewhere. bin laden is still on the loose and our image abroad is being damaged. i am not gonna to accuse conservatives of traitors because i think that goes to far but still this blog piece points out that conservatives have made many missteps
April 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm