Mediaboss Marketing

The bodies are piling up in Afghanistan as the Taliban claim to be wiping the country clean of a resurgent Islamic State in a campaign that should be music to the ears of the U.S. military, counterterrorism, and intelligence communities, which regard the Islamic State as a major threat to homeland and global security. But many security experts believe the Talibans rampage is just cover for eradicating enemies, including U.S.-trained former military members, while al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other terrorist groups grow stronger in the absence of any meaningful counterterrorism response from the United States.

The United States slunk out of Afghanistan in late August 2021, after 20 years spent fighting the Taliban, which had harbored the al Qaeda terrorists who blew up the twin towers in New York, took a chunk out of the Pentagon, and knocked U.S. foreign policy askew for a generation. When former U.S. President Donald Trump handed Afghanistan to the Taliban in the 2020 Doha, Qatar, peace deal, an explicit condition was that the resurgent Taliban would sever their ties with al Qaeda. An implicit understanding was that Washington would be able to maintain an over-the-horizon counterterrorism capability in the country. The Biden administration, which carried out the final, ignominious withdrawal from Kabul in 2021, has claimed that despite having no boots on the ground, it would still have plenty of eyes in the sky, as it were.

And there have been a few successes. A U.S. drone scissored through Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al Qaedas frontman, as he stood on the balcony of a Kabul villa last year. The head of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Michael Kurilla, has hinted at other, similar operations, but no details have been made public.

But U.S. and Afghan security and diplomatic sources say the United States relies on intelligence provided by the Talibanmost of whose leadership is sanctioned by the United Nations for terrorismabout terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Poachers can be turned into gamekeepers; inmates, though, make poor wardens. Taliban information is likely self-serving, if not false, those sources said.

Thomas West, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan, said last year that even in the wake of the hit on Zawahiri, we are prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns, and he referred to the local branch of the Islamic State, known as IS-Khorasan Province, or IS-K, as a common enemy. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he said the United States is extremely concerned about terrorist groups that still have an active presence in Afghanistan.

A new report on global terrorism concluded that, for the fourth consecutive year, Afghanistan is the country most impactedand thats even though Taliban atrocities are no longer included in the count, since the former terrorists are now the nominal government. Next door in Pakistan, where the Taliban spinoff is reemerging, deaths caused by terrorism more than doubled from the previous year, rising to 643, said the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace.

The Taliban count anti-terrorism scalps by pretending to fight IS-K. Whats odd is that a lot of the terrorism attacks in Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover look a whole lot like those that used to be chalked up to the Haqqani network, an offshoot of the Taliban thats close to al Qaeda and headed by the current de facto interior minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani. Those include the suicide bombing outside the Kabul airport in August 2021, that killed 13 U.S. military personnel and many Afghans during the chaotic evacuation.

That attack, and other mass-casualty events, such as the attack in September on a Hazara education center, have been claimed by IS-K. To keep its theoretical monopoly on violence, the Taliban leadership has had to make a show of eradicating its local Islamic State franchise. It has also made U.S. military and intelligence officials worry about just what threat IS-K might pose to the homeland.

Kurilla, the head of Centcom, name-checked IS-K when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16. He reckoned that the group could attain the capacity to attack targets in Europe and Asia within six months, but he conceded that it would have greater difficulty attacking the United States. The U.S. intelligence communitys 2023 Annual Threat Assessment said IS-K almost certainly retains the intent to conduct operations in the West and will continue efforts to attack outside Afghanistan.

The first problem, some former Afghan hands say, is that Washington has swallowed the Islamic State lure hook, line, and sinker. Annie Pforzheimer, a former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, called it an alarming miscalculation by West, the U.S. special representative, that the United States and Afghanistan shared a common enemy in IS-K. There should be no illusions that the Taliban is doing anything to weed out the presence of terrorist groups on Afghan soil, which is why they are under U.N. sanction, she wrote recently.

The second problem is that al Qaeda is still a thing, and the Taliban still work with the group, despite Trumps failed peace plan.

The Taliban have been enmeshed with al Qaeda for decades. They harbored Osama bin Laden as he planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, prompting the U.S.-led invasion that ended their first regime and started the vicious 20-year war. After victory in August 2021, the Taliban again welcomed their old friends with state sponsorship necessary for achieving their long-term ambition of toppling modern governments and establishing a caliphate. Zawahiris presence in the Afghan capital was evidence of the comfortable ties between the two groups, but also of U.S. intelligence capabilities in Afghanistan at the time. That might have been more a blip than a feature.

By concentrating on the short-term aims and capabilities of IS-K, some analysts believe, the United States and its allies are missing the long-term threat posed by al Qaeda.

To me, al Qaeda is the greater threat than the Islamic State. Its because of its patience. The Islamic State is more of an immediate threat. It likes to conduct attacks for its propaganda and recruiting. But I dont think it has a real caliphate-building plan. And al Qaeda does. Al Qaeda is patient. Patient and thoughtful enemies are what scares me, terrorism analyst Bill Roggio said last year.

Its hard to say exactly what the counterterrorism relationship between Washington and Kabul is these days. CIA officials and Taliban agents, whove met at least twice in the Qatari capital, Doha, in the past six months, probably discuss counterterrorism issues, said another former Afghan security official, though release of Americans in Taliban prisons obviously tops the agenda. A different Afghan official suggested its a one-way street. The United States will jump on any information that is related to national security, but sharing intelligence with the Taliban? Thats a big no. Another, who held a sub-cabinet post in the pre-Taliban government, doubted any sort of covenant.

There is no formal covert or overt arrangement on counterterrorism between the Taliban and the U.S., they said.

The burr in the saddle that bites deep is Zawahiri. Forged in the Egyptian jihad, he took over the helm of al Qaeda after Navy Seals dispatched bin Laden one night in the spring of 2011. Still, though, he shouldnt have been in Kabul, of all places.

The Zawahiri strike looms large in the minds of counterterrorism strategists, even those who felt some kind of cooperation was absolutely essential; they feel burned by the Taliban bringing Zawahiri to Kabul, said Asfandyar Mir, an expert on South Asia security issues at the United States Institute of Peace. A lot of people feel that we had a pact with the Talibanwe made it clear that there is one thing you cannot do, and thats to bring the leadership of al Qaeda, or any of the groups that we are concerned about, to Afghanistan. Now that trust deficit runs deep.

The trust deficit has a blood price. The Taliban are using the cover of counterterrorism to mask systematic killings of former security service personnel. Former soldiers, commandos, and police are regularly killedshot, beheaded, dismembered, or set on fire, and their families killed with themand their deaths reported by human rights organizations and the armed opposition National Resistance Front (NRF).

The Taliban are, in fact, battling with IS-K. But not on the battlefield. They are fighting on the recruiting ground. The Islamic State is making inroads among disaffected Taliban foot soldiers, who are footsore and underpaid. That doesnt mean that the Taliban are suddenly MI6.

The Talibans rank and file will never fight against ISIS, said NRF spokesman Ali Maisam Nazary. He said the Taliban and IS-K are two sides of the same coin.

The Talibans leadership know that any attempt to go against any jihadist organization will cause their own disintegration and demise. The international community needs allies who arent recognized terrorists to help with counterterrorism, Nazary said.

Link:
What Happened to the Taliban's Pledge to Fight Terrorism? - Foreign Policy

The past few years have brought significant challenges for people living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, driven by complex economic crises and the continued impact of climate change.

Humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating at pace, with a projected two-thirds of the population over 28 million people expected to need humanitarian assistance in the coming year. The dire situation for women and girls in Afghanistan is particularly concerning, with their rights increasingly curtailed.

In Pakistan, the economic downturn and rising inflation have left many families unable to afford basic healthcare. This has been compounded by a series of devastating natural disasters, such as last years floods, which affected millions of people, destroyed thousands of homes and damaged an already struggling economy.

It is against this backdrop that the UK government has announced its aid budget to these two countries for the next financial year, which confirms a reduction of over 53% from last year, more than any other region. A reduction of this level could have serious consequences for people living in these countries who rely on humanitarian support but also raises questions about the credibility of the UKs stated commitments. For instance, how do the promises made by the UK during COP26 stack up if funding to Pakistan is reduced? Similarly, how can expressed words of solidarity for Afghan women be meaningful, if vital programmes that support women and girls risk closure as a result of UK cuts?

For Afghans in particular, these cuts will only compound an overwhelming sense of abandonment. It is also concerning for NGOs, both international and Afghan organisations, who are working tirelessly to provide lifesaving assistance in the country, despite significant operational challenges.

The recent ban on the employment of Afghan women from NGOs has been particularly challenging. There are concerns that any further reduction in UK aid could impact the ability of aid organisations and local partners to implement programmes and deliver essential services to those who need them most. We must ensure that the response from donors, including the UK, helps rather than hurts Afghans.

Our weekly email newsletter, Network News, is an indispensable weekly digest of the latest updates on funding, jobs, resources, news and learning opportunities in the international development sector.

This reduction has also come just days after the UK aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), criticised the use of approximately one-third of the UKs aid budget on the first-year costs of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.

This marks a failure in the UKs moral and legal responsibility to support both people seeking safety in the UK and those facing conflict, climate change and inequality around the world. It also raises concerns about the value for money and the lack of transparency in aid spending.

We hope, first and foremost, that the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will reconsider its funding decisions for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with careful consideration about the human consequences that such a significant reduction in aid could have.

Despite the significant challenges in Afghanistan, we have been encouraged by the continued commitment of FCDO staff to understand the complexity of the situation and try to find solutions to support the Afghan people.

However, given the funding gap, the FCDO should clearly outline how it intends to meet its commitments. For instance, the FCDO has committed to supporting women and girls in Afghanistan as a focus country in the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. Policy commitments need to be followed up with meaningful funding.

Also in Afghanistans context, rather than kneejerk reactions to Taliban policies, donors should be thinking strategically about its engagement with Afghanistan to focus on promoting economic stability, for example, supporting the recovery of the countrys private sector.

The recent aid cut to Afghanistan and Pakistan by the UK government is a cause for serious concern. Whilst the full impact of the cuts remains to be seen, we fear that it could be devastating for people living in these countries who are struggling so much. This is not the time for the UK to turn its back.

Continued here:
Is the UK turning its back on Afghanistan and Pakistan? - Bond

April 12, 2023

Las Vegas, Nev. Last week, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) visited with Mohammad Benny Shirzad, an Afghan interpreter for U.S. troops, and his family, who she helped bring to Las Vegas from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. After learning about the danger from the Taliban the family was facing in Afghanistan, Cortez Masto successfully helped cut through red tape to expedite the processing of their visa applications.

I pushed hard to cut through red tape and ensure that this family could be reunited, and Im thrilled to see them together again in Las Vegas, said Senator Cortez Masto. Afghan allies like Mr. Shirzad and his family put their lives on the line to help U.S. troops, and Ill always stand up for them.

During the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Benny served as an interpreter for U.S. troops and refugees, and he then helped with evacuation flights from the country. Benny was selected for the Diversity Visa and was able to relocate to Las Vegas with help of retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Scott Hoffman but without his wife and parents who were stuck in Afghanistan. Facing increased harassment from the Taliban, Mr. Shirzads wife and parents fled to Pakistan. Senator Cortez Masto and her office repeatedly pushed immigration officials to review the familys visa and humanitarian parole applications, and thanks to her help the family was reunited in Las Vegas last month.

Senator Cortez Masto has been diligently working with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security on a large number of cases regarding the evacuation of Afghanistan and has pushed bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program to help protect the Afghan civilians who risked their lives to support the U.S. mission.

###

Read more:
Cortez Masto Visits Family She Helped Bring to Las Vegas After ... - Catherine Cortez Masto

We stopped having a national conversation about it, and we stopped holding people accountable, he said. I think the ultimate question here is, as the nation, why did we allow a war to go on for 20 years when there were more than enough signs that this war was unwinnable and we weren't going to achieve our goals years ago?"

So what happened? And why did we stop having that national conversation?

Crow also addressed the recent leaks of military documents covering areas like the war in Ukraine and Egypts desire to provide missiles to Russia, ostensibly to use in that conflict. If true, Crow said, that would require the U.S. to rethink its relationship with the Mideast nation, long regarded as one of Americas oldest allies.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Ryan Warner: Congressman, thanks for being with us.

Rep. Jason Crow, (D) Colorado: Always good to be with you, Ryan.

Warner: Before we get to Afghanistan, there's a developing foreign affairs story, the leak of Pentagon documents related to a whole host of countries, Ukraine, Russia, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Canada, and the list goes on. According to the Washington Post, one of the leaks labeled top secret seems to indicate the U.S. has doubts about a Ukrainian counter offensive against Russia, along with other misgivings. That document was produced in February, I'll note, but I'm wondering what your reaction is to that particular file and to the leaks in general.

Crow: First of all, the leaks in general. I mean, this looks like a very troubling, very problematic leak. It's broad, it's certainly one of the bigger leaks that I've seen probably in my time in Congress. So Im very troubled by it. But I think we also should have some perspective here that this is a snapshot in time. Wars evolve, things change from day-to-day. This is a snapshot that the documents appear to be a snapshot in time from February and March, so maybe of limited value. Yet at the same time, it does show troop strength numbers, disposition of troops, things of that nature, but also signals intelligence intercepts from various countries.

So, very problematic. I've asked for a full briefing by the Defense Department on the nature of this leak, what they know about it, what they've done to mitigate it, but the concerns about the ability of the Ukrainians to conduct a counter offensive, we've heard these concerns from day one, and every single time we hear these concerns, the Ukrainians overperform. People said that they couldn't learn how to use weapons systems that they then ended up not only learning how to use, but learning how to use better than the U.S. in many instances. So they've always overperformed. They've always surprised people in a positive way, and I expect they'll continue to do that.

Warner: Do you think that the leak has Russian fingerprints? I guess I don't want you to speculate, but do you have any sense here?

Crow: I don't. I think it's too early to tell. I mean, it certainly borders on a kind of seditious or treasonous act in my view. Somebody that would take documents of this nature and publish them online, and certainly not somebody that has the best interest of America in mind here. So what their motivation is, who did it, remains to be seen.

Warner: When you look at the collection of files in its entirety, another example is Egypt, which is considered an ally of the U.S., trying to supply rockets to Russia. In what ways do you think the U.S. is left most vulnerable?

Crow: I'm going to be calling for a full review of our relationship with Egypt because we shouldn't be spending $1.3 or $1.4 billion a year to assist them with their military and their modernization efforts. If they're then going in the back door and looking at sending weapons and equipment to Russia, I mean, that is not the type of friend or alliance that I think we need to have. And we should do a full analysis of what we're doing and why we're doing it and whether or not we need to hold some folks accountable.

Warner: I gather from that answer, Congressman, that you have learned some things from these documents. This was not classified material you'd had access to.

Crow: I wouldn't say I've learned things from these documents. I mean, I sit on the House Intelligence Committee, which has access to all of the intelligence of the United States in every category. So I'll refrain from saying whether or not there's something new or not. But the real troubling aspect is that this has been public and is information that's widely available now, which of course is unacceptable.

Warner: To Afghanistan, and some context. When the U.S. tried to evacuate people from the airport in Kabul, just about two years ago, 13 American servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing. Afghans who'd been helpful to the U.S. cause were left to fend for themselves against the Taliban. I gather you have read the National Security Council's report, and what's a big takeaway for you from it?

Crow: I have. Obviously this is something that I've struggled with a lot, this withdrawal. I've supported the administration's decision to end the war. I thought the war was unwinnable. It was unwinnable a long time ago, and I didn't think we should continue to spend tens of billions of dollars a year and American lives in an unwinnable war. And I wanted to see it end. And the president had the courage to do something that prior presidents and congresses weren't willing to do, and he did it. Now, I did think that that withdrawal was messy. It was chaotic. There were a lot of mistakes that were made, and I haven't pulled punches on that. I think we have left behind some of our Afghan partners and their families, and I've worked really hard to make sure we're pulling those folks out. And I've been one of the leaders in Congress on legislation to help get these people into safety and into the United States and other countries.

But this report shows a couple of things. Number one, that this is a longtime mistake. This isn't just August of 2021. This was a 20-year mistake. And Donald Trump was the one who negotiated this deal in the dark without even consulting with the military or the State Department and our allies, and committed the U.S. to a withdrawal timeline that was untenable. And then started a withdrawal of troops immediately thereafter.

And then President Biden inherited all that and was really left with two choices. Either comply with that agreement or not comply with that agreement, in which case the Taliban would conduct a full out assault on U.S. troops. We didn't have enough troops in the country at that time to respond to that attack. We would've had to have sent in 10, 15, 20,000 more, and it would've been all out war, which of course was not a tenable result.

So I think he then made the decision to move forward with the withdrawal. But yes, there were problems with the conduct of that: lack of unity of command, lack of guidance, lack of coordination between State Department and DOD. And of course the withdrawal itself should have started earlier. And the report shows that. It says that there should have been an earlier withdrawal. So there are lessons learned, but I want to take a holistic look at this and not just look at it in one small narrow frame.

Warner: One commentator from the Center for Naval Analyses has called the NFC's assessment, a political document designed to deflect blame in advance of a gathering storm of House GOP hearings. What's your response?

Crow: I fully disagree with that. The document and the spokespeople for the Department of Defense for the State Department, even Secretary of State Tony Blinken last week, during a gathering of State Department employees, admitted that there were mistakes and admitted that withdrawal should have started earlier. They have admitted things that could have been done better because in an operation like this, of course, there are missteps and mistakes and things that didn't go well, and they've taken responsibility for that. But you just can't look at a 20-year war where there's over 3000 American soldiers that were killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, a two-decade story of missteps and mistakes. You just can't look at that in isolation. Ten congresses, both Republican and Democrat, and four presidential administrations, also both Republican and Democrat, made mistakes, self-blinded, kept this going when it should have ended a long time ago. And that's a story that America needs to come to terms with. We can't afford to do this again.

Warner: You talked about those left behind. In a statement you issued after the release of the NFC's report, you said, "I might not be here today without the guides and translators that aided our efforts, many of whom are still trying to escape Afghanistan." Congressman Crow, could you elaborate on that? Is there anyone in particular that you have in mind?

Crow: Yeah, my translators, my guides, they were essential, and I'm not going to name names to keep people safe, but time after time, we'd be out on patrol deep into Afghanistan territory, in the mountains. And those guides would be a lot more than just people that would translate the words. They would help me understand the culture. They would help me understand what's going on. I mean, numerous instances where I would be meeting with tribal elders deep in a village, somewhere in a remote area, where we're very vulnerable in a small unit, and my translator would say, "Hey, there's something not right here. Something doesn't match up. What you're being told is not consistent with the history of this tribe in this region. They're giving each other looks that make me uncomfortable and that translator would have the ability to understand what was going on, the subtext, what was being said between the words. And I could make decisions to pull out. I could make decisions to move my troops around based on that. That was essential. It protected us. It protected the locals in many instances. And these folks did that work at great personal risk to themselves and their families, knowing and thinking that we would keep our promise and do right by them. So that's the moral commitment that we have. That's the national security commitment that we have, and we have to strive to keep it.

Warner: You've pushed indeed for more visas to help some of the folks you're talking about. Where do things stand on growing the number of those special immigrant visas?

Crow: So we passed my Allies Act in July of 2021, which actually was one of the most bipartisan bills in Congress that summer. It passed with 416 votes. Only a handful of Republicans voted against it, but it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. And I continue to co-chair the Honoring Our Promises Working Group, which is a bipartisan working group in the House of largely veterans actually, both Republican and Democrat, who are working to pass legislation. I'm working with Senator Jeanne Shaheen, to put together a comprehensive package of legislation to expand visas, to expedite the process, to do things like remote processing. All things that need to be done to make it easier for folks who are still in Afghanistan when we don't have an embassy there in operations on the ground there anymore, to still have a mechanism to leave the country to get out of there safely. So we're working hard to legislate this and to make sure there's still a pathway.

Warner: So that's the process. What's been the result? I mean, how many Afghans are there that you'd like to get out, and what could the US reasonably do on the visas?

Crow: Right now there are about 150,000 applicants in Afghanistan. Those are principal applicants. Those are just the people who said they've worked for the U.S. government during the 20-year war. Usually, 60 to 70 percent fall off. So we think that there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 70,000 Afghans who did legitimately work for the United States government or allies who are there. And not all of those folks will complete the application process. So we think there's a lot who have been left behind, who are still there, who we could pull to safety, but the pipeline is obviously very small. So figuring out how we get them out of the country, how we process them, and how we vet them effectively is a real challenge.

We are working with some of our other partners. The Qataris have a presence there, and they're a close partner of the United States, and they have an embassy in Kabul, and they've been working with us to facilitate some of those interviews and some of the exit procedures. But it is very, very challenging. There's no doubt about that.

Warner: You helped establish the bipartisan Afghan War Commission, and I'll note that you said after the NFC's report, that you will work to provide a full facts-based accounting of our nation's longest war. You seemed to indicate earlier that we ought to take some lessons away from Afghanistan, perhaps so that we don't repeat the history. What is one question, before we go, that you're still asking in regards to the war?

Crow: I think the ultimate question here is, as the nation, why did we allow a war to go on for 20 years when there were more than enough signs that this war was unwinnable and we weren't going to achieve our goals years ago? Why did we stop having a conversation about this?

Warner: But Congressman, it sounds almost like you're talking about Vietnam. That was invoked a lot in relation to Afghanistan.

Crow: There are a lot of parallels. And frankly, I think the responsibility lies with Congress ultimately. And here's why: our constitution gives Congress the authority to decide matters of war and peace. It's only Congress that can authorize the use of force. Congress decides military policy. We set the military budget. And what happened was after 9/11, we provided these authorizations for use of military force, these AUMFs, which is how Congress carries that out. And they were essentially blank checks, and we gave it to administration after administration. We didn't rein it in, they didn't sunset. And then we stopped having a national conversation about it, and we stopped holding people accountable.

And then the generals come out and the generals say, "Well, we can win this. We just need more troops. We just need more tanks. We just need more time." And of course, the generals are going to say that. That's what generals always say, right? You'll never find a general that says, "We can't win this. We have to end it." That's just not military culture. But that's also why we have civilian control of the military, because it's our elected officials that should be held accountable that should make those tough calls and say, "No, we're not going to win this and we're going to end it."

So what happened and why did we stop having that national conversation? And frankly, that's why one of my priorities in Congress has been ending these AUMFs. We actually have a bill right now to end one, one that's still being used, and replace it with one that sunsets that has very, very defined guardrails and puts that responsibility down to Congress to continue to have that conversation and to be accountable to the American people. And that's ultimately how our system is structured. But it hasn't worked that way, and we have to get it back to working the right way.

Warner: I just have to follow up on the notion that you are hard-pressed to find a general who would tell you, we can't win this war. Should we be training generals differently?

Crow: Well, I mean, military culture is mission-first, right? No, I don't think that this is a general issue. This is a checks and balances between what we ask our military to do versus civilian control of the military. I used to be a military officer and you put a mission first. It's no fail. You get it done at all costs. And of course, that's what we want our military to be thinking and doing. That's also why generals in the military don't make those decisions about how we're going to commit our military and when we're going to stop. That's on our civilian elected leadership. We have civilian control of the military in the United States of America, which actually is unique. A lot of countries don't have that.

Warner: Thank you so much for your time.

Crow: Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it.

Read more here:
Interview: Rep. Jason Crow on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the ... - Colorado Public Radio

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has warned Afghanistans Taliban rulers that Islamabad will strike terrorist hideouts inside the neighbouring country if the latter were unable to rein in anti-Pakistan militants.

The minister made the remarks in an inclusive interview with Voice of America published on Wednesday. Asifs comments come on the back of his earlier statement that the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) were using Afghan soil for carrying out attacks in Pakistan.

The defence minister said that in his visit to Afghanistan in late-February, he reminded the Taliban administration to live up to their cross-border security commitments forbidding terrorists from using Afghan soil to plan and conduct attacks on Pakistan or Islamabad will take action.

We have communicated to Kabul during our last visit that please, as our neighbours and brothers, whatever is emanating from Afghan soil is your responsibility, he said.

If that is not done, at some point well have to [] resort to some measures, which will definitely wherever [terrorists] are, their sanctuaries on Afghan soil well have to hit them, he said. Well have to hit them because we cannot tolerate this situation for long.

Asif went on to say that the Afghans responded to this really well.

They responded well, really well. Perhaps for them to disentangle the TTP from this stage of course they want to disentangle, this is my impression [that] they want to disentangle but this disentanglement, perhaps, will take time.

But they are doing well and we wish them well and we dont want to get into a situation where this situation with the [TTP] escalates and we do something that is not to the liking of our neighbours and brothers in Kabul.

During the interview, Asif was asked whether he believed the Talibans claim that the TTP were not using Afghan soil to carry out attacks in Pakistan.

He responded by saying, They still operate from their soil.

Asif was also asked about his assertion that the TTP were using weapons left behind by the US forces in Afghanistan. Have you provided any evidence of that to the Americans? the interviewer asked.

It can be seen all over the place. On the streets of Kabul, I saw it myself, the minister responded. He said that the TTP were using light weapons, assault rifles, ammunition, night vision goggles and sniper rifles which were left behind by US troops.

When asked whether this point had been raised with the Americans, Asif said: What is the use of talking to Washington? They left that sort of hardware on foreign soil because they couldnt carry it.

The interviewer pointed out that the US State Departments response to Pakistans assertion was that they did not have an independent assessment. She also asked whether Islamabad needed the help of the US in fighting terrorism in Pakistan.

I do not see any logic in that, the minister said. My personal view is that we can take care of this [] menace ourselves, Asif said, giving the examples of Zarb-i-Azb and Raddul Fassad.

He also termed the resurgence in terrorism in the country to be a grave mistake by the previous PTI government.

Separately, while speaking on the floor of the National Assembly on Thursday, Asif said that the House would be given an in-camera briefing tomorrow (Friday) on the countrys security situation.

He said that the military leadership would brief parliament regarding the states policy on countering militancy, stating that the security establishment was cognisant of the prevailing situation.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the same and assured that a healthy interaction would take place tomorrow in which legitimate concerns raised during the session would be answered.

Last week, the top civil and military leadership reaffirmed their commitment to thwart terrorism threats and vowed to relaunch the National Action Plan (NAP) within 15 days to crush militants reportedly coming in from Afghanistan.

The decisions were made at the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting, which the government said was in continuation of a previous meeting convened after a militant attack inside Peshawars police headquarters in January, in which 86 people, mostly police officials, were martyred.

Political parties, including allies of the federal government, however, have expressed their concerns over the possible military offensive against militants, with most saying that those who brought back the militants should be brought to justice before launching an offensive against militants.

Addressing the NA session today, MNA Ali Wazir said that the countrys current policy regarding militancy needed to be reviewed.

I appeal to the incumbent government that those responsible for the rise in terrorism [] those who brought these militants into Pakistan should be punished, he said.

Until and unless these people are punished, we wont allow the new operation to commence, he added.

Agreeing with Wazir, MNA Mohsin Dawar said that operations were cinducted in the past but none of them were successful in eliminating terrorism.

This is because you are confused. There is no clarity in your policy. You send mixed signals, he asserted.

Read the rest here:
Khawaja Asif warns of striking terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan - DAWN.com