Taliban attacks up 40 percent
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 06-25-2008 - 8:00am |
Taliban attacks up 40 percent on Afghan-Pakistan border: general
Attacks by Taliban militants on Afghanistan's border with Pakistan were up 40 percent in the first five months of 2008 compared with the same period last year, the US commander in the region told reporters here Tuesday.
"We've had about a 40 percent increase in 'kinetic events': we define those as the number of enemy attacks that we've had on our coalition and our Afghan partners," US Army Major General Jeffrey Schloesser told reporters during a teleconference from Afghanistan.
"This number was not unexpected," he continued, adding that the frequency of attacks has increased each year since 2002.
"The enemies are aggressively burning schools, killing teachers and students," said Schloesser, adding that attacks in the region represent "about 12 percent" of military engagements against the Taliban.
The volatile situation on the porous 1,500-mile (2,500-kilometer) Pakistan-Afghanistan border was highlighted when Islamabad accused US-led coalition forces of a "cowardly" act in carrying out an airstrike earlier this month that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.
Washington and other Western allies have been pressuring Islamabad to crack down on Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants allegedly based in Pakistan's tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.
"The enemy is taking refuge and operating with some freedom of movement in the border region," Schloesser said.
"Overall, what you see is the deliberate targeting of anything that will improve the quality of life of the normal Afghan citizen."
With US-Pakistan ties at their lowest ebb in years, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said recently that Kabul would be justified in launching attacks on militants on Pakistani soil, which provoked an angry response from Islamabad.
Violence in the region is on the upswing, despite the presence of some 70,000 troops multinational troops in Afghanistan, some under US command, some under NATO.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080624184929.bvwdt834&show_article=1







I'm going to grab two parts from your post...
"The enemies are aggressively burning schools, killing teachers and students," said Schloesser, adding that attacks in the region represent "about 12 percent" of military engagements against the Taliban.
and
"Overall, what you see is the deliberate targeting of anything that will improve the quality of life of the normal Afghan citizen."
I suppose that's one way for them to gain members. Blow up places of education and markets and such so that they'll force people to choose between joining them (therefore, gaining money, food and status for their families) or becoming even poorer and undereducated. :o\
e-mail me!
cl for Birthmarks & Hemangiomas
My Girlies' Website
Pity we sent so many troops to fight the war we created in Iraq rather than sending them to fight the folks actually responsible for attacking us.
Rose
And an even greater pity that we failed the Afghan people in the first place by allowing the Taliban to take over after we helped them drive out the Soviets.
That's what we used to do--leave prematurely.
Hmm not only did we allow the Taliban to rise to power, the CIA actively supported them though 1998.
Hmm, it doesn't sound like we left prematurely since we were never officially there, it just sounds like we made a very poor choice in ally. The devil you know is often better than the one you don't.
Kind of like this --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDABe8AOuCQ
>>That's what we used to do--leave prematurely.
Really? Our support for the Taliban lasted long after any sensible government realized that the Taliban was brand of extreme Islam that had no historical roots in Afghanistan. Oops. Premature, or just stupid - Yeah, I'm going with stupid starting with the Bush admin 1 with a healthy support by the Clinton admin.
But feel free to offer support for your position on "prematurely".
I didn't say support was limited to personnel and I'd be very happy to have some of our
I agree, on both counts.