Helmand capital ‘practically besieged’ by the Taliban

A recent article from The New York Times on the deteriorating security situation in Helmand province highlights the limits and failure of US military policy in Afghanistan. In a nutshell, the Obama administration has decided to draw down US forces to 8,400 troops by the end of 2016, rely more on air power and special operations forces to support Afghan troops and provide military advisors to Afghan units. The Afghan Army and police is then to bear the brunt of the fighting – though they are by all accounts largely unprepared to do so.

In certain instances, this has worked. For instance, US special operations forces and airpower were critical in the retaking of Kunduz from the Taliban, which fell to the group for two weeks in September 2015.

However, that ignores the fact that Kunduz fell to the Taliban only after unprepared and overwhelmed Afghan forces were defeated in the surrounding districts in the first place. Afghan forces backed by US airpower and special forces have also had an impact against the Islamic State in Nangarhar province. Again, this ignores the fact that the Islamic State was able to organize and seize ground in Nangarhar, and hold it for well over a year.

Despite the US military’s increased use of airstrikes and special operations forces, another provincial capital, Lashkar Gah in Helmand, is “practically besieged.” From the Times:

Even as Afghan and American officials insist that they will not allow another urban center to fall, concerned about the political ramifications for the struggling government in Kabul as well as the presidential campaign in the United States, residents and local officials describe Lashkar Gah as practically besieged.

The main road connecting the city and the highway to the southern commercial and military hub of Kandahar has been repeatedly blocked in recent days by the Taliban, who blew up several bridges. Civilian passengers can travel on an alternate dirt road, but have to pass through insurgent checkpoints. Many businesses and nongovernmental organizations based in Lashkar Gah are trying to evacuate, and the road blockages have added to their alarm.

The Afghan forces’ continuous failure to hold ground in a province that has seen the deployment of a large number of troops and resources, as well as hundreds of NATO military advisers, is taking a toll on the residents of Lashkar Gah. The city has long been a haven for people displaced from other areas of Helmand by the constant back and forth between the Taliban and the coalition and government forces.

Questions are also being raised about the sustainability of a military response that relies desperately on airstrikes against a guerrilla force.

In Afghanistan, a limited US military engagement coupled with local Afghan military and police forces that are unprepared to operate independently is going to struggle against a committed enemy such as the Taliban, which receives state support and sanctuary from Pakistan.

The Times report also verifies The Long War Journal’s reporting on the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan and Helmand in particular. This is from an Aug. 2 report on the government’s claim that it killed the Taliban’s shadow governor for Helmand (the Taliban has denied this, and released an audio claiming he is alive):

In the audio, the Taliban claimed that the districts of Nad Ali and Nawa-i-Sarraj in Helmand are “under Mujahideen control” after heavy fighting with Taliban forces. The Taliban’s claims cannot be independently confirmed, but it has accurately reported on the control of districts in the past while the Afghan government has downplayed or ignored districts lost to the Taliban. The Taliban currently control or contest more than 80 of Afghanistan’s 400 plus districts, according to a study by The Long War Journal. That number may be higher as reports from some districts known to be Taliban strongholds are unavailable. [See LWJ report, Taliban seizes district in northern Afghanistan.]

Security in Helmand has deteriorated as the Taliban has pressed its offensive to regain the ground lost there between 2009-2011. Of Helmand’s 14 districts, five are known to be controlled by the Taliban (Now Zad, Musa Qala, Baghran, Dishu, and Khanashin), and another seven are heavily contested (Nahr-i-Sarraj, Kajaki, Nad Ali, Nawa-i-Barak, Marjah, Garmsir, and Sangin). Of the remaining two districts, The Long War Journal believes one (Washir) is contested, but the situation is unclear. Only Lashkar Gah, the district that hosts the provincial capital, has not seen significant Taliban activity, however the Taliban has reported activity there. But Taliban forces based in Nahr-i-Sarraj and Nad Ali are just miles from the city.

Afghan officials continue to tout the killing of senior Taliban leaders (wrongly in some cases) and senior US military officers laud the performance of Afghan security forces, while the Taliban controls more ground today than any time since the US invasion in 2001.

The Obama administration’s response has been to slow the withdrawal of US forces from the country, leaving 8,400 troops in Afghanistan instead of the 5,400 originally planned. But still, 1,400 US troops will be withdrawn by the end of the year despite the fact that President Barack Obama described the security environment in Afghanistan as “precarious.” We have yet to hear an explanation as to how fewer troops will help the worsening security situation.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD’s Long War Journal.

Tags: ,

10 Comments

  • jIM says:

    It does not appear that the US Government has a long-term strategic plan in Afghanistan and certainly threw Iraq to the wolves (i.e. Iran and IS). The Taliban and IS know that political will is weak with the Democrats and it is only a matter of time before we withdraw all of our forces, despite our sacrifices. Our enemies look at Viet Nam and know we do not have the long-term political will to sustain the fight. Hopefully that will change but I’m not holding my breath.

  • Dave Roberts says:

    Our President has failed in every foreign policy decision that he’s made, that’s quite a record. In fact, whenever he decides to take an action abroad, it often seems as if it’s exactly the opposite of the USA’s best interest. Just think of some of the horrible failures we’ve suffered under his “leadership”;

    – Lybia. He removed a dictator who had become more Western-oriented as he aged to replace him with anarchy and ISIS.
    – Syria. Encouraged a rebellion, yet failed to provide the weapons necessary to win it.
    – Putin. Obama drew that famous line in the sand, yet failed to enforce it, sending an unmistakable message to Russia.
    – He shut down the F-22 production line at just 180 planes when the plan was for over 600. This has resulted in an over reliance on the F-35.
    – Iran. The nuclear treaty has provided huge amounts of cash to fund Hezbollah and their military action in Syria.
    – Egypt. His failure to support Mubarek led to the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.
    – Afghanistan. See above, we are about to lose. that war.

    I could continue but surely the above is enough to rank this President as one of the all-time worst in our history.

  • Albert Miller says:

    The Lions of Kandahar will be back!

  • David Ray says:

    Is it the Democrats who are to blame, or is it a majority of the American people? Indefinite occupation at a high cost in lives has not been acceptable to a democracy since Indonesia, Algeria, and Vietnam… And while indefinite occupation is definitely long-term, how is it possibly a strategic plan? No outside power can put together a government that will be acceptable to most Afghans (perhaps if we had backed a return of the King in 2002, instead of Hamid Karzai) and certainly no outside power at this time can “put back together” that most artificial country, Iraq. The British could do it by force in the 1940s, the last time this was possible. Recognize what has changed.

    • Dave Roberts says:

      The failure in our policy is that we sought to install a democratically elected government to counter the Taliban and co. Instead, we should have put a pro-US General as President with dictatorial powers along with a puppet but popularly elected Parliament. Look at Egypt and el-Sisi for an example of a government that would have allowed us to withdraw and still maintain control.

  • Bill McHenry says:

    They defeated one super power and there’s no reason they can’t outlast another. They’re biding time.

  • J House says:

    The goal of the Obama administration is not to secure Afghanistan, but keep it from falling to the Taliban while the President is still in office. If you understand that strategy, then removing another 1,400 personnel from Afghanistan makes sense. The next President is going to have to decide whether leaving Afghanistan to Taliban rule is better than staying and maintaining a force that does nothing more that prevent the fall of the major capital cities to the Taliban.
    Kill AQ and leave the place to Afghans to decide their own future…that should have been the strategy all along.

  • Frank Dunn says:

    Obama’s short-term plan is to keep Afghanistan from collapsing before the November elections. His long-term plan is to prevent a collapse before the January inauguration of the next president. When Kabul collapses, Obama will appear on CBS, ABC and PBS to claim that he left Afghanistan in stable condition. This also assumes that a reporter will ask him about his Afghan, Iraq, Syria and Libya failures.

  • alicia says:

    the fact is that the country has been a fail during the last 30 years, the idea of trying to bring democracy all over the world in my opinion is an error.

    Not all countries are prepared for this, all islamic countries were demoscracy has their option ended in war

  • Joe Martin says:

    Surprised the Afghan govt. is doing as well as it is.

Iraq

Islamic state

Syria

Aqap

Al shabaab

Boko Haram

Isis