September 6, 2007

An Autumn Offensive?

Taliban elements have stepped up attacks on NATO forces in Kandahar and Helmand provinces over the last week. They have ambushed British and American forces in fairly large numbers, sometimes throwing hundreds of their fighters into the battles. The new autumn offensive appears more vigorous than the fizzled spring offensive -- but every bit as disastrous:

International and Afghan troops backed by air power killed scores of Taliban militants as heavy fighting intensified across southern Afghanistan, officials said Thursday.

The latest bloodshed in the insurgency-hit southern desert provinces of Kandahar and Helmand took the rebel toll in recent days to more than 350, while two British troops have also died.

More than 40 Taliban fighters were killed in a 12-hour battle on Wednesday with US-led coalition forces in Kandahar's Shah Wali Kot district, where rebels appeared to have regrouped in recent weeks, the coalition said.

A small group of rebels ambushed foreign forces and was later reinforced by about 150 insurgents who fired rocket-propelled grenades and used heavy machine guns, the coalition said in a statement.

These large-scale attacks have resulted only in larger-scale losses for the Taliban. They can't even justify the losses by claiming some sort of attrition strategy, not while losing men at a 350-2 ratio. The difference? Coordinated air support has shredded the unsophisticated rebels, who provide large and slow targets for the pilots.

These days, Taliban operations resemble nothing much more than suicide missions, but less effective than those conducted against civilian targets. The military has not allowed the Taliban to gain that kind of access, and so those who want to martyr themselves have to do so against the armed forces of NATO. That allows the West and Afghanistan to reverse the ratios of death, forcing 350 Taliban to die to kill two infidels, rather than the suicide-bomber ideal of 350 innocent civilians to one or two jihadis.

Even the most lunatic organization cannot keep up those ratios for very long. The autumn offensive will wind up doing the most damage to the Taliban, whose rank and file may tire quickly of getting 1/175th of an infidel before going to his 0.411 virgin. Mullah Omar may find that winter won't come soon enough to have an excuse to pull his men out of meat grinders and turkey shoots.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/12606

Comments (13)

Posted by Cybrludite | September 6, 2007 7:04 AM

Another case of the Taliban commander saying, "Did you see what I did to his fist?", and time for the lefties to try and explane how by loosing 175 to 1 means the Taliban is making this a quagmire for NATO...

Posted by bayam | September 6, 2007 7:20 AM

Taliban fighters have no chance against US led forces in Afghanistan. It demonstrates that in fulfulling their mission, American troops continue to prove their superiority in training, discipline, and valor.

However, Karzi and others continue to talk about a deteriorating security situation across Afghanistan. While the outcome of military engagements is promising, the ability of the Taliban to bring a large number of forces to battle indicates a troubling sign- the Taliban presence in the country isn't waning. Even with lopsided victories, in the post-Saddam world terrorists appear to have no problem finding new recruits and replenishing the ranks. Afghanistan has enterd an ominous phase as the country's production of illegal narcotics puts Colombia to shame.

NATO forces need stronger commitments from Washington and other allied nations to reverse the Taliban push, which consists of more than direct military confrontations. Preventing the Taliban from controlling or disrupting large parts of the country will require a serious increase in allied troops on the ground. If the US lacks the resources, NATO has many new members in E. Europe who need to prove their commitment to the alliance.

Posted by Cybrludite | September 6, 2007 7:29 AM

And right on schedule... Explane to me exactly why we shouldn't be allowing them to group together in large, easily bomb-able, masses? We want them to come out in the open and get their backsides kicked, instead of having them sneak around attending commercial flight schools.

Posted by Randall | September 6, 2007 7:39 AM

"...but less effective than those directed at civilian targets."

Can we please stop asking about the root causes of terrorism now.

The only root cause of terrorism that matters is the simple and ugly fact that it is effective, and in particular, MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ATTACKS ON WESTERN MILITARIES.

Posted by Keemo | September 6, 2007 7:41 AM

Of coarse NATO forces are winning every battle against the terrorists. Of coarse American forces lead the way, as they are simply the best military force on this planet. In Iraq, the terrorists are losing on average around 1,500 per month. Where do all of these bad guys come from? Nations that actively support the funding & training of terrorism. Iran is the head of this beast; sending in both manpower and sofisticated weaponery.

But don't tell the leading Democrats any of this; they are going to label our military as rapist, torturers, and murderers, and they will not allow the facts to get in the way... It's no wonder why American military personnel despise politicians that sit on the left side of the isle. "We support the troops, but not the mission"; wow, now there's a lie that has been exposed for all to see...

Posted by chsw | September 6, 2007 8:05 AM

May their virgins all look like Yasser Arafat.

chsw

Posted by Duke DeLand | September 6, 2007 10:14 AM

May their virgins all look like Murtha!!!!

Oh, and by the way.....Has Murtha visited Iraq lately to visit with his fellow Marines? I thought not! Guess he fears they might not be R-E-A-L tight on support for this former-Marine!

Har Har

Duke

Posted by NahnCee | September 6, 2007 11:21 AM

Cannon fodder.

Except they're not sophisticated enough to even have cannon.

Posted by LarryD | September 6, 2007 12:01 PM

Tet Offensive? Their only hope is for "our" media to make this look like a devastating defeat (for us), and turn it into a propaganda victory. Like the MS did in 'nam. Might be a hard trick to do now, with 350/2 casualty ratios and all.

Posted by jerry | September 6, 2007 2:19 PM

Field Marshal Bayam:

When you see a story of "NATO" forces winning the fight against the Taliban the term NATO actually refers to the D-Day coallition of US, UK and Canadian forces. The other NATO countries except maybe for some Dutch ot Danish SOF elements don't contribute much at all.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 6, 2007 2:39 PM

"They have ambushed British and American forces in fairly large numbers, sometimes throwing hundreds of their fighters into the battles. The new autumn offensive appears more vigorous than the fizzled spring offensive -- but every bit as disastrous:"

You can't ambush a buzz saw...

Posted by Mr. Michael | September 6, 2007 9:26 PM

Remember, Winter is just around the corner. If YOU were a frazzled Al Queda leader saddled with a bunch of rubes from the sticks and some really wild eyed crazies from the cities...

Wouldn't YOU consider this a neat way to solve the troublemaker problem?

Hey, it's easier than feeding 'em, too.

Posted by M. Simon | September 6, 2007 9:46 PM

Suicide attacks are not a sign of strength. They are a sign of desperation and weakness.

Mr. Michael makes a good point.

Not only is their battle strength declining, so is their logistical support. If it is more advantageous to get their fighters killed than to feed and train them over the winter they must be really hurting.

Post a comment