Studi Strategici ed Intelligence… for dummies

L’Intelligence statunitense ed il collasso afghano

Published by Silendo on Agosto 18, 2021

TOR510_AFG_76800159Brevi estratti da un articolo pubblicato ieri dal New York Times:

(…) “The business of intelligence is not to say you know on Aug. 15 the Afghan government’s going to fall,” said Timothy S. Bergreen, a former staff director for the House Intelligence Committee. “But what everybody knew is that without the stiffening of the international forces and specifically our forces, the Afghans were incapable of defending or governing themselves.” (…)

Sharp disagreements have also persisted in the intelligence community. The C.I.A. for years has been pessimistic about the training of the Afghan security forces. But the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence shops within the Pentagon delivered more optimistic assessments about the Afghans’ preparedness, according to current and former officials.
Military and intelligence assessments predicting that the government in Kabul could hold on at least a year before a Taliban takeover were built on a premise that proved to be flawed: that the Afghan army would put up a fight.
“Most of the U.S. assessments inside and outside the U.S. government had focused on how well the Afghan security forces would fare in a fight with the Taliban. In reality, they never really fought” during the Taliban blitz across the country, said Seth G. Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Two decades ago, this dynamic played out in reverse. When U.S.-backed Afghan militias began capturing territory from the Taliban in late 2001, Taliban fighters folded relatively quickly, and both Kabul and Kandahar fell before the end of that year.
Some Taliban surrendered, some switched sides, and far larger numbers simply melted into the population to begin planning what would become a 20-year insurgency.
Intelligence officials have long observed that Afghans make cold calculations about who is likely to prevail in a conflict and back the winning side, a tactic that allows for battlefield gains to accumulate quickly until a tipping point turns the fight into a rout, according to current and former analysts.
At the core of the American loss in Afghanistan was the inability to build a security force that could stand on its own, but that error was compounded by Washington’s failure to listen to those raising questions about the Afghan military.
Part of the problem, according to former officials, is that the can-do attitude of the military frequently got in the way of candid accurate assessments of how the Afghan security forces were doing. Though no one was blind to desertions or battlefield losses, American commanders given the task of training the Afghan military were reluctant to admit their efforts were failing. Even those in the military skeptical of the skills of the Afghan security forces believed they would continue to fight for a time after the Americans left. (…)

“For the last two or three years I have been ruefully remarking that A.N.S.F. is Afghan for ARVN,” said Mr. Bergreen, who worked on intelligence matters on Capitol Hill from 2003 to 2021. “There was an acknowledgment that the Afghan forces were not up to the long-term fight. But I don’t think anyone expected them to melt away quite that fast.”
Recent Taliban diplomatic maneuvers with other countries in the region, most notably China, lent an air of inevitability to a Taliban takeover that further demoralized Afghan government troops, Mr. Jones said.
In the end, analysts said, the Taliban won with the strategy that has so often proved successful during Afghanistan’s many decades of war — they outlasted their opponent.
“​​I am not that surprised it was as fast and sweeping as it was,” said Lisa Maddox, a former C.I.A. analyst. “The Taliban certainly has shown their ability to persevere, hunker down and come back even after they have been beaten back. And you have a population that is so tired and weary of conflict that they are going to flip and support the winning side so they can survive.”

Posted in: Blog
Tagged:
afganistan, intelligence, stati uniti

Chi Sono

Silendo

Un appassionato di relazioni internazionali e studi strategici. In particolar modo di questioni connesse con l'intelligence.
Per contattarmi:
info@silendo.org

Leggi tutto...

Accedi

Tweet di @Silendo_org

Archivio

Categorie

Tags

affari strategici afganistan algeria al qaeda arabia saudita australia cina criminalità organizzata cyber-mf difesa egitto estremismo francia germania gran bretagna guerriglia hamas hezbollah india intelligence iran iraq ISIS israele italia Leadership e classe dirigente libano libia libri medio-oriente minkiate nato nucleare e risorse energetiche pakistan palestina russia sentimenti sicurezza nazionale siria somalia stati uniti strategic foresight studi di intelligence terrorismo turchia

Blogroll

  • Affari Internazionali
  • Agentura
  • American Enterprise Institute
  • ANSSI
  • AOL Defense
  • Arms Control Wonk
  • Asia Centre
  • Asia Times
  • Aspen Institute Italia
  • ASPI
  • Atlantic Council
  • Baker Institute
  • Banca d'Italia
  • BBC
  • Belfer Center
  • Bellingcat
  • Bertelsmann Foundation
  • BESA Center
  • Bibliografia sull'intelligence
  • Bloomberg
  • Bloomberg View
  • Brookings Institution
  • Bruegel
  • Carnegie Endowment
  • Carnegie Middle East Center
  • Carnegie Moscow Center
  • CASD
  • Center for a New American Security
  • Center for Economic Policy Research
  • Center for European Reform
  • Center for Naval Analyses
  • Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  • Centre d'Analyse Stratégique
  • Centro Einaudi
  • Centro Studi Confindustria
  • CEPR
  • CF2R
  • Chatham House
  • China Leadership Monitor
  • CISAC
  • Combating Terrorism Center
  • Comparative Strategy
  • COPASIR
  • Corriere della Sera
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • CSBA
  • CSFRS
  • CSI – CIA
  • CSIS
  • CSS
  • CSS Strategic Trends Analysis
  • Danger Room
  • DCAF
  • Defence News
  • East online
  • ECFR
  • ECIR
  • Economist
  • Egmont Institute
  • Epistemes
  • EsadeGeo
  • ESPAS
  • EU Institute for Security Studies
  • Eurasianet
  • European Policy Centre
  • Fareed Zakaria
  • FAS
  • FAS – CRS
  • FAS – DNI
  • Fas – Strategic Security Blog
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Foreign Policy
  • Foreign Policy – National Security
  • FPRI
  • FRS
  • FSI – Stanford
  • Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • German Council on Foreign Relations
  • German Marshall Fund
  • Global Trends 2030
  • Globalsecurity.org
  • Governo italiano
  • H-Net
  • Harvard International Review
  • HCSS
  • Heritage Foundation
  • Horizon Scanning Centre
  • Horizon Scanning Centre – Toolkit
  • House Armed Services Committee
  • House Committee on Homeland Security
  • House Committee on International Relations
  • House Intelligence Committee
  • HSPI
  • Hudson Institute
  • IAEA
  • IDSA
  • IEA
  • IFRI
  • IHEDN
  • IISS
  • IMF
  • INET
  • Infinity Journal
  • Infoguerre
  • INSS – Israele
  • INSS – USA
  • Institute for Government
  • Intelligence & National Security
  • Intelligence Studies Section
  • IntellNews
  • International Crisis Group
  • International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  • International Security
  • International Security Studies
  • IRIS
  • ISIS
  • Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici
  • Jamestown Foundation
  • JFK School of Government
  • JFQ
  • Joshua Rogin
  • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Journal of Strategic Security
  • Journal of Strategic Studies
  • Kings of War
  • Lowy Institute
  • LSE IDEAS Blog
  • Macro Polo
  • McKinsey Global Institute
  • Mercator Institute
  • Merlin
  • Military Review
  • Miller Center
  • MIT Center
  • Munich Security Conference
  • National Bureau of Asian Research
  • National Defense Intelligence College
  • National Intelligence Council
  • National Interest Online
  • National Security Archive
  • National Security Journal
  • Naval War College Review
  • NCTC
  • New America Foundation
  • New York Times
  • Newsweek
  • Nixon Center
  • Notre Europe
  • OCSE
  • ODNI
  • On Think Tanks
  • Orbis
  • Oxford Analytica
  • Oxford Intelligence Group
  • Papers – APSA
  • Papers – ISA
  • Parameters
  • Perspectives on Terrorism
  • Peter Bergen
  • Peterson Institute
  • Proceedings
  • Project 2049
  • Project Syndicate
  • Public Intelligence
  • RAND
  • Real Instituto Elcano
  • Reuters
  • Robert Kaplan
  • RSIS
  • RUSI
  • Secrecy News
  • Security Studies
  • Senate Armed Services Committee
  • Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  • Senate Committee on Intelligence
  • Sentinel
  • SGDSN
  • Silicon Continent
  • SIPRI
  • SISR – Intelligence italiana
  • Source&Methods
  • South Asia Analysis Group
  • Spiegel International
  • Stephen Walt
  • Stimson Center
  • Strategic & Defence Studies Centre
  • Strategic Studies Institute
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly
  • Strategika
  • Stratfor
  • Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
  • Terrorism and Political Violence
  • The Back Channel
  • The Diplomat
  • The Interpreter
  • The Overoholt Group
  • The Strategist
  • The Strategy Bridge
  • Time
  • Transatlantic Academy
  • U.S.-China Commission
  • UN Millennium Project
  • Venus in Arms
  • VOX
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War on the Rocks
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Washington Post
  • WCFIA – Harvard
  • Wilson International Center
  • World Economic Forum
Locations of visitors to this page
© 2025 SILENDO Design & Dev by Artemida Srl