Two Fronts, Two Sides

Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting perspective on the Afghanistan war - the US was fighting on two fronts, Iraq and Afganistan, but so was Al Qaeda; maybe our success in Iraq forced Al Qaeda to refocus on Afghanistan.

Some support for this can be found in the declassified version of the McChrystal assessment, which includes this description of the insurgents groups:

Insurgent Groups

Most insurgent fighters are Afghans. They are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan. They are aided by foreign fighters, elements of some intelligence agencies, and international funding, resources, and training. Foreign fighters provide materiel, expertise, and ideological commitment.

...The major insurgent groups in order of their threat to the mission are: the Quetta Shura Taliban (05T), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG).

...All three insurgent groups require resources - mainly money and manpower. The O5T derives funding from the narcotics trade and external donors. HQN similarly draws resources principally from Pakistan, Gulf Arab networks, and from its close association with al Qaeda and other Pakistan-based insurgent groups. HiG seeks control of mineral wealth and smuggling routes in the east.

I would take from that while the Taliban are very Afghan-centric, the HQN might well be benefitting from men and money re-directed away from Iraq.  The HiG leader has also worked with Bin Laden in the past.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

Keep in mind that AQ and the Taliban are taking additional heat in Pakistan too. They are pretty much walled in. It's logical they would step up attacks in order to survive.

[boris]

Gee VDH makes it sound like some of the problems we had in Iraq had more to do with AQ terrorist strategeries than W and Rummy incompetence. Wish I'd a thought of that ... oh wait ...

[MacChrystal is a manhunter. I doubt his usefulness is at an end, but Obama has no satisfactory end in Afghanistan anymore..]

Much simpler, the Saudi money was interested in Pakistan and Afghanistan and not in an insurgency next door, particularly not one associated with violent elements within Saudi Arabia. A two headed al Qaeda should not be called one beast.
=======================================

[bishop]

You do have the main point of it, Milt Bearden for one, was too busy with his lunches with Hamid Gul, of the ISI, and Prince Turki of General Intelligence, this is how certainly the Haqquani network, and
Hezb I Islami (which I also had ties to Saddam)came into being, which does beg the question, what to do to those forces on the other end of the Durand line

[Charlie (Colorado)]

A two headed al Qaeda should not be called one beast.

Just as the existence of Northn Command and Central Command means there's no such thing as a single US Army.

[Pick on some one your own size.]

Pick, pick, pick, Chaco. Your point?
=====================

[bishop]

Salafism is like a hydra, with the Taliban, as well as political arm of the Ilkwan (the
Muslim brotherhood) in that you have Hamas,
the HIG, the Algerian GSCF, which is AQ in the Maghreb, and so on,

[matt]

The Haqqanis are active along eastern Afghan /Pakistan border, and have their bases in N & S Waziristan. They are probably still receiving support from the Paki ISI as well as all the others.

Waziristan is also where Bin Laden is rumored to be.This is one of the key nexus. Very rough country for the most part. But we have been killing them at a 100:1 ratio so far. ISAF troops are in firefights every day that don't make the papers.

But it's a very big place too, and if McChrystal pulls them back, we leave the door to Pakistan open.

[keninnorcal]

Which leads to the conclusion that we are now seeing what a war in Afghanistan, after the initial success, would have looked like had the U.S. not invaded Iraq.