Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Afghanistans Taliban Is in It to Win It Foreign Policy

Like three of his predecessors, U.S. President Donald Trump is now reportedlyseekingPakistans assistance in bringing Afghanistans Taliban to the negotiating table. But thehistory of American negotiationswith the Taliban, going back to the mid-1990s, shows how large the perceptual gap between the two sides is. Even when Pakistan has facilitated dialogue, those efforts have been frustrated by the chasm between Americas and the Talibans worldviews.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Americas negotiator in the new talks, is an able and experienced diplomat, uniquely qualified to navigate the treacherous politics of Afghanistan. Trump has tapped the right person for a tough job, but even Khalilzad may not be able to overcome the difference in outlookand commitmentbetween the United States and the Taliban.

The United States does not lose wars; it only loses interest. From Americas point of view, Afghanistan is a poor backwater that becomes strategically significant only when a hostile power controls it. The United States supported Afghans waging a holy war against the Soviets during the 1980s, only to walk away after the Soviet withdrawal and return after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although the United States has never deployed the full possible force needed to eliminate the Taliban operating from safe havens across the border in Pakistan, most Americans feel they are embroiled in an endless war far from home. Reports about corruption and Afghanistans venal politics add to the view that the Afghans contribute less to the war effort than they should and that, after the killing of Osama bin Laden and degrading of al Qaeda, the United States has little reason to continue expending blood and treasure there.

But contrary to the perception in the United States, Americas Afghan allies have borne the vast bulk of the human cost of fighting in their country, especially in recent years. At least 28,529 Afghan security personnel have been killed in the fighting since 2015 alone.American fatalitiesare low in contrast. In 2015, 10 American troops lost their lives; nine were killed in 2016, and 11 were killed in 2017. In 2018 so far, 12 U.S. soldiers died in combat in Afghanistan.

The U.S. view of Afghanistan as less important in itself is visible in its past interactions with the Taliban. The former President Bill Clintons administrationengagedwith the Taliban in 1996, seeking information about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders, only to be told falsely that they were not in Taliban-controlled territory. Two years later, Pakistani officialstold U.S. diplomatsthat the Taliban wanted to get rid of bin Laden and even suggested that the U.S. pay off the Taliban to expel the al Qaeda leader. Both ideas turned out to be red herrings.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, George W. Bushs administration assumed that Gen. Pervez Musharrafs military regime in Pakistan would help it take care of the Taliban threat just as it was helping to arrest some al Qaeda terrorists inside its own country. Once American officials realized that the Talibans safe haven in Pakistan was a major impediment to military success in Afghanistan, U.S. policy focused on incentivizing or pressuring Pakistan into helping American withdrawal.

Beginning with then-President Barack Obamas appointment in 2009 of veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, several attempts have been made to reach out to the Taliban and the Pakistani authorities for formal negotiations for a comprehensive settlement. The Trump administration has revitalizedexploratory meetingswith Taliban representatives with the appointment of Khalilzad as special representative for Afghan reconciliation.

Much of the discussion about Afghanistan in Washington since 2009 has focused on how Americas longest war can be brought to an early end.In addition to initiating the peace process, Obama even set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troopssomething Trump has thankfully avoided.

But lost in the perennial discussion of the 17-year war is the point that military missions must be tied to the attainment of objectives, not to their length of time. If defeating the Taliban militarily has proved difficult, negotiating with them has not been particularly easy either. The Talibans view of the conflict is fundamentally differentand far more long-termthan Washingtons. In their worldview, shaped by their ideology, Americans are unbelievers occupying an Islamic country, and their Afghan allies are also legitimate targets of jihad.The Taliban have been playing the long game, hoping to wait the Americans out before defeating the inadequately trained Afghan forces.

The Taliban have a long pattern of following up peace overtures with highly visible attacks, such as the assassination in October of Kandahars police chief, Gen. Abdul Raziq, in anattackthat narrowly missed the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

The purpose of such attacks, soon after secret talks with U.S. interlocutors, is to demonstrate to true believers that the American eagerness to negotiate is the result of weakness, whereas the jihadis are willing to talk only to ease the withdrawal of infidels without giving up on their ideology.

While negotiating with the Taliban, Americans must remember that international terrorism is not over and that precipitate U.S. withdrawal from terrorist-infested regions such as Afghanistan would only recreate ungoverned spaces that could again serve as operational bases for global terrorists.

The Taliban and Pakistan have given assurances about clearing out international terrorists several times since 1996, and their promises have often turned out to be inadequate or outright false. If there is to be a settlement this time, it would have to involve verifiable guarantees that Afghan and Pakistani soil will not be used to harbor or train terrorists responsible for attacks around the world.

Al Qaeda was born out of the belief that jihadism had not only forced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan but also led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many hold to a similar belief about the United States. The Islamic State took advantage of Obamas decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq without much forethought.

If the Americans are seen abandoning Afghanistan in a hurry, jihadists worldwide will tell future recruits how the combination of their religious zeal with terrorism overcame the military prowess of two superpowers.The triumph of jihad narrative would increase the flow of recruits and with it terrorist attacks. Better intelligence and homeland security have prevented large-scale attacks over the years, but an expansion in recruitment could strain those efforts.

And while talking to the Taliban is important, so are the concerns of ordinary Afghans. Since 2001, Americans have helped Afghanistan implement a democratic constitution, provide access to education for women, and encourage the desire among Afghans to engage with the rest of the worlddevelopments that are anathema to the Taliban. Even while pretending to talk, they seldom express willingness to allow Afghanistans progress to continue.

A negotiated settlement in Afghanistan is a noble objective, but it should not be based on either a mistaken analysis of who is paying the costs or false hopes about an eventual settlement. While pursuing peace, Americans should not lose sight of the difficulties in securing a deal with the Taliban, a less easily reconcilable enemy, as well as Pakistan, a country with regional ambitions that are not always compatible with American objectives. The United States would do well to align its negotiating position with that of the Afghan government.

Here is the original post:
Afghanistans Taliban Is in It to Win It Foreign Policy

Officials: Pentagon to Withdraw 7000 Troops From Afghanistan

(WASHINGTON) The Pentagon is developing plans to withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Thursday, marking a sharp change in the Trump administrations policy aimed at forcing the Taliban to the peace table after more than 17 years of war.

One official said the troops could be out by summer, but no final decision has been made.

President Donald Trump has long pushed to pull troops out of Afghanistan, considering the war a lost cause. But earlier this year, he was persuaded by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others military leaders to keep troops on the ground to pressure the Taliban and battle a stubborn Islamic State insurgency. Officials said the latest White House push for withdrawal was another key factor in Mattis decision to resign Thursday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

U.S. troops stormed into Afghanistan in November 2001 in an invasion triggered by the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since then, America has lost more than 2,400 soldiers and spent more than $900 billion in its longest war. Three U.S. presidents have pledged to bring peace to Afghanistan, either by adding or withdrawing troops, by engaging the Taliban or shunning them, and by struggling to combat widespread corruption in the government.

The U.S. and NATO formally concluded their combat mission in 2014, but American and allied troops remain, conducting strikes on the Islamic State group and the Taliban and working to train and build the Afghan military.

Taliban insurgents, however, control nearly half of Afghanistan and are more powerful than at any time since a 2001 U.S.-led invasion. They carry out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting security forces and government officials.

In recent months, however, there has been a renewed effort to make progress on peace talks with the Taliban. Officials now worry that any move to withdraw U.S. troops this year could dampen those prospects and simply encourage the Taliban to wait it out until they can take advantage of the gaps when the forces leave.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

View original post here:
Officials: Pentagon to Withdraw 7000 Troops From Afghanistan

Taliban-Linked Source: U.S. Ready for ‘Withdrawal Plan’ in …

The U.S. made the proposal, which would allow the United States to maintain three military bases in Afghanistan, during the latest round of dialogue between American and Taliban representatives in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

This week, the U.S. and the Taliban participated in a two-day round of peace negotiations in Abu Dhabi in the presence of officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE the only countries that officially recognized the terrorist groups regime during its five years of oppressive rule in Afghanistan and are believed to have sway over the jihadi organization.

Taliban terrorists have long insisted on the complete withdrawal of United States-NATO troops, a move that appears to be on the same page with the many Americans who have grown tiredof the war and want U.S. troops to return home.

An unnamed source close to the Taliban negotiators told the Times:

The major focus is on ceasefire now. The Americans have been asking for a six-month ceasefire and are also ready to give a withdrawal plan. They want at least three bases in Afghanistan but have assured they would not interfere in Afghanistans internal affairs. Security will be the responsibility of the Afghan security forces. The bases would only serve to safeguard their interests in the region especially against Russia and China.

In June, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also indicated that the Trump administration is open to discussing the withdrawal.

Months before the latest round of negotiations, the Trump administration came out in support of Afghan President Ashraf Ghanis offer to the Taliban of a truce and official recognition as a legitimate political power.

Trump administration officials have made reconciliation between Kabul and the Taliban the top priority of its strategy to bring Americas longest foreign war to a close.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the Trump administrations special representative in charge of the talks for Afghan reconciliation to the war, is leading Americas peace-seeking efforts.

During the recent talks, the envoy indicated that the U.S. discussed the future of the American military presence in Afghanistan and an offer of a three-month cease-fire during which the insurgents and the Afghan government could have negotiations, the New York Times (NYT) noted.

Khalilzad reportedly demanded, Assurances that Afghanistan will not become a haven for terrorists who want to target the United States.

While ruling out a pre-9/11 situation in Afghanistan, Khalilzad told TOLO News he had told the Taliban that if the menace of terrorism is tackled, the United States is not looking for a permanent military presence in the country, according to the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency.

According to the Pentagon, the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is home to the highest regional concentration of terrorist groups in the world.

In August, the United Nations reported that the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the jihadi allies behind the 9/11 attacks on the American homeland, remains firm.

After the talks this week, a spokesman for the Taliban also stressed that the recent discussions focused on the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, a long-stated goal of the terrorist group.

Khalilzad is leading the Trump administrations intensified efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, raging since October 2001 at the cost of nearly $1 trillion, 2,276 U.S. military fatalities, and 20,415 injuries.

Terrorists, primarily Taliban jihadis, control or contest about 45 percent of Afghanistan, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), a watchdog agency, reported earlier this year.

The Long War Journal, a component of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank, estimated last month that the Taliban and its Haqqani Network allies have between 28,000 and 40,000 jihadis in Afghanistan.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced that it was pulling out of Syria, prompting the Associated Press (AP) to suggest that Afghanistan may be next.

If hes willing to walk away from Syria, I think we should be concerned about whether Afghanistan is next, Jennifer Cafarella, the director of intelligence planning at the Institute for the Study of War, told the AP.

The president has defended his decision to pull out of Syria, writing on Twitter Thursday:

Getting out of Syria was no surprise. Ive been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer. Russia, Iran, Syria & other are the locla enemy of ISIS. We were doing [their] work. Time to come home & rebuild. Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever?

Several U.S. military officials have said the war in Afghanistan is at a stalemate.

Echoing other assessments, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted this week, Taliban officials have shown in their talks with the U.S. since July some willingness to moderate the groups absolutist demands, accepting, for example, an incremental withdrawal of American forces over an extended period of years, people familiar with the talks say.

Citing the Talibans ongoing refusal to meet with the Taliban, Khalil raised doubts Thursday about the Talibans desire to end the 17-year war, AFP acknowledged.

Excerpt from:
Taliban-Linked Source: U.S. Ready for 'Withdrawal Plan' in ...

US defense chief quits as Trump pulls from Syria, Afghanistan

Washington (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned Thursday, leading a chorus of protests at home and abroad after President Donald Trump ordered a complete troop pullout from Syria and a significant withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Trump steadfastly defended his sudden push for retrenchment, vowing that the United States would no longer be the "policeman of the Middle East" and saying the 2,000-strong US force in Syria was no longer needed as the Islamic State group had been defeated.

Mattis, a battle-hardened retired four-star general seen as a moderating force on the often impulsive president, made little attempt to hide his disagreements with Trump.

"Because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours," Mattis said in a letter to Trump, "I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."

Mattis hailed the coalition to defeat Islamic State as well as NATO, the nearly 70-year-old alliance between North America and Europe whose cost-effectiveness has been questioned by the businessman turned president.

"My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues," Mattis wrote.

One day after the surprise announcement on Syria, a US official told AFP that Trump had also decided on a "significant withdrawal" in a much larger US operation -- Afghanistan.

Some 14,000 troops are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan as part of the longest-ever US war, launched in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Wall Street Journal reported that more than half would be returning.

Trump has surrounded himself with former military men and shown an uncharacteristic public deference toward Mattis, a bookish 68-year-old who has disagreed with the president behind the scenes on issues from Russia to Iran to accepting transgender soldiers.

He hinted at Mattis's departure as far back as October, telling CBS: "It could be that he is (leaving). I think he's sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth... He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves."

On Twitter Thursday, however, Trump had only praise for his defense secretary, who will serve until the end of February, crediting him with achieving "tremendous progress."

- 'National security crisis' -

US lawmakers across the political spectrum voiced concern over a rebirth of the Islamic State group in Syria and sounded an alarm as Mattis unmoors from the unpredictable administration.

Senator Marco Rubio, a member of Trump's Republican Party, said Mattis in his letter "makes it abundantly clear that we are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation, damage our alliances and empower our adversaries."

Democratic Senator Mark Warner called Mattis "an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration" and voiced fears of policy driven by "the president's erratic whims."

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was unusually pointed, calling for the US to "maintain a clear-eyed understanding of our friends and foes, and recognize that nations like Russia are among the latter."

He said he was "particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on these and other key aspects of America's global leadership."

Trump was quick to note that he has ramped up military spending, but he has been most interested in deploying troops at home to carry out his key domestic goal of cracking down on unauthorized immigration.

"Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever? Time for others to finally fight," he tweeted.

- Putin praises Trump -

The US withdrawal will make Russia, which has deployed its air power in support of President Bashar al-Assad, the pre-eminent global power in the Syrian conflict.

"The fact that the US has decided to withdraw its troops is right," President Vladimir Putin said during an annual year-end press conference, saying that "on the whole I agree with the US president" on the level of damage inflicted on Islamic State.

Putin, who has described the fall of the Soviet Union as a historic geopolitical disaster, sees Moscow's longtime ally Syria as a key asset in preserving influence in the Middle East.

Iran's Shiite clerical regime has also strongly backed Assad, a secular leader from the heterodox Alawite sect.

Turkey opposes Assad and may be emboldened by Trump to attack Kurdish fighters inside Syria, who fought alongside US troops against the Islamic State group.

Turkey links Kurds who dominate the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces to a decades-old insurgency at home, but had been reluctant to strike for fear of setting off a crisis if the United States suffered casualties.

Mustefa Bali, a spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces, said the fighters would keep up the battle against Islamic State -- but that all bets were off if Turkey attacks.

- Worries in Europe -

Bali said the Kurdish forces would keep locked up the Islamic State extremists in their custody -- but alleged that Turkey may target prisons to sow chaos once US troops leave.

The Islamic State movement has claimed credit for a slew of attacks around the world, including the 2015 coordinated assault on Paris, and experts estimate that thousands of sympathizers remain.

Meanwhile Germany, which has taken in more than one million refugees stemming in large part from the Syria conflict, questioned Trump's assessment that the threat was over.

While fighting has largely subsided in Syria and the Islamic State group holds little territory, a political solution remains elusive in ending the war that has killed more than 360,000 and displaced millions since 2011.

burs-sct/ft/ska/dw

See the article here:
US defense chief quits as Trump pulls from Syria, Afghanistan

Operation Enduring Freedom – Wikipedia

Operation Enduring FreedomPart of the War on TerrorDuring Operation El Dorado in May 2004, U.S. Marines from Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, startle the owner of a compound who refused to open his door for a search.Belligerents

In Afghanistan: (completed)

In the Philippines: (completed)

In Somalia/Horn of Africa:

In Georgia: (completed)

In Kyrgyzstan: (completed)

In Afghanistan:

In the Philippines:

In Somalia:

In Sahara:

45,000+ killed 2,437 killed[4](2,414 in Afghanistan, 17 in the Philippines, 4 in Nigeria, 2 in Somalia) 456 killed[4] 158 killed[4] 89 killed[4]

In Afghanistan:

In the Philippines:

In Somalia:

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was the official name used by the U.S. government for the Global War on Terrorism. On October 7, 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced that airstrikes targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban had begun in Afghanistan.[10] Operation Enduring Freedom primarily refers to the War in Afghanistan,[11][12] but it is also affiliated with counterterrorism operations in other countries, such as OEF-Philippines and OEF-Trans Sahara.[13][14]

After 13 years, on December 28, 2014, President Barack Obama announced the end of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.[15] Continued operations in Afghanistan by the United States' military forces, both non-combat and combat, now occur under the name Operation Freedom's Sentinel.[16]

Operation Enduring Freedom most commonly refers to the U.S.-led combat mission in Afghanistan, which is a NATO military alliance between the United States, United Kingdom and Afghanistan.[11][12] OEF is also affiliated with counter-terrorism operations in other countries targeting Al Qaeda and remnants of the Taliban, such as OEF-Philippines and OEF-Trans Sahara, primarily through government funding vehicles.[13][14]

The U.S. government used the term "Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan" to officially describe the War in Afghanistan, from the period between 7 October 2001 and 31 December 2014.[17][24] Continued operations in Afghanistan by the United States' military forces, both non-combat and combat, now occur under the name Operation Freedom's Sentinel.[25]

The operation was originally called "Operation Infinite Justice", but as similar phrases have been used by adherents of several religions as an exclusive description of God, it is believed to have been changed to avoid offense to Muslims, who are the majority religion in Afghanistan.[26] In September 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush's remark that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while", which prompted widespread criticism from the Islamic world, may also have contributed to the renaming of the operation.[26]

The term "OEF-A" typically refers to the phase of the War in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014. Other operations, such as the Georgia Train and Equip Program, are only loosely or nominally connected, such as through government funding vehicles.[13] All the operations, however, have a focus on counterterrorism activities.

Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan, which was a joint U.S., U.K., and Afghan operation, was separate from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was an operation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations including the U.S. and the U.K.[27] The two operations ran in parallel, although it had been suggested that they merge.[28]

In response to the attacks of 11 September, the early combat operations that took place on 7 October 2001 to include a mix of strikes from land-based B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress bombers, carrier-based F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet fighters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from both U.S. and British ships and submarines signaled the start of Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan (OEF-A).

The initial military objectives of OEF-A, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his 20 September Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his 7 October address to the country, included the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al-Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.[29][30][31]

In January 2002, over 1,200 soldiers from the United States Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC) deployed to the Philippines to support the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in their push to uproot terrorist forces on the island of Basilan. Of those groups included are Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah.[32] The operation consisted of training the AFP in counter-terrorist operations as well as supporting the local people with humanitarian aid in Operation Smiles.[33]

In October 2002, the Combined Task Force 150 and United States military Special Forces established themselves in Djibouti at Camp Lemonnier. The stated goals of the operation were to provide humanitarian aid and patrol the Horn of Africa to reduce the abilities of terrorist organizations in the region. Similar to OEF-P, the goal of humanitarian aid was emphasized, ostensibly to prevent militant organizations from being able to take hold amongst the population as well as reemerge after being removed.

The military aspect involves coalition forces searching and boarding ships entering the region for illegal cargo as well as providing training and equipment to the armed forces in the region. The humanitarian aspect involves building schools, clinics and water wells to enforce the confidence of the local people.

Since 2001, the cumulative expenditure by the U.S. government on Operation Enduring Freedom has exceeded $150billion.[34]

The operation continues, with military direction mostly coming from United States Central Command.

Seizing upon a power vacuum after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan after their invasion, the Taliban had the role of government from 19962001. Their extreme interpretation of Islamic law prompted them to ban music, television, sports, and dancing, and enforce harsh judicial penalties (See Human rights in Afghanistan). Amputation was an accepted form of punishment for stealing,[35][36] and public executions could often be seen at the Kabul football stadium.[37][38] Women's rights groups around the world were frequently critical as the Taliban banned women from appearing in public or holding many jobs outside the home.[citation needed] They drew further criticism[by whom?] when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, historical statues nearly 1500 years old, because the Buddhas were considered idols.

In 1996, Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf.[39] When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. It has been suggested that the Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections.[40]

On 20 September 2001, the U.S. stated that Osama bin Laden was behind the 11 September attacks in 2001. The US made a five-point ultimatum to the Taliban:[41]

On 21 September 2001, the Taliban rejected this ultimatum, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.[42]

On 22 September 2001 the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties.

On 4 October 2001, it was reported that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic shar'ia law.[43] On 7 October 2001, the Taliban proposed to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[44] This proposition was immediately rejected by the US. Later on the same day, United States and British forces initiated military action against the Taliban, bombing Taliban forces and al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.[45]

On 14 October 2001, the Taliban proposed to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the events of 11 September 2001.[46] The US rejected this proposal and military operations ensued.

The UN Security Council, on 16 January 2002, unanimously established an arms embargo and the freezing of identifiable assets belonging to bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the remaining Taliban.

On Sunday 7 October 2001, American and British forces began an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda.[47]

The Northern Alliance, aided by Joint Special Operations teams consisting of Green Berets from the 5th Special Forces Group, aircrew members from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), and Air Force Combat Controllers, fought against the Taliban. Aided by U.S. bombing and massive defections, they captured Mazar-i-Sharif on 9 November. They then rapidly gained control of most of northern Afghanistan, and took control of Kabul on 13 November after the Taliban unexpectedly fled the city. The Taliban were restricted to a smaller and smaller region, with Kunduz, the last Taliban-held city in the north, captured on 26 November. Most of the Taliban fled to Pakistan.

The war continued in the south of the country, where the Taliban retreated to Kandahar. After Kandahar fell in December,[48] remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda continued to mount resistance. Meanwhile, in November 2001 the U.S. military and its allied forces established their first ground base in Afghanistan to the south west of Kandahar, known as FOB Rhino.[49]

The Battle of Tora Bora, involving U.S., British and Northern Alliance forces took place in December 2001 to further destroy the Taliban and suspected al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In early March 2002 the United States military, along with allied Afghan military forces, conducted a large operation to destroy al-Qaeda in an operation code-named Operation Anaconda.

The operation was carried out by elements of the United States 10th Mountain Division, 101st Airborne Division, the U.S. special forces groups TF 11, TF Bowie, TF Dagger, TF K-Bar, British Royal Marines, the Norwegian Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK), Hrens Jegerkommando and Marinejegerkommandoen, Canada's 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Canada's Joint Task Force 2, the German KSK, and elements of the Australian Special Air Service Regiment and of the New Zealand Special Air Service and the Afghan National Army.

After managing to evade U.S. forces throughout the summer of 2002, the remnants of the Taliban gradually began to regain their confidence. A U.S. and Canadian led operation (supported by British and Dutch forces), Operation Mountain Thrust was launched in May 2006 to counter renewed Taliban insurgency.

Since January 2006, the NATO International Security Assistance Force undertook combat duties from Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan, the NATO force chiefly made up of British, Canadian and Dutch forces (and some smaller contributions from Denmark, Romania and Estonia and air support from Norway as well as air and artillery support from the U.S.) (see the article Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006). The United States military also conducts military operations separate from NATO as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in other parts of Afghanistan, in areas such as Kandahar, Bagram, and Kabul (including Camp Eggers and Camp Phoenix.)

The United States was supported by several nations during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan in 20012003 and in subsequent coalition operations directly or indirectly in support of OEF. See the article Afghanistan War order of battle for the current disposition of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The U.S.-led coalition initially removed the Taliban from power and seriously crippled al-Qaeda and associated militants in Afghanistan. However, success in quelling the Taliban insurgency since the 2001 invasion has been mixed. Many believe[who?] the Taliban cannot be defeated as long as it has sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan[50] and that Operation Enduring Freedom has transformed into a continuing full-fledged war with no end in sight.

On 9 October 2004, Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai president in its first direct elections. The following year, Afghans conducted the Afghan parliamentary election, 2005 on 18 September. Since the invasion, hundreds of schools and mosques have been constructed, millions of dollars in aid have been distributed, and the occurrence of violence has been reduced.

While military forces interdict insurgents and assure security, Provincial reconstruction teams are tasked with infrastructure building, such as constructing roads and bridges, assisting during floods, and providing food and water to refugees. Many warlords have participated in an allegiance program, recognizing the legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan, and surrendering their soldiers and weapons; however, subsequent actions have led to questions about their true loyalties.

The Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police, and Afghan Border Police are being trained to assume the task of securing their nation.

On 31 December 2014, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan concluded, and was succeeded by Operation Freedom's Sentinel on 1 January 2015.[51]

AFP, reporting on a news story in the Sunday, 3 April 2004, issue of The New Yorker,[52] wrote that retired Army Colonel Hy Rothstein, "who served in the Army Special Forces for more than 20 years, ...commissioned by The Pentagon to examine the war in Afghanistan concluded the conflict created conditions that have given 'warlordism, banditry and opium production a new lease on life'..."

The conduct of U.S. forces was criticised in a report entitled Enduring Freedom Abuses by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan by U.S.-based human rights group Human Rights Watch in 2004. Some Pakistani scholars, such as Masood Ashraf Raja, editor of Pakistaniaat, have also provided a more specific form of criticism that relates to the consequences of the Global War on Terrorism on the region.[53]

The Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) Al Harakat Al Islamiyya, is deemed a "foreign terrorist organization" by the United States government. Specifically, it is an Islamist separatist group based in and around the southern islands of the Republic of the Philippines, primarily Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao.[54]

Since inception in the early 1990s, the group has carried out bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and extortion in their fight for an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago.[54] Its claimed overarching goal is to create a Pan-Islamic superstate across the Malay portions of Southeast Asia, spanning, from east to west, the large island of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago (Basilan and Jolo islands), the large island of Borneo (Malaysia and Indonesia), the South China Sea, and the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar).

Jemaah Islamiyah is a militant Islamic terrorist organization dedicated to the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy in Southeast Asia, in particular Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, the south of Thailand and the Philippines. Jemaah Islamiyah originally used peaceful means to achieve its goals, but later resorted to terrorism because of its connections with al-Qaeda.[55]

Financial links between Jemaah Islamiyah and other terrorist groups, such as Abu Sayyaf and al-Qaeda, have been found to exist.[56] Jemaah Islamiyah means "Islamic Group" or "Islamic Community" and is often abbreviated JI.

Jemaah Islamiyah is thought to have killed hundreds of civilians. Also, it is suspected of carrying out the Bali car bombing on 12 October 2002, in which suicide bombers attacked a nightclub killing 202 people and wounding many more. Most of the casualties were Australian tourists. After this attack, the U.S. State Department designated Jemaah Islamiyah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Jemaah Islamiyah is also suspected of carrying out the Zamboanga bombings, the Metro Manila bombings, the 2004 Australian embassy bombing and the 2005 Bali terrorist bombing.

In January 2002, 1,200 members of United States Special Operations Command, Pacific (SOCPAC) were deployed to the Philippines to assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in uprooting al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf. The members of SOCPAC were assigned to assist in military operations against the terrorist forces as well as humanitarian operations for the island of Basilan, where most of the conflict was expected to take place.

The United States Special Forces (SF) unit trained and equipped special forces and scout rangers of the AFP, creating the Light Reaction Company (LRC). The LRC and elements of SOCPAC deployed to Basilan on completion of their training. The stated goals of the deployment were denying the ASG sanctuary, surveiling, controlling, and denying ASG routes, surveiling supporting villages and key personnel, conducting local training to overcome AFP weaknesses and sustain AFP strengths, supporting operations by the AFP "strike force" (LRC) in the area of responsibility (AOR), conducting and supporting civil affairs operations in the AOR.[57]

The desired result was for the AFP to gain sufficient capability to locate and destroy the ASG, to recover hostages and to enhance the legitimacy of the Philippine government. Much of the operation was a success: the ASG was driven from Basilan and one U.S. hostage was recovered.[57] The Abu Sayyaf Group's ranks, which once counted more than 800 members, was reduced to less than 100. The humanitarian portion of the operation, Operation Smiles, created 14 schools, 7 clinics, 3 hospitals and provided medical care to over 18,000 residents of Basilan. Humanitarian groups were able to continue their work without fear of further kidnappings and terrorists attacks by the Abu Sayyaf Group.[33][58]

Unlike other operations contained in Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF-HOA does not have a specific terrorist organization as a target. OEF-HOA instead focuses its efforts to disrupt and detect terrorist activities in the region and to work with host nations to deny the reemergence of terrorist cells and activities. Operations began in mid-2002 at Camp Lemonnier by a Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF) augmented by support forces from Fort Stewart, Fort Hood, and Fort Story. In October 2002, the Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) was established at Djibouti at Camp Lemonnier, taking over responsibilities from the CJSOTF. CJTF-HOA comprised approximately 2,000 personnel including U.S. military and Special Operations Forces (SOF), and coalition force members, Combined Task Force 150 (CTF-150). The coalition force consists of ships from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, India, Italy, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa region. Since 2003, the U.S. Military also conducts operations targeting Al-Qaeda-linked fighters in Somalia, these operations had reportedly killed between 113 and 136 militants by early 2016. On 7 March 2016, a further 150 were killed in U.S. airstrikes on an al Shabaab training camp north of Mogadishu.[59]

CJTF-HOA has devoted the majority of its efforts to train selected armed forces units of the countries of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency tactics. Humanitarian efforts conducted by CJTF-HOA include the rebuilding of schools and medical clinics, as well as providing medical services to those countries whose forces are being trained. The program expands as part of the Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism Initiative as CJTF personnel also assist in training the forces of Chad, Niger, Mauritania and Mali.[60]

"Operation Enduring Freedom"

Anti-piracy operations were undertaken by the coalition throughout 2006 with a battle fought in March when US vessels were attacked by pirates. In January 2007, during the war in Somalia, an AC-130 airstrike was conducted against al-Qaeda members embedded with forces of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) operating in southern Somalia near Ras Kamboni. US naval forces, including the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, were positioned off the coast of Somalia to provide support and to prevent any al-Qaeda forces escaping by sea. Actions against pirates also occurred in June and October 2007 with varying amounts of success.

"Operation Resolute Support/Freedom's Sentinel"

Effective 1 January 2015, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced that the new U.S. mission in Afghanistan will focus on training, advising, and assisting Afghan security forces and designated as Operation Freedom's Sentinel.19 About 13,500 U.S. troops are expected in Afghanistan through2015 and will be assisted by troops from NATO allies.

Since 2002, the United States military has created military awards and decorations related to Operation Enduring Freedom

NATO also created a military decoration related to Operation Enduring Freedom:

Read the original here:
Operation Enduring Freedom - Wikipedia