Routed Taliban 'collapsing like dominos'

Northern Alliance claims string of victories but Bush orders it to keep out of Kabul

Afghanistan's opposition forces have closed in on Kabul, claiming to have recaptured large swathes of territory from the retreating Taliban in a triumphant sweep across the north.

The opposition foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, described a sudden collapse of Taliban forces that he said put Northern Alliance troops on the outskirts of Herat, the main city in western Afghanistan, and approaching the capital after overrunning Bamiyan.

Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, confirmed for the first time that British military personnel, believed to be members of the SAS, are active on the ground in Afghanistan.

"I can confirm that there are members of Britain's armed forces on the ground in northern Afghanistan, liaising with the Northern Alliance providing advice and assistance," he told BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend programme.

Taliban forces were said to be withdrawing towards Kabul, two days after the dramatic fall of Mazar-i-Sharif, in what appears to be a sensational success for the American strategy of bombing in support of the Northern Alliance.

But many of the reported advances were unconfirmed. Most of them appeared to be the result not of pitched battles, but of the defection of local Taliban commanders – and the sincerity of those defections is not yet certain.

Mr Abdullah expressed surprise at the speed of the reported Taliban collapse. "I knew the cracks could produce a sort of domino effect and this could get out of their [the Taliban's] control," he said.

It was reported that a planned Northern Alliance offensive on Kabul had been "postponed" after US President George Bush warned the Alliance to hold back from the capital until a provisional government could be formed. But Mr Abdullah refused to rule out a march on Kabul in the coming days.

The alliance claimed its forces were about to enter Taloqan, yesterday, after Taliban commanders in the northern city defected along with 5,000 of their men. But the claim was impossible to verify, and the Taliban denied that the city had fallen.

If the fall of Taloqan is confirmed, all that would stand between the Northern Alliance and control of the north as far west as Mazar is the heavily fortified city and province of Kunduz. If Kunduz were to fall, forces in the north-east could join those who captured Mazar to create a continuous swathe of Northern Alliance territory.

Elsewhere, the Alliance claimed it had made major gains in the provinces of Bamiyan and Baghlan, and captured the towns of Eskamesh, Nahran, Chal, and the strategic road junction at Pul-i-Khumri, which commands the main road into Kabul itself.

But the alliance suffered setbacks as well. In heavy fighting overnight, Taliban forces pushed back an alliance advance in fighting on the Dasht-i-qaleh front line north of Taloqan, one of the approaches to Kunduz. There were rumours that a member of an American special forces team guiding bombers over the city had been wounded.

North of Kabul, alliance commanders appeared to be chafing at the bit as they heard of the successes to their west. But the US fears its strategy could unravel if they were to capture Kabul, where they are unpopular. It is thought the Pashtuns of the south will not stomach the minority-dominated alliance in the capital.

Mr Hoon told a newspaper that he would be "quite happy to see the Northern Alliance steam across northern Afghanistan and take Kabul" but after the Americans made their views clear, he amended his comments. "We want them [the alliance] to march towards Kabul, to take ground, to deny the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden space in Afghanistan," he told BBC's Breakfast with Frost. Downing Street also said that it merely wanted the alliance to "march towards" Kabul but not yet enter the city.

Mr bin Laden warned the US-led coalition that he would never allow himself to be captured alive. "America can't get me alive," he told a Pakistani interviewer.

If we take Kabul we need to hold Kabul. We need to kick AXX in a deadly serious and organized way so that there's no opportunity for these Taliban "warriors" to have an opening of any kind. What are the orders? Just to rout them? Or to hunt them down and destroy as many as is possible?

And we need to have plans to place organized/strong governmental control over the country. Perhaps this is a piece of the solution that's not quite ready yet.

Can we be assured that the Northern Alliance can hold Kabul? And why would we want the NA to go into Kabul uncontested/unaccompanied? Surely the NA is not the best pick for a new government. That would be swapping one type of tyranny with another.

We’ve been striking their armored vehicles with pinpoint precision and carpet bombing their troop concentrations. And, we’ve lost how many men? How many planes? None! Does this sound like a quagmire?

The media has a yen for creating controversies (at least for republicans). They doubt sound strategies. They doubt people of integrity that are making the tough decisions. When they want commentary they give the floor to the opportunists (read McVain and Bitten) and the perennially misguided (read most democrats). Like you I am not surprised at all by our successes in Afghanistan. As you said, GW spelled it out almost 2 months ago and guess what, it is working. Surprise, surprise!

And we need to have plans to place organized/strong governmental control over the country. Perhaps this is a piece of the solution that's not quite ready yet.

This does seem to be an unexpected problem, doesn't it? The Taliban collapsed in the North far too quickly. They still hold the South, so the Pashtun aren't likely to agree to a unified gov't yet. And if there isn't a unified gov't, there's just oppression and killing from the other side (like we managed to acomplish in Kosovo)
The measure of success for Bush and his coalition now is not whether they can get rid of bin Laden and the Taliban, but whether they can install an Afghani gov't that has a chance of succeeding. That's been moving slower than the military action, but it must proceed with haste now!

Although we've enjoyed initial success, the current pullout by the Taliban is an old strategy. If they abandon their control of the infrastructure, they free themselves to conduct a geurilla war. The Afghans did the same thing to the Soviets:

The overall military strategy designed to drive the Soviets out was the classic guerrila one of death by a thousand cuts. General Akhtar never once sought to confront the enemy in a large scale conventional battle. He appreciated that ambushes, assassinations, attack on supply convoys, bridges, pipelines, and airfields, with the avoidance of setpiece battles was the way to win the war. At the start emphasis was placed on the need to strengthen the Mujahideen along with Durand Line (Pak-Afghan border). This was partly a necessity for the Mujahideen for the easy distribution of supplies, and partly for the security of the Pakistan frontier region, which was slowly built up into the guerrila's main base of supply area. As the war progressed, and the logistic flow increased, so activities deeper inside Afghanistan were stepped up until active operations were being conducted in all 29 provinces.[ Brigadier (Retd.) Mohammad Yousaf, S.Bt.,SILENT SOLDIER: The Man behind the Afghan Jehad,1991] from here

Well, the Taliban are not going to fight a frontal war. They're more likely to break up into smaller guerilla units and try to harass U.S. forces on the ground, and also continue fighting the united front. I think the large Taliban units that still remain on the ground will soon break up, partly because of U.S. bombing, and partly because they'll adopt new tactics to resist the U.S. Special Forces that we hear have already been inducted into Afghanistan.[October 20, 2001]Ahmed Rashid, Author of "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia." As a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, Rashid has spent 20 years traveling with the Taliban and covering civil war in Afghanistan. from here

I know that our analysts are most certainly considering these possibilities, but we ought not to get too cocky about "driving out the Taliban." They may just be trying to reposition themselves for a different kind of war. The kind the Soviets found themselves in. The kind we don't want to have to fight. Once they fade into the shadows and begin fighting us as guerillas, hit and run style, it'll be a whole new ballgame. We need to destroy them completely, we need to destroy them now, before we find ourselves with base camps in Afghanistan, riding patrols, trying to install a government, while the Taliban bites our ankles on a daily basis.

On the following I agree with you: 1) “We need to destroy them [Taliban] completely.” There is no substitute for victory. 2) “..we ought not to get too cocky about "driving out the Taliban." True, but there’s nothing like celebrating success when it happens. We need enjoy the good times to sustain us through the almost certain difficult times that lie ahead. It is time to celebrate Kabul!

As for a Taliban guerrilla war, I believe logistical support of a local population is essential to conducting successful guerrilla operations. The Mujahideen had that in their favor when they were fighting the Soviets, a foreign invader. In this case however, the Taliban will likely be looked upon as the oppressive foreign invader, partly because of its Pakistani and Saudi influences, and because of atrocities perpetrated on Afghan nationals while they held power. The Northern Alliance will likely be perceived as liberators and so will enjoy the support of the people. This could make it very difficult for the Taliban to continue operating as any more than a terrorist threat within Afghanistan. Although a terrorist threat is a serious problem, it’s small compared to well organized guerrilla armys roaming the countryside like the Soviets faced.

What I believe the Taliban might do, as Afghans have done before, is move closer to the Pakistani border, east and south, where they have support in the Pashtun area (most of the Taliban are Pashtun). Along the Pakistani western border, lies the Pakistani Pashtuns. (I realize I'm probably stating something you already know)

If the Taliban fade into the population, especially where they have support, across the border as well as at home, they may be difficult to root out. Also, they could receive support from the Pakistan side. The border is porous and corruption is rampant. There is already a vibrant underground economy in that region of Pakistan. then it would be up to Musharref to try to work his side of the border, while not inciting civil war. It would be a tricky situation. The map, below, shows (in blue) the Pashtun dominated region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. the red line, in the middle, is the A/P border.

You raise excellent points concerning the ethnic tribes of the region. You’ve obviously studied this situation. The map you included depicts a disconcerting picture regarding the range of the Pashtun Tribe. I can only hope that despite the competing coalescing influences, such as ethnicity and religious faction, that a sense of nationalism will prevail. We are talking about a nation after all. There must be common bonds that cause Afghanis to think of themselves as Afghanis.

As to the Pakistani problem; let’s hope their president retains control. He seams intent on keeping us as an ally and may exert the pressure needed to keep things cool on the border. Though, it goes without saying, I wouldn’t trust anyone over there further than I could throw him.

We're banking alot on Musharref. I hope he delivers, but he has a tough situation to control. Nationalism might be able to trump the others, but our current diplomatic efforts expose us to the fact that when push comes to shove, Islam sticks together. They'll bicker and fight with eachother, but they'll stand back to back against the infidels. That's why we're getting pressure to end the conflict fast, not to bomb during Ramadan, don't think about expanding the war, etc. If we push too hard, the coalition will fold. Rice paper diplomacy. Be careful how you tread.

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.