Taliban pledges to step-up fight against US forces surge

President Obama pledged 30,000 more troops for the conflict in Afghanistan  Photo: AP

The Taliban released a statement today in response to President Obama's pledge of 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, saying that the move would only "provoke stronger resistance".

Nato has also pledged an additional 5,000 troops next year in Afghanistan, contributing to the Obama administrations new strategy for the conflict, which involves increasing troop numbers for an 18 month period.

The plan assumes that this allotted period will provide sufficient time for the strengthening and training of Afghan military and police, which will assume responsibility for Afghanistan's security when US troops begin to pull-out in July of 2011.

Taliban spokesmen asserted that the group will remain defiant in the face of the new US strategy, and intend to meet the surge with one of their own.   

"Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahamdi told AFP news agency.

The war in Afghanistan has led to the death of more than 900 US soldiers, and with the corrupt elections held in August, domestic support for the eight-year conflict is at an all time low.  President Obama attempted to gain more domestic support last night in his televised address to West Point cadets, saying that the US did not ask for this war, but must finish it.

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, supported the president's speech saying that he had been  given "a clear military mission" and the necessary resources, though the 30,000 pledged troops fell 10,000 short of his request for 40,000.

However, the ultimate question on everone's mind is will the surge make a difference?  There is little doubt that the surge in Iraq was to some degree quite successful in suppressing violence and allowing the Iraqi forces to take over.

Yet will this be the case in Afghanistan?  There are several differences in the two theaters that prevent one from drawing any solid predictions.  Afghanistan is a country of very rough terrain and the peoples are separated by vast mountains and great distances.  The infrastructure of the country is virtually non-existent and communications between the government forces there are difficult and unreliable.

The Taliban also enjoys control over many regions of Afghanistan and to some extent, the support of tribal leaders and peoples within these regions.  In the years following the Soviet invasionn of Afghanistan, the Taliban consolidated power by force and agreements with local and remote populations in Afghanistan.  Thus, there is no sense of nationalism and community in Afghanistan above the patriarchal and tribal level, outside of Kabul and the few larger urban areas.

With such a separation both physically and mentally, it will be near impossible for the Afghan government to control the whole of the nation, or to effectively govern it if they possess control.

US military personel are also "ham-stringed" if you will, in that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are so constraining that many soldiers have admitted to hesitation on the ground in engaging the enemy due to fear of receiving an article-15 court martial.  Many have asserted that the military is too focused on "befriending" the Afghan people, and less focused on taking the necessary actions to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not under any such restrictions and have no reservations in killing civilians in their attacks on US military.  This makes the task infinitely more difficult for our military.  How do you defeat an enemy that is determined and has no rules, while you have to follow every rule?

In the end only time will show if the surge will aid in Afghanistan.  Of course the Taliban will appear emboldened regardless, as to not show any fear nor weakness, but in all a greater US force will be nothing but trouble for the Taliban.