IT will be no consolation to the families of the three British soldiers killed in Tuesday's bomb blast in Helmand to hear their deaths come precisely at the moment when the Taliban has actually reduced its attacks on coalition forces.
Certainly the first quarter of 2013 has seen a 47% increase in Taliban attacks compared to 2012, but by far those strikes have been against Afghan forces rather than coalition.
Much is often made of what has been dubbed Afghanistan's "fighting season" – as the spring weather improves making it easier for insurgent fighters to move and be resupplied.
This was as true of the 1980s war against Soviet Russia as it is today.
But one of the other main factors behind the escalation of attacks is that the coalition has significantly reduced its overall presence on the small, exposed and more vulnerable forward operating bases they established throughout the countryside during previous surge operations.
As many as 80% of such bases have been closed down or handed over to Afghan forces.
Taliban fighters have been quick to capitalise on this shift by seizing territory whenever possible.
It is expected the bulk of fighting in the coming months will move from southern and central Afghanistan to the more rugged eastern portions bordering the Pakistani tribal regions that facilitate the militants' logistical supply lines from sanctuaries in Pakistan.
Without the air mobility and massive firepower of the coalition, Afghan troops here will face serious challenges in containing a Taliban offensive.
Tuesday's massive roadside bomb attack does not, in itself, signal a change in Taliban tactics.
The militants, however, may well claim that they are laying down a marker for things to come.
Overall, it is the emphasis on attacking Afghan forces that distinguishes a shift in battlefield dynamics. This, and the Taliban's overall strategy of discrediting the government of President Hamid Karzai ahead of next year's presidential election and the planned withdrawal of most coalition combat troops by the end of 2014.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article