Author Topic: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan  (Read 667533 times)


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Whoops!
« Reply #1851 on: September 03, 2021, 09:16:02 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Rolling Stone article
« Reply #1852 on: September 03, 2021, 09:51:45 AM »
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/

Assuming the details are largely true, that is one hell of an article.  It tells the story of the mid-point of the American involvement, 9 years into it, which was pretty much the story of the next 10 years.

I noticed this :
"In the East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries, President Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian casualties. They mention the word “progress” 16 times in under an hour. But there is no mention of victory"

   - But when Trump sang the false praises of any worthless foreign leader hoping to gain cooperation, he was lying, wrong, stupid.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 10:17:42 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Re: Whoops! More left behind
« Reply #1853 on: September 03, 2021, 10:19:07 AM »
https://archive.fo/HMELF

WSJ:  Afghanistan Voice of America, Radio Free Liberty/Radio Europe Staff Left Behind
Lawmakers, media groups call on Biden administration to help evacuate journalists at risk of Taliban retribution

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afghanistan- American equipment left behind. Outrageous.
« Reply #1854 on: September 03, 2021, 01:10:35 PM »
Millie needs to be charged under the UCMJ!

If you sent so much as a penny or technology covered under ITAR or other federal statutes to the Taliban or Iran, you'd face years in federal prison. Millie left them an arsenal.


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/395460.php

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-convictions-two-us-citizens-conspiring-aid-taliban

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/799

https://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/388

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vo7rgEHOouc/YTDGioOxIQI/AAAAAAACDfc/58pffN9TlW4QRQo2DV9rP4Ukb41PGh1GgCLcBGAsYHQ/w663-h526/joe-tzu-biden-meme-brick-suit-.jpg



http://ace.mu.nu/archives/395443.php

So, will talking about all the weapons and equipment left in A-stan get us on no-fly lists?


From the GAO



Beyond words.  How do you lose this amount of equipment.  I thought the surrender was OUR idea, not like we were backed into a corner.  No one should pay one more cent of tax payment to this government until there is explanation and consequence for what happened.

What about THIS:

Taliban is using US equipment and data to hunt down its enemy Afghans.

powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/08/under-the-horizon.php
https://www.zenger.news/2021/08/28/taliban-team-is-using-us-made-biometric-database-and-scanners-to-hunt-american-and-afghan-enemies/

The Taliban has mobilized a special unit, called Al Isha, to hunt down Afghans who helped U.S. and allied forces — and it’s using U.S. equipment and data to do it.

Nawazuddin Haqqani, one of the brigade commanders over the Al Isha unit, bragged in an interview with Zenger News, that his unit is using U.S.-made hand-held scanners to tap into a massive U.S.-built biometric database and positively identify any person who helped the NATO allies or worked with Indian intelligence. Afghans who try to deny or minimize their role will find themselves contradicted by the detailed computer records that the U.S. left behind in its frenzied withdrawal.

The existence of the Al Isha unit has not been previously confirmed by the Taliban; until now the Haqqani Network, a terror group aligned with the Taliban, has not admitted its role in targeting Afghans or its use of America’s vast biometric database. The Haqqani Network is “the most lethal and sophisticated insurgent group targeting U.S., Coalition, and Afghan forces,” according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.

The power and reach of the U.S. biometric database are breathtaking. Virtually everyone who worked with the Afghan government or the U.S. military, including interpreters, drivers, nurses, and secretaries, was fingerprinted and scanned for the biometric database over the past 12 years.

U.S. officials have not confirmed how many of the 7,000 hand-held scanners were left behind or whether the biometric database could be remotely deleted.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Taliban-China
« Reply #1855 on: September 03, 2021, 01:15:54 PM »
ASSESSMENTS
In Approaching the Taliban, China Will Tread Carefully
4 MIN READSep 3, 2021 | 16:55 GMT





Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid addresses media at the Kabul airport on Aug. 31, 2021.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid addresses media at the Kabul airport on Aug. 31, 2021.

(WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images)

Taliban comments that China is their main partner appear more aspirational than a confirmation of significant Chinese advances in Afghanistan. In an interview in the Italian paper la Repubblica published Sept. 1, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid called China the Taliban government’s “main partner,” expressed confidence in future Chinese investments in infrastructure and mining, and linked Afghanistan to world markets through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The comments have stirred international attention, appearing to confirm assessments that China has “won” Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal. Beijing, however, is taking a more cautious approach to Afghanistan, and any significant infrastructure development or economic activity will still require the Taliban to provide a more stable environment — something far from certain.

There has been little commitment from the Chinese side, even as the Taliban promised safety inside the country and the stoppage of any outflows of terrorism into China. The readout from a Sept. 2 phone call between Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Wu Jianghao and the deputy head of the Taliban's political office in Qatar, Mawlawi Abdul Salam Hanafi, highlights the gap between the Taliban’s ambitions and Beijing’s caution. Hanafi emphasized the importance of BRI to Afghan development and economic growth, and promised to provide a safe environment for Chinese workers and institutions in Afghanistan. Wu, however, merely highlighted thousands of years of friendship, and said China respected Afghan independence and hoped Afghanistan would rebuild soon.

For the Taliban, China offers a potential opportunity to insulate Afghanistan from Western pressure by accessing foreign aid and development that isn’t tied to democracy or women’s rights. China’s permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council would add another shield for the Taliban government. While China shares a border with Afghanistan, it is small. There are also few territorial or strong ethnic issues along Afghanistan’s border with China, unlike its borders with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Pakistan. China’s BRI initiatives and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) flank Afghanistan and provide potential avenues for economic connections. Beijing’s perceived higher risk tolerance could help the Taliban access vast Afghan mineral deposits, providing a ready source of revenue, even if China is only the consumer. For the Taliban, cozying up to China also plays on Beijing’s international rhetoric, highlighting how China can be a responsible big power, in contrast to U.S. interventionism and attempts to change societies.

Beijing will take a much more cautious approach, as Chinese leadership remains uncertain about the Taliban’s ability to deliver on their promises of stabilizing Afghanistan and stemming outbound terrorism. Beijing sees potential future opportunities to access minerals close to home, and Afghanistan’s location could provide a valuable north-south link in regional transportation infrastructure. Much has been made of China’s concern about ethnic Uyghur militants potentially striking from Afghanistan into Xinjiang. But Beijing’s main concern is the potential for militancy to spread into Central and South Asia, threatening its BRI and CPEC projects. Several militant groups working with the Taliban are either based or have ambitions in neighboring countries. And with the United States out of Afghanistan, these groups may refocus their attention back to their original goals.

Beijing is also reticent to get pulled into Afghanistan, given the history of other great powers. Afghan mineral resources are not vital enough, nor are the transit routes necessary enough, for China to risk either getting caught up in a civil war or being seen as the new foreign invader. On the international front, while Beijing has exploited the U.S. withdrawal to try and score some rhetorical political points, China’s leaders do not want to be seen as responsible for the Taliban and potentially blamed for their failure to quell transnational terrorism. China is unwilling to use military force inside Afghanistan, and thus has minimal real influence beyond promises of aid and investment. After decrying Afghan terrorism and the U.S. intervention for years, Beijing has also had a difficult time convincing its own population that the Taliban are suddenly a reliable partner and that China should take a strong interest in Afghanistan.

In the end, China is more likely to provide aid to help stabilize Afghanistan, while potentially exploring some additional investment or development work — but only if the Taliban can ensure the security of Chinese workers, which may be difficult for some time. For Beijing, and many other regional countries, an unstable Afghanistan is the worst-case scenario, creating pockets of ungoverned space for militants to exploit, while triggering refugee flows and potential cross-border fighting. But while China wants to see a stable Afghanistan, it will avoid any significant entanglements for fear of being held responsible for the Taliban’s actions, as well as becoming the latest in a long line of powers that have found themselves stuck and ultimately defeated in the “graveyard of empires.”

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Taliban-China
« Reply #1856 on: September 04, 2021, 05:59:42 AM »
« Last Edit: September 04, 2021, 07:12:51 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1857 on: September 04, 2021, 06:05:18 AM »
"The challenge for Pakistan will be in dismounting the proverbial tiger. Pakistan may feel that it can control or tame the Taliban, however, the fact is that the  Taliban is an extremely radicalised terrorist organisation, and that makes it a different ball game altogether. The world is likely to witness a call for a more radicalised Pakistan, internal turmoil fuelled by an unstable neighbour. Though Pakistan may have gained strategic relevance in the immediate to near term, the people of Pakistan will lose much more in the near to mid term, as various  terrorist organisations are now more emboldened, having tasted victory. Calls for radicalization and Jihad will grow in the region and the most impacted will be Pakistan.

For Pakistan riding the ‘Taliban Tiger’ might be an exhilarating experience but the cost and consequences are likely to plunge the nation into anarchy. As they say you can ride the tiger, but the challenge lies as to when and how to dismount."
https://chanakyaforum.com/pakistan-riding-the-taliban-tiger/

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1858 on: September 04, 2021, 08:34:28 AM »
Osama's AQ security Chief gets a warm welcome in Afgh. Terrorists of the World unite  :-)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1432341185922834436

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1859 on: September 04, 2021, 09:40:29 AM »
Who could have imagined this back on 9/12/2001?


Osama's AQ security Chief gets a warm welcome in Afgh. Terrorists of the World unite  :-)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1432341185922834436

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Afghanistan, withdraw was 90% complete July 6
« Reply #1862 on: September 04, 2021, 04:46:23 PM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-is-more-than-90percent-complete.html.

This of course is false because they aren't 90% complete now. They don't know what complete is.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Enemy of our enemy: MY recommended
« Reply #1863 on: September 05, 2021, 08:16:52 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1865 on: September 06, 2021, 06:10:06 AM »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1866 on: September 07, 2021, 04:43:14 PM »
Taliban cabinet


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Blinks copied Bama's tone and inflection in his speech
« Reply #1868 on: September 08, 2021, 01:29:48 PM »
If one closes his eyes and hears Blinks speak in this video it is precisely with the technique of the great snake:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2021/09/08/blinken-reverses-yesterdays-position-now-admits-taliban-is-blocking-evacuation-flights-n2595534


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Afghanistan, Biden droned the wrong guy, NYT
« Reply #1870 on: September 10, 2021, 05:02:31 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000007963596/us-drone-attack-kabul-investigation.html

https://nypost.com/2021/09/10/kabul-strike-killed-us-aid-worker-and-family-not-isis-bombers/

Killed a US aid worker and his family.

The purpose of the strike was to save face - mitigate falling approval numbers, hence the rush, hence the error.

What did Biden know and when did he know it?  He didn't learn of it today I suspect.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2021, 05:39:33 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1871 on: September 11, 2021, 12:17:19 AM »
Fk , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afghanistan, Biden drowned the wrong guy, NYT
« Reply #1872 on: September 11, 2021, 05:25:11 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000007963596/us-drone-attack-kabul-investigation.html

https://nypost.com/2021/09/10/kabul-strike-killed-us-aid-worker-and-family-not-isis-bombers/

Killed a US aid worker and his family.

The purpose of the strike was to save face - mitigate falling approval numbers, hence the rush, hence the error.

What did Biden know and when did he know it?  He didn't learn of it today I suspect.

Contrast it with this statement: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/biden-blasts-americans-eve-9-11-witnessed-violence-america-muslims-true-followers-peaceful-religion-video/


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
France : Taliban are lying
« Reply #1874 on: September 12, 2021, 09:43:26 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-lying-frances-foreign-minister-220903073.html

US White House:

"The White House released a statement Thursday praising the “businesslike” and “professional” Taliban for its cooperation with the departure of U.S. citizens and lawful residents via a charter flight."

Disgustingly the Biden administration is lying at least as much!

From Biden to Blinks to WH spokespeople and our Generals .

True we cannot trust the Taliban but we cannot trust the US leadership either.
They are all lying to us.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1875 on: September 12, 2021, 11:15:39 AM »


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Afghanistan, those Left Behind
« Reply #1878 on: September 13, 2021, 05:06:54 AM »
WSJ lead editorial:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/left-behind-afghanistan-immigrant-visas-11631473668?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Those Still Left Behind in Afghanistan
The U.S. isn’t doing nearly enough to free those who are trapped.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 12, 2021 5:18 pm ET

Afghan Border National Police personnel stand guard outside the airport in Kabul, Sept. 12.

The Taliban finally let more than 100 Americans, Canadians, Brits, U.S. permanent residents, and others fly out of Afghanistan Thursday and Friday. The State Department said it expects more departures, but the Biden Administration still isn’t doing nearly enough to save thousands of Afghans who earned the right to emigrate to the U.S.

Americans, U.S. residents and endangered Afghans are still scattered throughout the country. The Taliban have effectively taken hundreds hostage at the airport in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif. Some Americans have been told to travel to Kabul, but no one knows how many can do so safely.

“The United States has pulled every lever available to us to facilitate the departure of these charter flights from Mazar,” a State Department spokesman said Thursday, adding that “we were very clear” they should be allowed to leave. This helplessness is humiliating, and across Afghanistan a massive tragedy is unfolding.

The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program offers a path to U.S. citizenship for Afghans who worked with the American government for at least a year during the war. The process can take years, and hundreds of applicants and family members have been killed over time. A State Department official acknowledged that “the majority” of SIV applicants remained after U.S. forces departed. This is one of the worst wartime betrayals in U.S. history.

“There are about 18,000 so-called principal applicants in the system. Of the 18,000, half are at the very early stages,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in June. “Then there is another 9,000 who are much further along.” Mr. Blinken played down the risk of a quick Afghan government collapse, and Foggy Bottom did little to avert the nightmare now unfolding for thousands of SIV applicants.

James Miervaldis of the nonprofit No One Left Behind says that his organization is aware of some 200 approved SIV applicants and their families hiding throughout the country. Fully vetted with paperwork in hand, they were told by the State Department to remain in place during the chaotic evacuation. Then the last American planes left.

Organizations like No One Left Behind have the financial wherewithal to pay for their flights out of the country, but they’re at the mercy of the Taliban to allow safe passage. Remember these families whenever the White House brags about the scale of the August airlift.

The thousands more still in the 14-step application process should have been evacuated to a secure location months ago. Politicoreports that only 705 SIV applicants left during the evacuation. Some U.S. officials have denied that number but declined to provide their own. Mr. Blinken is testifying before the House and Senate this week, and Congress should demand exact numbers.

The Taliban said last week that it will let only foreign passport- or visa-holders leave the country. Are the thousands of endangered Afghans supposed to wait for the process to play out from Washington? And if they survive long enough to get a visa, who expects the Taliban to grant safe passage? The new government’s security forces are run by a leader of the terrorist Haqqani Network wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The State Department says “we are considering and we are developing additional processing alternatives so that we can continue to deliver important consular services, including to these American citizens, these LPRs, these Afghans at risk.” Consular services? No wonder the Taliban feel free to humiliate the Biden Administration.

The White House needs to tell—not ask—the Taliban that whoever wants to leave can do so at America’s invitation. If the Taliban refuse, the U.S. can oppose the new government economically and diplomatically, as well as assisting the internal opposition. Second, the U.S. needs to take every action possible—overt and covert, overland and in the air—to get people out. The State Department should commend and work with private groups on rescue missions, not treat them as a nuisance.

The Biden Administration wants nothing more than to wash its hands of the debacle in Afghanistan, and it has a political incentive to play down or obfuscate the number of trapped Afghans eligible to come to America. But the world shouldn’t forget that thousands of would-be Americans—men, women and children—face arrest, torture or death because of the White House rush to the Afghan exits.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 06:57:39 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
Afghanistan, Those Left Behind, Washington Post
« Reply #1879 on: September 13, 2021, 05:27:49 AM »
Democracy Dies in Darkness
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/12/what-we-still-dont-know-about-americans-afghanistan/
Opinion: What we still don’t know about Americans in Afghanistan

Opinion by Hugh Hewitt

The phrase “credibility gap” was popularized during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas used it to describe his inability to get straight answers from LBJ and his minions on the escalating Vietnam War. To all subsequent presidents has come some charge of a credibility gap.

President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and press secretary Jen Psaki now all suffer from a credibility gap born of obfuscation over the Afghan catastrophe. Though the State Department can count the minimum number of “Americans” — defined by me as all U.S. passport holders, whether citizens or Legal Permanent Residents with “green cards” known to its teams by text, email and phone calls — no one at State or the White House can seem to agree on what that number is.

This past Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain told CNN there were “around 100” Americans left in Afghanistan. On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said “hundreds” are still stranded. The Post’s Afghanistan and Pakistan bureau chief Susannah George told my radio audience Friday morning there is simply no way to know, as some passport holders are cut off and most of the country is out of contact with anyone.

We have a right to know the scale of this crisis: the minimum number of U.S. passport holders known by our authorities to be in Afghanistan. And it is a crisis. It is America Held Hostage 2.0, and though a cohort of Americans escaped Thursday, many remain behind. Psaki, with astonishing indifference to the worries of families and friends across the country, said on Wednesday that there were a “handful” of Americans still in Afghanistan.

A “handful.” It is shocking to hear that. Americans do not come in “handfuls.” They come in ones. Each one matters. One American abandoned is a crisis. We need to know the denominator against which the “ongoing efforts” can be measured. We celebrate every American who escapes, but we cannot forget and dare not accept the minimization of Americans left behind.

We must also learn the state of the president’s robustness. I believe my eyes. The president is, in my opinion, infirm. He is old. Soon to be 79, Biden shows his years every time he appears in public.

Biden is not incapacitated. He’s not sidelined. He is simply lacking the “energy in the Executive” that Alexander Hamilton identified in the Federalist Papers as the key ingredient in the president’s competence and the federal government’s success. This isn’t an issue of chronological age, but simply of energy. Biden lacks it. The press fails the people when it refuses, absolutely and repeatedly refuses, to discuss what this means for the country given the urgent issue of hostages, and the menace of emboldened enemies who must see in the president’s infirmity a vast field of opportunities.

On Tuesday, Chris Wallace spoke to me with the sort of candor we need, but his target was Blinken. It is worth quoting Wallace at length.

“I’m very unimpressed by the State operation,” Wallace began. “I’m very unimpressed by Antony Blinken,” he continued. “You know, Blinken had a news conference, I guess it was, well, it was last Friday. It was when he refused to say how many people, Americans and Afghans, had gotten out. And you know, he was speaking with all the passion of somebody reading the telephone book.”

Wallace grew animated. “And you know, it’s not a matter of politics. It’s a matter of presence and gravitas. When Mike Pompeo or Hillary Clinton or, you know, you can go on and on, Colin Powell, spoke for the United States of America, there was, you know, there was a ‘Don’t mess with us, guys, we’re the United States of America.’ Blinken, I think, is a great staff man, but I’m not, I’m very doubtful as to whether he should be … the voice of America’s presence in the world.”

That is a blunt and devastating assessment of American leadership, and if a broadcaster says it, imagine what the Taliban, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping must think. We are in deep, deep trouble.

That trouble is compounded by legitimate questions, all unanswered, about the president’s energy and capacity. Merriam-Webster defines “infirm” this way: “of poor or deteriorated vitality.” The first step to repairing our crisis is a strong secretary of state, one whom the world pauses to watch when he or she speaks. There are many candidates. Time to make a change, Mr. President. American lives depend upon it. As does your credibility with the people.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 06:50:43 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
blinks
« Reply #1881 on: September 13, 2021, 03:36:56 PM »
amazing what a pussy he is with our enemies

but with Republicans he treats us like crap , lies , takes zero responsibility

with a straight partisan face

as he and his entourage seriously damaged our standing in the world in several ways.

on him,  McCain was more right than ever !

this guy is a great danger and totally incompetent

and a prick to boot
no shame no integrity



ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1883 on: September 13, 2021, 06:43:29 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
GPF: The Taliban's Strategic Dilemmas
« Reply #1884 on: September 13, 2021, 07:48:43 PM »
September 8, 2021
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Taliban’s Strategic Dilemmas
By: Ridvan Bari Urcosta

As the Taliban once again transition from an insurgency to a political institution, questions surround the kind of government they want to be. Domestic policies are one thing; the nature of their foreign policy, if they even decide to have one, is quite another. Will they, for example, join the regional system of Central Asian autarkies, or become a base for Islamic radicalism worldwide? Either answer will have major implications for regional powerbrokers like Russia, China and, to a lesser extent, India and Turkey. These countries have an interest in maintaining ties to a Taliban government even as they have serious concerns about what an empowered Taliban might mean for their own territories.

The Taliban and the Islamic State

It’s well known that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar ruled Afghanistan in accordance with Shariah prior to the 2001 invasion, but it’s important to remember that Afghanistan at this time was an Islamic state, not the Islamic State. The Taliban never extended their banner much beyond their borders, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. In 1998, Omar said the goal of his movement was, “To end the mischief in the country, to establish peace and security, to protect life, wealth and honor and to enforce the Sharia, do jihad against the leaders who were devoted for power, and endeavor to make the land of Afghanistan an exemplary state.” As an experiment in transnational jihadism, Afghanistan may have failed, but it did become one of the premier havens for terrorist groups throughout the world.

Fast forward to the mid-2010s, when the Islamic State exploded onto the scene in Iraq. Plenty of other Islamist groups existed before it – al-Qaida, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Caucasus Emirate, just to name a few – but none was as systemic a threat as IS. For the other groups, the caliphate was a secondary concern, not because they didn’t want one but because they believed the historical conditions weren’t quite ripe yet. Moreover, many of these groups were formed with geographic and ethnic bases and as such were either less suited or less immediately interested in global dominance. As an extra-ethnic and extra-territorial entity, IS was different and, to those at risk of its attacks, scarier. Now that the Taliban is back in power, groups operating in Afghanistan, such as Islamic State-Khorasan, are reviving those fears.

However, those fears may be a little misplaced. Ties between the Taliban and the Islamic State were icy from the beginning. The Taliban always saw IS as an alien presence in the country and thus as a political opponent, and their ideological differences are such that the Hanafi principles of Islam practiced by the Taliban are considered heretical by the Salafists of IS and other pan-Islamist organizations. Moreover, it’s important for the Taliban to achieve some degree of normalization and stability. That very well may include a readiness to fight IS for what took 20 years to retake.

The new Taliban government thus faces two challenges. The first is to gain international recognition and legitimacy such that they can govern, trade, acquire investment and participate in the global system (if they want to). The second is to prevent extremist groups or other rebels from challenging their rule. What complicates things further is that IS-K sees itself as a constituent part of a future caliphate, and much of its leadership were former Taliban fighters. In other words, some factions from the Taliban share the Islamic State’s global revolutionary agenda and so may be less inclined to building a nation-state.

Like it or not, these challenges may be easier to manage with international recognition and backing. Eurasian powers such as Russia, China, Turkey, Iran and the European Union may well back the Taliban if they believe the group can be trusted to at least maintain stability again, especially if stability can be used as a bulwark again the Islamic State.

Concerns of Eurasian Powers

It wasn’t easy to defeat the Islamic State, but it wasn’t hard to assemble a coalition against it. When it came to power in Iraq, it was close to strategically important places such as Turkey, the North Caucasus, the Balkans and the EU. It was also an existential threat to regional Arab monarchies.

Rightly or wrongly, Afghanistan is less urgent. No one is going to cobble together an international military force to protect or oust the Taliban at this point. But necessity often dictates behavior, and if international powers believe IS to be a more dire threat than the Taliban, they may tacitly endorse the Taliban even if they don’t directly, materially support them.

Each of the major powers in Eurasia has its own set of concerns when it comes to Afghanistan and the Taliban’s resurgence. Let’s begin with Russia. Moscow has a long history of confronting Islamic extremism in the North Caucasus, especially in the restive regions of Chechnya and Dagestan. Throughout the 1990s, it faced significant levels of resistance from non-Slavic Muslim populations there, and the Kremlin even launched a full-fledged war against the Chechens and other groups in the region.


(click to enlarge)

To the east of the North Caucasus, Moscow still has significant influence in the former Soviet states of Central Asia. These countries themselves experienced a struggle between secularist and Islamic extremist forces two decades ago, as newly independent nations. Today, they also have an impact on what happens in Russia, especially considering that millions of migrants from Central Asia and Russians with Central Asian heritage live in Russia. Given that three Central Asian states share borders with Afghanistan, Moscow is concerned that the instability there could spill over into Central Asia and then spread into the North Caucasus.

Central Asia
(click o enlarge)

Indeed, the profile of terrorists in Russia has changed over the past few years. Terrorists of Central Asian descent have increased in number compared to those originating from the North Caucasus. The Islamic State is also increasingly influential among these groups. According to Russia’s FSB security services, in 2015, 20 percent of the Muslim population in the Far East region of Khabarovsk, mostly consisting of immigrants, shared the views and vision of the Islamic State. Rising tensions between ethnic Russians and immigrants from Central Asia in major Russian cities have also led to further isolation and radicalization of these groups in recent years. For Moscow, therefore, it’s crucial that secular regimes remain in power in Central Asia. These regimes themselves became increasingly concerned with the situation in Afghanistan as the government in Kabul began to crumble. The Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, which has among its members three Central Asian states, launched large-scale exercises in Tajikistan near the Afghan border in recent weeks.

Russia and Central Asian states also closely coordinated their responses with China, whose own concerns about Afghanistan relate to its Uyghur population. The mostly Muslim Uyghurs are concentrated in China’s eastern province of Xinjiang, which gives Beijing an advantage over a place like Russia, where the Muslim population is scattered throughout the country. Still, Xinjiang is linked to Afghanistan through the Wakhan Corridor, meaning extremist elements there still present a danger to Beijing.

India and Pakistan’s concerns about the Taliban’s resurgence relate to the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan has drawn criticism from India for its long-standing support for the Taliban and related militant groups. The Taliban’s rise to power strengthened Pakistan’s position in the region and made India hyper-vigilant about an increase in anti-government activity in Muslim-dominated Kashmir. Thus, extremist activity there has the potential to draw Pakistan and India into direct confrontation. Pakistan also has close ties to China, which has territorial disputes with India in the Laddakh region, east of Kashmir. India must therefore consider China’s potential response to any moves it makes against Pakistan.

Kashmir: A Disputed Region
(click to enlarge)

Turkey is not as well-positioned to act in Afghanistan as the other Eurasian countries, but it has made moves to remain active in the political and diplomatic realms. Ankara is trying to expand its influence in Central Asia through economic investments and by leveraging its cultural ties to other Turkic nations in the region. Its worry in Afghanistan is the potential for extremists to reignite problems closer to home. Hizb ut-Tahrir, a transnational group that aims to establish a global caliphate, is of particular concern because of its attempts to unite the Turkic peoples of Central Asia.

The Eurasian powers have adopted a mostly wait-and-see approach to the Taliban for now. Despite the Taliban declaring the country the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the international community isn’t like to unite a fighting force against it. The coalition against IS was formed not only because of the group’s threat as a terrorist organization but also because the West, Eurasian powers, and secular and moderate Muslim regimes in the Middle East wanted to quash a movement that presented the first serious claim to caliphate status since the Ottoman Empire. But the Taliban are different. Their Islamic revolution is confined to Afghanistan.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile





ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Imran Khan
« Reply #1896 on: September 28, 2021, 07:19:33 PM »
Imran Khan...professional beggar

https://youtu.be/JmTCME0b0M8
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 01:52:31 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Putin offers Russian bases for US strikes in Afghanistan
« Reply #1897 on: September 29, 2021, 02:11:31 AM »
fghanistan strikes puts spotlight on Ukraine tensions

BY GUY TAYLOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Biden administration indicated Tuesday that it is weighing an offer from Moscow to use Russian military bases in Central Asia for future counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan and the region, even as U.S.-Russia tensions soar on other fronts — most notably in Ukraine.

The extent to which the two matters are connected remains to be seen, although there are signs Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks to link them, if only to undercut President Biden’s efforts to back Ukraine.

The Putin government on Monday issued fresh warnings about U.S.-backed NATO activity in Ukraine, asserting that any expansion of NATO military infrastructure in the country would cross “red lines.”

The warning came as The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon is weighing offer from Mr. Putin for U.S. forces to use Russian bases Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan for operations in Afghanistan. According to The Journal, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley discussed the issue in a meeting last week with Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov at the request of the White House.

The U.S. has insisted that even after the Afghanistan withdrawal, American drones can strike terrorist targets from “over the horizon,” though military leaders have acknowledged such missions are much more logistically challenging. Permanent American bases near Afghanistan would make the task far easier, but the U.S. so far has not secured an agreement with a nearby nation to house American personnel, planes or vehicles.

Republicans are bristling at the prospect that the Biden administration may put American forces in a position of dependence on Russian military bases, a prospect GOP lawmakers say is unacceptable because of the Kremlin’s military aggression in Ukraine.

“We are deeply troubled to learn from press reports that your administration is in discussions with the Russian Federation to secure access to Russian military installations in Central Asian countries and potentially engage in some form of military cooperation on counterterrorism with the Russians,” a group of top congressional Republicans wrote Monday to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“Inviting Russia into discussions will not further vital U.S. counterterrorism goals, nor is it the path to the ‘stable and predictable’ relationship with Russia the Biden administration claims it wants,” stated the letter, whose signers included the four ranking Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.

Asked about the talks Tuesday, Mr. Austin told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that Gen. Milley merely sought “clarification” about the base offer from his Russian counterpart last week.

Mr. Austin stressed the U.S. isn’t seeking Russia’s approval for counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, although he acknowledged the two nations now have a dialogue about sharing resources in the region. “I can assure you we are not seeking Russia’s permission to do anything, but I believe ... [Gen. Milley] asked for clarification what that offer was,” the defense secretary said.

Republicans say such cooperation with Moscow is evidence of the difficult spot the U.S. now finds itself in due to the Biden administration’s total military withdrawal from Afghanistan. “They’ve really left us in a terrible position that we have to ask the Russians to be able to protect the United States from terrorists, and we have to ask them to use their installations,” Sen. Deb Fischer, Nebraska Republican, said Tuesday.

The administration’s policy goals in Ukraine may be at risk. Mr. Biden rolled out a new humanitarian and military package for Kyiv in early September, featuring some $60 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles and other aid.

The package outraged the Putin government, which has backed pro-Russian separatist forces inside Ukraine since annexing the Crimean peninsula in 2014 and briefly massed troops on the Ukrainian border earlier this year.

Ukraine is not a NATO member but has spent recent years aligning with the U.S. and NATO. Ukrainian forces recently engaged in joint drills with U.S. and other NATO member troops. The drills occurred at the same time that Russia and nearby Belarus were to hold their own joint exercises.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Mr. Putin, has accused the U.S. of setting up training centers in Ukraine that he says amount to military bases. Mr. Lukashenko was quoted by the RIA news agency as saying he has discussed the issue with Mr. Putin and the two “agreed that we need to take some kind of measures in response.”

A Reuters report on the Belarusian president’s comments said that when asked what joint actions Mr. Lukashenko was referring to, the Kremlin responded: “These are actions that ensure the security of the two of our states.”

“President Putin has repeatedly noted the issue of the potential broadening of NATO infrastructure on Ukrainian territory, and [he] has said this would cross those red lines that he has spoken about before,” the Kremlin said, the news agency reported.




Ben Wolfgang contributed to this report.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18203
    • View Profile
The Afghan family Biden blew up in haste and denied for weeks
« Reply #1898 on: September 29, 2021, 06:02:45 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/man-u-didnt-mean-kill-131812524.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Mistakes happen but this is shameful.

Remind me who was fired over this.  Biden?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69306
    • View Profile
Stratfor: India not happy with Afghanistan situation
« Reply #1899 on: September 29, 2021, 01:20:58 PM »
The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan has created political, economic and security challenges for India. New Delhi’s strategy will focus on preserving some degree of political engagement with Kabul while reaching out to countries like Russia and Iran to influence regional events and try to mitigate the risk of terrorism. Lodged between regional rivals China and Pakistan, Afghanistan has great strategic value for India. India’s relationship with Afghanistan has also helped India with its national security and economic goals for the region. For New Delhi, influence in Afghanistan by means of a strong engagement with the former democratic government has been helpful in keeping its neighboring nemesis Pakistan in check. Over the past 20 years, India has built up large strategic capital through developmental investment and people-to-people ties in Afghanistan.

Economically, Afghanistan has also become an important node for facilitating India’s trade and connectivity with West and Central Asia. But with the Taliban now ruling the country, the soft power New Delhi has spent years building up in Afghanistan now hangs in balance.

Afghanistan is an important piece of the International North-South Transport Corridor, an approximately 4,500 mile-long multi-mode network of ship, rail and road routes for moving freight between India, Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Russia, as well as Central Asia and Europe more broadly. Afghanistan was also envisioned to be a key node for the transport of goods from India to Central Asia.

Over the past 20 years, India spent roughly $3 billion to bolster the now-deposed U.S.-installed regime in Afghanistan. Since 2001, New Delhi has helped build roads, dams, power lines, clinics and schools across the country, and also trained civil servants and Afghan officers, in addition to providing scholarships to thousands of Afghan students.

India entered into a strategic partnership with the former Afghan government in 2011, after which New Delhi engaged heavily in economic reconstruction and building up diplomatic relations in Afghanistan.

India also funded the 135-mile highway connecting the Delaram District in Afghanistan to the border of Iran. The $150-million Zaranj-Delaram highway holds high strategic significance since the road connects India to landlocked Afghanistan via Iran’s Chabahar port bypassing Pakistan.

The Taliban takeover, however, has created geopolitical challenges that will likely erode India’s ties with Afghanistan. The Taliban’s rapid advance in Afghanistan over the summer was as much of a shock to India as it was to the rest of the world. Unlike Russia or China, India never engaged with the Taliban on any level and supported the fragile democracy backed by the United States. Taliban leaders, meanwhile, don’t trust India, given New Delhi’s support to the former Afghan government and ongoing rivalry with the Taliban’s main partner, Pakistan. This will make it hard for India and the new Taliban-led Afghan government to reach even minimal cooperation in the future.

Despite security assurances from the Taliban during and after the fall of Kabul in mid-August, the Indian government decided to go ahead with evacuating all of its nationals from the embassy in the Afghan capital.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the transfer of power to the Taliban for not being inclusive during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit held on Sept. 18 in Tajikistan.

Pakistan, India’s historic rival, will likely work with Afghanistan to further reduce New Delhi’s influence in the country in the coming months. India’s engagement in Afghanistan in the recent decades has fueled concerns in Pakistan of being encircled by India to the east and by the pro-Indian government to the west and north. Pakistan’s historical links to the Taliban — which has included providing Taliban fighters safe havens, indirect arms and financing over the years — had also strained Islamabad’s relationship with the former Afghan government. In this regard, the Taliban victory has opened the door to a more friendly government in Kabul, where Pakistan can increase its influence. As a result, Pakistan will likely try to prevent India’s close engagement with the Taliban to maintain its leverage over Kabul, while also working closely with China and Afghanistan’s other immediate neighbors to spearhead regional cooperation. Pakistan can also now leverage its strategic ties with the Taliban to shift assets in event of a military flare-up on its border with India, effectively limiting New Delhi’s reach to any conflict zones.

The Taliban’s leadership council, known as the "Quetta Shura,” had reportedly been operating from the Pakistani city of Quetta for the majority of the past 20 years leading up to the fall of Kabul in August.
In 1999, during their first reign in Afghanistan, the Taliban gave the hijackers of an Indian passenger jet safe passage to Pakistan after they landed in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. New Delhi also remains deeply wary of the Taliban’s close links to Pakistan’s military spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.

China’s growing influence in Afghanistan poses another challenge for India, considering New Delhi and Beijing's ongoing strategic disputes. In recent weeks, China has been proactively engaging with the Taliban and appears ready to work with them. Now that there is some degree of stability in the country with the formation of a formal caretaker government, China — facilitated by Pakistan — will likely support Afghanistan through both humanitarian and developmental aid.

China, along with Pakistan and Russia, kept its embassy open during the Taliban takeover and the chaotic evacuations that followed.

On Sept. 9, just two days after the Taliban unveiled their internationally controversial caretaker government, China pledged $31 million worth of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

The Taliban have stated that China is one of the most important neighbors for their economic development and have expressed a willingness to join Beijing’s massive Belt and Road Initiative.

The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan is also creating new security threats for India by raising the risk of cross-border terrorism. Militant groups active in Afghanistan and other nearby countries will likely recruit the thousands of prisoners freed during the Taliban takeover of Kabul. Indeed, there are reports that Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a militant group that operates from Pakistan, has already begun recruiting fighters from Afghanistan. Pakistani armed forces are likely to indirectly facilitate attacks or militant infiltrations into India. Although the Taliban have assured India that no terrorist groups will operate from Afghanistan against India, there is no guarantee the Taliban even have the capability to keep militancy from spreading across Afghanistan. In addition to JeM, regional Islamic State and al Qaeda affiliates also pose a threat to India. The Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), for example, has close ties with al Qaeda, raising the potential for an increased flow of fighters from Afghanistan to India-Pakistan border regions. Despite lacking a stronghold in India, the Islamic State has also been able to recruit individuals from the southern Indian states of Kerala and Karnataka via propaganda and radicalization campaigns on social media.

The head of JeM visited Afghanistan shortly after the fall of Kabul to congratulate the Taliban and seek their support for JeM’s operations against India in the disputed Kashmir region.

On Aug. 31, the Indian government’s counter-terrorism task force reported it was closely monitoring 25 Indian nationals suspected to be working with the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) in Afghanistan on online efforts to recruit new Indian fighters.

Given its limited options, India’s immediate strategy in Afghanistan will focus on making timid gestures toward political dialogue while trying to mitigate security threats. India now has little control over the situation in Afghanistan due to Pakistan and China’s influence in the country and close relationships with the Taliban. New Delhi will thus likely remain cautious in approaching Afghanistan in the short term, waiting to see how the new Taliban-led governance structure develops while also monitoring for any new terrorist activity in the country.

While it’ll be slow to grant formal recognition to the Taliban government, India will likely attempt to establish relations with Afghanistan’s new leaders in the coming weeks in an effort to keep basic communication channels open. The existing infrastructure developed by India and prospects of regional connectivity projects could be initial avenues of engagement in the country. To deal with the security threat, New Delhi may further increase counterterrorism operations and troop deployments in the Jammu and Kashmir region, as well as other border states like Punjab and Rajasthan. The Indian government has already expressed an urgency to deploy an anti-drone system at the border to effectively deal with threats posed by militants in the region using such technologies to launch attacks on India.

In June, a Qatari official announced that an informal meeting between Indian diplomats and Taliban representatives had taken place in Qatar.

On Aug. 31, India’s ambassador to Qatar officially met with Taliban representatives in Doha after Qatar hosted an informal meeting in June between Indian diplomats and Taliban leaders.

In addition, India will work with other regional countries to protect its interests in Afghanistan and influence developments in the region. Following the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — which includes Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and most Central Asian countries — has emerged as the focal group for nearby countries to develop some form of a joint strategy to prevent a wider security crisis in the region. India is likely to use this forum to work with Iran and Russia and, to a lesser extent, Tajikistan on Afghanistan-related issues. If the situation in Afghanistan becomes volatile again and the terrorist threat increases significantly, India may eventually also join Iran and Tajikistan in supporting the Panjshir resistance and/or other anti-Taliban movements that arise in Afghanistan. But this is an unlikely scenario, as such movements are unlikely to fully stamp out the Taliban — resulting in only a severe deterioration of bilateral ties and a worsening of the overall security situation in the region. Supporting resistance forces would also risk triggering a wider civil war in Afghanistan between the Taliban and various local movements, sending more Afghan refugees into nearby countries while exacerbating overall security risks in the region.

Iran has a mixed complex relationship with the Taliban due to their ideological differences and the Taliban’s discriminatory treatment of Hazaras, a mostly Shiite ethnic group in Sunni-dominant Afghanistan. Russia, meanwhile, is keen to restrict any spread of violence and radical ideologies into Central Asian states, which are in Moscow’s own sphere of influence.

Tajikistan is the only country in the region that has criticized the Taliban for excluding ethnic Tajiks from the new Afghan government administration and is believed to be secretly supporting the resistance movement in Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley.