Posted on 12/21/2002 8:50:38 PM PST by Stultis
WASHINGTON (AP) - Enemy rockets explode routinely near American military bases in Afghanistan, and snipers ambush troops on patrol, even as the Pentagon tries to focus less on combat and more on reconstruction of the war-shattered country.
The campaign that started as a major mobilization last year against Osama bin Laden, his al-Qaida network fighters and their Taliban militia comrades has ground on for months as a low-intensity guerrilla conflict. But there has been a spike in hit-and-run attacks on U.S. forces in the past few months, with troops coming under fire several times a week.
A U.S. soldier killed in a firefight Saturday was the first American combat death since August, when a soldier died of wounds from a July ambush.
The allies often do not catch the attackers and do not know who they are, but defence officials believe most are al-Qaida and Taliban remnants or their sympathizers. Most use crudely made, remote-controlled weapons that often miss their mark. Most are in the southeast, near the border with Pakistan, an area that has traditionally supported the Taliban for ethnic, religious and political reasons.
"We're going to take some casualties. Unfortunately, we did have a tragic death last night, but that, I don't think, has anything to do with the situation," Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Saturday.
"I think the security situation in eastern Afghanistan is going to be a problem for some time to come just because of the freedom of operation back and forth from the Pakistani (border) to the Afghan border," Myers told reporters at a U.S. base in Bagram, just north of the capital, Kabul. "There's still some very dangerous parts of the country . . . but my assessment is that things continue to improve."
On that premise, the Pentagon is preparing to shift its focus in Afghanistan next month and expand programs to build roads, provide medical care and do other humanitarian and reconstruction work where security is relatively ensured. In places where it is not, the hunt will continue for enemy fighters and their weapons caches.
The plan includes deployment of eight to 10 regional teams of some 60 special forces troops, State Department aid workers and other international forces, said Joe Collins, an assistant defence secretary for stabilization operations.
"The purpose of the teams will be to facilitate reconstruction and to help spread security," Collins said. "They will also work to dampen regional tensions and serve as the eyes and ears" for the U.S. military and diplomats in the country.
Officials hope the program will help win the hearts and minds of Afghans and legitimize the government of President Hamid Karzai, which has little control outside a capital monitored by international peacekeepers. The Bush administration hopes Afghans will turn more toward the government and less to local warlords or militias as leaders and providers.
The overall plan is for international forces to continue training of an Afghan national army they hope will eventually fend for itself against any attempted resurgence of Taliban and al-Qaida.
Not everyone is optimistic.
For one thing, plenty of enemy fighters remain entrenched. The soldier killed Saturday was on a patrol reconnoitering a suspected enemy group, then got into a firefight as the patrol prepared to approach the group, the army said.
Guerrilla attacks are frequent: an assailant threw a hand grenade into a jeep Tuesday, injuring two American soldiers and their Afghan interpreter; on Dec. 11, a rocket exploded outside the Lwara base near Pakistan, and two more hit base guard posts; the next day, a rocket hit near a base at Gardez; on Dec. 13, two rockets were fired toward a U.S. base at Shkin, 240 kilometres south of the capital, and two exploded three kilometres outside a base in the eastern city of Khost.
"I think we're on the road to an endless commitment there," said Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute think tank. "We could have our finger in the dike in Afghanistan."
Some believe the administration is wading further into treacherous water as the line between friend and foe increasingly blurs.
A year ago, the enemy was more obvious and the goal clear: find bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and smash al-Qaida. Friends helping against those enemies included warlords - or, as U.S. officials prefer to call them, "regional leaders."
It long has been clear that the warlords had goals that competed with those of the United States, including settling old feuds and gaining power for themselves. From time to time, their factional fighting has drawn fire to U.S. forces. Americans called in bombing support from a B-52 on Dec. 2 when they were trapped by a battle between two warlords in western Afghanistan.
The warlords, who rule by virtue of their private armies, are stronger today than a year ago.
"We could be getting embroiled in a civil war," Cato's Eland said.
Analysts also fear that within Karzai's own government is embedded a seed of disaster in ethnic rivalries involving among others his defence minister, Mohammed Fahim, a Tajik warlord. Western diplomats in Afghanistan say he has hindered formation of an army so as not to diminish his own forces, which has alienated Pashtuns and Shiite Muslims, who together constitute two-thirds of the Afghans.
Nevertheless, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, promised during his latest visit to Afghanistan to soldier on. "While an awful lot has been done in Afghanistan, this is Afghanistan," Franks said. "We're just going to have to stay with it for as long as it takes."
Humanitarian Work Progressing in Afghanistan
The U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration have overseen some tremendous progress, Collins said. He noted they've been responsible for the construction or repair of 600 schools and the donation of 10 million textbooks, 7,000 metric tons of seed, and $200 million in aid to refugees.Military civil affairs assets have had a hand in another 127 schools, 400 wells and 26 medical clinics. Collins said a top priority in the coming year will be constructing a series of maternal health clinics throughout the country.
He added that 150 international aid agencies and six separate U.N. organizations assisted in all these humanitarian efforts.
Well, this about says it all. This is what will happen in Iraq, too. We will be stuck in these hell-holes for years and years, and it won't make any difference. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Somebody should notify Patty Murray of this. She might actually find it in her heart to say something positive about the United States.
HA!
How long will we be there? How many US casualties will we accept in the new Iraq? Will we cut and run like we did after the Marines were killed in Lebanon or the Rangers killed in Somalia?
Ahhhh, that explains it. Evil American scumbags are taking credit for the noble work that Osama The Benevolent has done.
If there is a good reason to still be there, the administration isn't doing a convincing job of explaining this.
I think questioning our reasons for staying are perfectly legit. I support Bush, but this is starting to look more and more like a nation building event.
My only point is that we, as a country, have not debated what we will do, or be willing to do, in the aftermath. I personally think we will be looking at a long occupation over a basket-case society. Our track record in these situations, such as Somalia, has not been good.
That's exactly what it is. The alternative is to leave, in which case Al Qu'aida will flood in from Pakistan and re-take the place. They still have many sympathizers and any number of "warlords" who would be happy to cut deals with them. Back to square one. Just as though we were never even there. Not a good plan, IMO. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not any happier with being there than you are -- I just don't see any other way for now.
Such as Germany or Japan in 1945? Ok, it's a rough analogy but a lot of people had their doubts that we could rebuild and "civilize" those fascist states back then. With a little time and patience we did it though. Anyway, I don't see that we have much choice about Iraq. Saddam is determined to wipe us out one way or another. He has to go and the country has to be stabilized. If we just sit and do nothing states like North Korea will only be emboldened. Can't have that. Anyway, that's my take on things and I certainly agree with you that all this is not an easy or especially clear-cut situation.
However, I do not think the US of today has the stomach to occupy a country like we did after WW II. Also (and at the risk of sounding culturally biased), I think certain cultures are beyond help--Haiti is an example of this. We have intervened there twice since the early 1900's and nothing has changed.
If we are going to occupy Iraq, we should at least have this discussion about the price now. Otherwise, there will be great pressure to withdraw and we will leave behind a government that could be as potentially as bad as Saddam's.
Well, we had a slight change in events on September 11th. That pretty much changed the foreign policy entirely. We can't just pull out of Afghanistan right now. If we do, it goes back to a safe haven for terrorists. As for Iraq, it's going to take time as well. If we go in, bomb the place, and just leave, nothing will be accomplished. This is quite different than Bosnia.
We have 2 huge successes in nation-building, and that's Germany and Japan. We brought them from brutal dictators right into the mainstream economy.
"As I write this, I am fighting back tears, recalling the friends and colleagues I've lost over the years to senseless acts of terrorism while they tried helping others," Jacobsen wrote.
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.