Posted on 03/17/2002 3:23:06 AM PST by Clive
GARDEZ, Afghanistan (AP) -- To some veteran Afghan commanders, the recent U.S. offensive against al-Qaida fighters in eastern Afghanistan failed because most of the enemy escaped.
Moreover, they said, this month's Operation Anaconda, the biggest U.S.-led offensive of the Afghan war, should serve as a warning of what lies ahead if the United States wants to crush al-Qaida and Taliban forces still in Afghanistan.
The Afghans, veterans of the brutal 1980s war against the Soviets, said the United States must be prepared for a protracted series of battles, in which an elusive opponent seemingly suffers a terrible pounding, only to disappear into the formidable terrain -- perhaps to return and fight another day.
"There will only be a guerrilla war with al-Qaida," said Cmdr. Abdullah, a leading Afghan military figure in Paktia province.
"They know how to fight from the jihad (against the Soviets) in small groups in the mountains."
The U.S. military has declared Operation Anaconda, which began winding down last week, a success. The U.S.-led coalition seized control of the Shah-e-Kot valley after nearly two weeks of punishing air strikes and ground combat -- losing eight U.S. and three Afghan troops.
"Operation Anaconda...is an incredible success," said Maj. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division.
"It took only 20 terrorists to kill 3,000 of the world's citizens in the World Trade Towers. We've killed hundreds and that means we've saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This is a great success."
However, Afghan commanders questioned that assessment -- as well as the estimate of hundreds of al-Qaida and Taliban casualties.
"Americans don't listen to anyone," said Cmdr. Abdul Wali Zardran.
"They do what they want. Most people escaped." "You can't call that a success."
U.S. officers have publicly downplayed the significance of body counts, perhaps trying to avoid a repetition of the Vietnam experience where ground commanders felt under pressure to report elevated enemy casualties.
"I don't know why we get into a body count," said Col. Frank Wiercinski, brigade commander of the 101st Airborne Division, dismissing questions about the numbers of al-Qaida and Taliban dead.
Apart from killing al-Qaida members, the operation was successful because it broke up a major concentration in a strategic area and yielded valuable information on the terrorist network, U.S. officials said.
To the Afghans, however, killing or capturing the enemy is the whole purpose of guerrilla warfare and the principal measure of success. Otherwise, they said, the opponent will fight again somewhere, someday.
"In my opinion, the campaign failed," Abdullah said.
"There were some forces there but during the very heavy bombardment and air strikes they left."
By that measure, the Afghans find little evidence of success.
Shireen Gul, the first Afghan commander to enter Shah-e-Kot at the end of the 12-day operation, found 10 bodies scattered about the area. Cmdr. Zardran, who entered the Shah-e-Kot valley from another direction, said he found 20 bodies in one place and three in another.
Other al-Qaida fighters may have been killed during punishing bombing raids that collapsed a warren of caves burrowed into the mountains.
Asked about estimates of hundreds dead, U.S. special forces troops cite an intelligence report which said during the fighting, al-Qaida commanders sent word to a nearby village to prepare hundreds of coffins.
"We heard this thing but it's not true," Abdullah said.
"We don't put our dead in boxes. During the jihad, we buried the dead where they died because they were martyrs."
"These people would do the same thing."
The Afghans believe al-Qaida and Taliban forces began leaving the area in small groups once the U.S. bombing intensified, using exfiltration techniques refined against the Soviets.
"I remember once the Russians were bombing and bombing," former guerrilla Mullah Mohammed Khaqzar said.
"We left the area in groups of five and 10. We stayed away hidden in the mountains until we knew it was over and then we returned."
Cmdr. Zardran, wrapped in a brown woolen shawl against the wind that whipped thorough his command post south of Gardez, estimated as many as 300 fighters escaped Operation Anaconda and headed toward Pakistan through Urgoon in neighbouring Paktia province.
He believes that constituted most of the al-Qaida and Taliban force arrayed against the coalition when the offensive began March 2.
Abdullah agreed the al-Qaida and Taliban force was smaller than the upper estimates -- some of which ranged as high as 1,000 -- which circulated at the height of the battle.
"When we entered the area, I didn't see any big ammunition stocks and no signs of a big force," Abdullah said.
"It's my idea that there was not that many people even in the bunkers and the caves."
Abdullah knows the area well because he fought there in the 1980s with the U.S.-backed Harakat-e-Inqilab Afghanistan, or Revolutionary Movement of Afghanistan. Khaqzar said the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters will probably travel in small groups throughout the mountain ranges that crisscross Afghanistan until they find a safe place to regroup.
His advice for winning the war is "to know where they are hiding and then send in small commando units to take them out."
"Bombs from B-52s won't defeat al-Qaida or the Taliban," he said.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in Washington it is too early to tally the success of the 15-day-old assault on enemy hide- outs in mountainous eastern Afghanistan. Even if some survived the assault and eluded capture, they will be pursued so they cannot find safe haven elsewhere, he said.
More such operations could be ahead, U.S. deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday.
"There are still significant numbers of terrorists. It's a huge country," Wolfowitz said in an interview on CNN's Novak, Hunt and Shields.
The Pentagon has said repeatedly during the five-month war in Afghanistan stamping out terrorists would be a long, difficult task. And Rumsfeld shrugged off a suggestion the military campaign against terrorists so far has simply pushed al-Qaida from Afghanistan to new refuges in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Rumsfeld said that's not necessarily all bad. He acknowledged fighters had scattered to not only neighbouring countries "but have departed neighbouring countries and gone elsewhere in the world, some to the Middle East and some to elsewhere."
Rumsfeld acknowledged the threat to those countries. But he said the situation is better than it was five months ago because Afghanistan is no longer the sanctuary it was for terrorists when it was run by the Taliban.
Let us keep out eye on the ball.
We are now in a war against indigenous irregulars in territory that favours the indigenous irregulars.
We can send in our own indigenous forces to apply the kind of force that they are expert at projecting and back them up with the kind of force that we are expert at applying.
Success by either side will only be realized when the other side quits.
Our soldiers jhave read Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. The media have not except to extract cute sayings, usually out of context.
Yes, American's have a lot to learn about this elusive enemy we call Afghan commanders for it is they who, through their internetwork of tribal, religious and family relations that do not take seriously their role. Now that American's know these same Afghan commanders, who are critical of us, are in fact loyal only to themselves and that they can not be counted on to execute their missions or even fight if it requires dying....
Yes, American is prepared to fight this type of war without the support of her "loyal to who" Afghan commanders, i.e., allies.
Translation: "These bombs so devastate the area that there is nothing left for the Afghanis to loot, even the clothing on the El Quaeda terrorists is burned to pieces of charred cloth".
This is purely a PR statement that doesn't even come close to being true. For it to be true, this idiot would be assuming that *every one* of the alledged (very alledged) killed were trained to fly commercial jets into thousands of buildings in the US *just as occupied* as the WTC towers were *and* that the US would somehow allow this to happen thousands of times. Preposterous.
"Americans don't listen to anyone," said Cmdr. Abdul Wali Zardran.
These are the guys I would be listening to. As much as many people here in the US and even on FR like to dismiss the enemy or Arabs in general as being a bunch of idiot ragheads with AK-47s, the truth is that some of them know a thing or two about fighting -- learned from lots of personal experience. I wouldn't dismiss what they say and I *certainly* would take their opinion over the REMF I first quoted.
I don't know how much we spent on this operation, but I'm sure it wasn't cheap in lives or resources. According to the Afgans we've got on our side, they found some 30-odd bodies...lets double that, no, let's *triple* that: 100 dead. Over 300 got away, if not more, not to mention the uncertainty over how many were there in the first place. *Plus* the fact that the enemy escaped to other countries.
Sounds like a Vietnam definition of 'victory' to me. (No offense to our vets who fought there. You know what I'm talking about.)
Tuor
Must be mistaken. But I can't help but wonder where these "afgan commanders" were when the Taliban, who lasted all of 30 days, were running their pile of rubble, called laughingly, a country.
hmmm
I do take offense, but realize you do not know what you are talking about.
If the "Endstate" for this these operations becomes high "Kill-ratios", you can thank the press and GW's enemies in Congress for their constant sniffling about lack of progress.
The results of waging that type of war still reverberate in the American psyche and perhaps will for some time to come.
I pray we are not heading down that same tried and tired path again. We can not engage an enemy bent upon "our destruction" by their rules. GW said we would pick the time and the manner of engagement. I hope he, Rummy, and our political leadership which dictates Military policy fully understand that and leave the conduct of WAR up to the professionals whose sole mission should be to WIN.
I am not suggesting we aren't, but articles such as this certainly give this old vet cause for concern.
Then I'll explain it to you.
The Press and Our Government likes to declare Victory at the drop of a hat. Otherwise, the Good People of our Beloved Country might get the sneaking suspicion that All Was Not Well in the War Zone, and hence might demand an accounting from the Powers That Be.
I was certainly not talking about the effort or actual victories you and your pals pulled off: I'm not talking about the reality of things, but the perception of them given by the media and the PR-types in the military.
But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. There was no propaganda during Vietnam. Nevermind.
Tuor
When I was in the military, we had a name for leaders such as these, but I can't repeat it on this site.
If our courageous military personnel were only in Afghanistan to support the Afghans in the fight against Al Quieda, I'd pull them out in a New York minute. Our forces are in Afghanistan to rout and destroy terrorists and it appears that at least some Afghan military "leaders" don't share that goal. If they don't want to be part of the solution, then they should move out of the way and keep their Monday morning quarterbacking to themselves, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.