Excerpts from Nato report on Taliban

[Captain_Morgan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16829368

Originally Posted by In quotes: Excerpts from Nato report on Taliban[/quote

A secret Nato report seen by the BBC suggests the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI).

Here are excerpts from the report, based on interrogations of more than 4,000 captured Taliban, al-Qaeda, foreign fighters and civilians.

"Reflections from detainees indicate that Pakistan's manipulation of Taliban senior leadership continues unabatedly."

"In the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan] members, in joining the the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over GIRoA, usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders. The effectiveness of Taliban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses."

"ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah, Pakistan."

"While they [the Taliban] are weary of war, they see little hope of negotiated peace. Despite numerous setbacks, surrender is far from their collective mindset. For the moment, they believe that continuing the fight and expanding Taliban governance are their only viable course of action."

'More confident'
"Through the use of neutral observers and judges who report only to higher-level commanders, the Taliban leadership quickly identifies issues and replaces leaders. In rare cases Taliban leaders have already gone as far as to expel or imprison their own members."

"As opposed to years past, detainees have become more confident, not only in their potential to win, but the virtue of their cause."

"Detainees from throughout Afghanistan report that popular support for the insurgence in terms of recruitment and donations increased within the last year."

"The Taliban leadership controls nearly all insurgent activity in Afghanistan. Outside groups such as al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and others must receive permission from Taliban leaders prior to conducting operations on Afghan territory. Despite public statements suggesting distance between the Taliban and international extremists, no formal split has yet occurred. However many with the Taliban appear prepared to enforce a separation from these groups should they receive orders from the Taliban central shura in Quetta, Pakistan."

"Because Sirajuddin [Haqqani] remains in hiding, his younger brother Badruddin co-ordinates all military operations for the Haqqani network. The group has become highly centralised around Badruddin and very little can occur with his knowledge or consent."

"Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad, Pakistan."

Pakistan 'knows everything'
"The Taliban leadership designated Kabul City a 'free area', in which any commander can conduct operations without prior co-ordination with local command."

"A senior al-Qaeda commander in Kunar province said: 'Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar [province] without them watching. The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad."

"The Taliban continue to openly raise the majority of their revenue through donations. Collectors travel door to door throughout Pakistan requesting donations, without disguising their Taliban affiliation."

"Once Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] is no longer a factor, the Taliban consider victory inevitable."

"Almost without exception Taliban members do not receive salaries or other financial incentives for their work."

"The effectiveness of Taliban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses."

Narcotics trade
"Taliban leaders anticipate personnel losses. Commanders and fighters are easily replaced, at least initially, with minimal impact on operations. After eliminating a commander, Isaf will often switch focus to other areas and targeting lines. While this type of targeting may remove specific insurgents from the battlefield, it will typically have a negligible effect on insurgent operations overall."

"The narcotics trade provides funds to Taliban operations, though the nature of this process is widely misunderstood. The Taliban does not officially encourage nor discourage narcotics production, and it does not play a direct role in the farming, smuggling, refining or distribution process. However the Taliban regularly collects a percentage of zakat [donation] from any individual involved in any stage of narcotics production. This zakat may be collected in Afghanis, Pakistani rupees or frequently, raw opium or hashish."

"A detainee from Parwan province said: 'This year, more funds were given to the Taliban to conduct operations than in any previous year.'"

Fascinating really about how creating an open democracy without having a strong central state or regional allies that can provide some form of stability degrades a country.

[Crashing00]

Of course all of these reports are horrifying, but one would really have to have one's head in the sand not to know by now that our supposed "alliance" with Pakistan is a load of bullcrap. They were harboring Bin Laden. They've been providing shelter for the Taliban leadership since the first shots of the Afghan war were fired. Over and over again our troops on the ground reported that Taliban units would retreat into Pakistan, recuperate, recruit, and come back in strength -- knowing that they were safe because crossing the border in force was strictly against the US rules of engagement. Over and over we've received evidence that the Taliban is being commanded, financed, and housed from within Pakistan and done nothing about it. As scary as this report is, it's actually a drop in the bucket to anyone that's been paying attention.

Pakistan is a nest of vipers and we have zero chance of ever succeeding in our mission in Afghanistan as long as we continue to treat them as a friendly nation.

That's to say nothing of the broader point that Arabs have a tendency to prefer radical Islamic rule when given a free choice. Look at Egypt right now, or Hamas in Gaza a few years back. Is it possible that the Taliban could actually be voted back into power after we leave? I wouldn't rule it out.

Free people can still freely choose oppression and terror, and I hope that the idiots who thought that sprinkling democracy all over the world like it was some kind of magic dust that would make everyone happy and prosperous and liberal are watching the result of what they've sown with appropriate horror.

[Quirkiness101]

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

Fascinating really about how creating an open democracy without having a strong central state or regional allies that can provide some form of stability degrades a country.

Not to sound tactless, but how has Afghanistan really degraded all that much as a result of introduced democracy (not counting the obvious civilian deaths. Those are the result of our current war, not their democracy).

Originally Posted by Crashing00

Pakistan is a nest of vipers and we have zero chance of ever succeeding in our mission in Afghanistan as long as we continue to treat them as a friendly nation.

What exactly is our mission at this point? We got bin Laden, Karzai is in power of a (for the moment) democratic Afghanistan. Without declaring war on Pakistan, we can't send troops in to hunt for Taliban fighters (and the American public has zero stomach for another war declaration). Even if we stopped treating Pakistan as an ally, the situation wouldn't exactly naturally improve that much.

Originally Posted by Crashing00

That's to say nothing of the broader point that Arabs have a tendency to prefer radical Islamic rule when given a free choice. Look at Egypt right now, or Hamas in Gaza a few years back. Is it possible that the Taliban could actually be voted back into power after we leave? I wouldn't rule it out.

Free people can still freely choose oppression and terror, and I hope that the idiots who thought that sprinkling democracy all over the world like it was some kind of magic dust that would make everyone happy and prosperous and liberal are watching the result of what they've sown with appropriate horror.

Regarding Egypt: They just ousted a dictator who had long been aided by the US. They would be instating the government that was the furthest they could get from that.

Pakistan has been fighting with Israel for decades, with Israel generally getting the better end of the situation. A party emerges that vows to wipe out Israel...I don't really think that Islamic fundamentalism was so much the deciding factor here.

As for the Taliban, I agree. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. But you can't exactly argue that Karzai has been much better to the average Afghan. Ally of an occupying force, and rather corrupt if I'm not mistaken.

With regard to the whole democracy bit, I always find that so ironic. We as a nation constantly trumpet democracy, but seem to always forget that democracy carries with it the right to elect WHOEVER the people. Not the people who introduce the democracy, but the people who live under it.

[Catmurderer]

For what its worth, I did some heavy research into CIA reports/documents in undergrad. They had misinterpretations and mistakes throughout them. (Such as soviets having a heavy influence in south america)

This might not be the case and probably is not the case, but always be wary of these reports.

[dcartist]

Feed the flames of Indian pakistan hate and let India knock them 2 decades back into the stone age.

No. Not really. Gotta keep a level head and remember who we are as humans and Americans.

Infuriating **** though eh?

[Captain_Morgan]

Originally Posted by dcartist

Feed the flames of Indian pakistan hate and let India knock them 2 decades back into the stone age.

No. Not really. Gotta keep a level head and remember who we are as humans and Americans.

Infuriating **** though eh?

Kinda wish we would've attacked North Korea rather than Iraq, at least then the Chinese would've let it happen and while Seoul would've been heavily damaged the unification in 20 years would probably create a greater power. Southern industry with northern minerals.

[FaheyUSMC]

Originally Posted by Captain_Morgan

Kinda wish we would've attacked North Korea rather than Iraq, at least then the Chinese would've let it happen and while Seoul would've been heavily damaged the unification in 20 years would probably create a greater power. Southern industry with northern minerals.

China would never have allowed us to attack North Korea. Never. They came up with an excuse to get involved in the 1950s during the original hostilities. China simply can not have a democratic, capitalistic society on their border. It would destabilize the region for them, because the only way they can maintain the power they have is with a lot of heavy-handed policies. If North Korea suddenly became some Asian capitalist haven, they'd see a lot of problems heading across the border.

No, China wouldn't let us engage without getting involved. It's why they have done a lot to prevent us from taking the military route.

[Quirkiness101]

Originally Posted by FaheyUSMC

It would destabilize the region for them, because the only way they can maintain the power they have is with a lot of heavy-handed policies. If North Korea suddenly became some Asian capitalist haven, they'd see a lot of problems heading across the border.

Yes it would destabilize the region, but I would argue it'd be for the reverse reason. Warfare in North Korea would result in millions of refugees crossing China's northern border, which would provide the destabilization that you mentioned.
It's not exactly difficult for a Chinese person to fly to South Korea if they want to escape "communist" China. Communism in an economic sense is halfway out the door in China, so I would argue that capitalism vs. communism wouldn't exactly be the issue at hand

Originally Posted by FaheyUSMC

China simply can not have a democratic, capitalistic society on their border.

What about India (the most populous democracy in the world)

[Captain_Morgan]

Originally Posted by FaheyUSMC

China would never have allowed us to attack North Korea. Never. They came up with an excuse to get involved in the 1950s during the original hostilities. China simply can not have a democratic, capitalistic society on their border. It would destabilize the region for them, because the only way they can maintain the power they have is with a lot of heavy-handed policies. If North Korea suddenly became some Asian capitalist haven, they'd see a lot of problems heading across the border.

No, China wouldn't let us engage without getting involved. It's why they have done a lot to prevent us from taking the military route.

They extricate minerals for the most part in lieu of giving them aid, the Chinese have already tilted their hand saying they'd rather deal with Seoul than Pyongyang in other affairs. The destabilization and outright war are the main two reasons, that a refugee crisis with North Koreans fleeing into China is one problem the other is the heavy damage in an all out war.

The Chinese already have Japan on their border with Chinese and Japanese working in each other's firms. Equally, there are several high end Chinese families from the founders that are sending their kids to American schools, including the next Premier whose daughter is going to Harvard or Yale, forget, under an assumed name.

The damage is already done ideologically each generation beyond the Cultural Revolution Generation. Singapore's single party is also slipping some per each election phase to opposition groups. The current Communist party is trying to maintain a handle on power, and most of it's defense spending is on internal security and keeping "out" yet keeping "in" ideas.

For all extents because of the baby girl genocide, there's also an increased likelihood of males going abroad for wives. Since Koreans and Japanese are "meh close enough Chinese" intermarriage is increasing, again bringing enculturated women into China. Granted the Chinese are also exporting a lot of people as well all over the world, too.

But mainly they don't want refugees spilling over the Yellow River, nor the cheap minerals to end. During an invasion, probably looking at a tight line to keep refugees in and the Chinese rolling over to Seoul for mineral exports to help finance reunification. The main thing would be not moving US troops beyond the Yellow River and eventually keeping them south of the current demarcation line as security is established and your neighborhood friendly Chinese contractors come in, like they did about every where else Americans have fought wars.

Even during Mao's day he was willing to hand wave Vietnam, one of the main problems with Korea was that it has been the traditional point by which invasions were launched into China equally the Russians had a direct interests in a buffer zone, which no longer exists as incentives.

Having open infrastructure between South Korea and such would allow easier transport of Chinese goods directly into Seoul along with several other benefits to Chinese firms like gaining greater access to Korean businesses and technology by encapsulating them into their economic sphere. There's also educating, rebuilding, and a lot of other potential in North Korean construction and catch up.