Afghanistan IED overview

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Sobering.

[JonS]

holy cr@p!

[Michael Emrys]

I believe that's called escalation. A bit like a chain reaction isn't it? And maybe for somewhat similar reasons: success breeds imitation.

Michael

[MeatEtr]

Damn, not looking good over there.

[Affentitten]

Interesting though the geographical limitations there. The central area was pretty much untouched. But the Kandahar region was just ballistic.

[dieseltaylor]

Looking at the figures, and excluding " enemy " casualties, the casualty rate is about 1 wounded and 0.33 dead per IED. Enemy losses appear to be one per 12 IED. A very large number appeared to be failures, though it is not clear if the greens includes controlled explosions on discovered IED's. This does banjax the figures slightly.

I say "enemy" as I think the IRA used to hold families hostage whilst some poor bugger had to deliver the bomb - civilised not.

Great graphic though the music detracted.

[hcrof]

Interesting though the geographical limitations there. The central area was pretty much untouched. But the Kandahar region was just ballistic.

The central area in predominantly Hazari and Shia. They traditionally do not like the Taliban there. The vast majority of the IEDs come from the Pashtun areas,

http://www.history-map.com/picture/000/Afghanistan-groups-Ethnic-in.htm

[Affentitten]

Yes I know. It's just interesting to see that divide illustrated in graphical violence.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A few things struck me. Naturally the dramatic increase and the region bound nature of it leap out at you.

But also that bomb laying is a seasonal job.

But it sure is grimmer then I expected and I consider myself fairly well informed.

[Secondbrooks]

I don't remember where is read it from (probably from these forums) that Summer indeed is active phase in Afganistan.

When were the presidental elections last time? Back then atleast in AO of Sweden and Finland there was much more of action compared to usual state of affairs. But that was more about fact that Swedes and Finns both got reinforcements for duration of elections and stretched their patrols to areas which usually were left without patrolling (Pashtun area probably). But usually i think it was about hostiles opening small arms fire from distance at patrol and skirmishes with small arms following that rather than driving into IED(ambushes). Infact with IED-incidents that time might have been even relatively quiet.

And i agree with Elmar Bijlsma that there were IEDs going off in Finn/Swede area all over the time, much more and in much more higher intensity that of what i've been aware of. I think i've heard all the injuring ones and fatalies, but there were lots of green spots as well.

[Affentitten]

Thought this quote was a good one:

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson-that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors."

President Ronald Reagan - March 21, 1983

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm

[dieseltaylor]

Kind of sickening in its way. Hypocrisy? Change of team? Realpolotik?

On another discordant[possibly] note this article about heroism, and "our heroes"

http://www.alternet.org/story/147610/figthing_wars_doesn%27t_make_you_a_hero?page=entire

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Not really.

Afghanistan wasn't all that backwards in the late 70s when the faeces hit the rotational airflow device. Rural parts excepted, but where is that not a universal truth? The Muhajedeen of the 80s are not identical to the Taliban of today. Their particular brand of religious nutjobbery is fairly recent.

[hcrof]

Elmar, I think a lot of the Mujahadeen in the '80s were pretty bad as far as extremism goes. Maybe not as far as today but unsavoury to say the least. Ironically, it is these guys who received most of the US funding as it channelled through the ISI. The more moderate guys were supported by others such as Iran.

The Taliban are a sickening bunch of people but they were not the only ones committing atrocities in the civil war.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

ESpecially late in the Afghan war it got ugly as the Afghans reverted back to a feudal system. That led to a lot of barbarity. But the underlying rason wasn't religious. It was indeed the religious nuts that seemed a saviour from this lawlessness.

What is truly baffling is that to this day large amounts of US money is still being pumped towards the Afghani Taliban by the ISI. You'd think someone somewhere would think it about time to stop that. Especially since the Pakistan Taliban turned against the central government.

[hcrof]

I suppose you are right. The atrocities seemed to be tribal, not religious based for the most part. When the Taliban got involved they lost a lot of credibility.

As for Pakistan supporting the Taliban, I think they believe they will win eventually so want then to be friendly when they do. The US probably knows that some their money is funding the Taliban but what can they do? If they lose the (albeit limited) support of the Pakistani government/military then the floodgates will open.

[Dietrich]

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson-that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors."

President Ronald Reagan - March 21, 1983

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm

In other words, "Any enemy of the USSR/Communism is a friend of ours", correct? Didn't the US support -- clandestinely and sometimes not so clandestinely -- anti-communist forces/regimes throughout the world and throughout the Cold War?

That said, the USA's "the commies must be fought tooth and nail in every place" stance is unsurprising when you consider how willing western European powers were to parley with Hitler in the mid 1930s because he was obessively opposed to communism.

[Affentitten]

In other words, "Any enemy of the USSR/Communism is a friend of ours", correct? Didn't the US support -- clandestinely and sometimes not so clandestinely -- anti-communist forces/regimes throughout the world and throughout the Cold War?

Yes. And?

The quote for me is all about that word 'freedom' that is easy to bandy around. And that oince we admired these low tech resisters for their quaint IEDs.

[Stalins Organ]

Uh...I don't think Hitler's opposition to communism had much to do with the "peace in our time" stuff of the 30's - that was mainly down to internal political and military weakness - the French were desperate not to fight another war and had a socialist Govt in 1936-39, and the British knew that they simply couldn't - unfortunately neither of them realised that Germany couldn't either!

[Dietrich]

The quote for me is all about that word 'freedom' that is easy to bandy around. And that oince we admired these low tech resisters for their quaint IEDs.

True, my take on the quote was less pertinent than your reason for citing it in the first place.

Uh...I don't think Hitler's opposition to communism had much to do with the "peace in our time" stuff of the 30's - that was mainly down to internal political and military weakness - the French were desperate not to fight another war and had a socialist Govt in 1936-39' date=' and the British knew that they simply couldn't - unfortunately neither of them realised that Germany couldn't either![/quote']

I was simply referring to how, AIUI, the western European powers were more inclined to try working with Hitler than they were to try working with [the] communists. (Since the Russian Revolution, haven't every non-communist government and the rich/powerful who back it been at least somewhat afraid of populist overthrow?) Then again, perhaps I've read the wrong history books or just too few of the right ones. And I didn't mean to assert that Hitler's opposition to communism was as significant a factor as even the least of the other factors you pointed out.

Having shown myself incapable of making worthwhile contributions to this discussion, I humbly bow out of it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think you have to be very careful about drawing parallels between the current conflict and the 1980s. The US and Soviet Union had rather different motivations and justifications for their respective involvements, and I think despite the many shortcomings of Karzai's government it scores lower on the oppress-o-meter than did the Taliban.

[Stalins Organ]

But that's probably unimportant to Afghani's - what is important is how well it scores on the bring-peace-and-prosperity-and-not-be-corrupt-ometer.

Opression will succeed if people fear it more than they want the alternative.

What does Karzai offer Afghani's that will motivate them to fight against the Taliban themselves? 'cos if it is not enough then he's lost already and we're just going through the process of informing everyone about it!

At the moment opinion seems to be that Karzai isn't offering something to Afghani's that they are willing to fight to defend.

[Vanir Ausf B]

True, the Afghans don't care about that. But we apparently do.

As for the Afghans, from what I have read when they are asked whether they would rather live under Karzai or the Taliban most of them say "C: none of the above". Unfortunately for them they probably aren't going to get that choice.

[Stalins Organ]

True, the Afghans don't care about that. But we apparently do.

Yep - there's a fundamental disconnect between what "we" are trying to achieve, and what the natives actually want. It's all going to end in tears unless that is fixed.

As for the Afghans, from what I have read when they are asked whether they would rather live under Karzai or the Taliban most of them say "C: none of the above". Unfortunately for them they probably aren't going to get that choice.

Yep..and nope...respectively.... or something like that.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

From what interviews of Afghans I've seen, most like the theory of central government but have not seen much more of it in practise. In no small part they attribute this to corruption and dysfunction. The Afghan government aren't even very prone to paying wages to their teachers, police and military.

Most also lean towards disliking the Taliban but give credit to them for at the least making the trains run on time. (or sumfink)

Man cannot live of political theorem alone, but so far that's about all the central government is offering. Until that changes there's no hope.