In October, President Obama “surprised” America by deciding to halt [7] a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Under the President’s previous plan, Washington would withdraw most of the 9,800 troops operating in the country by the end of next year, leaving a force of just 1,000. Now, all 9,800 troops will remain for “most” of next year and 5,500 troops will remain in 2017.
The decision came amid calls for stepped up action against the Taliban which briefly controlled Kunduz in September (a situation the US “corrected” by launching a brutal AC-130 gunship attack on a hospital) and are now operating in more parts of the country than at any time since 2001.
On Monday, The Pentagon said six Americans - including an NYPD detective - were killed in the country when a suicide bomber on a motorcycle detonated near Bagram.
“All six of the NATO service members killed Monday in a motorcycle bomb attack in Bagram, Afghanistan, were American,” CNN reports [8]. “A suicide bomber on a motorbike carried out the attack on a joint patrol of Afghan and coalition forces at about 1:30 p.m. in the Bajawri area of Bagram district.”
"As I saw firsthand during my visit to Afghanistan last Friday, our troops are working diligently alongside our Afghan partners to build a brighter future for the Afghan people," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement. "Their dedicated efforts will continue despite this tragic event."
Yes, the “dedicated efforts” of US personnel will “continue”, despite the fact that no one has any idea what they’re doing in Afghanistan at this juncture. Granted, the Taliban is resurgent. Have a look at the following map:
[9]
Of course if you wait around long enough (like say, 14 years) insurgent elements are bound to resurface and attempt to recapture lost territory. In short, using a reinvigorated Taliban as an excuse to keep troops in Afghanistan nearly four years after the death of Osama Bin Laden is asinine. The Taliban will always be there and at a certain point, you have to leave it to Kabul to protect their own territorial integrity.
So why stick around, you ask? Because there are bigger fish to fry (so to speak) in the region.
Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are already skittish about America's perceived withdrawal from the Mid-East and just about the last thing Washington wants to do is reinforce the idea that America is "leading from behind" by pulling thousands of troops from Afghanistan just as the conflicts in Syria and Iraq escalate.
As usual, Britain is along for the ride.
In the wake of a Taliban offensive that resulted in the fall of Sangin, the UK is sending in more "advisors" to assist in Helmand. "The Afghan government has suffered a serious setback after a Taliban offensive succeeded in taking control of much of Sangin, the Helmand town that became totemic for British forces, accounting for a third of their casualties," The Guardian writes [10], adding that "The Ministry of Defence said British troops had been deployed to help local forces, but would not take any combat role and would only provide advisory support."
[11]
Yes, the infamous "advisory" role. That's the same role US SpecOps were playing in the northern Iraqi town of Huwija when they jumped into a gun battle which led to the first US ground combat death in Iraq since 2011.
“As part of the UK’s ongoing contribution to Nato’s Resolute Support mission, a small number of UK personnel have deployed to Camp Shorabak in Helmand province in an advisory role," the MoD said. “These personnel are part of a larger Nato team which is providing advice to the Afghan national army. They are not deployed in a combat role and will not deploy outside the camp.”
This comes less than a week after US and British SpecOps were deployed to the area in the wake of the Taliban advance. "At least 2,000 Afghan forces have been killed or wounded in Helmand in the past year [and] reventing the provincial capital from falling into the hands of the Taliban is a priority for U.S. Army Gen. John Campbell, the commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led military coalition in Afghanistan," WSJ noted [12] last week.
The situation is complicated by Iran's alleged support for the Taliban, an alliance that makes for strange bedfellows. Although Tehran has long been opposed to the group, checking the spread of Islamic State in Afghanistan and keeping US troops off guard has apparently taken precedence. According to Western media [13], Tehran is now arming and funding the Taliban in Afghanistan. The aid has been instrumental to the Sunni extremist group's recent string of military successes.
All of the above is further evidence that Afghanistan will once again become a key battleground in the Mid-East. As we've said on a number of occasions (including late last month when we learned that Russia has sent [14] 10,000 AK-47s to Kabul), the proxy wars unfolding in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq will likely soon include Afghanistan as both the West and the Russia-Iran-Iraq nexus contemplate how best to check Islamic State's advance while simultaneously keeping a lid on the Taliban's ambitions.
We'll close with a quote from a police commander in Helmand:
“We are in the front line but we haven’t received our salaries for two months and don’t have food. We knock on people’s door to ask them to provide us food.”
