Victory by outlasting USA: Taliban spends only $100 million to defeat ISAF

Categorized | Afghan, Current Affairs, Pak CA

Victory by outlasting USA: Taliban spends only $100 million to defeat ISAF

Posted on 09 January 2009. Tags: Afghan, ISAF, NATO, Taliban, USA

Asymmetrical warfare banks on an overwhelming response from the superior military force which takes a toll on the civilian population. This helps the recruiting drive and instigating the innocent civilians. This was elequently described by the seminal book by Mao Tse Tung (Mao Ze Dung) and Che Guevara who wrote the ultimate book on “Guerilla Warfare” as it was called in the last century. Roy MacMullin describes the current war between the US and Afghanistan and say s that the Taliban (actually 38 anti-0ccupation groups fighting in Afghanistan mislabed as the “Taliban”0 expends about $100 million on the war while the US has spent mroe than $3 Trillion on the Iraq and Afghan wars. NATO will find it difficult to support the Afghan war effort in the coming years because of the huge financial crunch that has hit Europe and the US.

“If Obama gets this wrong, Afghanistan will be his Vietnam.” Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern

Viewed on most levels, the mission is failing and many thinkers admit that the solution is not the military option. Security on roads and the countryside is poor, production of opium is higher than the global demand, and the Khyber Pass supply line is through Pakistan

According to a recent think-tank report, the Taliban has a permanent presence in 70 per cent of the country.

Unfortunately, the Karzai government is perceived to be corrupt and ineffective.

“The Taliban shake us down at night and the government during the day,” according to a story told to a former NPR reporter living in Kandahar, Sarah Chayes.

Ironically the “Taliban’s” $100 million is obtained from the Opium trade which they had banned when they ruled Afghanistan. So who is paying for war effort. Everyone that uses drugs.

Decisions by recent Democratic and Republican administrations have left the United States 10 trillion dollars in debt, depleted our military forces, and emboldened countries and organizations whose goals conflict with ours. It is difficult to find a time in U.S. history when the costs paid and the results experienced were so at odds with what had been promised.”America’s Defense Meltdown” Author Chet Richards with New Commentary. “Shattering Our Strategic Illusions” was first published by Defense News on Dec. 1, 2008; the original is available by clicking here, and the text is reproduced below.Shattering Our Strategic Illusions. by Chet Richards (U.S. Air Force, retired)

Are the Taliban now a force as strong as the U.S. and Canadian military?

This is perhaps an unfair comparison. Observed without emotion, we know that the conflict has lasted seven years – that’s longer than the Second World War and almost as long as the Soviets persisted during their excellent Afghan adventure. It has cost roughly $170 billion to the United States, probably $20 billion for Canada and who knows how much for the other NATO countries. One might counter-argue that the leadership of the war effort has been utterly incompetent or perhaps that the concept of bringing change to a medieval land had little merit from day one.

The initial goal seemed to be quite simple: capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida, consisting of perhaps a few dozen leaders. When that didn’t happen, we started down the nation-building road, while we waited for bin Laden and Mullah Omar to come back on the bus from Pakistan.

Viewed on most levels, the mission is failing and many thinkers admit that the solution is not the military option. Security on roads and the countryside is poor, production of opium is higher than the global demand, and the Khyber Pass supply line is through Pakistan, an ally of questionable fidelity. Recently, 145 trucks bringing military supplies through the Khyber Pass were destroyed. Most imports follow this route. The conflict has put Pakistan into a dangerous state nearing implosion.

According to a recent think-tank report, the Taliban has a permanent presence in 70 per cent of the country. Unfortunately, the Karzai government is perceived to be corrupt and ineffective. “The Taliban shake us down at night and the government during the day,” according to a story told to a former NPR reporter living in Kandahar, Sarah Chayes.

Meanwhile back in Iraq, the U.S. invasion did not achieve its stated or hidden objectives and the military will be withdrawn in the next 16 months by a new administration. Since no superpower likes losing two wars in a row, Bincoming President arack Obama will send a 30,000-troop surge into Afghanistan to counter the inroads that the Taliban have been making. In addition, there are plans for a larger Afghan national army.

Based on experience to date, the Taliban won’t defeat NATO forces militarily. NATO’s aerial detection and interdiction of massed guerilla attacks has often proved deadly for the Taliban. However, small groups can attack weak points, and with improvised explosives and suicide bombers, will disrupt civil society to a great extent.

In the final analysis, the Taliban doesn’t have to win. They just have to outlast the occupiers and make the effort very costly.

So what is likely to happen in coming years? It appears that Obama has adopted the Afghan war of George Bush. According to a former CIA analyst Ray McGovern: “If Obama gets this wrong, Afghanistan will be his Vietnam.” He won’t see a great deal of enthusiasm for increasing the ante in this poker game from NATO countries. With sufficient arm-twisting, some countries may fall in line. Canada has said that it’s out of Afghanistan by 2011. In the end, the U.S will leave without achieving its goals.

As futile and costly as this experience has been, the waste pales in comparison to that incurred by outdated military thinking that continues within the U.S. military, and by extension, in Canada. In a book entitled “America’s Defense Meltdown,” co-author Chet Richards argues that the roughly $600 billion dollars that the U.S. annually spends on its military provides less security each year. He suggests that nuclear weapons preclude a conventional war with either Russia or China. The problem is that the military-industrial complex is building increasingly expensive and complex weapon systems for a conventional war that will never be fought.

This book would be helpful reading for our political leaders and interested citizens in trying to understand the complexities of national security issues. Prime Minister Harper appears poised to follow the U.S. down the road to massive defense expenditures. Perhaps a strategic review of our real national security requirements would be in order.

It is evident from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that national security doesn’t have to cost a great deal of money. I doubt if the budget for the Taliban is more than $100 million a year.

To return to the question posed earlier…. When the U.S. and allies leave Afghanistan in a few years without a democratic leader in place and little else to show but thousands of civilians and soldiers dead, who will have been the stronger or most intelligent force?

Our young brave soldiers seem to be so often betrayed by the most idiotic of concepts, sold to us by odious political leaders.

Roy MacMullin is a writer on energy and political topics. Comments are welcome at roy.energy@rogers.com Previous articles can be found at http://roymacmullin.wordpress.com/