Afghanistan Military & News

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
And I don't blame them... continuing.
During a press briefing on Dec. 2, General John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, discussed “the malign influence of external actors and particularly Pakistan, Russia, and Iran.” Gen. Nicholson said the U.S. and its allies are “concerned about the external enablement of the insurgent or terrorist groups inside Afghanistan, in particular where they enjoy sanctuary or support from outside governments.” Russia, in particular, “has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.”

According to Nicholson, the Russian “narrative” is “that the Taliban are the ones fighting the Islamic State, not the Afghan government.” While the Taliban does fight its jihadist rivals in the Islamic State, this is plainly false.

The “Afghan government and the U.S. counterterrorism effort are the ones achieving the greatest effect against Islamic State,” Nicholson said. He went on to list the U.S.-led coalition’s accomplishments over the past year: 500 ISIS fighters (comprising an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the group’s overall force structure) were killed or wounded, the organization’s “top 12 leaders” (including its emir, Hafiz Saeed Khan) were killed, and the group’s “sanctuary” has been reduced from nine Afghan districts to just three.

“So, this public legitimacy that Russia lends to the Taliban is not based on fact, but it is used as a way to essentially undermine the Afghan government and the NATO effort and bolster the belligerents,” Nicholson concluded. While Nicholson was careful not read too much into Russia’s motivation for backing the Taliban, he noted “certainly there’s a competition with NATO.”

There’s no doubt that ISIS’s operations in Afghanistan grew significantly in the wake of Baghdadi’s caliphate declaration in 2014. However, as Nicholson correctly pointed out, Baghdadi’s men are not adding to the territory they control at the moment. Their turf is shrinking. The same cannot be said for the Taliban, which remains the most significant threat to Afghanistan’s future. At any given time, the Taliban threatens several provincial capitals. The Taliban also controls dozens of Afghan districts and contests many more. Simply put, the Taliban is a far greater menace inside Afghanistan than Baghdadi’s men.

Regardless, the Russians continue to press their case. Their argument hinges on the idea that ISIS is a “global” force to be reckoned with, while the Taliban is just a “local” nuisance.

Kabulov, Putin’s special envoy to Afghanistan, made this very same claim in a newly-published interview with Anadolu Agency. Kabulov contends that “the bulk, main leadership, current leadership, and the majority of Taliban” are now a “local force” as a “result of all these historical lessons they got in Afghanistan.”

“They gave up the global jihadism idea,” Kabulov adds. “They are upset and regret that they followed Osama bin Laden.”

Someone should tell the Taliban’s media department this.

In early December, the Taliban released a major documentary video, “Bond of Nation with the Mujahideen.” The video included clips of the Taliban’s most senior leaders rejecting peace talks and vowing to wage jihad until the end. It also openly advertised the Taliban’s undying alliance with al Qaeda. At one point, an image of Osama bin Laden next to Taliban founder Mullah Omar is displayed on screen. (A screen shot of this clip can be seen above.) Photos of other al Qaeda and Taliban figures are mixed together in the same shot.

An audio message from Sheikh Khalid Batarfi, an al Qaeda veteran stationed in Yemen, is also played during the video. Batarfi praised the Taliban for protecting bin Laden even after the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings. “Groups of Afghan Mujahideen have emerged from the land of Afghans that will destroy the biggest idol and head of kufr of our time, America,” Batarfi threatened.

A narrator added that the mujahideen in Afghanistan “are the hope of Muslims for reviving back the honor of the Muslim Ummah [worldwide community of Muslims]!” The Afghan jihadists are a “hope for taking back the Islamic lands!” and a “hope for not repeating defeats and tragedies of the last century!”

The Taliban’s message is, therefore, unmistakable: The war in Afghanistan is part of the global jihadist conflict.

All of this, and more, is in one of the Taliban’s most important media productions of 2016. There is no hint that the Taliban “regrets” allying with al Qaeda, or has given “up the global jihadism idea,” as Kabulov claims. The exact opposite is true.

There is much more to the Taliban-al Qaeda nexus. In August 2015, al Qaeda honcho Ayman al Zawahiri swore allegiance to Mullah Mansour, who was named as Mullah Omar’s successor as the Taliban’s emir. Mansour publicly accepted Zawahiri’s fealty and Zawahiri’s oath was prominently featured on the Taliban’s website. After Mansour was killed earlier this year, Zawahiri pledged his allegiance to Mansour’s replacement, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada. Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders regularly call upon Muslims to support the Taliban and reject the Islamic State’s Afghan branch.

In his interview with Anadolu Agency, Kabulov concedes that not all of the Taliban has “given up” the global jihadist “ideas.” He admits that within the Taliban “you can find very influential groups like the Haqqani network whose ideology is more radical, closer to Daesh [or ISIS].”

Kabulov is right that the Haqqanis are committed jihadi ideologues, but he misses the obvious contradiction in his arguments. Siraj Haqqani, who leads the Haqqani network, is also one of the Taliban’s top two deputy leaders. He is the Taliban’s military warlord. Not only is Siraj Haqqani a “radical” ideologue, as Kabulov mentions in passing, he is also one of al Qaeda’s most committed allies. Documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound show that al Qaeda’s men closely cooperate with Siraj Haqqani on the Afghan battlefields.

Kabulov claims that the Islamic State “operates much more smartly” than al Qaeda and has “learned from all the mistakes of al Qaeda.” He says Baghdadi’s enterprise has “brought more advanced and sophisticated people to design, plan, and [execute] policy.” Once again, the exact opposite is true.

Al Qaeda has long known the pitfalls of the Islamic State’s in-your-face strategy, and has smartly decided to hide the extent of its influence and operations. Zawahiri and his lieutenants have also used the Islamic State’s over-the-top brutality to market themselves as a more reasonable jihadi alternative. And both the Taliban and al Qaeda are attempting to build more popular support for their cause as much of the world remains focused on the so-called caliphate’s horror show.

Al Qaeda’s plan has worked so well that the Russians would have us believe that the Taliban, al Qaeda’s longtime ally, should be viewed as a prospective partner.

Kabulov says that Russia is waiting to see how the “new president, [Donald] Trump, describe his Afghan policy” before determining what course should be pursued next.

Here’s one thing the Trump administration should do right away: Make it clear that the Taliban and al Qaeda remain our enemies in Afghanistan.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2017/01/russias-new-favorite-jihadis-the-taliban.php

In history summary... The Taliban took over Afghanistan after the Russians fled and the Government they placed in power fell apart. During that time the Taliban let AQ come in and open camps and establish infrastructure as well as hide top AQ leadership all the While Afghanistan basically became a George R.R. Martin novel. Then 9/11 The US went in to route out the Taliban and AQ well trying ( not always successfully admittedly) to drag it back into the 21st century. Now the Russians are favoring the same Taliban. The Taliban who let AQ in, the AQ that spawned IS. IS and AQ mostly differing on IS wanting to toss the frog into the pot now well AQ wants to slowly turn up the heat of the pot to boil the frog alive... And people wonder how history repeats..
 

delft

Brigadier
The Russians are trying to keep an eye on both IS and Taliban to prevent either or both subverting countries to the North of Afghanistan. They distrust US whose occupation of the country has been remarkably unsuccessful in destroying Taliban and which they suspect of trying to subvert those countries and possibly with help from Taliban and/or AQ. After all US consider at least part of AQ to be moderate militants in Syria.
See several blogs and articles by Ambassador Bhadrakumar on the subject ( http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/author/bhadrakumaranrediffmailcom/, atimes.com etc. ).
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
They distrust US whose occupation of the country has been remarkably unsuccessful in destroying Taliban
Considering that even today There are still conflicts between the Russians and Chechen Islamists that have been happening for over a century that part seems a bit... convenient.
which they suspect of trying to subvert those countries and possibly with help from Taliban and/or AQ
Which is basically what siding with the Taliban would do to Afghanistan and probably Pakistan heck right up to the Chinese border.
And suddenly siding with them is also dubious as basically it ends up in the same situation you see in Syria only with the Russians claiming the Taliban and AQ aligned elements as "Moderates".
About the only Gain I see in it would be ensuring that Afghanistan is destabilized.
 

delft

Brigadier
Considering that even today There are still conflicts between the Russians and Chechen Islamists that have been happening for over a century that part seems a bit... convenient.
Which is basically what siding with the Taliban would do to Afghanistan and probably Pakistan heck right up to the Chinese border.
And suddenly siding with them is also dubious as basically it ends up in the same situation you see in Syria only with the Russians claiming the Taliban and AQ aligned elements as "Moderates".
About the only Gain I see in it would be ensuring that Afghanistan is destabilized.
The main trouble in Afghanistan is that the country has been destabilized by the corruption that has been an integral part of the US occupation of the country. Somehow a stable administration will have to be arranged. I presume some elements of Taliban will have to be co-opted but I wouldn't know how.
The Russians suspect that US didn't want to find a solution because that would remove the excuse to maintain forces in the country. China would love to invest billions into mining but also suspect that the necessary stability cannot be reached as long as US forces are present.
They hope that the Trump administration will choose a more accomodating policy.
 

SouthernSky

Junior Member
The US does not need to maintain forces in Afghanistan for the sole purpose of influence on Russia's doorstep. The US has already shown it can do that without a large footprint in country.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Considering that even today There are still conflicts between the Russians and Chechen Islamists that have been happening for over a century that part seems a bit... convenient.
Which is basically what siding with the Taliban would do to Afghanistan and probably Pakistan heck right up to the Chinese border.
And suddenly siding with them is also dubious as basically it ends up in the same situation you see in Syria only with the Russians claiming the Taliban and AQ aligned elements as "Moderates".
About the only Gain I see in it would be ensuring that Afghanistan is destabilized.
Actually, the key to peaceful resolution of any conflict is dialogue.

If you remove all foreign troops, support and influence, which faction would you suppose will end up on top? The Taliban unfortunately.

That shows that their power base is the native populous of Afghanistan, rather than foreign interests.

So, unless you are prepared to simply exterminate the native population of Afghanistan, you need to reach some sort of agreement with their chosen champions to have any chance at a lasting peace, and like it or not, that is the Taliban.
 

delft

Brigadier
No it isn't.

But it's a free world and you're entitled to your opinion.
There has been and will be again US interference in the internal affairs of countries, sponsoring political parties, "training" politicians, as done in Eastern Europe, perhaps coups as in Kiev, perhaps the sponsoring of terrorists as in Syria. A free world in that sense is very damaging not only to the countries targeted but also to their neighbours.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
One belt one road is more likely to be accepted by the current Afghan Government than a Taliban one. The Taliban's an main goal is to establish Afghanistan as a traditional Islamic kingdom. OBOR is aimed at a sino centric economic development project. OBOR hopes to establish a modernized Asian economic model centered around Bejing well the Taliban wants a pure Islamic state forbidding foreign nonislamic influence.
 
Top