Taliban Splintered by Internal Divisions, External Spoilers
Pakistan said to be supporting alternative jihadi groups to undermine the Taliban and maintain leverage over Afghanistan.
foreignpolicy.com
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Butter Chicken
- Start date
foreignpolicy.com
looks like these are all being done by taliban/pakistan to eliminate any ppl who might become trouble , just put the blame on ISIS and be done with it.
There is no *censored*ing way I would go anywhere near Afghanistan, even the surrounding countries are shitholes. It's literally one gigantic black hole anus that no light can escape from.
As usual Paddy catches the wrong end of the stick , head up in clouds , etc etc
@Amal was highlighting 2 issues - the clean chit to the Taliban given by Nicky boy here - the senior most general in the RA definitely of Irish extraction & the issue of starvation of the Afghans in the immediate future which also has a bit of history to it especially when the British are in the picture. In dummy terms the British would be willing to vacation there but aren't ready to lift a finger to ameliorate the disastrous shortage of food there.
Another year goes by & there's absolutely no improvement in Afghanistan or Paddy's understanding of geo political events. Coronovirus's would come & go but Paddy would be around . Accompanied by his ignorance.
"Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."
Liverpool bomb: What we know so far
A failed asylum seeker set off a bomb outside a Liverpool hospital on Remembrance Sunday.
www.bbc.co.uk
Mass migration from the Middle East is slowly being recognised as part of a hybrid warfare strategy, even by the EU.
Foreign Policy fall2021
America Isn’t Exceptional Anymore
LEAVING AFGHANISTAN
America Isn’t Exceptional Anymore
(MINA ALORAIBI is the editor in chief of the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper the National and a columnist at FOREIGN POLICY)
As the last U.S. soldier pulled out of Afghanistan in the dead of night on Aug. 30 and the Taliban walked into Hamid Karzai International Airport, many in the Arab world were looking on and wondering if similar scenes would one day be seen at Baghdad International Airport or elsewhere in the region.
Since then-U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform of “ending the war in Iraq” in 2008, popular domestic support for ending overseas military engagement has been a driving force for U.S. politicians. Although Obama was able to declare an end to the Iraq War in 2011 as president, he also ordered a U.S. military intervention, named Operation Inherent Resolve, to defeat the Islamic State there in 2014.
It appears that resolve is now lacking.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his successor, Joe Biden, decided that maintaining a military presence of approximately 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, providing essential air cover and intelligence to the Afghan army, and supporting the Afghan government were no longer necessary to meet U.S. national security interests. Therefore, both their administrations worked on withdrawing from the country. On Aug. 26, the Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan mounted one of its deadliest attacks, killing at least 182 people, including 13 U.S. service members.
The Arab world has witnessed the catastrophic fallout from the way the U.S. withdrawal was dismally implemented. A number of Arab countries were directly involved in evacuation efforts. The United Arab Emirates is temporarily hosting thousands of Afghans until they are resettled in third countries. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar were all important transit points for evacuees, and Iraq received a small number of Afghan students.
Among policymakers in the Middle East, there is now an understanding that the United States is no longer invested in maintaining stability abroad—unless its narrowly defined national interests are directly impacted.
Biden has publicly addressed the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan with a determination that his decision—and how it was implemented— was right. In remarks on Aug. 16, Biden said, “Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on [the] American homeland. I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building.” That message was heard loud and clear in the Arab world. In countries like Libya and Yemen, where conflicts continue and nation-building is crucial, Washington has been disengaged for a number of years. However, that disengagement is now official policy.
Yet counterterrorism cannot be conf ined to targeting terrorists through drone strikes. For decades, counterterrorism officials and experts have argued that terrorist organizations f lourish in areas that are devoid of governance or in societies where a greater sense of injustice prevails. Syria and Iraq are prime examples of how the Islamic State was able to establish itself due to internal governance failures and a U.S. disinterest in tackling core issues in both countries. This was seen after the United States’ initial involvement in the Iraqi government’s setup post2003 and in support of Syria’s opposition after 2011.
Washington’s allies and foes in the Middle East are taking note. From the threat of terrorist groups like the Islamic State to emboldened militias like Hezbollah, U.S. allies can no longer rely on Washington. As U.S. officials question some countries’ choices—Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia strengthening ties with China, for example—they must understand that Beijing comes across as a more reliable partner in the same way that Russia proved a more reliable partner to Syrian leader Bashar al- Assad, ensuring his survival.
The U.S. absence from the Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership on Aug. 28—attended by Emirati Vice President and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and French President Emmanuel Macron, among others—further highlighted Washington’s political absence.
With a disengaged United States and a lack of European consensus on filling that void, the establishment of systems of government in the shape of Western liberal democracies no longer makes sense. After two decades of promoting democracy as the leading system of government, the view from the Middle East is the United States has abdicated that rhetorical position.
And that may not be a bad thing. Effective government should be the goal rather than governments formed simply through the ballot box that don’t deliver for their people. As the fall of Afghanistan captured the world’s attention, another major change of government was taking place in Tunisia. After months of a failed COVID-19 response and years of corruption and weak governance complaints, Tunisian President Kais Saied dismissed the prime minister and suspended parliament in July.
Although there is wide popular support for Saied, who was elected with more than 70 percent of the popular vote, U.S. officials have been making demands of Saied to reinstate parliament, without much accountability for the legislative body’s actions. It is jarring to see the U.S. government issuing statements demanding Tunisia’s democratically elected president adhere to Washington’s preferred version of governance while also making deals with the Taliban.
The juxtaposition may not be obvious from the United States, but it certainly is in the Arab world, where it is perceived as a glaring double standard. U.S. officials cannot claim a moral authority in the Arab world while standing straightfaced and declaring the scenes around Kabul’s airport were justified.
There were already suspicions in the Arab world about the Biden administration because of its officials’ previous track records, such as Biden’s position as a senator championing the partition of Iraq in 2006 and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken playing a role in the Obama administration’s refusal to intervene after the Assad regime used chemical weapons in 2013.
A number of officials in the Biden administration—including Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, CIA Director William Burns, U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power, and Biden himself—were all at the forefront of making decisions during the Obama administration that contributed to mayhem in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. It was current Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman who was the Obama administration’s main contact point with Arab ambassadors and senior officials, assuring them they would be consulted on any deal with Iran while Sullivan and Burns were holding secret meetings with the Iranians.
During those years, extremists across the region were emboldened. The Islamic State seized up to a third of Iraq and vast territories in Syria, Iranian-backed militias were formalized in Iraq based on an agreement with Washington, and Libya disintegrated into civil war after Washington decided to “lead from behind” in the wake of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi’s fall. All this happened on the United States’ watch.
Abandoning strategic allies and vulnerable civilians is deciding to give up any pretense of being an exceptional nation. Political leaders in the Middle East are learning that lesson, as are civic activists.
“American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone,” Obama said in 2010 after ending combat missions in Iraq. “We must use all elements of our power—including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example— to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears but also on our hopes—a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world but also the limitless possibilities of our time.
“As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction,” he continued. “We will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.”
More than a decade later, that promise to “expand freedom and opportunity for all people” rings hollow. The United States can claim to be the largest economy in the world and a great hub of iThe promise of helping the Afghan nnovation, but it can no longer claim to be the “leader of the free world.”
The promise of helping the Afghan people have a better and more secure future is one promise too many broken by the United States. The trauma of what is unfolding in Afghanistan will be felt for years by Afghans and all those who have been involved in the country.
For liberals in Afghanistan and the Middle East who were unashamedly pro-American, there is shame today in being so naive. Ultimately, the U.S. declaration of the end of the war in Afghanistan means the war is ending with no peace—and protracted wars often are made longer with unilateral withdrawals. The Arab world fears its lands will be the host of renewed violence as a consequence.
America Isn’t Exceptional Anymore
LEAVING AFGHANISTAN
America Isn’t Exceptional Anymore
(MINA ALORAIBI is the editor in chief of the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper the National and a columnist at FOREIGN POLICY)
As the last U.S. soldier pulled out of Afghanistan in the dead of night on Aug. 30 and the Taliban walked into Hamid Karzai International Airport, many in the Arab world were looking on and wondering if similar scenes would one day be seen at Baghdad International Airport or elsewhere in the region.
Since then-U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform of “ending the war in Iraq” in 2008, popular domestic support for ending overseas military engagement has been a driving force for U.S. politicians. Although Obama was able to declare an end to the Iraq War in 2011 as president, he also ordered a U.S. military intervention, named Operation Inherent Resolve, to defeat the Islamic State there in 2014.
It appears that resolve is now lacking.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his successor, Joe Biden, decided that maintaining a military presence of approximately 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, providing essential air cover and intelligence to the Afghan army, and supporting the Afghan government were no longer necessary to meet U.S. national security interests. Therefore, both their administrations worked on withdrawing from the country. On Aug. 26, the Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan mounted one of its deadliest attacks, killing at least 182 people, including 13 U.S. service members.
The Arab world has witnessed the catastrophic fallout from the way the U.S. withdrawal was dismally implemented. A number of Arab countries were directly involved in evacuation efforts. The United Arab Emirates is temporarily hosting thousands of Afghans until they are resettled in third countries. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar were all important transit points for evacuees, and Iraq received a small number of Afghan students.
Among policymakers in the Middle East, there is now an understanding that the United States is no longer invested in maintaining stability abroad—unless its narrowly defined national interests are directly impacted.
Biden has publicly addressed the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan with a determination that his decision—and how it was implemented— was right. In remarks on Aug. 16, Biden said, “Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on [the] American homeland. I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building.” That message was heard loud and clear in the Arab world. In countries like Libya and Yemen, where conflicts continue and nation-building is crucial, Washington has been disengaged for a number of years. However, that disengagement is now official policy.
Yet counterterrorism cannot be conf ined to targeting terrorists through drone strikes. For decades, counterterrorism officials and experts have argued that terrorist organizations f lourish in areas that are devoid of governance or in societies where a greater sense of injustice prevails. Syria and Iraq are prime examples of how the Islamic State was able to establish itself due to internal governance failures and a U.S. disinterest in tackling core issues in both countries. This was seen after the United States’ initial involvement in the Iraqi government’s setup post2003 and in support of Syria’s opposition after 2011.
Washington’s allies and foes in the Middle East are taking note. From the threat of terrorist groups like the Islamic State to emboldened militias like Hezbollah, U.S. allies can no longer rely on Washington. As U.S. officials question some countries’ choices—Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia strengthening ties with China, for example—they must understand that Beijing comes across as a more reliable partner in the same way that Russia proved a more reliable partner to Syrian leader Bashar al- Assad, ensuring his survival.
The U.S. absence from the Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership on Aug. 28—attended by Emirati Vice President and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and French President Emmanuel Macron, among others—further highlighted Washington’s political absence.
With a disengaged United States and a lack of European consensus on filling that void, the establishment of systems of government in the shape of Western liberal democracies no longer makes sense. After two decades of promoting democracy as the leading system of government, the view from the Middle East is the United States has abdicated that rhetorical position.
And that may not be a bad thing. Effective government should be the goal rather than governments formed simply through the ballot box that don’t deliver for their people. As the fall of Afghanistan captured the world’s attention, another major change of government was taking place in Tunisia. After months of a failed COVID-19 response and years of corruption and weak governance complaints, Tunisian President Kais Saied dismissed the prime minister and suspended parliament in July.
Although there is wide popular support for Saied, who was elected with more than 70 percent of the popular vote, U.S. officials have been making demands of Saied to reinstate parliament, without much accountability for the legislative body’s actions. It is jarring to see the U.S. government issuing statements demanding Tunisia’s democratically elected president adhere to Washington’s preferred version of governance while also making deals with the Taliban.
The juxtaposition may not be obvious from the United States, but it certainly is in the Arab world, where it is perceived as a glaring double standard. U.S. officials cannot claim a moral authority in the Arab world while standing straightfaced and declaring the scenes around Kabul’s airport were justified.
There were already suspicions in the Arab world about the Biden administration because of its officials’ previous track records, such as Biden’s position as a senator championing the partition of Iraq in 2006 and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken playing a role in the Obama administration’s refusal to intervene after the Assad regime used chemical weapons in 2013.
A number of officials in the Biden administration—including Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, CIA Director William Burns, U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power, and Biden himself—were all at the forefront of making decisions during the Obama administration that contributed to mayhem in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. It was current Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman who was the Obama administration’s main contact point with Arab ambassadors and senior officials, assuring them they would be consulted on any deal with Iran while Sullivan and Burns were holding secret meetings with the Iranians.
During those years, extremists across the region were emboldened. The Islamic State seized up to a third of Iraq and vast territories in Syria, Iranian-backed militias were formalized in Iraq based on an agreement with Washington, and Libya disintegrated into civil war after Washington decided to “lead from behind” in the wake of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi’s fall. All this happened on the United States’ watch.
Abandoning strategic allies and vulnerable civilians is deciding to give up any pretense of being an exceptional nation. Political leaders in the Middle East are learning that lesson, as are civic activists.
“American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone,” Obama said in 2010 after ending combat missions in Iraq. “We must use all elements of our power—including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example— to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears but also on our hopes—a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world but also the limitless possibilities of our time.
“As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction,” he continued. “We will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.”
More than a decade later, that promise to “expand freedom and opportunity for all people” rings hollow. The United States can claim to be the largest economy in the world and a great hub of iThe promise of helping the Afghan nnovation, but it can no longer claim to be the “leader of the free world.”
The promise of helping the Afghan people have a better and more secure future is one promise too many broken by the United States. The trauma of what is unfolding in Afghanistan will be felt for years by Afghans and all those who have been involved in the country.
For liberals in Afghanistan and the Middle East who were unashamedly pro-American, there is shame today in being so naive. Ultimately, the U.S. declaration of the end of the war in Afghanistan means the war is ending with no peace—and protracted wars often are made longer with unilateral withdrawals. The Arab world fears its lands will be the host of renewed violence as a consequence.
US Treasury creates pathway to send aid to Afghanistan
The Treasury Department on Wednesday announced it was issuing special licenses to ensure that some international aid could flow to Afghanistan, which faces a crisis as its economy collapsed following the Taliban takeover in August.The licenses will enable the U.S. government, international organizations such as the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations to operate in the country and offer humanitarian assistance despite sanctions. They will also allow Afghans living abroad to send money to their families in Afghanistan through remittances.
The U.S. government has labeled Afghanistan's Taliban and the related Haqqani network as terrorists, severely restricting their access to global institutions and the outside money that supported the country's economy before the withdrawal of U.S. forces this year and the swift demise of its previous government.
Biden administration officials face the awkward task of trying to help the Afghan people without also funding a Taliban government that the U.S.-led coalition supplanted after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and then fought for roughly 20 years.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/w...-million-to-taliban-for-security-7852051.html
As much as 80% of Afghanistan's budget comes from the international community. Without greater access to foreign money, the Afghan economy is likely to contract by about 30% this year furthering the humanitarian crisis.
The U.S. government plans to provide Afghanistan with an additional 1 million vaccine doses in the coming weeks, according to senior administration officials who insisted on anonymity to discuss the plans. That brings the total U.S. donations for Afghanistan to 4.3 million doses, though the country has an estimated population of about 40 million.
Earlier in December, the U.S. government worked to transfer $280 million from the World Bank's Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund to U.N. organizations to address health and nutrition needs in the country.
US Treasury creates pathway to send aid to Afghanistan
The licenses will enable the U.S. government, international organizations such as the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations to operate in the country and offer humanitarian assistance despite sanctions.
India votes for UNSC resolution on easing curbs on aid to Afghanistan | India News - Times of India
India News: India has voted in favour of a UN security council resolution to grant exemption from sanctions for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, underlinin.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
India sends medicines to Afghanistan, wheat to follow
Since the chaotic Taliban takeover of Kabul, an already war-devastated Afghan economy once kept alive by international donations is on the verge of collapse. Nearly 80% of Afghanistan's previous government's budget came from the international community. That money, now cut off, financed...
India ready to ship wheat to Afghanistan via Pakistan early February | India News - Times of India
India News: India and Pakistan have finally arrived at an agreement to transport 50,000 MT of Indian wheat to Afghanistan through the land route that passes throu.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
India sends 3 tonnes of medicines as fourth tranche of aid to Afghanistan
India on Saturday supplied three tonnes of life-saving medicines to Afghanistan, the fourth tranche of aid since last month to help the Afghan people cope with a growing humanitarian crisis that has been compounded by a harsh winter.The medicines were handed over to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul, the external affairs ministry said. “In the coming weeks, we would be supplying more batches of humanitarian assistance consisting of medicines and food grains for the people of Afghanistan,” the ministry said in a statement.
India had earlier supplied 3.6 tonnes of medicines and 500,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccines to Afghanistan. An offer to provide 50,000 tonnes of wheat via land routes passing through Pakistan has been held up since October last year as Islamabad is yet to finalise the modalities for shipping the grains. India has also pledged to send another 500,000 doses of vaccines in the coming weeks.
“India stands committed to continue our special relationship with the people of Afghanistan and provide humanitarian assistance. In this endeavour, we had already supplied three shipments of medical assistance, consisting of 500,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccine and essential life-saving medicines to Afghanistan,” the statement said.
All these supplies were handed over to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health.
External affairs ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi told a media briefing on Friday that the Indian government is committed to provide humanitarian aid, including food grains, Covid-19 vaccines and life-saving medicines, to the Afghan people.
“The process to procure the wheat and to arrange its transportation is currently underway. Naturally, this takes some time,” he said, referring to the offer to supply 50,000 tonnes of wheat.
The Taliban, whose regime in Kabul has not been recognised by New Delhi, have so far welcomed the aid provided by India. The group’s Twitter accounts and spokesmen have expressed gratitude for the assistance.
The UN has sought close to $8 billion dollars for humanitarian activities in Afghanistan during 2022, including $4.4 billion in additional humanitarian assistance. The UN has said about 23 million Afghan people are in a state of humanitarian emergency, and UNICEF estimates more than one million children are at risk of dying from malnutrition and hunger-related disease.
India sends 3 tonnes of medicines as fourth tranche of aid to Afghanistan
India had earlier supplied 3.6 tonnes of medicines and 500,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccines to Afghanistan. An offer to provide 50,000 tonnes of wheat via land routes passing through Pakistan has been held up since October last year as Islamabad is yet to finalise the modalities for shipping the...