Challenging the Narrative: Afghan Resistance in the Face of the Taliban - Part 2
Last updated: June 7, 2025
This post continues our exploration of the Afghan resistance against the Taliban titled 'Challenging the Narrative: Afghan Resistance in the Face of the Taliban'.
Read Part 1: Challenging the Narrative
Part 2: Afghanistan's Guerrilla Warfare
Afghans used Guerrilla warfare tactics against the Soviet Army during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979 - 1989) and later against the Taliban (1996 - 2001, 2021 till now). Guerrilla warfare is a type of unconventional combat where small, irregular military groups employ tactics like ambushes, sabotage, terrorism, raids, petty conflicts, and hit-and-run strategies. These methods are used in rebellions, violent conflicts, wars, or civil wars to confront regular military forces, police, or rival insurgents, which have superior technology and arms system. Modern Guerrilla warfare was used in the Korean (1950 – 1953) and Vietnam Wars (1955 – 1975).
In his small book “Guerrilla Warfare” on rural guerrilla warfare tactics written in 1960, Ernesto “Che” Guevara delivered the "classic" theory of modern Guerrilla warfare. It contains fundamental considerations on the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare, as well as "practical tips" on the deployment, functioning, and concrete instructions for guerrilla fighters. In contrast to Marighella's "Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla," Che views rural areas as a fighting and retreat area for the guerrillas. Ernesto "Che" Guevara (1928 -1967) was a Marxist revolutionary, guerrilla leader, and author. From 1956 to 1959, he was a central leader (Comandante) of the rebel army of the Cuban Revolution and, alongside Fidel Castro, is its most important symbolic figure.
Encyclopedia Britannica (or short: Britannica) describes guerrilla warfare as follows in its introduction: "guerrilla warfare, type of warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving, small-scale actions against orthodox military and police forces and, on occasion, against rival insurgent forces, either independently or in conjunction with a larger political-military strategy."
About guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan Britannica further writes: "The Afghan War of 1978–92 saw a coalition of Muslim guerrillas known as the mujahideen, variously commanded by regional Afghan warlords heavily subsidized by the United States, fighting against Afghan and Soviet forces. The Soviets withdrew from that country in 1989, leaving the Afghan factions to fight it out in a civil war".
in Panjshir - surrounded by his men
Afghanistan's Success lies in the Guerrilla Warfare
Afghanistan's success can be attributed to its use of guerrilla warfare, a tactical approach that has evolved to counter better-equipped armies. Although this form of warfare has historical roots, the current situation for Afghans is one of enduring hardship. Classical and modern guerrilla warfare share core principles; however, they differ significantly in context, strategies, and techniques, shaped by advancements in technology, changes in the dynamics of warfare, and the socio-political landscape.
Classical guerrilla warfare, which emerged between the 17th and 19th centuries, took place in traditional conflicts, often in rural areas, where smaller, local groups resisted larger military powers, as seen with the Spanish guerrillas during the Napoleonic Wars. In contrast, modern guerrilla warfare developed in the mid-20th century, often emerging in post-colonial contexts during the Cold War. This contemporary form reflects a globalized world where information and technology play pivotal roles, with conflicts occurring in both rural and urban environments.
Tactics have also transformed. Classical guerrilla warfare primarily utilized ambushes, skirmishes, and hit-and-run strategies executed by small, mobile units in open terrains, such as forests and mountains. Modern guerrilla warfare expands upon these tactics, integrating elements like urban warfare, cyber warfare, and advanced technological tools, such as drones and social media, for communication and propaganda. The operational scope of modern guerrilla groups is broader, involving complex support networks that enhance their effectiveness.
Communication methods have shifted dramatically as well. In classical guerrilla warfare, communication was typically local and direct, depending on personal networks and local knowledge, with a more centralized leadership structure. Today, modern guerrilla warfare leverages advanced communication technologies, allowing for decentralized leadership. This shift enables smaller, more autonomous cells to function dynamically, complicating the efforts of adversaries to disrupt their operations.
Engagement with the local population also reflects these changes. While classical guerrilla warfare recognized the importance of local support—often rooted in shared ethnic or national identities—modern guerrilla tactics emphasize a deeper political and social engagement. This engagement often incorporates broad ideological narratives, such as anti-imperialism or social justice, and can involve strategies including social programs and political activism.
Psychological warfare and propaganda have also evolved. In classical situations, psychological tactics focused on portraying the moral superiority of guerrilla fighters over occupying forces, but the means to disseminate these messages were limited. In contrast, modern guerrilla warfare employs sophisticated media strategies, utilizing platforms like social media to shape global public opinion and mobilize support rapidly, enhancing the effectiveness of psychological operations.
Moreover, the duration and objectives of conflicts have shifted. Classical guerrilla warfare often spanned several years, targeting immediate goals like territorial control or the expulsion of occupying forces. Conversely, modern guerrilla warfare is frequently viewed as part of a long-term insurgent strategy, aiming for systemic changes in political structures. This approach anticipates prolonged conflict over many years, if not decades.
Finally, the response to conventional military forces has become more intricate. Classical guerrilla warfare was predominantly concerned with evading and ambushing conventional armies in rural settings. In today's landscape, modern guerrilla fighters engage in more complex confrontations with conventional military powers, incorporating urban warfare tactics, blending in with civilian populations, and leveraging international relations and media to garner support.
Modern Guerrilla Warfare shaped Life in Afghanistan
Modern guerrilla warfare is essential for Afghanistan, as it employs a diverse range of strategies and tactics by smaller, irregular military groups in their fight against larger, conventional forces. One of the central ideas of modern guerrilla warfare is asymmetrical warfare, where guerrilla forces operate under conditions that favor their agility and local knowledge, enabling them to exploit the vulnerabilities of more traditional military powers. This combat style emphasizes mobility and flexibility, with tactics focusing on quick, surprise attacks followed by rapid withdrawals, allowing fighters to avoid direct confrontations with superior forces.
A crucial aspect of modern guerrilla warfare is gaining the support of the local population. Guerrilla groups achieve this through social programs, effective propaganda, or by addressing grievances against existing authorities. The decentralized leadership structure of modern guerrilla movements allows for independent action by smaller units, complicating the adversaries’ efforts to disrupt their operations. Additionally, these groups adapt to new technologies, incorporating tools such as drones, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and advanced communication networks to enhance their operational effectiveness.
Psychological warfare plays a significant role in modern guerrilla tactics, with fighters aiming to demoralize enemy forces and erode public support for their adversaries through propaganda, media, and psychological operations. Guerrilla warfare is also characterized by long-term strategies, recognizing that achieving political objectives may take years or even decades. The ability to utilize the terrain provides guerrilla fighters with a strategic advantage; their knowledge of local environments—whether mountainous, forested, or urban—enables them to conceal movements and launch unexpected attacks.
Engagement with non-combatants complicates the military responses of conventional forces, as these groups often elicit active participation or support from the civilian population. Overall, modern guerrilla warfare is marked by its adaptability to the political, social, and technological contexts of the era, focusing on leveraging local conditions and support to challenge more powerful adversaries.
In comparing classical and modern guerrilla warfare, it is evident that classical guerrilla warfare emerged mainly from the 17th to 19th centuries, where smaller groups engaged in armed resistance against larger forces, typically in rural settings. Tactics relied on ambushes and hit-and-run maneuvers, utilizing the element of surprise in open terrains like forests and mountains. Communication methods were straightforward and local, accompanied by clear hierarchical structures. While local support was sought, it often stemmed from shared ethnic or national identities, and psychological tactics emphasized the moral superiority of guerrillas over their adversaries. Additionally, conflicts tended to be shorter-term, focused mainly on immediate goals like ousting an occupying army.
In contrast, modern guerrilla warfare, which emerged in the mid-20th century, operates within a globalized context, frequently seen in post-colonial conflicts or during the Cold War. The tactics have diversified to encompass urban warfare, cyber strategies, and the incorporation of advanced technologies, such as drones and social media for communication and propaganda. Communication is more complex and leverages modern technologies, allowing for decentralized command structures that enable smaller units to operate independently and adapt swiftly. Engagement with local populations has become more multifaceted, often involving extensive political and social strategies that address broader ideological issues, such as anti-imperialism or social justice. Psychological operations now use media channels to influence public perception on a global scale rapidly. Moreover, modern conflicts often extend over years or decades, with long-term goals centered on political change or system modifications rather than immediate territorial gains.
In summary, while classical guerrilla warfare focused on direct, localized resistance against conventional forces, modern guerrilla warfare adapts to contemporary challenges with sophisticated tactics, broader ideological aims, and a keen emphasis on technology and communication. As Afghanistan navigates its current challenges, the need for such an adaptive and multifaceted approach becomes increasingly apparent.
The Fall of Panjshir: Limitations of Guerrilla Warfare in the Face of Modern Technology
Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, the Taliban launched an offensive against what remained of the resistance in Panjshir province, marking the initial anti-Taliban insurgent actions of that year. The Taliban advanced into districts including Baghlan, Panjshir, and Parwan, with reports suggesting that al-Qaeda fighters participated alongside them, supported by videos showing fighters speaking Arabic, a language uncommon in the region.
By early September, both sides claimed territorial gains: the National Resistance Front (NRF) managed to force hundreds of Taliban fighters to surrender and reported capturing several districts, while the Taliban secured key strategic areas, including Panjshir’s capital, Bazarak. Despite these advances, resistance fighters continued launching strikes behind Taliban lines. On September 5, local journalists confirmed the Taliban’s control over Rukha and Paryan Districts, and NRF spokesman Fahim Dashty was killed—likely targeted through intelligence or surveillance rather than direct combat. This suggested the involvement of more advanced military support, potentially from countries like China or Pakistan.
By September 6, Taliban forces had seized the governor’s office in Bazarak and declared control of the valley, though NRF fighters retreated into the mountains. Massoud was reported to be safe, and Saleh escaped to Tajikistan, though some officials claimed he remained within Afghanistan. The resistance maintained positions in strategic locations, contesting the Taliban’s dominance. Civilians, fleeing violence and starvation worsened by supply disruptions, sought refuge in the mountains. Despite the Taliban’s territorial gains, resistance forces continued to hold significant parts of the valley, and reports of civilian massacres emerged.
By September 9, Taliban control extended at least 60 kilometers into Panjshir, effectively besieging the region and restricting access for journalists and aid supplies. Residents warned of shortages, while NRF forces claimed they had only withdrawn from the main road, maintaining control over much of the valley’s sub-regions. The Afghan ambassador to Tajikistan stated that Massoud and Saleh remained within Afghanistan, contrary to earlier reports of their fleeing. On September 10, the Taliban captured Saleh’s residence, and he released a video asserting he was still in Panjshir; later reports indicated his brother Rohullah Saleh was killed during an escape attempt.
Main points:
-There is credible evidence suggesting that foreign terrorist fighters, including al-Qaeda elements, supported the Taliban during their offensive.
-Reports indicate that China played a significant role, providing advanced satellite technology that enhanced Taliban surveillance and military capabilities.
-Fahim Dashty, the NRF spokesman, was not engaged directly in combat but was likely targeted or located through sophisticated communication technologies, possibly facilitated by China, Pakistan, or both.
-In May 2025, India accused China of supplying Pakistan with satellite support to prevent Indian strikes:
During clashes in May 2025, China reportedly assisted Pakistan by enhancing its air defense and satellite coverage, further complicating regional security and implying broader Chinese involvement in regional conflicts beyond Afghanistan.
This episode underscores the limitations of traditional guerrilla tactics when faced with modern technological support, highlighting how advancements in surveillance, communication, and military technology can diminish the tactical advantages typically held by irregular fighters. The fall of Panjshir exemplifies that, despite enduring guerrilla strategies rooted in local knowledge and mobility, modern warfare’s technological edge can decisively tilt the balance, challenging the efficacy of insurgent resistance in contemporary conflicts.
Comments
Post a Comment