"Spray and Pray" and other problems . . .

Taliban fighters training in Afghanistan in 2009.

THE NYT BLOG, "AT WAR", NOTES FROM THE FRONT LINES has an article by C.J. Chivers, "The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship". Apparently, the Muj just don't have what it takes to get the round in the X-ring. The problem has a number of sources: lack of training ("Spray and Pray"), vision problems, bad, inconsistent ammo, and poor firearms maintenance.

Last week, At War opened a conversation about Afghan marksmanship by publishing rough data from several dozen recent firefights between the Taliban and three Marine rifle companies in and near Marja, the location of the recent offensive in Helmand Province. The data showed that while the Taliban can be canny and brave in combat their rifle fire is often remarkably ineffective.

Many factors are at play. Some of you jumped ahead and submitted comments that would fit neatly on the list; thank you for the insights. Our list includes these: limited Taliban knowledge of marksmanship fundamentals, a frequent reliance on automatic fire from assault rifles, the poor condition of many of those rifles, old and mismatched ammunition that is also in poor condition, widespread eye problems and uncorrected vision, and the difficulties faced by a scattered force in organizing quality training.

when it comes to rifle fighting, the Taliban – absent major shifts in training, equipment and logistics – are likely to remain mediocre or worse at one of the central skills of modern war. And the chance of any individual American or Afghan soldier being shot will remain very small. The flip side is that parts of the list can also be read as bad news for Western military units, because Afghan army and police ranks are dense with non-shooters, too.

Next on the list was a matter of public health. Many Afghans suffer from uncorrected vision problems, which have roots in factors ranging from poor childhood nutrition to the scarcity of medical care. Using the iron sights on an infantry rifle requires a mix of vision-related tasks. A shooter must be able to discern both the rifle’s rear and front sights (directly in front of the shooter’s face) and also see the target (as far as several hundred yards off). Then the former must be aligned with the latter. This is difficult in ideal circumstances for lightly trained gunmen; for some people with bad vision, it might be almost impossible. Over the years many officers and noncommissioned officers who train Afghan police and soldiers have said that a significant number of Afghan recruits struggle because of their eyesight. The Taliban recruit their fighters from the same population; poor vision can be expected to be a factor in their poor riflery.

Let's just hope they don't acquire some nice, clean Moison-Nagants or Dragunovs with scopes from the Great Patriotic War — and the training on their proper use and care.

Marketing

THE NEW YORKER has a delightful piece by Andy Borowitz, "Not Your Father’s Taliban". It's a hoot.

Isn’t it time you took another look at . . . the Taliban™?

Not your father’s Taliban™. The New Taliban™. TalibanLite™.

We know what you’re thinking: “The Taliban™? Aren’t they the dudes who blow up shit and cut off body parts?”

LOL! You’re thinking of the Old Taliban™.

How do we know what you’re thinking?

Focus groups.

You’re, like, “Focus groups? Since when do the Taliban™ do focus groups?”

We’re, like, “Since Domino’s Pizza started doing them.”

You told Domino’s their crust tasted like cardboard and their sauce tasted like ketchup. Harsh, right? But your criticism only made their pizza much tastier. At the New Taliban™, we want to be the Domino’s of extremists.

So we held focus groups in caves across Afghanistan, only instead of talking about crust and sauce you talked about the things you didn’t like about us, like the way we explode things without warning and cut off ears, lips, and tongues. And you know what? It hurt to hear you say that stuff. But we’re big boys. We can take it. We sent your opinions down the hall to the guys in marketing, and this is what they came back with:

TalibanLite™: We’re Cutting Out the Cutting™.

Click on the link above to read the whole opus. Enjoy.

Vote Con or the Taliban wins

Responding to an amazingly leading question as to "whether he thought the Taliban would target Canada's military in an attempt to influence the election outcome", Peter MacKay takes the bait :

"I sure hope not," he said. "All I can tell you is the challenge is there, it's real. We've seen the tactics of the Taliban. ... Their tactics know no bounds, know no rules of engagement."

He said the government is aware the Taliban is not just “living in caves and attacking soldiers” and is informed about what is happening in Canada and other parts of the world through the Internet, which also helps them wage their own propaganda war.
"We're mindful of that, we're not deterred by the intimidation and we're going to continue our important work there to the benefit of the Afghan people," he said."

Apparently it's vote Con or the Taliban wins.

Pete then went on to say he doesn't give a rat's ass what Canadians think when asked about "a recent poll that suggested 61 per cent of Canadians believe the cost in lives and money is too high."

Nor does he much care for the opinions of the Afghans apparently.

AP : "A strong sense of frustration echoed through dozens of interviews by The Associated Press with Afghan villagers, police, government officials, tribal elders and Taliban who left and rejoined the religious movement. The interviews ranged from the capital, Kabul, to the rural regions near the border with Pakistan.
The overwhelming result: Ordinary Afghans are deeply bitter about American and NATO forces because of errant bombs, heavy-handed searches and seizures and a sense that the foreigners do not understand their culture. They are equally fed up with what they see as seven years of corruption and incompetence in a U.S.-backed government that has largely failed to deliver on development.
Even with more foreign troops, Afghanistan is now less secure.
"It certainly is a mess. Security is the worst that it has been for years. Corruption is out of control. It impacts every single Afghan," says Doug Wankel, a burly 62-year-old American who coordinated Washington's anti-drug policy in Afghanistan from 2004 until 2007 and is now back as a security consultant. "What people have to understand is that what ordinary Afghans think really does matter."

Not to our Pete.

Halifax Chronicle Herald : "It does come at a huge sacrifice," Mr. MacKay said. "The human cost is enormous but the benefits that flow to our country, certainly to Afghanistan and to our allies, are huge."

Huge.

AP : "It is now so dangerous outside the capital that Afghans are afraid to travel hundreds of miles of newly-paved roads, and most international aid groups have forbidden their staff to do so altogether. Truck drivers who have no choice often say thieves and thieving police are a bigger worry than the Taliban.

An air strike in Herat province about two weeks ago killed dozens of people. A U.S. investigation concluded that most were Taliban, but the Afghan government and the United Nations say up to 90 civilians died, including children

"There is a contradiction between wanting to minimize Afghan civilian casualties and minimizing U.S. military casualties," says Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador and National Security Council staff member. "For the former, we should go on the ground. For the latter, go in from the air."

AFP : Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands US and international forces in eastern Afghanistan, said Friday he needs more troops to counter growing insurgent violence in Afghanistan.

"The number of insurgent attacks has grown by 20 to 30 percent in the first eight months of this year in the eastern sector along the border with Pakistan, compared to the same period last year, he said. Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, while attacks on such "symbols of governance" as district centers are 40 percent higher this year than last."


Peter MacKay made his remarks at a military trade show.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Taliban threatens Canadian aid workers; CIDA limits liability

CBC : Canadians face more attacks, Taliban warns
"Just days after insurgents shot and killed two Canadian aid workers in eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban is warning similar attacks will occur.
The extremist group issued the warning in a letter posted on the internet, and the CBC confirmed its authenticity on Sunday after talking to Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid in Kandahar province:

"Events such as Logar will happen again," the letter said.

"The Afghans did not go to Canada to kill Canadians. Rather it is the Canadians who came to Afghanistan to kill and torture the Afghans to please the fascist regime of America," the letter said."

Meanwhile, the Canadian International Development Agency CIDA has quietly revised its grant agreements to further shield the government from responsibility when aid workers are killed even as they told some organizations that they are more likely to receive funding for projects based in Kandahar, one of the most dangerous provinces in the country :

"Canada "shall not be liable for any losses, claims, damages, or expenses relating to any injury, disease, illness, disability or death of the employees or subcontractors of the organization alleged to be caused as a result of performing the agreement."

Nice. Stay tuned for Steve to nonetheless proclaim that Canada will not cut and run... World stage and all that.

'I Wish I Had the Taliban as My Soldiers'

A refreshingly frank Spiegel interview with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which bears little resemblance to the whitewashed crap we are used to getting from the Canadian media.

SPIEGEL: Some of your closest aides are suspected of stealing land, drug smuggling and having illegal militias, among them respected governors and police chiefs. Your attorney general, Abdul Jabar Sabet, just named a few of them, including the governor of Nangarhar. Why do you still protect these people?

Karzai: I am not protecting anybody. We are trying to govern Afghanistan and bring peace and stability. I know about the problems with the police. The international community finally agreed after two years of very intense and angry negotiations that the police are a problem and in the middle of 2007 they began to work with us. The checkpoints on the roads, for example, were developed during the years of the Soviet invasion, a time when the country became lawless and each local commander set up his own checkpoint to collect money.

SPIEGEL: During the Taliban times there were no checkpoints at all.

Karzai: That was the best aspect of the Taliban. They did a lot wrong, but they also did a few things right. I wish I had the Taliban as my soldiers. I wish they were serving me and not people in Pakistan or others. When we came back to Afghanistan, the international community brought back all those people who had turned away from the Taliban …

SPIEGEL: … you mean the brutal commanders who fought in the civil war …

Karzai: … who then became partners with the foreign allies and are still paid by them today for their support. It is not always easy for me to find a way that can enable Afghanistan's administration to function.

SPIEGEL: Dirty deals are still necessary for the stability of Afghanistan?

Karzai: Absolutely necessary, because we lack the power to solve these problems in other ways. What do you want? War? Let me give you an example. We wanted to arrest a really terrible warlord, but we couldn't do it because he is being protected by a particular country. We found out that he was being paid $30,000 a month to stay on his good side. They even used his soldiers as guards …

continued....

Cross-posted at Creekside

Also from Spiegel : "Why NATO troops can't deliver peace in Afghanistan" :
"Last year, 1,469 bombs exploded along Afghan roads, a number almost five times as high as in 2004. There were 8,950 armed attacks on troops and civilian support personnel, 10 times more than only three years earlier. One hundred and thirty suicide bombers blew themselves up in 2007. There were three suicide bombings in 2004."

Taliban makes a direct threat to Canada, US and Europe

This ought to get the "pant-pissing brigade" into a lather.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

Sort of puts a lie to the "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" meme. All of this is apparently being organized by Mansoor Dadullah, brother of Mullah Dadullah, who was killed 12 May, 2007 and had been the Taliban's senior commander.

Before anyone goes off seiously half-cocked however, the Taliban power structure needs to be looked at.

When Mullah Dadullah was killed, Mullah Omar did not appoint Mansoor Dadullah in his place. Instead he appointed the much more experienced Mullah Bakht Mohammed as supreme Taliban commander in the southern region of Afghanistan. There are other veteran commanders in the eastern region who would object to Mansoor Dadullah being placed in a position of command. Mullah Berader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Saifullah Mansoor and the Tora Bora Military Front all have established organizations which will need proof of Mansoor's abilities to raise and lead a military force.

In short, there's a power struggle underway inside the Taliban and this latest announcement looks very much like Mansoor Dadullah posing to make a point with other leaders of the Afghan insurgency. Whether he actually has the wherewithal to move groups of suicide bombers to Europe and North America remains an open question.

The only thing in Dadullah's favour is that he is Taliban and familiar with the southern region of Afghanistan. Other prospects for commanders in the south are not Taliban by precise definition.

In any case, it should be interesting to watch what happens here. US intelligence doesn't seem to be taking it with much seriousness.

U.S. intelligence officials described the event as another example of "an aggressive and sophisticated propaganda campaign."

Maybe so, but counter-terrorism experts like Richard Clarke don't believe Dadullah's threat should be completely dismissed.

"It doesn't take too many who are willing to actually do it and be able to slip through the net and get into the United States or England and cause a lot of damage," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism official.

Maybe, but all that has to happen is to have the pants-pissers go into a panic and Dadullah will have succeeded without so much as giving his credit card number to Expedia.com.

When have these guys ever advertised their intentions?

Photos and video are available at the ABC link. If anybody can identify the landscape it would be helpful.

Karzai negotiating with the Taliban? That's "naive", isn't it?

Leftdog is right. It's time to ask Harper exactly what the mission in Afghanistan is all about, particularly after this little announcement by Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai.

President Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time Friday he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency. Karzai's assertion -- immediately rejected as false by a Taliban spokesman -- came as a suicide car bomber killed four people and wounded four others in Kabul, and militants overran a district in the volatile southeast.

Talk to the Taliban? Isn't that "emboldening the terrorists"? Karzai added this:

"Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country. ... They are the sons of this soil," Karzai said. "As they repent, as they regret, as they want to come back to their own country, they are welcome."

That goes to the line US senator Bill Frist was spouting in October 2006. It is the line Jack Layton was taking at the same time and from which he eventually backed away. It is the line the Conservatives were all calling "naive", as though it was a suggestion that wasn't even possible.

Now, we're hearing it from Karzai himself and it raises another question. Was the Canadian government aware that Karzai is talking with the Taliban? If so, why the disingenuous stance suggesting negotiation is not possible? If not, why are Canadian troops being used to support a policy we are not aware of nor in agreement with?

And a question for Peter MacKay. Who's naive now, dimwit?