A BBC report says that the Taliban control 4% of Afghanistan and have a presence in another 66%:
The Taliban are openly active in 70 percent of Afghanistan's districts, fully controlling 4 percent of the country and demonstrating an open physical presence in another 66 percent, according to a BBC study published on Tuesday.
I dare say criminals have a presence in 100% of American counties.
That Afghanistan report doesn't sound so bad to me and doesn't justify the despair that so much of the Afghanistan debate takes on. I keep reading that the majority of violence is in a very small number of districts.
Consider that the recent spate of high-profile terror attacks in Afghanistan are called by some pundits a reason the fight is futile (but why isn't the failure of the Taliban to win over the same period a sign that their struggle is futile?) .
But one major attack has the fingerprints of Pakistan all over it:
In Afghanistan ISIL took credit for an attack on Afghan Military Academy in Kabul. Some of the attackers were using British night vision goggles used by the Pakistani military and not available to the public. Moreover other Islamic terror groups operating in Afghanistan have been caught with these night vision devices as have Pakistan based Islamic terror groups that carry out attacks in India and are known to work for the Pakistani military and enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan. It isn’t just the night vision goggles. India and Afghanistan have been comparing notes and finding many similarities like that. Pakistan, as usual, denies any involvement.
The Pakistan problem is a long-known obstacle. So a big part of the problem isn't the strength of jihadis but the support of outsiders like Pakistan to continue the violence. I'm not sure how we pressure Pakistan into being a positive force rather than a mixed bag as long as our supply lines to Afghanistan run through Pakistan. But we certainly have to try.
The bright side is that Afghans don't need America to take the lead--just provide enough support to allow them to fight the jihadis. It's the difference between the Iraq War where America had to provide the decisive combat force and Iraq War 2.0 where even the depleted Iraqi security forces the coalition built during the Iraq War were strong enough to defeat ISIL with American support.
I know the war is long. But is the fact that our enemies there are particularly vicious and tenacious a reason to give up and let them rebuild a sanctuary where they control 100% of the districts (or 90%, which is more like the pre-9/11 situation) to strike us again at home?
Or is it a reason to seriously fight them until we win to shield our home?
Remember, if we walk away from Afghanistan and the Taliban win, Afghanistan becomes a problem requiring America to take the lead rather than a theater where American support to locals can eventually prevail.
Work the problem and don't panic. Or believe America makes things worse. Things can always be worse. Especially without America fighting the bad guys.
UPDATE: Afghanistan presents proof that Pakistan's hand is clear in the recent terror attacks:
Afghanistan has given neighboring Pakistan confessions and other proof showing that the militants who carried out a recent series of attacks were trained in Pakistan and that Taliban leaders there are allowed to roam freely, Afghan officials said Thursday.
It's as if Pakistan is trying to show how bad they could be if they choose.
But don't forget that high profile terror attacks are a poor alternative to controlling people, which is the real measure of the war if victory, unless the effect on Western journalists who still have little knowledge of war is the objective.
Mind you, if terror attacks convince people that the government can't protect them, the Taliban could exploit that to gain support from fear if not from love. Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow is the Taliban plan for victory.
The failure of the Taliban to actually target cities for control is significant. They would if they could, but they apparently can't. But that failure doesn't mean that is a static condition.
UPDATE: A worrisome note. Although it is a bit much to expect improvements so soon after changing the older strategy of slowly walking away.
I do think that we should not look the other way when Afghan troops rape children, cultural tradition or not. I've noted that.
Yet I disagree that an increase in civilian deaths from increased American bombing is actually America's fault. If the enemy uses civilians as human shields, the responsibility for the dead civilians lies with the enemy and not with America that dropped the bombs.
But I don't think Americans don't care after over 16 years of war. I think that caring was muted for 8 years by the usual anti-war types protecting their man.
Obviously, caring has resumed. Dust off the giant puppets and spray paint them orange!
And remember, defeat would be very bad even if we get a decent interval following defeat before the bad things happen to disguise the cause and effect.
