http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN09496447

<quotes>

The White House has been presented intelligence estimating that Taliban-led 
forces battling U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have grown nearly 
four-fold in the last four years, officials said on Friday.

The U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters in 
the insurgency is now roughly 25,000 from 7,000 in 2006, spotlights Taliban 
gains and the tough choices facing President Barack Obama in trying to 
reverse the trend.

</quotes>

Quite impressive that so few Taliban have kept US and NATO forces bogged 
down in Afghanistan for so long. Hardly enough to fill a football stadium 
and said by some to be greatly inferior to western military forces; poorly 
educated, poorly armed, and poorly trained; 'ignorant, cave-dwelling, 
peasants armed with nothing bit sticks' as some have put it.

Considering that almost all Afghans killed by western forces are said to be 
Taliban / Terrorists it would be interesting to know what their numbers 
would be if the US weren't killing so many. Of course it is often said that 
those killed aren't Taliban / Terrorists at all, simply innocent civilians. 
It does seem that the US and NATO have killed far more people than there are 
officially Taliban, but as no one in either military cared to count we don't 
have any actual figures to go on.

McChrystal has asked for 40,000 additional troops, taking the number of US 
forces to around 100,000. Combined with NATO forces that's around 150,000. 
Hard to see how this increase will keep pace with Taliban growth or be able 
to deal with it any better - As McChrystal noted recently, the Taliban and 
insurgency are hydra-like, cut off one head and it grows two more. Hitting 
the wrong ( that is, civilian ) targets drives more and more into the arms 
of the Taliban and the insurgency.

It's also hard to tally Taliban resurgence with previous reports from the US 
that the war wasn't being lost or even that the situation had stabilised 
into a stalemate. With attacks on coalition forces escalating, more troops 
being killed, enemy numbers rising, it seems that was just 'wishful 
thinking' or putting the best spin on a depressing picture.

Maybe a surge in US forces will do what the US hasn't managed to achieve in 
the last eight years, but it's hard to say how quickly that could be turened 
around, if it can be done at all. Increasing the ratio of western to Taliban 
forces from 3:1 to 5:1 should have some results but it is quite possible the 
Taliban could claw that advantage back and double their numbers as a result 
of more active military engagement from the west. In their terms, where 
'winning is not losing', it is no surprise the Taliban seem unconcerned 
about troop increases and even say they see it as beneficial in raising 
their numbers; there appears to be ever growing resentment at foreign troops 
on Afghan soil from even non-Taliban and western-supporting Afghans.

With costs expected to become somewhere around $3.5 to $4 billion a month, 
it's turning out to be a very expensive conflict. On estimates of $2bn for 
half the propsed troop numbers over the past eight years, that's around $200 
billion so far, over $400 billion if it takes another five years with 
sustained, elevated troop levels.

That would be at a cost of $13 million dollars per Taliban. Ouch.

On 2009-10-11 19:24:02 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN09496447
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> The White House has been presented intelligence estimating that Taliban-led
> forces battling U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have grown nearly
> four-fold in the last four years, officials said on Friday.
> 
> The U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters in
> the insurgency is now roughly 25,000 from 7,000 in 2006, spotlights Taliban
> gains and the tough choices facing President Barack Obama in trying to
> reverse the trend.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> Quite impressive that so few Taliban have kept US and NATO forces bogged
> down in Afghanistan for so long. Hardly enough to fill a football stadium
> and said by some to be greatly inferior to western military forces; poorly
> educated, poorly armed, and poorly trained; 'ignorant, cave-dwelling,
> peasants armed with nothing bit sticks' as some have put it.

<snip>

I can't quite remember why we are busy exterminating the Taliban. I 
thought we went in to get Bin Laden.

"Krak"  wrote...

> On 2009-10-11 19:24:02 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
>  said:
>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN09496447
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> The White House has been presented intelligence estimating that 
>> Taliban-led
>> forces battling U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have grown nearly
>> four-fold in the last four years, officials said on Friday.
>>
>> The U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters 
>> in
>> the insurgency is now roughly 25,000 from 7,000 in 2006, spotlights 
>> Taliban
>> gains and the tough choices facing President Barack Obama in trying to
>> reverse the trend.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> Quite impressive that so few Taliban have kept US and NATO forces bogged
>> down in Afghanistan for so long. Hardly enough to fill a football stadium
>> and said by some to be greatly inferior to western military forces; 
>> poorly
>> educated, poorly armed, and poorly trained; 'ignorant, cave-dwelling,
>> peasants armed with nothing bit sticks' as some have put it.
>
> <snip>
>
> I can't quite remember why we are busy exterminating the Taliban. I 
> thought we went in to get Bin Laden.

It seems reported that despite their agreeing to hand OBL over if the US 
delivered-up evidence and fulfiled due process, that the US couldn't or 
wouldn't made them the 'bad guys' and gave casus belli to go in and 
'liberate' the Afghan people from their rule - which is how it was spun this 
side of the pond in the UK and Europe.

The argued justification for going in was primarily three-fold ...

Moral - a duty to protect peoples from their leaders and government, though 
there's nothing in international law which allows that, and the UK, US and 
most anyone else would 'go ape' if someone tried to apply that to their 
respective countries, governments and leaders.

Judicial - To bring OBL to justice and to bring the Taliban to justice for 
harbouring an international terrorist, though there seems to be no evidence 
that they would not hand him over or that they were party to or supporters 
of the events of 9-11.

Defence - To eradicate the threat that the Taliban posed to the US and the 
west, though it was never clear exactly what this threat was except in vague 
terms of "they hate our freedom", "they want to convert us all to Islam", 
and "they live to kill" from the pro-war pundits.

Defence seems to be the argued rationale these days; 'if we weren't fighting 
them over there, they'd be over here fighting us', though it seems like the 
people fighting western troops are increasingly Afghans who don't like their 
land being occupied by foreign powers or the government that occupation has 
'imposed upon them' than people who seek to harm the US for any ideological 
reason.

The real reason was perhaps hegemony; the US not liking that others don't do 
things the same way nor believe in the same things as America. The argued 
reasons are claimed by some to have been convenient pretexts.

There are also claims that it's simply a religious war, and 9-11 was the 
covenient excuse to kick that off using the same pretexts, with hegemony as 
a convenient by-product. It didn't help that GWB had embracd the concept of 
"Axis of Evil" and later phrased his "war on terror" in terms of a 
"Crusade", then invited wannabe terrorists to "Bring 'em on".

On top of all that there's the "revenge motive", which is quite 
understandable in the wake of 9-11 and "an eye for an eye" thinking. I 
expect many were anticipating US forces to go and 'kick some butt', and sort 
it out double quick-time with a short, sharp shock, and that would be the 
end of it. To go and 'kick some butt' you've got to have someone's butt you 
can pin it on, and the Taliban may simply have been a convenient - or only - 
choice in the absence of OBL. Though OBL and almost all 9-11 terrorists were 
Saudi Arabians that country wasn't ever going to be a likely target for a 
revenge attack.. Again, the ( said by some to be ) pretexts would give 
justification for that.

I guess we'll never know the real reason "why?".

No matter what; the occupation has not delivered-up OBL, has not eradicated 
the Taliban, has not brought peace to the region, has not stemmed terrorism, 
has not softened religious radicals, has not liberated the Afghan people, 
has not created a working democracy, has not installed a government 
recognised as legitimate by all Afghans. In fact it can be hard to say what 
things the last eight years have achieved. Except a large pile of dead 
bodies, a lot of spilled blood and a huge black-hole to sink money into.

While the reason the US may have gone in was to fight 'terrorists' it seems 
increasingly like it is 'freedom fighters' who are attacking the American 
occupiers. How the US resolves that by increasing occupation numbers which 
in turn seem to be the cause of escalating fighting I really don't know. 
Seems to me like throwing more petrol on a fire in the hope of putting it 
out.

"Krak"  wrote ...

[snip]

> I can't quite remember why we are busy exterminating the Taliban. I 
> thought we went in to get Bin Laden.

According to Hilary, today ...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-12-voa13.cfm

<quotes>

"We are not changing our strategy, our strategy remains to achieve the goal 
of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaida and its extremist allies, 
and denying them safe haven and the capacity to strike us here in London, or 
New York or anywhere else," said Clinton.

"We will not rest until we do defeat al-Qaida"

"We are doing much more careful analysis of who actually is allied to 
al-Qaida. Not everyone who calls himself a Taliban is necessarily a threat 
to the U.K. or the United States," said Clinton.

</quotes>

It's a welcome move, but a bit late in the day, to realise that the Taliban, 
insurgents, other Afghans and many more, are not necessarily al-Qaeda. Being 
an 'enemy of the Afghan government' can be entirely acceptable in a 
democratic or other society, as can be being opposed to foreign occupying 
forces.

Clinton seems to be recognising that it's important to select the right, and 
legitimate, 'enemy' - getting it wrong can make matters worse ( as seems to 
have happened ) - but there's a disparity between saying that and how the US 
have seemingly been pursuing the war in Afghanistan for eight years.

Equating Islam or Muslims with al-Qaeda and calling for a war against Islam 
seems to be the rallying cry for those seeking religious war, wishing 
religious genocide. GWB's "Crusade" put his invasions of Iraq and 
Afghanistan firmly in that light for many Muslims.