Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Afghanistan: Negotiating A Big Reveal

December 19, 2018: The United States is exploring the possibility of working out a peace deal with the Taliban. The major problem with that is getting Pakistan to cooperate because the Afghan Taliban cannot make any deals without Pakistan agreeing. Then there is the larger problem of such a deal turning control of Afghanistan over to drug gangs, Pakistan, Iran and Islamic conservatives (who ban education for women and generally unpopular lifestyle restrictions). Then there are the traditional (usual) how to negotiate with infidels rules used by Islamic terrorist groups. These rules stress the use of lies and deception because the Islamic scripture mentions it so it must be the only way to go. This approach has been very consistently used by Islamic terror groups and the fact that the Afghan Taliban are actually a front for Pakistan makes no difference because Pakistan is increasingly dominated by their armed forces who have been using (if not believing in) Islamic terror groups against their real or imagined enemies since the 1980s. The drug gangs, which also depend on Pakistan to stay in business and are largely run by Pushtuns, will go along with whatever Pakistan wants.

In other words, the Afghan Taliban are actually a minor decision maker when it comes to peace in Afghanistan. That has always been the case, especially before the Taliban lost control of Afghanistan in 2001. Back then the Taliban provided sanctuary for Islamic terrorists, especially al Qaeda. This was allowed by Pakistan because it was seen as a minor problem but it turned out to be a major problem. The Taliban is still on good terms with al Qaeda, although Pakistan is not. But as long as the Afghan Taliban cooperates in keeping al Qaeda out of Pakistan all is well.

The Afghan Taliban is also seen by the majority of Afghans as the creation of Pakistan and a largely Pushtun organization financed by Pakistan supported drug gangs. The Pushtun are 40 percent of the Afghan population and the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. The Pushtun dominate the opium and heroin business which is also opposed by most Afghans, if only because it has created so many addicts. The Taliban are also not a unified organization. The Afghan Taliban has sanctuaries in Pakistan which keep their senior leadership safe and are also the site of border crossings where most of the chemicals for refining opium into heroin get into Afghanistan along with the fertilizer and other chemicals used to make bombs.

All this is common knowledge and the only practical reason to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban is to force more Pushtun tribes (that are still technically Taliban supporters ) to decide if they still are pro-Taliban and OK with the Taliban and Pakistan controlling the Afghan government. Another obvious negotiating problem is the Afghan government, which is elected and democracy is haram (forbidden) as far as Islamic terrorists are concerned. All this explains why the U.S. is demanding a six-month ceasefire as a precondition to negotiations. The Taliban cannot afford to allow that because most of the Taliban activity is in support of the drug gangs which the majority of Afghans are quite vocal about opposing and not willing to leave alone for six months.

In other words, the peace negotiations are not about peace but about smoking out the real intentions of Pakistan in Afghanistan. Making it even more obvious that Pakistan is a major backer of Islamic terrorism and the heroin trade makes it easier to understand that the fears of Islamic terrorists having nuclear weapons have already been realized given the direction the military-dominated Pakistan government is headed. Again this is nothing new and certainly not a secret to those who have worked with (or paid attention to) Pakistan for a while.

The War

So far this year 15 American military personnel have died in Afghanistan, the same as for all of 2017 and more than the 13 in 2016. The increase has to do with more active use of American air power and the U.S. trained Afghan special operations troops. The Afghan commandos were often accompanied by American trainers who observe and provide backup if needed. The Americans also provide the helicopters if a mission requires them but in most cases, the Afghan special operations forces travel via ground transportation. The Afghan Special Forces and commandos have been especially effective in finding and killing Taliban and ISIL leaders. Another factor in higher American losses is the Taliban deliberately going after foreign troops (five other NATO soldiers were killed so far this year, the highest number since most NATO forces left Afghanistan in 2014, when 14 died, along with 55 Americans).

The first ten months of 2018 saw American airpower used more often in Afghanistan than at any other time (including the 2011 surge). This year the coalition warplanes (mostly U.S.) used 11 percent more bombs and missiles than in 2011. Coalition warplanes have flown an average to 660 sorties a month, with 12 percent of sorties resulting in weapons being used. This includes AC-130 gunships but not attack helicopters. The trend has been accelerating throughout the year. In September the U.S. Air Force used 841 smart bombs and missiles (28 a day) in airstrikes. That was 18 percent more than in August and double what it was in September 2017. The September 2018 numbers were the highest monthly use since late 2010. The Taliban want the Americans gone in large part because of the greater use of airstrikes by American and Afghan warplanes and changes to the ROE (Rules of Engagement). In 2017 American commanders were again allowed to determine the ROE for U.S. troops overseas, especially in places like Syria and Afghanistan. For example in Afghanistan U.S. troops can now fire on the Taliban even when the Taliban are not firing on them and at long distance. Afghan civilians, the most frequent victims of Taliban violence, complained when the U.S. gradually changed its ROE after 2008 to make it impossible for Americans to fire on the Taliban when Afghan civilians were nearby. When asked Afghan civilians pointed out that was when they most needed the Americans to open fire. As the Afghan air force carries out more airstrikes (about a dozen a day by mid-2018) the Afghan ROE has reduced the enemy use of human shields. The Afghan ROE ignores human shields and puts the priority on killing Taliban or ISIL fighters. This made human shields in general much less effective, even though most of the air strikes are carried out by foreign (usually American) warplanes. So far in 2018 American aircraft are carrying out airstrikes at the highest rate ever (about eighteen bombs or missiles used a day) and a third higher than the previous peak year (2011). The greater availability of air strikes encourages Afghan security forces to be more aggressive.

December 18, 2018: In the southeast (Paktia province), an American UAV used missiles to destroy a vehicle and kill 13 Taliban including a local leader.

December 16, 2018: In the east (Kunar province), there were battles between Pakistani and Afghan Taliban that lasted several days. There were apparently over 30 dead and many more wounded. These clashes are usually over who shall control which portion of the border areas. There are also similar battles between ISIL and both Taliban groups over the last several days. Since 2015 Afghanistan has had problems with both ISIL factions and two Taliban organizations. The Pakistan Taliban continue to make attacks in Pakistan and most of these efforts can be traced back to bases in eastern Afghanistan. These attacks tend to take place in the tribal territories of the northwest and southwest but not across the border in Waziristan, where Pakistani troops are still involved in a major anti-terrorist campaign they began in mid-2014 and did not officially end until early 2017. The Pakistani Taliban are not as numerous as their Afghan counterparts and that is largely because the Pakistani Taliban do not have as much money. While Pakistani Taliban make some money from providing security for drug smuggling they have to depend on a lot of other criminal activities to maintain operations. Both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are also suffering internal problems and both have broken up into mutually hostile factions. The rise of ISIL in the region is part of this. The drug gangs dont really care as long as their hired guns protect the drug production and smuggling.

December 13, 2018: In the south (Zabul Province), an American UAV used missiles to kill three Taliban, including one man who had become infamous for openly acting as the public executioner for the Taliban in the area. This may have led to more locals taking a big risk and reporting (to Afghan security forces who are often corrupt) where the executioner was.

December 10, 2018: In the east ( Ghazni province), the local security forces displayed a large number of recently captured Taliban weapons that were manufactured, quite recently, in Iran. The provincial governor accused the Iranians of supplying the Taliban with weapons. The Iranians denied that and pointed out that the Taliban in Ghazni were also going after the local Shia, which Iran, as the largest Shia nation in the world, is sworn to prevent. What Iran fails to mention is that some Taliban factions in western Afghanistan receive aid (training and weapons) from Iran. Earlier in 2018 captured Taliban in western and northern Afghanistan spoke of a special Taliban force being trained in Iran, where they also receive new equipment and weapons with the understanding that they will return to Afghanistan and concentrate their attacks on Americans and ISIL. Iran is desperate to strike back at the Americans for renewing economic sanctions and thwarting Iranian efforts to take control of Syria and then launch attacks on Israel. These Iran backed Taliban have apparently been going after ISIL groups in western Afghanistan but not the Americans, at least not as far as anyone can tell. So far in 2018 15 Americans have been killed but none of those deaths can be traced back to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, as many as 600 Taliban are being trained or completed their training in Iran. This sort of foreign meddling is unpopular in Afghanistan where such interference by neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran, is an ancient and always unwelcome problem. But Iran and Pakistan both interfere and Iranians and Indians have doing so for thousands of years and see no reason why they should not continue doing so in the 21st century. For Iran, its mainly about trying to protect their fellow Shia from attack. Shia Afghans (15 percent of Afghans) are a particular target for Sunni Islamic terrorists like ISIL. The Taliban and al Qaeda are less likely to attack Shia because both organizations sometimes discreetly rely on Iran for sanctuary and other support. Most of the Afghan Shia are Hazara, who are ten percent of the population and the descendants of the hated Mongols who conducted several invasions during the 13th and 14th centuries. These Mongol attacks destroyed more of the country and its population than any other conquerors. For centuries Hazara have suffered a lot of discrimination and actual violence in Afghanistan. But Iran is seen as an ally (at least against Pakistan) by most Afghans and Iran is mostly Shia and sees itself as the defender of all Shia.

How does this explain Iranian weapons in eastern Afghanistan? Simple, once you provide weapons to any Afghan faction those weapons are seen as valuable items to be used or traded. Iran and Pakistan understand this but Western aid providers still have a hard time accepting this ancient custom. In Ghazni, the Afghan Taliban have been waging a major campaign to gain control of the province since August. They now control or contest over half the territory in the province and threaten traffic on several major highways passing through the province. Recently the government sent a special operations unit to Ghazni to help protect Hazara Shia there. The special operations force suffered dozens of casualties as the Taliban sent in hundreds of additional gunmen. Hazara in Ghazni have formed pro-government militias although the main reason for these militias is to protect Hazara from Taliban violence.

Ghazni is near the Pakistani border and contains some major heroin smuggling routes into Pakistan. These routes are kept open by the Taliban. Ghazni has long been fought over, because of the heroin smuggling routes. Normally the drug gangs find it cheaper and more reliable to use bribes but because of the growing number of addicts inside Afghanistan the bribes sometimes dont work and the national government often sends down commandos and NDS (Afghan intel) agents to carry out specific tasks which tend to be bribe proof. Massive intimidation attacks like this often fail, mainly because of the popular anger towards the drug gangs that keep supplying the local addicts. The fact that the Afghan Taliban has always been supported by Pakistan is another incentive to fight back.

Opposing Pakistani meddling in Afghan affairs is a popular issue among most Afghans. One reason Western troops are tolerated in Afghanistan, which has, for thousands of years been hostile to foreigners, is because the Westerners and Afghans are both eager to shut down the drug trade and keep the Pakistanis out. Pakistan sees battles like Ghazni as a success because over a thousand Afghans (including security personnel and civilians) were killed and there was a degree of intimidation achieved. Operations like this cost Pakistan little as the Afghan drug gangs supply the cash required. They have no choice because the ISI can deny easy access to Pakistan for needed supplies (chemicals for converting opium into heroin) and secure smuggling routes through Pakistan to the port city of Karachi. It was later discovered that most of the 500 (or more) foreign fighters ISI supplied for the Ghazni battle cane from three known Pakistan based Islamic terror groups known to work for ISI. The most prominent of those with a contingent in Ghazni was the Haqqani Network, whose leader currently runs the Afghan Taliban.

The Afghan prime minister is demanding that his newly elected Pakistani counterpart do something about what happened in Ghazni province. So far the official Pakistani response is; it wasnt us. Pakistani prime minister Imran Kahn is more concerned with nations considered more important to Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia and China. To Pakistanis, Afghanistan is more of a potential problem than anything else. But to Afghanistan, and most of the world community, the biggest problem in Afghanistan is not the Taliban or the drug gangs, but Pakistan.

December 9, 2018: In central Afghanistan (Uruzgan province), the Afghan air force carried out their first nighttime airstrikes, using their new smart bomb equipped A-29 aircraft. The A-29s have been very active this year but, until now, only carrying out daylight missions. Earlier in 2018, the Afghan Air Force reported that its dozen or so A-29 aircraft now account for a third of the 15 airstrikes carried out by the Afghans each day (on average). The A-29 Super Tucano is a five-ton single engine turbo-prop two-seat trainer/attack aircraft that is used by over a dozen nations. A-29s are armed with two internal 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine-guns along with 1.5 tons of bombs and rockets. It can stay in the air for 6.5 hours at a time. It is rugged, easy to maintain and cheap. Eighteen A-29s were in service with Afghanistan at the end of 2018 with an additional six arriving in 2019. The first A-29s entered service in Afghanistan during early 2016. These aircraft can use laser-guided bombs as well as unguided ones in addition to Hellfire missiles. The Afghans plan to start using their MD-530F light attack helicopters for night airstrikes as well. Being able to call on night airstrikes is a major advantage because allows Taliban and drug gang targets to be hit without any warning and when the enemy is less alert to any attack.

December 6, 2018: In the west (Farah province), an American UAV used missiles to kill eight Taliban, including a senior leader. There tend to be more of these UAV attacks in Farah province because, since 2016 western Afghanistan (Farah, Herat and Badghis provinces) has been the scene of much fighting between rival Taliban factions. This has left hundreds of Taliban dead and even as this infighting continued the army moved to oust the Taliban from areas the Islamic terrorists long controlled directly or indirectly. All this factional fighting forced Taliban leaders to be less cautious when they traveled and that made it easier for American Intel to find out who was where and arrange for an American UAV to be present.

December 5, 2018: NATO military leaders met in Belgium to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. There was alarm that Afghan security forces had been suffering about 500 casualties a month in 2018. By Western standards that is a high casualty rate but by Afghan standards, it isnt. The Taliban, with about 60,000 armed men (a fifth of what the government has) often suffers heavier losses each month. The Taliban have no air and artillery strikes available to use. Since most of the foreign troops left the Afghan security forces have suffered about 28,000 deaths. This seems high by current Western standards but is far less than Afghans suffered during the Russian occupation of the 1980s or the civil war that followed. Currently, the 15,000 or so foreign troops in Afghanistan are suffering losses of about 130 per 100,000 (per year), the same as 2017 but up from 100 in 2016. That loss rate peaked at about 400 per 100,000 in 2012. At the peak of the fighting (2005-7) in Iraq, the American losses were nearly 600 per 100,000. The rate for U.S. troops in Vietnam and World War II was about 1,500 per 100,000 troops. It was higher for German and Russian troops, more like what Afghan security forces have suffered since 2014. As high as this is, its higher (twice what the army and police lose) for the Taliban and such loss rates were always common in Afghanistan. When the tribal irregulars fought Russian troops in the 1980s they suffered even higher losses. During that period the invading Russians never suffered more than 1,000 per 100,000 dead per year and eventually left because they could not afford the financial cost of seemingly endless fighting in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union fell apart a few years later and nearly three decades later Afghanistan is still a mess.

December 2, 2018: In the north (Samangan province), local Taliban are having problems getting truck drivers to pay $93 protection money each to avoid being attacked as they transport coal to major towns and cities. The local Taliban declare that they control some key roads used by the coal trucks but local police, tribal militias and police do not agree. The Taliban kidnapped at least fifty of the drivers but quickly released them so it is difficult to see who really has the power in this area, which is traditionally hostile to the Taliban and drug gangs.

December 1, 2018: In the south (Helmand province), an American airstrike killed the Taliban governor of Helmand, along with four of his associates as they were driving along a rural road. This is a big deal because Helmand is the most important province for the Taliban because it is where most of the opium and heroin is produced.

November 29, 2018: In the west (Heart province), there was another outbreak of factional fighting within the Taliban. There were at least 28 dead and many more wounded. This battle was because of a dispute between the breakaway Rasool faction and Pakistan backed Afghan Taliban. The factional fighting is an unresolved aftereffect of the Taliban civil war that broke out in 2015. This was all about disagreements over who should take over as Taliban leader after founder Mullah Omar was revealed in 2015 to have died in 2013 (in a Pakistani hospital). The information was kept to a few key Omar associates who were then accused of lying as part of a plot to install an Omar successor who was second-rate. The civil war began in late November 2015 when Mullah Mansour, leader of the OT (Original Taliban) ordered attacks against the forces of rival Taliban leader Mullah Rasool. This marked a major defeat for the Taliban as they have now lost a major asset; unity. Similar fighting has also occurred in Zabul province. By 2017 the Taliban infighting had diminished but not disappeared mainly because the dissident factions had arranged truces with Pakistan backed ones so that everyone could make money working for the drug gangs. The Pakistani ISI (intelligence service) was a major factor in preventing the factional fighting from escalating. ISI arranged to have Haqqani Network leaders with Taliban ties take sides and eventually take over the senior Taliban leadership. This reduced but did not eliminate the feuding. As a result, the Taliban sought to regain territory they had lost to government forces in 2017, especially near the Iran and northern borders. This was important because these border areas were used for smuggling heroin and opium into Iran.

In the United States (Washington DC), the Americans put a vast trove of Iranian weapons or fragments (of ballistic missiles, naval mines, remotely controlled bomb boats or UAVs) collected from countries throughout the Middle East (Yemen., Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and so on) as evidence of illegal Iranian arms exports. Most of the items displayed have Farsi (the Iranian language) markings. Opening the display in Washington makes it accessible to many foreign embassy personnel and journalists.

November 28, 2018: The Afghan government presented its peace plan at a European conference. The plan was all about democracy, prosperity and making Afghans safe from Taliban violence and the drug production the Taliban protected. The Taliban were not at this conference but soon responded by posting their position on the Internet. To the Taliban, the Afghan government was illegitimate because it was not Islamic enough and tolerated the presence of foreign and non-Moslem troops. What the Taliban have always wanted is all foreign troops out of Afghanistan. When making these demands the Taliban referred to themselves as the Emirate of Afghanistan and the true and legitimate government of Afghanistan. Thats because the Taliban will eliminate democracy and other un-Islamic practices (like education for girls and non-religious education in general). The Taliban did not mention the drugs or the need to attack and kill any Afghans who opposed Taliban rule. This was especially the case with Afghan Shia. The last time the Taliban controlled and government most of the country they financed themselves with taxes on the drug gangs. That practice continues, although now the Taliban are basically hired guns for the drug gangs. The Afghans who run the drug gangs dont care if the Taliban take control once more as long as the drug business continues. Most Afghans oppose that because of all the Afghan addicts and the fact that the drug gangs are responsible for most of the violence and economic disruption in the country.

November 27, 2018: In the east ( Ghazni province), four American Special Forces soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb. So far this year 13 American troops have died in Afghanistan.

November 23, 2018: In the east (Khost province), a Taliban suicide bomber got into the mosque on a military base and set off his explosives during weekly prayer services. This left 26 dead and over twice as many wounded.

November 20, 2018: In Kabul, a Taliban suicide bomber got into a wedding hall where hundreds of Afghan Islamic scholars and clerics were assembled to commemorate the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. The suicide bomber detonated his explosives and killed at least fifty people and wounded about a hundred. Most Afghan clerics oppose the Taliban and attacks like this are supposed to intimidate the scholars and clergy into halting their criticism of the Taliban.

November 15, 2018: Afghanistan returned to Pakistan the body of a Pakistani policeman who had been kidnapped by ISIL in the Pakistani capital and taken to eastern Afghanistan (Nangarhar province). That is where his body was recently found, in a remote area near the Afghan border. There was a note from ISIL claiming responsibility. This caused an uproar in Pakistan because ISIL had kidnapped the policeman in the capital and then secretly transported him to eastern Afghanistan.

See the rest here:
Afghanistan: Negotiating A Big Reveal

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