NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465056,00.html
In approving the deployment of Tornado jets to Afghanistan, but only for reconnaissance purposes, the German cabinet has revealed the full extent of Germany's schizophrenic Afghanistan policy. This double game has to stop. The chancellor should finally say it like it is: Germany is at war.

And a few more related links, all worth having a look at:
Canadian Ambassador about their allies' commitment (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463487,00.html)
The hick-hack about the Tornados (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,464892,00.html)
The German media's response to it all (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465157,00.html)

So what do you reckon? Are we really at war? Should NATO governments be making more of an effort to convey that fact to their voters? Should we maybe make a serious one or two year effort, sending a serious number of combat troops in there and really go to work on the Taliban, together with the Pakistanis even across the border? Would you be in favour of such a step? What should be done in Afghanistan?

Or is it all the Americans' fault? ;)

If bullets are flying and bombs being dropped. Then I would say that equals a war. Just turn on any news source and you wont have to wait long to hear about it. Anyone says we are not in one is brain damaged.

Of course we're at war...the Taliban is still active, al-Qaeda hasn't been defeated, and we're still trying to build a working democratic government in Afghanistan while simultaneously stamping out al-Qaeda cells worldwide. The only real difference is that it's not a true conventional war.

I swear, the media circus surrounding Iraq has done nothing but make people forget the real fight by the coalition forces against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the ongoing war against terror by the police, intelligence forces, military, and private sector in nations around the world.

We are at war, and it is a real fight against a real enemy that wants us dead.

We are at war, and it is a real fight against a real enemy that wants us dead.
I suppose it's probably not so obvious in the States, but politicians in Europe are at pains to avoid trying to mention the word, especially in Germany.

I'm just thinking that most people understand that NATO is doing something worthwhile in Afghanistan, but the politicians are so scared that they never bring up a debate at the end of which might finally stand a serious commitment.

Also a good article: The Germans have to learn how to kill (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html)

But it's not against a "country" any more, it's against an orginization operating within the country, where the countries own forces are even trying to get rid of it now.

Does that still count?

But it's not against a "country" any more, it's against an orginization operating within the country, where the countries own forces are even trying to get rid of it now.

Does that still count?

There are many groups that fight that are "stateless". I guess the best example would be the communist Chinese. They evolved within a state and displaced a government. Is it no less a war then if it commies actually had a "state" of its own to begin with? Were the Nazi's not hunted down because of them being stateless now? Of course not.

There are many groups that fight that are "stateless". I guess the best example would be the communist Chinese. They evolved within a state and displaced a government. Is it no less a war then if it commies actually had a "state" of its own to begin with? Were the Nazi's not hunted down because of them being stateless now? Of course not.

But I don't think thats the sort of war people are thinking of.

But I don't think thats the sort of war people are thinking of.

If people can't figure out the what war is then I don't know if anything will help them. War is many different forms. There is no one single definition of it. History is ripe with examples of this.

But I don't think thats the sort of war people are thinking of.
British commanders reckon it's the biggest combat operations since Korea for them. Bigger than Falklands, bigger than Iraq I.

So, yes, I'd call that war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgYxi2LeJYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaC-w2dIxZc

Bump.

Seems like this thread is getting the Afghanistan-treatment. :D

British commanders reckon it's the biggest combat operations since Korea for them. Bigger than Falklands, bigger than Iraq I.

key word is conflict officially we haven’t been to war since WWII

edit: bugger can't find the vid that made me join CBT med :(

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465056,00.html


And a few more related links, all worth having a look at:
Canadian Ambassador about their allies' commitment (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463487,00.html)
The hick-hack about the Tornados (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,464892,00.html)
The German media's response to it all (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465157,00.html)

So what do you reckon? Are we really at war? Should NATO governments be making more of an effort to convey that fact to their voters? Should we maybe make a serious one or two year effort, sending a serious number of combat troops in there and really go to work on the Taliban, together with the Pakistanis even across the border? Would you be in favour of such a step? What should be done in Afghanistan?

Or is it all the Americans' fault? ;)
You don't mean attack Pakistan do you?

If bullets are flying and bombs being dropped. Then I would say that equals a war. Just turn on any news source and you wont have to wait long to hear about it. Anyone says we are not in one is brain damaged.


I agree with that one.

You don't mean attack Pakistan do you?

If the objective is to remove the taliban threat once and for all, then there is no other way except to destroy them at their bases (NWFP, Quetta etc). It is where their leadership, regrouping, rearming, planning, recruiting etc takes place.

Current US/NATO strategy of staying put inside fortresses (mostly....compared to active patrolling) and killing taliban by the scores when challenged won't cut it. No matter how many you kill the lower ranks will always get replenished thanks to the base pool of millions of young Punjabis and Pushtuns in Pakistan. Eventually a Tet offensive will happen, war will be unpopular in western capitals and it will become increasingly hard to maintain even the semblance of presence that US/NATO has now - leaving the field wide open for taliban to take over like they did in early 90s. This is what taliban is banking on....that US/NATO will eventually withdraw.

If the objective is to remove the taliban threat once and for all, then there is no other way except to destroy them at their bases (NWFP, Quetta etc). It is where their leadership, regrouping, rearming, planning, recruiting etc takes place.

Current US/NATO strategy of staying put inside fortresses (mostly....compared to active patrolling) and killing taliban by the scores when challenged won't cut it. No matter how many you kill the lower ranks will always get replenished thanks to the base pool of millions of young Punjabis and Pushtuns in Pakistan. Eventually a Tet offensive will happen, war will be unpopular in western capitals and it will become increasingly hard to maintain even the semblance of presence that US/NATO has now - leaving the field wide open for taliban to take over like they did in early 90s. This is what taliban is banking on....that US/NATO will eventually withdraw.

Pakistan is unattackable (if that's even a word) for nato though because of UK domestic politics.

Pakistan is unattackable (if that's even a word) for nato though because of UK domestic politics.

Bite the bullet now or let the problem grow and deal with consequences later - that's the choice the west has in Afg. Tough choice to be fair.

Bite the bullet now or let the problem grow and deal with consequences later - that's the choice the west has in Afg. Tough choice to be fair.

Well the UK can't bit the bullet. (Nice ref. though). The Pakistan lobby is far to insanely powerful there.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GermansToTheFront.jpg

I'm afraid, yes.

So what do you reckon? Are we really at war?

The common working definition of war I generally see being used in Poli-Sci circles is a military conflict with over a 1000 deaths. By that definition, yes.

And a point for those trying to split hairs regarding a declaration of war: a declaration of war has never been considered the defining feature of a war - international custom and law generally recognise this. The recent - post-WWII - history of undeclared wars is largely driven by the use of euphemisms for domestic political purposes, particularly PR and conflicts over checks on the power of (usually) the executive branch.

Should NATO governments be making more of an effort to convey that fact to their voters?

Yes. I think honesty in such matters is important. The use of euphemisms is a dangerous self-deception.

Should we maybe make a serious one or two year effort, sending a serious number of combat troops in there and really go to work on the Taliban, together with the Pakistanis even across the border?

Should we? That appears to be a good start. However, the real questions are can we and will we? I don't see it as being likely that we can or will, due to the lack of political will and the dangers of igniting an even larger conflict in Pakistan. (Gambling with the security of a government of a nuclear power, one that is fighting to control it's own people, is probably a bad idea.)

What should be done in Afghanistan?

Surprisingly (;)), my answer there is pretty much the same as Iraq - adequate forces need to be put in, regional diplomacy needs to be stepped up, and reasonable accomidations need to be reached. And again, I doubt that will be done. What's likely to happen is continued incompetent (on the part of the politicians) muddling through.

Or is it all the Americans' fault? ;)

Isn't it always? ;)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465056,00.html


And a few more related links, all worth having a look at:
Canadian Ambassador about their allies' commitment (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463487,00.html)
The hick-hack about the Tornados (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,464892,00.html)
The German media's response to it all (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,465157,00.html)

So what do you reckon? Are we really at war? Should NATO governments be making more of an effort to convey that fact to their voters? Should we maybe make a serious one or two year effort, sending a serious number of combat troops in there and really go to work on the Taliban, together with the Pakistanis even across the border? Would you be in favour of such a step? What should be done in Afghanistan?

Or is it all the Americans' fault? ;)

Live up to your obligations.

I suppose it's probably not so obvious in the States, but politicians in Europe are at pains to avoid trying to mention the word, especially in Germany.

Jee I wonder why? Could it be all the bloodshed that has taken place on the European Continent over the last few hundred years? You people really need to get on the ball and realize that the world is a very dangerous place and that it always has been.

There is no more room for Political Correctness in politics. Its time to slam our enemies to the ground along with those that support them.

I'm just thinking that most people understand that NATO is doing something worthwhile in Afghanistan, but the politicians are so scared that they never bring up a debate at the end of which might finally stand a serious commitment.

Because they are chicken that their people are going to get hurt. Well guess what? People get hurt in war. Its high time our allies stood up to the plate and actually do something instead of relying on us to bear the burden.

If people can't figure out the what war is then I don't know if anything will help them. War is many different forms. There is no one single definition of it. History is ripe with examples of this.

Hear Hear!

Pakistan is unattackable (if that's even a word) for nato though because of UK domestic politics.

Which has got to change if we have any hope of actually doing something totally constructive.

I'm of the opinion that the BRD ought to admit the truth.

The 60 year hiatus is over, Germany is fighting a war. Admittedly, a low intensity conflict in a far away land, populated with an isolated people and not for territorial aggrandizement. But Germany is at war all the same.

And all this time we thought the only folks the Germans would fight would be the Russians, in Germany.

/incoherent drunk ramblings

/incoherent drunk ramblings

At least you can type while drunk...

At least you can type while drunk...

It's a gift from Gawd!

It's a gift from Gawd!

Yeah, I tried logging in to NS last night...didn't work. I couldn't even spell Vetalia right.

Jee I wonder why? Could it be all the bloodshed that has taken place on the European Continent over the last few hundred years? You people really need to get on the ball and realize that the world is a very dangerous place and that it always has been.

There is no more room for Political Correctness in politics. Its time to slam our enemies to the ground along with those that support them.

Because they are chicken that their people are going to get hurt. Well guess what? People get hurt in war. Its high time our allies stood up to the plate and actually do something instead of relying on us to bear the burden.
If the U.S. hadn't strolled off to fight that stupid war in Iraq but instead focused on the task at hand in Afghanistan, the situation there wouldn't look as grim as it does now. You fucked it up, you go fix it.

You people really need to get on the ball and realize that the world is a very dangerous place and that it always has been.
Surely that is the oversimplification of the century.

Its high time our allies stood up to the plate and actually do something instead of relying on us to bear the burden.
NATO is, believe it or not, a US-led alliance. The US spends all that money on its military partly because it will always be the main contributor in NATO operations.

The US abandoned Afghanistan too early. They fully well knew that the other militaries weren't ready for this, neither militarily nor politically. The administration didn't care, probably didn't even see a problem (regime changed, problem solved, let's leave, if that sounds familiar...).

That being said, I think one short-term solution is to put ISAF and Enduring Freedom together, and thus get rid of the restrictions that various European governments have put on their troops. Although the German military for example is in no position to send even more forces (it's just not an intervention army just yet), it would help greatly if those that actually are there could be used more flexibly.

who'se "we"? i'm not at war with anyone and don't intend to be.

bush is trying to take on the whole world like a retarded egotistic bully,
but that's HIS problem. i damd sure don't support his, or anyone else's doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

I suppose the tragic thing is that German soldiers probably are in the thick of it already, doing all the dirty stuff we don't hear about.

The KSK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSK) has been doing missions in southern Afghanistan for a long time, but because it's all top secret no one ever hears about it. I don't think they even tell anyone if a KSK operator gets killed (except the family maybe).

So the government is willing to do all sorts of things, the public is probably willing to make something of a commitment, and the two just won't talk to each other.

If the U.S. hadn't strolled off to fight that stupid war in Iraq but instead focused on the task at hand in Afghanistan, the situation there wouldn't look as grim as it does now. You fucked it up, you go fix it.

Even if we didn't go into Iraq, Afghanistan would still be a mess and everyone would bemoaning the casualties being suffered there. That is the name of the game.

Even if we didn't go into Iraq, Afghanistan would still be a mess and everyone would bemoaning the casualties being suffered there. That is the name of the game.
Purely hypothetical...imagine if NATO had the 180,000 or so troops from Iraq to play with in Afghanistan.

Well the UK can't bit the bullet. (Nice ref. though). The Pakistan lobby is far to insanely powerful there.

This is the nice way of saying "There are thousands of Pakistani-descended terrorists in the UK ready to blow the UK to bits."
Others might want to avoid the big elephant in the room (no, I am not talking about the Republican party) but I won't.

Surely that is the oversimplification of the century.

I realize that it is an oversimplification.

[/quotNATO is, believe it or not, a US-led alliance. The US spends all that money on its military partly because it will always be the main contributor in NATO operations.

Regretably true but I wish other nations in NATO actually stands up and assists in the main contribution part of it. Yea I can dream can't I?

The US abandoned Afghanistan too early.

Last time I checked, we are still fighting over in Afghanistan so I would not be going as far to say that we have completely abandoned Afghanistan for that is simply not true.

They fully well knew that the other militaries weren't ready for this, neither militarily nor politically. The administration didn't care, probably didn't even see a problem (regime changed, problem solved, let's leave, if that sounds familiar...).

When you are incharge of a country that is attacked, you have to do what you can to defend it. That means taking action and if people are not ready for it then screw them.

That being said, I think one short-term solution is to put ISAF and Enduring Freedom together, and thus get rid of the restrictions that various European governments have put on their troops.

That'll be a good idea.

Although the German military for example is in no position to send even more forces (it's just not an intervention army just yet), it would help greatly if those that actually are there could be used more flexibly.

agreed with you.

who'se "we"? i'm not at war with anyone and don't intend to be.

bush is trying to take on the whole world like a retarded egotistic bully,
but that's HIS problem. i damd sure don't support his, or anyone else's doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

So we should not be going after Al Qaeda?

As to the word we, that is referring to the INternational Community.

Purely hypothetical...imagine if NATO had the 180,000 or so troops from Iraq to play with in Afghanistan.

Imagine if NATO got involved in Iraq! Think of all those troops that could have been used to help knock off this insurgency.

And yes it is hypothetical but seeing what I am seeing on TV, it is not on the insane side and on the side that nothing would be extremely different.

When you are incharge of a country that is attacked, you have to do what you can to defend it. That means taking action and if people are not ready for it then screw them.
Now, now, if you wanted to talk "we are attacked", then your case gets weaker still.

Remember, the US was attacked, but everyone came to help in Afghanistan. Apart from maybe the UK and France not one NATO military had the sort of structures in place to fight in Afghanistan, but everyone raised their hands to help out.

And that commitment has remained (though it has been weakened substantially by what followed in terms of treating one's allies and friends). But despite it all, it should have been pretty clear to the administration that for all the good intentions, the US is a decade or so in front in terms of power projection, and in a different world alltogether in terms of domestic attitudes to war. Taking its focus away from Afghanistan, and leaving the "mop-up operations" to a weakened, diverse force of ill-prepared militaries without a clear policy was a stupid idea.

Ranting afterwards about allies "not stepping up to the plate" is hardly fair, nor particularly helpful.

So we should not be going after Al Qaeda?


Al Qaeda is long gone. All that remain are the ideas and a few crazy men with beards and too much money.

In any case, last time i checked, terrorism is something that the police should deal with, probably Interpol in this case, and not the American Army.

I suppose the tragic thing is that German soldiers probably are in the thick of it already, doing all the dirty stuff we don't hear about.
The KSK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSK) has been doing missions in southern Afghanistan for a long time, but because it's all top secret no one ever hears about it. I don't think they even tell anyone if a KSK operator gets killed (except the family maybe).
So the government is willing to do all sorts of things, the public is probably willing to make something of a commitment, and the two just won't talk to each other.
And that is the part about the whole ordeal I like the least. I want to know what's going on and who gets killed supposedly for my freedom.
Even if we didn't go into Iraq, Afghanistan would still be a mess and everyone would bemoaning the casualties being suffered there. That is the name of the game.
Purely hypothetical...imagine if NATO had the 180,000 or so troops from Iraq to play with in Afghanistan.
Exactly. Besides, I don't think the invasion of Iraq helped calm the situation down at all.
Regretably true but I wish other nations in NATO actually stands up and assists in the main contribution part of it. Yea I can dream can't I?
Oh please - the U.S. had all my support when NATO went into Afghanistan. They lost it when the aim switched to the unjustified invasion of Iraq.
Last time I checked, we are still fighting over in Afghanistan so I would not be going as far to say that we have completely abandoned Afghanistan for that is simply not true.
You added the "completely". But you can't argue that the war in Iraq dramatically changed the manpower and funding that would've been allocated to the effort in Afghanistan.
When you are incharge of a country that is attacked, you have to do what you can to defend it. That means taking action and if people are not ready for it then screw them.
Like attacking the wrong country?
Imagine if NATO got involved in Iraq! Think of all those troops that could have been used to help knock off this insurgency.
Do you have the slightest idea what would be going on in the streets of Europe if somebody tried to implement that?
The insurgency happened because the U.S. is fighting a wrong war in the wrong place.
Now, now, if you wanted to talk "we are attacked", then your case gets weaker still.
Remember, the US was attacked, but everyone came to help in Afghanistan. Apart from maybe the UK and France not one NATO military had the sort of structures in place to fight in Afghanistan, but everyone raised their hands to help out.
And that commitment has remained (though it has been weakened substantially by what followed in terms of treating one's allies and friends). But despite it all, it should have been pretty clear to the administration that for all the good intentions, the US is a decade or so in front in terms of power projection, and in a different world alltogether in terms of domestic attitudes to war. Taking its focus away from Afghanistan, and leaving the "mop-up operations" to a weakened, diverse force of ill-prepared militaries without a clear policy was a stupid idea.
Ranting afterwards about allies "not stepping up to the plate" is hardly fair, nor particularly helpful.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you.

Well the UK can't bit the bullet. (Nice ref. though). The Pakistan lobby is far to insanely powerful there.

The US can. But will it ?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1588074,00.html
(Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan) — Asserting a right to self-defense, American forces in eastern Afghanistan have launched artillery rounds into Pakistan to strike Taliban fighters who attack remote U.S. outposts, the commander of U.S. forces in the region said Sunday.

The skirmishes are politically sensitive because Pakistan's government, regarded by the Bush administration as an important ally against Islamic extremists, has denied that it allows U.S. forces to strike inside its territory.

The use of the largely ungoverned Waziristan area of Pakistan as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters has become a greater irritant between Washington and Islamabad since Pakistan put in place a peace agreement there in September that was intended to stop cross-border incursions.

Army Col. John W. Nicholson, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, said in an Associated Press interview that rather than halt such incursions, the peace deal has led to a substantial increase.

Pakistani border forces, which had been active in stopping Taliban incursions into Afghanistan as recently as last spring, stopped offensive actions against them once the peace deal took effect, he said.

"That did relax some of the pressure on the enemy," Nicholson said.

Members of Nicholson's brigade, which is based at Fort Drum, N.Y., recently were told that instead of going home this month after a yearlong tour, they will stay for an extra four months, until June.

Nicholson told the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, that this news hit soldiers and their families hard, but that they are now adjusting well. Cody is traveling in Afghanistan.

The brigade of about 3,500 soldiers is being kept in Afghanistan because senior commanders decided they needed more forces to deal with an anticipated Taliban offensive this spring. The offensive is expected to focus not only on eastern Afghanistan but also the south, where the traditional Taliban stronghold of Kandahar is seen as a prized target. NATO forces operate in that area.

Nicholson described the fighting along the border, particularly in Afghanistan's Paktika and Khost provinces, as intense. In some cases, he said, the Taliban have crossed the border at night, using wire cutters to breach the perimeter of small U.S. outposts, "trying to get hand grenades into our bunkers."

"I mean we're talking World War I type of stuff," Nicholson said. "These are some very sharp, intense fights" initiated by an enemy he described as resilient and undeterred by superior U.S. firepower.

"They'll keep coming back," he said.

When Taliban forces on the Pakistan side of the border fire on U.S. outposts on the Afghan side, the Americans are equipped to quickly pinpoint the launch location using radar and then strike back with artillery, he said.

"We do not allow the enemy to fire with impunity on our soldiers, and we have the inherent right of self defense," he said, speaking by video teleconference from his headquarters at Jalalabad air field. "Even if those fires are coming from across the border (in Pakistan), we have the right to defense ourselves, and we exercise that right." He added later, "We do fire missions across the border."

Nicholson responded to questions from an AP reporter after the commander spoke by video teleconference with Cody.

Cody had planned to fly to Jalalabad to meet with Nicholson and other commanders but poor weather forced him to remain at Bagram, the main American air base in Afghanistan.

Nicholson told Cody that U.S. forces have made important strides this winter in persuading local Afghans to side with the U.S.-backed government and to be less accommodating to the Taliban. The Taliban have been resurgent in some parts of the country after being driven from power by U.S. forces in 2001.

Nicholson's area of responsibility includes the border provinces from Nuristan to Paktika. He said his forces are not required to get approval from Pakistan before responding to an attack. But he emphasized that efforts are made to warn Pakistani government forces along the border to clear the intended target area before U.S. artillery is launched.

"We make every effort to communicate with the Pakistan military," he said, Nicholson said the computers used to target U.S. artillery are programmed with the map coordinates of Pakistani border posts.

"If a fire mission is being called that would impact on a Pakistan border post, we typically will not shoot — we will not shoot that mission," he said.

The United States has given radios to Pakistan border posts so they can communicate with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, he said. If U.S. troops are unable to contact them directly before launching an artillery assault, an illumination round is fired first as a means of warning the Pakistanis that high explosives will follow.

I am having rethinks about the Pakistan army's "peace deal" and withdrawal from the border areas. They maybe just getting out of the way of "hot pursuits" by US/NATO. But the border posts are still there and many are very sympathetic to taliban (blind eye to taliban movement across the border).

Let's see what happens in the impending "Spring offensive" of the taliban.

Also a good article: The Germans have to learn how to kill (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html)

"By Konstantin von Hammerstein..."

Coolest. Name. Ever.

US General says

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2007/15/index2.php
US Gen. calls for 'direct' attacks on Taliban/al-Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan

Our Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Stating that Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership presence inside Pakistan "remains a very significant problem," a U.S. Army general has suggested "direct attacks" against their sanctuaries across the border.
"A steady, direct attack against the command and control in Pakistan in sanctuary areas is essential for us to achieve success," Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the outgoing top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told a congressional committee Tuesday.
He thus joined other U.S. officials in publicly pressuring the Pakistan government to crack down on the safe havens in its frontier regions.
Eikenberry also said that the insurgency is feeding off the lack of infrastructure as well as government in Afghanistan. At the same time, the general said that Osama bin Laden is a small part of the problem in Afghanistan.
In response to a question from Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor at a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, he said the capture of the al-Qaeda leader would not have an immediate impact on the violence and instability plaguing NATO troops and residents in Afghanistan.
"Bin Laden remains one person, an important person that we need to bring to justice, but he remains one person in a much larger global international terrorist network," Eikenberry said.
The Afghan reconstruction has been a "very difficult process because our baseline that we began with in 2001 is really just ashes, a country decimated by three decades of warfare and through the occupation of international terrorism, so we're trying to build from that."
It has also been a challenge to plug outside financing coming into the Taliban from "non-state actors," Eikenberry said.
PAKISTAN
In this context, the general urged Pakistan to crack down on an entrenched network of senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, training camps and recruiting grounds -- a sanctuary from which fighters have tripled cross-border attacks since September and are preparing an anticipated major spring offensive in southern and eastern Afghanistan.
He also warned that an even greater threat than the resurgent Taliban is the possibility that the government of President Hamid Karzai will suffer an irreversible loss of legitimacy among the Afghan population.
In response to the rising security threats, the Pentagon is expected to announce soon that it will keep U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan at a minimum of 27,000 into 2008, extending a temporary increase of 3,200 combat troops ordered last month.
Eikenberry, who has spent two of the past four years in Afghanistan, offered his assessment not only of the progress in Afghanistan but also of the stark challenges ahead. He also warned of the "growing threat of Talibanization" inside Pakistan.
"The long-term threat to campaign success . . . is the potential irretrievable loss of legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan," he said.
"The accumulated effects of violent terrorist insurgent attacks, corruption, insufficient social resources and growing income disparities, all overlaid by a major international presence, are taking their toll on Afghan government legitimacy," he said. "A point could be reached at which the government of Afghanistan becomes irrelevant to its people, and the goal of establishing a democratic, moderate, self-sustaining state could be lost forever."
A critical question, Eikenberry said, is whether the Afghan government is "winning." "In several critical areas -- corruption, justice, law enforcement and counter-narcotics -- it is not," he said. He called Afghan government institutions "extraordinarily weak."
Greater U.S. and international efforts are urgently needed to build a court and corrections system in Afghanistan, and to strengthen efforts to train an Afghanistan police force, which he said is "several years behind" compared with the development of the Afghan army. The Pentagon is seeking $5.9 billion this year and $2.7 billion in 2008 to build up Afghan security forces, including the police.
Eikenberry stressed that Taliban forces -- though making gains in relatively lawless regions of southern Afghanistan, which had few coalition troops until last summer -- have not been able to retake areas where the Afghan government and security forces have established a presence.
The decision to dispatch more U.S. forces is intended to bolster NATO's total contingent of 36,000 troops and to allow NATO to go on the offensive against a resurgent Taliban, Eikenberry said. NATO, which now has military oversight over all of Afghanistan, has provided only about 85 to 90 percent of the promised troops and other resources, and it faces shortages of infantry, military intelligence, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, Eikenberry said.
"NATO must do more," Mary Beth Long, principal deputy assistant secretary of defence for international security, testified in the same House hearing.
The Taliban resurgence has been supported by a strengthened command-and-control structure that moved across the border into Pakistan after U.S. forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001, he said. Today, Eikenberry said, senior Taliban leaders from the ousted regime are collaborating with al-Qaeda leaders, as well as with other groups led by the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani clan of an ethnically Pashtun tribe.
The United States is "terribly concerned" about the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership in Quetta, and other regions that direct attacks, conduct training in camps with the help of foreign fighters, and recruit from Islamic schools known as madrassas. "Action against those will be needed," Ms. Long said.
About Pakistan's government's peace agreement with tribal elders in North Waziristan in September, the general said cross-border attacks have as much as tripled. "There've been problems with" the agreement, he said.