Canadian, British troops launch Taliban offensive:

[Praxius]

Canadian, British troops launch Taliban offensive

Canadian, British troops launch Taliban offensive

CTV.ca | NATO mounts major offensive against Taliban

The long-awaited spring offensive in southern Afghanistan has begun — launched not by the Taliban but by NATO forces. On Tuesday morning, coalition soldiers led by Britain and supported by Canada kicked off Operation Achilles to target Taliban fighters, foreign terrorists and drug traffickers in Helmand province, to the west of Kandahar province. Troops began moving into position today and by the time the operation is up to full strength, 4,500 coalition soldiers as well as 1,000 Afghan troops will be involved — making this the largest multi-national operation launched to date in Afghanistan. Even though Canadians are taking part, Operation Achilles is not a major exercise for Canadian forces.

SURPRISE!!!!

The Taliban have been going on about a spring offensive all winter..... did they actually think we'd wait for it?

"NATO forces are moving in, the Canadians are established where they are now and heavy fighting is already reported up in Helmand province," CTV's Tom Clark reported from Kandahar on Tuesday morning.

"To the people of northern Helmand who are fed up with being trapped by Taliban extremists, foreign terrorists and established drug lords, my message is clear. This operation is for you.''

[theco805]

Im rather surprised by this Operation and its supporters....
I understand NATO forces entering in pending the recent assination attempt on a member nation's VP, but see it ironic as I read about Canada's professed neutrality and the UK's talks to pull troops out of Iraq....
One final comment, it seems as though the UK wants to fight global terrorism and be a humanitarian from this move, yet they are pulling out of Iraq, does that mean Iraq's cause is not valid enough, and should we leave?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Afghanistan is not Iraq, it is a NATO war, one that the member nations are technically obligated to help in.

[Praxius]

Quote by: theco805 Im rather surprised by this Operation and its supporters.... I understand NATO forces entering in pending the recent assination attempt on a member nation's VP, but see it ironic as I read about Canada's professed neutrality and the UK's talks to pull troops out of Iraq.... One final comment, it seems as though the UK wants to fight global terrorism and be a humanitarian from this move, yet they are pulling out of Iraq, does that mean Iraq's cause is not valid enough, and should we leave?

Actually Britian is taking it's troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan, so they're just reorganizing their priorities.

We have a neutral attitude for the most part, but when we are asked by an organization we are a part of, to take part.... we're not gonna lay low like the other NATO countries (US, Britian and Dutch excluded)

Nobody else is doing anything, so of course we're going to take the front. That, and the Canadian troops are the most experienced there at the moment, considdering they have been holding the South since they got there.

In this mission, our troops are basically playing as the cut off part of the force. The British go in after then, take them out, and anybody fleeing, will run right into the Canadians and get cut down.

[fushigi]

This part caught my eye:

"Our first manoeuvre elements reached their positions earlier today," Maj.-Gen. Ton van Loon, commander of regional command south, said. "It signifies the beginning of a planned offensive to bring security to northern Helmand and set the conditions for meaningful development that will fundamentally improve the quality of life for Afghans in the area."

I just can't see how that's possible. A large security operation is a great first step, but they've got to get some actual semblance of local security and legitimate government in there if they want to have real conditions for development.

Seems to me all a major military offensive will do is convince the Taliban to wait it out until the NATO forces leave or get weak, the new warlord comes in, and then launch a small and brutal offensive to retake the area. Same story for six years, no difference.

[fushigi]

This is from a friend of mine who's in USAID's Office of Military Affairs in Afghanistan:

I am still in Afghanistan. Last week I was in Kabul at an ISAF PRT conference. MG Van Loon spoke about this operation--and made statement quoted below. In counter-insurgency (COIN) ops, depending on the situation in an area, sometimes you need to use military power to "clear" an area before you can start developing it. Why? Because the insurgents don't want to see a govt. presence or peoples' lives improve as it will weaken their own support. In other areas, we can identify the causes of instability and diminish them before the insurgents gain a foothold. There are numerous stages of COIN and you need different activities depending on the stage. If you are interested, have a look at FM 3-24, COIN operations.

I checked it out. Very interesting stuff:
Counterinsurgency Handbook

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax We have a neutral attitude for the most part, but when we are asked by an organization we are a part of, to take part.... we're not gonna lay low like the other NATO countries (US, Britian and Dutch excluded).

You're asked by the Kyoto Accords (every bit as much of a treaty commitment) to do this and that, and Harper makes deep cuts to the very programmes meant to accomplish this,

So much for Canada's refusal to lie low, eh? But then Kyoto means stepping on US toes rather than kissing Washington's ass.

Nobody else is doing anything, so of course we're going to take the front. That, and the Canadian troops are the most experienced there at the moment, considdering they have been holding the South since they got there. In this mission, our troops are basically playing as the cut off part of the force. The British go in after then, take them out, and anybody fleeing, will run right into the Canadians and get cut down.

You know, Prax, that sounds a lot like the US plan in Vietnam. A lot like it.
And we know how that ended.
And we know how every blessed foreign intervention in Afghanistan -- ever -- has ended.

Canadians will eventually get tired of body bags and take those ludicrous support-the-troops stickers off their cars. Only a matter of time.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono You're asked by the Kyoto Accords (every bit as much of a treaty commitment) to do this and that, and Harper makes deep cuts to the very programmes meant to accomplish this, So much for Canada's refusal to lie low, eh? But then Kyoto means stepping on US toes rather than kissing Washington's ass.

Kyoto doesn't mean stepping on the US's toes.... what we do to meet these enviromental goals isn't in relation to the US... in fact, last I checked, the US didn't join into the Kyoto..... we haven't met these goals in Kyoto because our country is so far out of whack with enviromental needs, too many businesses and tax dollars would be lost too quickly in order to meet them.... instead... it appears as though they are trying to make a new plan that will eventually meet the requirements of Kyoto without screwing up our economy..... but that's a totally different topic and not related to Afghanistan.

You know, Prax, that sounds a lot like the US plan in Vietnam. A lot like it. And we know how that ended. And we know how every blessed foreign intervention in Afghanistan -- ever -- has ended. Canadians will eventually get tired of body bags and take those ludicrous support-the-troops stickers off their cars. Only a matter of time.

Perhaps.... but our troops are not US Marines, and the situation isn't the same as it was in Vietnam, nor is it like what it is in Iraq. We pushed into the South East and took over many areas the Taliban held.... they pushed back a few times and took a few places back, but then we just came back and pushed them back out..... and so far they have stayed out..... control in the South East is starting to improve and development is begining, as well as trust from the locals.

The villagers have been asked by the media what they require from all of our troops, and they always say they want more security from the Taliban, more food, and more reconstruction. There isn't many screaming for the NATO forces to leave. Many are very fed up from the Taliban Rule, and unlike in Iraq where they want everyone to leave, Afghans, although battle weary, are hoping this time, that we can help them.....

There are no Afghan civilians joining up to be terrorists and trying to push NATO out like there is in Iraq..... those who are underlings of the Taliban are even given options to drop their arms and get money for a paying job to live with their families in Afghanistan, and many are taking it up, rather then fight for the Taliban.

You guys in the US seem to lack knowlege as to what's really happening in Afghanistan..... it seems your media seems to be controlled mostly to Iraq..... just remember Afghanistan isn't what Iraq currently is.

Granted there is potiential for Afghanistan to fall like Iraq into war, but not anytime soon.

Each one of these pushed NATO has made, have so far all been successful at pushin the Taliban out and holding the areas they take..... and reconstruction can and will happen.

[Praxius]

Here is some further information on the Operation:

The ChronicleHerald.ca

Coalition forces are making some progress in the campaign to drive the Taliban out of northern Helmand province, a NATO official says. Canadian troops deployed to block insurgent supply routes say local inhabitants appear glad to see them there. British Royal Marine Commandos backed by NATO air strikes and Afghan artillery destroyed Taliban strongholds in the Garmsir area south of the provincial capital of Lashkargah, the alliance said Sunday. The Garmsir action has so far been one of only a few stand-up fights between Taliban and coalition forces since NATO’s Operation Achilles began last week. "They (the Taliban) are not facing up to the troops," said Squadron Leader Dave Marsh, spokesman for Regional Command South. "In other areas it is more guerrilla tactics. Take a quick few shots and get out of there. But where we go in and engage them, then that option of actually running away proves a little bit difficult."

Since the offensive began, the Canadians have been holding shuras — community meetings — with village elders to try to win the local people over. "We are generally getting the feeling that the population likes having us here," said Capt. David Nixon of the H company, 2 Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. The Gagetown, N.B.-based force includes infantry, light armoured vehicles, 46-tonne Leopard 2 tanks, artillery and military engineers. "The elders as well as the children are out waving, greeting us in the villages. It is a good feeling," he said. "I think we are keeping the Taliban at bay."

[Nono]

Prax, no kidding the US isn't party to Kyoto. That's the whole point. And a Canadian government busily implementing Kyoto (Chrétien) is far less congenial to Washington than a Canadian government actively subverting its own treaty commitment (Harper). Harper's a tool.

Re Vietnam, it's never quite the same, is it? So -- hey, no problem -- it's always possible to overlook the similarities until those similarities get their big hairy paws all over you and demand your attention. We'll see, eh?

So, what you described as NATO strategy in Afghanistan sounds to me just like Vietnam pre-Tet. As for what the "Afghans" want (which tribe? which clan within which tribe?), I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization.

Why should NATO's intervention end in a way any different from the British or the Russians in the past?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono Prax, no kidding the US isn't party to Kyoto. That's the whole point. And a Canadian government busily implementing Kyoto (Chrétien) is far less congenial to Washington than a Canadian government actively subverting its own treaty commitment (Harper). Harper's a tool. Re Vietnam, it's never quite the same, is it? So -- hey, no problem -- it's always possible to overlook the similarities until those similarities get their big hairy paws all over you and demand your attention. We'll see, eh? So, what you described as NATO strategy in Afghanistan sounds to me just like Vietnam pre-Tet. As for what the "Afghans" want (which tribe? which clan within which tribe?), I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization. Why should NATO's intervention end in a way any different from the British or the Russians in the past?

I honestly don't have the time to educate you on the past 5+ years of what has been going on, in which location, what tribes, and which divisions of NATO that were involved, considdering it varies from one section to another.

I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization.

Nobody is pretending to know, they are asking them face to face.... they are talking to the people and they are expressing themselves..... the news organizations and the military there know more then you or I, so I would trust more in what they say then yourself, no offense.

If you want to know which tribes and which locations, look back on some of the many links I supplied for each new article, they tell you the name of who was interviewed, their position in the tribe/village, and where they are located compared to the battles at hand.

One thing you should realize is that you can easily make a comparison with Vietnam to Iraq, but you can't do so easily with Afghanistan, because:

1 - The US is not in 100% control over the actions in Afghanistan, NATO is, so it's a joint effort between various countries.

2 - There are US Army and Marines in Iraq, as there were in Vietnam... things seem to be going the same way in both of these situations, where US Forces were the main military in the situations in question.

3 - Why should NATO's mission suceed any differently then when the British and Soviets tried to fight in Afghanistan? Because both of those situations were for taking over. To replace the Taliban's forces and government with their own. At those times, the Taliban were being supported by the people, which is not much of the case these days, and NATO is attempting to help Afghanistan to form their own government, not force another country's wants and desires to influence their country to suit them. (In a manner of speaking)

The Afghan people are tired of the Taliban's rule, their laws, and the way they have been treated in the past by them (But at the time, it was better then having the Soviets rule them, or the British.)

Anyways, you see things in one perspective and I see them in another. As you said, we shall see how things unfold. Just remember, not every other country in the world deals with situations like the US seems to do a lot.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax I honestly don't have the time to educate you on the past 5+ years of what has been going on...

Don't worry, Prax. I have my own sources.

Nobody is pretending to know, they are asking them face to face.... they are talking to the people and they are expressing themselves..... the news organizations and the military there know more then you or I, so I would trust more in what they say then yourself, no offense.

(laughs) Yeah, they also interviewed lots of Vietnamese civilians on TV. Things certainly sounded hunky.

You'd trust the military? Well Good Luck. Remember Canada's airborne regiment in Somalia LOL.

One thing you should realize is that you can easily make a comparison with Vietnam to Iraq, but you can't do so easily with Afghanistan, because: 1 - The US is not in 100% control over the actions in Afghanistan, NATO is, so it's a joint effort between various countries.

This will only make things more unwieldy. Anyway, the US is NATO kingpin. Don't dream otherwise.

There are US Army and Marines in Iraq, as there were in Vietnam... things seem to be going the same way in both of these situations, where US Forces were the main military in the situations in question.

OK, the US has 27,000 troops there (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15350960.htm). You telling me that isn't preponderant? And don't forget air power.

At those times, the Taliban were being supported by the people, which is not much of the case these days, and NATO is attempting to help Afghanistan to form their own government, not force another country's wants and desires to influence their country to suit them.

No offence, Prax, but this sounds a trifle naive. Sounds like a NATO press release. You can't form any real national government in a place as atomized as Afghanistan.

The Afghan people are tired of the Taliban's rule, their laws, and the way they have been treated in the past by them (But at the time, it was better then having the Soviets rule them, or the British.)

I suggest you read up a little on Afghan history. The Taliban didn't come into existence until years after the Soviets left: Taliban) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Afghanistan operation has "US adventure" written all over it. The place is a mess. I'd get out before things turn very ugly indeed.

[Gods_Mercenary]

A much more effective tactic, after the initial destruction of the offending regime, is like that being used in the horn of africa (only after the initial failure, mind you) Is to keep the military low key, with its main purpose to protect various bases. You then convince the inhabitants that there are more benefits than harm with your regime by building infrastructure (and advertising that it was you). This has shown some success in places like somalia, because it keeps the troops out of main visibility and therefore out of mind, while showing them benefits.

[Nono]

I fully agree with Gawd. That may actually have worked way back in 2002 when the Afghans -- exhausted after nearly a quarter century of non-stop war and with the Taliban recently kicked out of power, but not forgotten -- seemed a sight more receptive to an international community that, at the time, sounded like it actually wanted to do something for them for a change.

But no. Nobody was willing to spend actual money on it, preferring nice speeches and a military show.

Now it's too late. The Afghans (especially the Pashtuns, who are the Afghans who really count in this case) look increasingly fed up with having foreign devils around.

A good way to measure "progress", by the way, is to take a gander at the poppy crop. Once again sky-high.

[Praxius]

The Afghanistan operation has "US adventure" written all over it. The place is a mess. I'd get out before things turn very ugly indeed.

Until they do........

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust everything I read, but until substantial evidence comes my way to counter something, or something just doesn't sound right, then I hold the information given to me as being somewhat true.

Whether or not it fails in the future, remains to be seen, but just because other's have failed in the past, doesn't mean everyone will..... just because you have negative views on the final outcome, doesn't mean we should just give up and leave..... I wasn't all gun-ho about going to Afghanistan in the first place, but we're there now and so far the situation has not turned into what I originally thought it was going to be.

I used to think much like you, so don't get me wrong, I have had plenty of doubts, esspecially in our own forces abilities to switch from Peacekeeping to Battle...... as I have noticed so far, we've intergrated the two, which seems to be going over well with the people.

As I used to have as a quote in my signature "History will repeat until we learn from our past mistakes." My only hope is that we have.

Added:

One good point, is that this time it is not one country trying to "help out" but a number of countries, so I imagine this seems a bit more balanced to them, feeling that it's not just one country trying to mess around..... granted the US started it, but right now, it's NATO...... sure the US is probably one of the backbones for NATO, but the primary forces at play in Afghanistan right now are the British and Canadian.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Nono I fully agree with Gawd. That may actually have worked way back in 2002 when the Afghans -- exhausted after nearly a quarter century of non-stop war and with the Taliban recently kicked out of power, but not forgotten -- seemed a sight more receptive to an international community that, at the time, sounded like it actually wanted to do something for them for a change. But no. Nobody was willing to spend actual money on it, preferring nice speeches and a military show. Now it's too late. The Afghans (especially the Pashtuns, who are the Afghans who really count in this case) look increasingly fed up with having foreign devils around. A good way to measure "progress", by the way, is to take a gander at the poppy crop. Once again sky-high.

Keeping your troops in contact with a hostile populace is only going to bring about atrocities on your side, which is going to create more terrorists, which is going to make atrocities, both real and invented, more likely, limiting contact with native people is the best way to go. The poppy crop could also be a boon for afghanistan, if sold to pharmaceutical companies to meke legal drugs, a potentially lucrative business for the afghans, but instead, this resource is destroyed, only making sure that the farmers do make it into illegal drugs.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A much more effective tactic, after the initial destruction of the offending regime, is like that being used in the horn of africa (only after the initial failure, mind you) Is to keep the military low key, with its main purpose to protect various bases. You then convince the inhabitants that there are more benefits than harm with your regime by building infrastructure (and advertising that it was you). This has shown some success in places like somalia, because it keeps the troops out of main visibility and therefore out of mind, while showing them benefits.

You're crazy if you think this would work. The only thing you'd accomplish by keeping the military cozy in their bases and then "building infrastructure (and advertising that it was you)" would be to create nice, soft targets for the Taliban to blow up. Won't go floating down the media stream, but I'm pretty sure anything non-Taliban in Afghanistan is open game, including the Red Cross and NGOs. Not sure giving the Taliban more soft targets while reducing the military presence would help win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Keeping your troops in contact with a hostile populace is only going to bring about atrocities on your side, which is going to create more terrorists, which is going to make atrocities, both real and invented, more likely, limiting contact with native people is the best way to go. The poppy crop could also be a boon for afghanistan, if sold to pharmaceutical companies to meke legal drugs, a potentially lucrative business for the afghans, but instead, this resource is destroyed, only making sure that the farmers do make it into illegal drugs.

Actually there are some Alberta farmers and marketers who were on the news last night (CTV I believe) who were trying to bring the poppy over here to our country, due to the limited amount of companies who are around to distribute the chemicals required for most of our medicines... having it closer here in North America, would most likly reduce our cost on medicine, persciptions, etc.

They were also talking about a method so that they can just produce what is required for our medicines without having to worry about producing the chemicals required for heroin.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: fushigi You're crazy if you think this would work. The only thing you'd accomplish by keeping the military cozy in their bases and then "building infrastructure (and advertising that it was you)" would be to create nice, soft targets for the Taliban to blow up. Won't go floating down the media stream, but I'm pretty sure anything non-Taliban in Afghanistan is open game, including the Red Cross and NGOs. Not sure giving the Taliban more soft targets while reducing the military presence would help win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people.

It's working in the horn of africa, which used to be just as bad as afghanistan. the idea is that the troops are the ones buildiing the infrastructure. I don't think the Afghanis would respond well to the Taliban blowing up a hospital or a school, do you?

[fushigi]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It's working in the horn of africa, which used to be just as bad as afghanistan. the idea is that the troops are the ones buildiing the infrastructure. I don't think the Afghanis would respond well to the Taliban blowing up a hospital or a school, do you?

You obviously haven't spent much time as an insurgent. The primary objective of an insurgent is to deprive the current regime of legitimacy.

Since the invasion, the Taliban has had zero concern with winning the hearts and minds of the people. They want to remove any semblance of law, order, and stability in order to make the occupying forces and the current regime look incompetent.

As long as the current regime looks incompetent, the people won't support them or cooperate with their programs. Only when NATO gives up on this Sysiphean mission in Afghanistan, concedes and pulls out, will the Taliban start worrying about what the Afghanis "respond well to."