Afghan Stands

The Times o'London with yesterday's "leak" from the American ship o'State:

President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.

Given the number of "leaks" from the administration over the past several weeks, you'd think someone could have done something to curtail them by now...

But what's really new here? The idea that some members of "the Taliban" could be split from the larger group isn't, nor is the realization that not every square inch of Afghanistan will be defended by U.S. or NATO troops - that's never been part of even the most robust campaign plan.

And "the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had 'no agenda to harm other countries'" could hardly be called a shocker either.

Neither is "dealing" with the Taliban as a group - and the results. Two months ago:

Almost as soon as the Afghan government trumpeted a local cease-fire with the Taliban Monday, the purported deal fell apart. The breakdown of this minor agreement underscores the extreme difficulty the government and its international backers face in finding a political solution to the insurgency.

The government claimed it had struck a deal with Taliban leaders and tribal elders in the northern province of Badghis. Specifically, the local cease-fire would safeguard a road construction project and electioneering ahead of next month's national vote.

Within hours, however, clashes broke out in the region, and a Taliban spokesman told media that no deal ever happened.

Similar local deals attempted in 2007 in Helmand Province also had poor results (The Taliban "imposed their rule on the town, restricting women's movements, levying taxes and imposing conscription, while using Musa Qala as a base for operations in neighbouring districts") described by Josh Foust as "disastrous" here:

...the British would withdraw from Musa Qala in Helmand province in exchange for a Taliban pinky-swear not to occupy it in their absence. After eleven months of Taliban domination, the British had to rely on American support to retake the district center.

Negotiating, so the theory goes, is done best from a position of strength.

In other news:

According to Reuters, the Taliban retaliated by claiming on their Web site that "they had raised their flag in Kamdesh District of Nuristan Province on Wednesday morning at a function attended by locals."

Col. Wayne Shanks, a senior press officer for American and NATO forces, told Reuters that no matter what the Taliban claimed, "I can guarantee you we have not left Nuristan. We are there. We are doing the same operations we have been doing."

Colonel Shanks also told the news agency that American soldiers were still present at the two outposts that were attacked on Saturday, although both sites would eventually be abandoned, in accordance with a decision made well before the attack to redeploy international forces to more populated areas of Afghanistan.

The remote U.S. outpost near the Pakistan border that was nearly overrun by insurgents last weekend has been abandoned and destroyed by American troops, military officials announced today.

Americans demolished the base, dubbed Combat Outpost Keating, just days after an all-day fight last Saturday in which eight American soldiers were killed and 24 wounded. U.S. military officials estimate that as many as 100 of the attackers were also killed in the battle, which was the bloodiest in Afghanistan in the past year.

Keating was destroyed so it could not be used by insurgents.

Keating and a second base, Combat Outpost Fritsche, were abandoned this week as part of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's new strategy to pull back from unpopulated areas and concentrate on defending population centers.

"We had been planning to realign our forces to better protect the population for months. These closings are part of that realignment," said an Army spokesperson Major T.G. Taylor.

Elsewhere, ABC offers some troop number claims different from earlier reports on McChrystal's request:

The three options are, option one: send no more troops to Afghanistan, considered a "high risk option;" option two: send 40,000 more troops, and option three: a major increase in troops, a number that has not been made public but that is far more than 40,000.

But how much more than 40,000 is that high option? The Wall Street Journal, following up on our report yesterday, today reports that the troop request exceeds 60,000.

Most earlier reports claimed a low-end request of 10,000, an unspecified "medium" strength number, and 40k as the highest of three proposed levels. Each was described as associated with a likelihood of achieving success.

Since the White House now has a copy of the request, it's likely only a matter of time before we see the full document in the Washington Post (or the NY Times, if the fairness doctrine is successfully invoked).

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.