Afghanistan current affairs, news, discussion and update | Page 11 | World Defense

Afghanistan current affairs, news, discussion and update

!eon

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
350
Reactions
426 10 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
Ameer khan Muttaqi is removed from Qatar office.

ameer khan.jpg
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

'Vigilance needed to thwart hostile attempts to create chaos,' says COAS during visit to Afghan border

24 Aug 2020
1598295575600.png

Chief of Army Staff Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa on Monday visited troops busy in consolidation operations along the Pak-Afghan border in Dawatoi sector of North Waziristan, where he highlighted the need to remain vigilant and steadfast to prevent hostile elements from reversing the gains made by security forces, the military's media wing said.

According to a series of tweets by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), recent consolidation operations along the Afghan border ensured effective domination of some inaccessible pockets of land which were "being sporadically used by terrorists" as hideouts to target the local population and security apparatus in the rear areas.

More than 90 improvised explosive devices were recovered during the course of the operations, the ISPR said, adding that fencing of this arduous stretch of border terrain will commence shortly.

"Security Forces have active control of the last remaining stretch of international border now in North Waziristan. This will further enhance security of public in both North & South Waziristan and strengthen checks over illegal crossing of Pak-Afghan border," a tweet by the military's media wing said.

During his visit, the chief of army staff was also briefed on complementing border security/management measures being undertaken, especially the progress of fencing along the complete Pak-Afghan border.

While interacting with the troops stationed at the border, Gen Bajwa appreciated their "remarkable operational performance and high state of morale", according to the ISPR.

He was quoted as saying that Pakistan was committed to peace and stability and for this reason, it was playing its part by solidifying border security and enhancing the capacity of Frontier Corps and other law-enforcement agencies.

Appreciating tribal people for their "unflinching support" in fighting terrorism, the army chief said that "peace has largely returned to the region, however, it will take collective efforts of the local population, civil administration and LEAs to retain the hard-earned normalcy."

"We have to remain vigilant and steadfast to thwart hostile attempts to create chaos and reverse the gains of Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad," the COAS emphasised, according to the ISPR.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Taliban signal they have already won: report

By Ellen Mitchell - 03/30/21


The Taliban are trumpeting that they have already won the war in Afghanistan, with little apparent interest in making concessions in negotiating a peace deal, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Peace talks in Turkey are set to begin next month, but the Taliban — who have slowly overrun Afghan military bases, steadily taken control of large swaths of countryside and encroached on cities — now have the advantage in the country. The insurgent group’s dominance makes it unlikely it will agree to power sharing with the Afghan government once the United States makes its intended exit.

A senior Western diplomat in Kabul told the Times that Afghan security forces have a “not sustainable” casualty rate of roughly 3,000, a figure that has led to the abandonment of dozens of checkpoints and falling morale.

The Taliban, which relies heavily on propaganda, is well aware of its upper hand, as displayed in a recent speech by deputy leader Sirajuddin Haqqani, who said that the group is “experiencing better circumstances,” and “will crush the arrogance of the rebellious emperors, and force them to admit their defeat at our hands.”

About 3,500 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, and President Biden is facing a May 1 deadline to withdraw them all under an agreement made last year between the Taliban and the Trump administration.

Under the deal, the U.S. is to withdraw contingent on the Taliban fulfilling certain commitments, including breaking from al Qaeda and reducing violence in Afghanistan. But the U.S. military has said the insurgents have yet to meet these agreements.

Biden last week indicated he will not follow the May 1 deadline, saying it will be “hard” to withdraw forces by that date.

Also last week, U.S. Special Operations Command head Gen. Richard Clarke said the Taliban is not adhering to its agreement and that Afghan forces still need U.S. help to fight them.

But because Biden also said he doesn’t expect to have American forces on the ground in Afghanistan next year, the Taliban only have to bide their time and wait for a withdrawal.

A senior official told reporters earlier this month that a compromise, coalition government, an idea proposed by Washington, would simply be used by the Taliban as a “Trojan horse” to take power.

It was “totally unrealistic” to think the insurgents would agree to it, “knowing their psychology,” the official said, according to the Times. “I am not promising a better situation in the future. But we will continue fighting.”
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Qaisar’s Flight Diverted When Explosives Found at Kabul Airport


By Hasiba Atakpal,

TODAY - 2:32 PM - Edited: TODAY - 7:19 PM

The speaker of the Afghan parliament Mir Rahman Rahmani said that Qaisar’s trip was important for peace in Afghanistan
1617895422400.png

Pakistani parliament speaker Asad Qaiser’s planned three-day visit to Kabul was canceled on Thursday following reports that an unexploded ordinance had been found at the airport.

Riaz Arian, the commander of Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIR) said that Qaisar’s flight was diverted because of the relocation of an unexploded ordinance from under a building near the airport.

Meanwhile, an official from NATO’s Resolute Support Mission said that a digging crew uncovered unexploded ordinance that appears to have been buried "for quite some time" in the area.

“During construction at HKIA international airport, a digging crew uncovered unexploded ordinance that appears to have been buried for quite some time. The explosives were uncovered in an unoccupied area far from any active runway. Turkish military explosives experts conducted a controlled detonation to render the device safe. Flight operations resumed shortly thereafter,” said the RS official.

“We have a team which works in coordination with the Americans. At around 10:30 am they told us that an explosive device had been placed near the runway, but when we visited the site where we are constructing a new building, we saw the explosive material,” added Riaz Arian, the security commander of Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIR).

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan Mansour Ahmad Khan has said that he had a phone conversation with the speaker of Afghan parliament Mir Rahman Rahmani about the cancellation of the flight.

According to the Pakistani ambassador, Assad Qaisar, after landing to Islamabad, said that Pakistan understands the situation and that the trip will be conducted in the near future.

Qaisar was due to land in Kabul at 10:40 am Kabul time.

The speaker of the Afghan parliament Mir Rahman Rahmani said that Qaisar’s trip was important for peace in Afghanistan.
“Pakistan is one of the important neighboring countries. It has a direct role on the peace process in Afghanistan, we are trying to ask the Pakistani government to play a good role in bringing peace to Afghanistan,” said Rahmani.

Four months ago, Rahmani led a high level parliamentary delegation to Islamabad where he met top Pakistani officials, including his counterpart Assad Qaisar.

“We are trying to boost bilateral relations between the two countries, we also try to help the delegations from the two countries make more trips, because relations between the two countries are crucial,” said Najibullah Alikhel, the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan.

“Those items that they had pledged to us in the peace process which also include a reduction in violence, I think some of them were partially implemented and the talks about peace in some extent moved forward,” said Mir Haidar Fazli, the head of parliament’s defense commission.

The expansion of bilateral relations, Pakistani missile shelling on Afghanistan’s soil, and the peace process were supposed to dominate the agenda during Qaisar’s trip to Afghanistan.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Taliban Targets Kandahar Airfield in ‘Disruptive’ Attack

April 7, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Taliban targeted Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, with rockets on April 7, and though no casualties were reported, the Pentagon said the attack is a threat to fragile peace discussions in the country.

Preliminary reports showed the rockets landed outside the perimeter of the airfield, with no casualties and no damage, Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said. Kandahar has served as a key airfield for U.S. forces and has been the headquarters of Train, Advise, Assist Command-South, with American and NATO forces based on the installation.

“We always have the right of self-defense for our troops, but our focus right now is on supporting a diplomatic process here to try to bring this war to a negotiated end with an enduring peace,” Kirby said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which comes less than a month before the deadline for U.S. forces to completely withdraw from Afghanistan.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly said it would be difficult to meet the May 1 deadline, and that the U.S. is in discussions with allies about the timeline. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said April 6 that Biden’s view has “consistently” been to end the war in Afghanistan.

“That should hopefully give people confidence about his commitments,” she said. “But it’s also an important decision—one he needs to make in close consultation with our allies and also with our national security team here in this administration. And we want to give him the time to do that.”

Kirby said the U.S. military needs to do a fuller assessment of “what happened and why, before any potential operational decision is made” to respond.

“I can’t deliver a comprehensive analysis of what we believe they were trying to achieve or what message they were trying to send,” Kirby said. “We condemn the attack and we believe this decision to provoke even more violence remains disruptive.”

Kandahar has hosted scores of USAF aircraft, including A-10s, E-11s, F-16s, KC-135s, C-130s, and MQ-9s, among others. However, since the U.S.-Taliban agreement in February 2020, Air Forces Central Command and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan have not provided details on the presence at the airfield. Airfield operations are controlled by Afghanistan.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Biden announces U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11

Updated Wed, Apr 14 20215:10 PM EDT

Key Points
  • “It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home,” President Joe Biden said.
  • The U.S. invaded Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  • The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion collectively since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report.
  • More than 2,000 U.S. service members have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden said Wednesday he will withdraw U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, ending America’s longest war.

The removal of approximately 3,000 American service members coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks which spurred America’s entry into lengthy wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home,” Biden said in his televised address from the White House Treaty Room, where former President George W. Bush announced military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in October 2001.

“I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth,” Biden said, adding that the U.S. mission would be solely dedicated to providing assistance to Afghanistan and supporting diplomacy.

During his address, Biden invoked the military service of his own son — Beau Biden, who deployed to Iraq for a year and later died of cancer in 2015. He is the first president in 40 years to have a child serve in the U.S. military and serve in a war zone.

The president said the U.S. achieved its objectives a decade ago when it killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda — the terrorist group that launched the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then, the U.S. reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become unclear as the terrorist threat has dispersed across the globe, Biden said.

“With the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country, at a cost of billions each year, makes little sense to me, and to our leaders,” Biden said. “We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result.”

Biden said that he coordinated his decision with international partners and allies as well as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and spoke to former President Bush. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin on May 1. Following his remarks, Biden said he would visit Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place for Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a statement following Biden’s speech, former President Barack Obama said the United States had “accomplished all that we can militarily and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home.”

Ghani said he respects the U.S. decision to withdraw its forces and Afghanistan’s military is “fully capable of defending its people and country.”
Biden warned the Taliban that the U.S. would defend itself and its partners from attack as it draws down its forces over the coming months. The president said the U.S. would reorganize its counterterrorism capabilities and assets in the region to prevent the emergence of another terrorist threat.
“My team is refining our national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats, not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere they may arise, and they’re in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere,” Biden said.

However, CIA Director William Burns acknowledged in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Washington’s ability to act on threats emanating from Afghanistan will be diminished by the U.S. withdrawal. Burns said some U.S. capabilities will remain in place.
“When the time comes for the U.S. military to withdraw, the U.S. government’s ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. That’s simply a fact,” Burns said.
“It is also a fact, however, that after withdrawal, whenever that time comes, the CIA and all of our partners in the U.S. government will retain a suite of capabilities, some of them remaining in place, some of them that we will generate, that can help us to anticipate and contest any rebuilding effort,” Burns said.

In February 2020, the Trump administration brokered a deal with the Taliban that would usher in a permanent cease-fire and reduce further the U.S. military’s footprint from approximately 13,000 troops to 8,600 by mid-July last year.

By May 2021, all foreign forces would leave Afghanistan, according to the deal. The majority of troops in the country are from Europe and partner nations. About 2,500 U.S. service members are now in Afghanistan.

Under the agreement, the Taliban promised it would stop terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a base to launch attacks against the U.S. or its allies and agreed to conduct peace talks with the central government in Kabul. Biden said the U.S. would hold the Taliban to its commitments.
“We’ll hold the Taliban accountable for its commitment not to allow any terrorist to threaten the United States or its allies from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has made that commitment to us as well, and we’ll focus our full attention on the threat we face today,” Biden said.

However, the peace process suffered a setback this week when the Taliban said it will not attend a summit on Afghanistan in Turkey scheduled for later this month and will not attend any conference until foreign forces leave the country.

The announcement to leave Afghanistan comes on the heels of a Wednesday meeting between NATO allies and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. NATO joined the international security effort in Afghanistan in 2003 and currently has more than 7,000 troops in the country.

“Our allies and partners have stood beside us shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan for almost 20 years and we are deeply grateful for the contributions they have made to our shared mission,” Biden said. “The plan has long been in together and out together.”

NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday from the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels that the “drawdown will be orderly, coordinated and deliberate.”
“We went into Afghanistan together, we have adjusted our posture together and we are united in leaving together,” Stoltenberg said, adding “any Taliban attacks on our troops during this period will be met with a forceful response.”

The NATO mission in Afghanistan was launched after the alliance activated its mutual defense clause — known as Article 5 — for the first time in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion collectively since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report. More than 2,000 U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan.
 

Mingle

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reactions
1,813 8 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada

Biden announces U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11

Updated Wed, Apr 14 20215:10 PM EDT

Key Points
  • “It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home,” President Joe Biden said.
  • The U.S. invaded Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  • The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion collectively since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report.
  • More than 2,000 U.S. service members have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden said Wednesday he will withdraw U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, ending America’s longest war.

The removal of approximately 3,000 American service members coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks which spurred America’s entry into lengthy wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home,” Biden said in his televised address from the White House Treaty Room, where former President George W. Bush announced military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in October 2001.

“I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth,” Biden said, adding that the U.S. mission would be solely dedicated to providing assistance to Afghanistan and supporting diplomacy.

During his address, Biden invoked the military service of his own son — Beau Biden, who deployed to Iraq for a year and later died of cancer in 2015. He is the first president in 40 years to have a child serve in the U.S. military and serve in a war zone.

The president said the U.S. achieved its objectives a decade ago when it killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda — the terrorist group that launched the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then, the U.S. reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become unclear as the terrorist threat has dispersed across the globe, Biden said.

“With the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country, at a cost of billions each year, makes little sense to me, and to our leaders,” Biden said. “We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result.”

Biden said that he coordinated his decision with international partners and allies as well as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and spoke to former President Bush. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin on May 1. Following his remarks, Biden said he would visit Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place for Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a statement following Biden’s speech, former President Barack Obama said the United States had “accomplished all that we can militarily and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home.”

Ghani said he respects the U.S. decision to withdraw its forces and Afghanistan’s military is “fully capable of defending its people and country.”
Biden warned the Taliban that the U.S. would defend itself and its partners from attack as it draws down its forces over the coming months. The president said the U.S. would reorganize its counterterrorism capabilities and assets in the region to prevent the emergence of another terrorist threat.
“My team is refining our national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats, not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere they may arise, and they’re in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere,” Biden said.

However, CIA Director William Burns acknowledged in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Washington’s ability to act on threats emanating from Afghanistan will be diminished by the U.S. withdrawal. Burns said some U.S. capabilities will remain in place.
“When the time comes for the U.S. military to withdraw, the U.S. government’s ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. That’s simply a fact,” Burns said.
“It is also a fact, however, that after withdrawal, whenever that time comes, the CIA and all of our partners in the U.S. government will retain a suite of capabilities, some of them remaining in place, some of them that we will generate, that can help us to anticipate and contest any rebuilding effort,” Burns said.

In February 2020, the Trump administration brokered a deal with the Taliban that would usher in a permanent cease-fire and reduce further the U.S. military’s footprint from approximately 13,000 troops to 8,600 by mid-July last year.

By May 2021, all foreign forces would leave Afghanistan, according to the deal. The majority of troops in the country are from Europe and partner nations. About 2,500 U.S. service members are now in Afghanistan.

Under the agreement, the Taliban promised it would stop terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a base to launch attacks against the U.S. or its allies and agreed to conduct peace talks with the central government in Kabul. Biden said the U.S. would hold the Taliban to its commitments.
“We’ll hold the Taliban accountable for its commitment not to allow any terrorist to threaten the United States or its allies from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has made that commitment to us as well, and we’ll focus our full attention on the threat we face today,” Biden said.

However, the peace process suffered a setback this week when the Taliban said it will not attend a summit on Afghanistan in Turkey scheduled for later this month and will not attend any conference until foreign forces leave the country.

The announcement to leave Afghanistan comes on the heels of a Wednesday meeting between NATO allies and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. NATO joined the international security effort in Afghanistan in 2003 and currently has more than 7,000 troops in the country.

“Our allies and partners have stood beside us shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan for almost 20 years and we are deeply grateful for the contributions they have made to our shared mission,” Biden said. “The plan has long been in together and out together.”

NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday from the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels that the “drawdown will be orderly, coordinated and deliberate.”
“We went into Afghanistan together, we have adjusted our posture together and we are united in leaving together,” Stoltenberg said, adding “any Taliban attacks on our troops during this period will be met with a forceful response.”

The NATO mission in Afghanistan was launched after the alliance activated its mutual defense clause — known as Article 5 — for the first time in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion collectively since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report. More than 2,000 U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan.
US Cheif CDeA from embassy met with Bajwa today and both reiterate US will increase cooperation in all fields with Pakistan I believe US will release EDA Stuff to Pakistan in very good numbers
 
Last edited:

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Navy carrier, Air Force B-52s, Army Rangers to help protect Afghanistan pullout, officials say

1619386540500.png

An F/A-18F Super Hornet launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower in 2016. The Pentagon announced that the Ike will remain in the Middle East to support the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. (PO3 Nathan T. Beard/Navy)

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has decided to keep an aircraft carrier in the Middle East to help provide protection for American and coalition troops during their planned withdrawal from Afghanistan in coming weeks, his spokesman said Friday.

The spokesman, John Kirby, said Austin approved an extension of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower’s deployment in the Middle East for “a period of time.” He also said two U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers have arrived in the region as part of the pre-pullout bolstering of security, which he called a prudent precaution.

“It would be foolhardy and imprudent not to assume that there could be resistance and opposition to the drawdown by the Taliban, given their staunch rhetoric,” Kirby said. He said the withdrawal plan was discussed at a meeting Friday of senior defense officials.

The moves back up Pentagon officials’ public assurances that U.S. forces will be prepared to meet whatever resistance the Taliban might present during the withdrawal of more than 10,000 U.S. and coalition troops starting after May 1. About 2,500 to 3,500 of those troops are American.
1619386575200.png

A B-52 Stratofortress prepares for refueling over Afghanistan during a close-air-support mission in 2009. (Master Sgt. Lance Cheung/Air Force)

“I would advise the Taliban that we will be well-prepared to defend ourselves throughout the withdrawal process,” Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday at the Pentagon.

Prior to President Joe Biden’s announcement last week that he would end the American war in Afghanistan by completing the troop withdrawal by Sept. 11, the Taliban had insisted that Washington stick to a February 2020 agreement the militants had reached with the Trump administration to complete the U.S. withdrawal by May 1.

U.S. officials said after Biden’s announcement that extra military personnel would likely be positioned in Afghanistan to facilitate the pullout of troops and equipment, and the Pentagon typically beefs up its military presence as a precaution when executing a sizeable withdrawal. When the U.S. pulled troops out of Somalia in December it kept an aircraft carrier in the region as a precaution.

Kirby said some additional troops likely also would be sent to Afghanistan to assist with the withdrawal, but he declined to provide details. Earlier, two other defense officials said hundreds of Army Rangers were to be sent to provide security during the pullout. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss moves that had not yet been announced.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

US airstrikes, surveillance in Afghanistan may continue from afar after drawdown

1619386782800.png

A B-52H Stratofortress taxis on the flight line April 23 at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. The B-52 aircraft are deployed to Al Udeid to protect U.S. and coalition forces as they conduct drawdown operations in Afghanistan. (Staff Sgt. Greg Erwin/Air Force)

The U.S. military is mulling how to position its aircraft throughout the Middle East and Asia to continue airstrikes and intelligence-gathering missions in Afghanistan, as American forces prepare to leave key installations like Bagram Air Base behind, the head of U.S. Central Command said this week.

Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie told lawmakers he is drawing up options for keeping counterterrorism forces on call in the region. Those alternatives are due to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin by the end of April.

Manned or unmanned aircraft could play a large role in any remaining presence that could peer into and respond to threats inside Afghanistan, McKenzie said.

He made similar remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday: “I didn’t say we wouldn’t go back in to strike. But we’re not planning to go back in to reoccupy.”

To find and track insurgents, the U.S. needs to maintain “heavy intelligence support” in the area, he said. The farther an aircraft like a Reaper drone must travel, the harder that becomes.

“You will have to base your overhead [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets] from no longer within Afghanistan, where an MQ-9 can take off and be over its target in a matter of minutes,” McKenzie said.

The U.S. is dispatching its diplomats to feel out whether a neighboring country would be open to hosting American surveillance assets, he added: “We will look at all the countries in the region.”

Nearby countries like Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan no longer have agreements with the United States that would allow military forces to be based in-country to conduct strikes or surveillance.

“Some of them may be very far away,” McKenzie said of potential hosts. “There would be a significant bill for those types of resources, because you’d have to cycle a lot of [ISR aircraft] in and out.”

Maintaining a strong surveillance network will be key to ensuring “individuals in caves” cannot organize to threaten the U.S. homeland, said Amanda Dory, acting undersecretary of defense for policy.

Once a target is identified, the military would need a way to strike from afar — more difficult than a bomb dropped or missile fired from inside the country, but still possible.

U.S. forces could use long-range precision weapons, manned raids or manned aircraft to take out a target, McKenzie said. Whichever the military chooses must minimize civilian deaths and other collateral damage.

“There are problems with all three of those options, but there’s also opportunities with all three of those options,” he said.

An aircraft carrier will remain in the region so that fighter jets can respond to threats during the drawdown, which President Joe Biden has pledged to complete by Sept. 11.

B-52 bombers were also dispatched to protect departing forces.

Republican Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida questioned whether it makes strategic sense to abandon Bagram Air Base in the northeast as the Pentagon increasingly focuses on nearby China, Russia and Iran. Air Force organizations like the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing use Bagram as a home base for A-10s, C-130s, HH-60s and other combat platforms.

“Bagram is key terrain tactically in Afghanistan, operationally, and strategically, it’s the definition of key terrain,” McKenzie answered.

“I don’t want to put on rose-colored glasses and say it’s going to be easy to do,” he added of striking the right counterterrorism balance in the region. “We’re examining this problem with all of our resources right now to find a way to do it in … the most intelligent, risk-free manner that we can.”
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reactions
24,463 1,293 0

Afghan military will collapse without some US help, says top general in the Middle East


1619388089500.png

Newly graduated Afghan National Army march during their graduation ceremony after a three-month training program at the Afghan Military Academy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Oct. 13, 2019. (Rahmat Gul/AP)

WASHINGTON — Afghanistan’s military “will certainly collapse” without some continued American support once all U.S. troops are withdrawn, the top U.S. general for the Middle East told Congress Thursday. Gen. Frank McKenzie also said he was very concerned about the Afghan government’s ability to protect the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said that as the U.S. pulls out all forces, “my concern is the Afghans’ ability to hold ground” and whether they will able to continue to maintain and fly their aircraft without U.S. aid and financial support. Later, at a Pentagon news conference, McKenzie said the U.S. will look for “some remote, televised way” to help the Afghan security forces perform maintenance on their aircraft without having U.S. personnel in the country.

“We’re certainly going to try to do everything we can from distant locations to assist the Afghans as they maintain the aircraft and other platforms that will be essential for the fight ahead of them,” the general said. He added later: “We’re going to try all kinds of innovate ways. The one thing I can tell you is, we’re not going to be there on the ground with them.”

In his testimony, McKenzie said it will be paramount to protect the U.S. Embassy and “it is a matter of great concern to me whether or not the future government of Afghanistan will be able to do that once we leave.”

McKenzie has spent the week detailing to lawmakers the steep challenges facing the U.S. military as it moves to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, as ordered by President Joe Biden last week. Walking a careful line, the general has painted a dire picture of the road ahead, while also avoiding any pushback on Biden’s decision.

U.S. officials have made it clear that military commanders did not recommend the full, unconditional withdrawal that Biden has ordered. Military leaders have consistently argued for a drawdown based on security conditions in the country, saying that pulling troops out by a certain date eliminates pressure on the Taliban and weakens U.S. leverage in the peace talks with the group.

Still, McKenzie said the Biden administration’s “deliberate and methodical” withdrawal discussion “was heartening,” implicitly drawing a contrast with former President Donald Trump’s penchant for making abrupt troop withdrawal decisions and announcing them by tweet.

In public and private sessions with lawmakers, McKenzie has been pressed about how the U.S. will maintain pressure on the Taliban and prevent terrorist groups from taking hold in Afghanistan again once the United States and its coalition partners leave. The U.S. has more than 2,500 troops in the country; the NATO coalition has said it will follow the same timetable for withdrawing the more than 7,000 allied forces.

He told the Senate Armed Service Committee on Thursday that once troops leave the country, it will take “considerably longer” than four hours to move armed drones or other aircraft in and out of Afghanistan to provide overhead surveillance or counterterrorism strikes. He said it will require far more aircraft than he is using now.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, speaking at NATO earlier this month, said the U.S. will continue to support the Afghans after the withdrawal. He said “we will look to continue funding key capabilities such as the Afghan Air Force and Special Mission Wing, and we will seek to continue paying salaries for Afghan Security Forces.”

Austin and others have said the U.S. will maintain the ability to counter terrorists in Afghanistan, but there are few details, and officials say they have not yet gotten any diplomatic agreements for basing with any of the surrounding nations.

McKenzie has declined to provide details during the public sessions.

He said there are no decisions yet on what size of diplomatic contingent will be left at the U.S. Embassy in the Afghan capital, and whether it will include a security cooperation office. Those decisions, he said, could reflect how the U.S. ensures the defense of the embassy. Marines often provide security at other embassies around the world.

Senators voiced divided views on the withdrawal, with comments crossing party lines. Several lawmakers questioned whether the U.S. will be able to prevent the Taliban from allowing a resurgence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan who are seeking to attack America. Others asked if the U.S. will be able to adequately account for how the Afghan government spends any American money.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. said there are concerns that a U.S. withdrawal will create a vacuum in the country that China, Russian or Iran will fill. But Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., argued that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan over the past 10 years has not led to much improvement. She said the government is still corrupt and the Taliban control a larger portion of the country than it did before.

The Pentagon has said it’s not clear yet whether any U.S. contractors will remain in the country. The Defense Department says the number of contractors in Afghanistan started to decline over the past year or so. According to the latest numbers, there are close to 17,000 Defense Department-funded contractors in Afghanistan and less than one-third of those were Americans.

The total included more than 2,800 armed and unarmed private security contractors, of which more than 1,500 are armed. Of those 1,500, about 600 are Americans.

AP National Security correspondent Robert Burns contributed to this report.
 

defencehawk

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
1
Reactions
0 0 0
Country
India
Location
India

US Troops Begin Final Withdrawal From Afghanistan, Taliban Ramps up Deadly Bombings

Source: indian defence news
The military of the United States has formally begun its withdrawal from Afghanistan after almost 20 years in the country, Army General Austin Scott Miller confirmed on Sunday.

This development comes less than two weeks after President Joe Biden announced that all US troops would be out of the country by September 11, 2021 — a significant achievement that eluded his predecessors.


But the move has received bipartisan backlash in US Senate. Leader Mitch McConnell said that it would be a grave mistake to withdraw before ensuring the Taliban had been defeated.
 

BATMAN

THINK TANK
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
1,892
Reactions
1,697 47 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Here's the anti climax of an expensive yet stupid campaign steered by FM SMQ.

There was never a doubt that, playing into hands of IRGC is not going to yield any positivity for Pakistan.
Chanda govt. cares less for Pakistan but would serve Iran at all costs, even if the expenses are paid from expensive commercial loans.

1622377787089.png
 

Counter-Errorist

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reactions
2,855 149 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan

Opinion Q. and A.: Imran Khan Urges a New U.S.-Pakistan Bond​

By Yara Bayoumy and Jyoti Thottam
Ms. Bayoumy is the world and national security editor, and Ms. Thottam is the deputy Op-Ed editor.



The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is at a watershed moment. The two countries have been locked in an uneasy embrace for the last 20 years, with the United States providing much-needed support to Pakistan in exchange for Islamabad’s assistance in the war on terror. While it hasn’t been smooth (see Pakistan’s harboring of militant groups and U.S. drone strikes that killed Pakistani civilians), the relationship has more or less endured.

With U.S. forces leaving Afghanistan by Sept. 11, Pakistan faces urgent questions. What strategic clout does it have now? Where does it fit in the great power confrontation between the United States and China? Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, who took office in 2018, is trying to navigate those waters now, but it’s very unclear how his country will fare: The pandemic has taken a toll on the economy, the military still has an iron grip on the country and the relationship with India is as bad as it’s ever been.

President Biden has yet to have a conversation with Mr. Khan. Mr. Biden is meeting with the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, on Friday to discuss the U.S. withdrawal. It’s likely that Pakistan will come up in the conversation. Mr. Khan has made it clear to Axios recently that he would not accept C.I.A. bases in the country for missions in Afghanistan. (Saying otherwise in public would be political suicide). So what is the future of Pakistan’s relationship with America?

We spoke with Mr. Khan on Wednesday via video call about the way forward for Pakistan. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Yara Bayoumy: This is obviously an important time in Pakistan and in the region. The U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan gave Pakistan a lot of strategic clout with the United States. Now that the Americans are pulling out, what do you see as the future of that relationship?

Prime Minister Imran Khan: Pakistan has always had a closer relationship with the United States than, say, India, which [is] our neighbor. And then after 9/11, Pakistan again opted to join the U.S. war on terror. Now, after the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, basically Pakistan would want a civilized relationship, which you have between nations, and we would like to improve our trading relationship with the U.S.

Bayoumy: Could you elaborate more about what you mean by a civilized relationship?

Khan: You know, say between the U.S. and Britain, or actually between U.S. and India right now. So a relationship which is evenhanded. You know, unfortunately, the relationship was a bit lopsided during this war on terror.

It was a lopsided relationship because [the] U.S. felt that they were giving aid to Pakistan, they felt that Pakistan then had to do U.S.’s bidding.
And what Pakistan did in terms of trying to do the U.S. bidding actually cost Pakistan a lot in human lives. Seventy thousand Pakistanis died, and over $150 billion were lost to the economy because there were suicide bombings and bombs going on all over the country. That’s where the problem began. The U.S. kept expecting more from Pakistan. And unfortunately, Pakistani governments tried to deliver what they were not capable of.

So there was this mistrust between the two countries. And people in Pakistan felt they paid a heavy, heavy price for this relationship. And the U.S. thought Pakistan had not done enough. So in that sense, it was a lopsided relationship. What we want in the future is a relationship based on trust and common objectives. That’s actually what we have right now with the U.S. — I mean, our objectives in Afghanistan are exactly the same today.

Jyoti Thottam: But do you think that Pakistan will continue to have any strategic relevance to the U.S. once the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan?

Khan: I don’t know, really. I haven’t thought about it in that way, that Pakistan should have some strategic relevance to the U.S. I mean, states really have relationships based on common interests. And Pakistan is a country of 220 million people, a young population, in a sense strategically placed for the future if our relationship with India improves at some point, which I am an optimist. I hope it will.

So we have one of the biggest markets on one side of Pakistan, and then China on [another] other side. So two of the biggest world markets. And then the energy corridor, Central Asia, Iran, if that relationship improves between the U.S. So Pakistan, in that sense, is strategically placed for the future in terms of economics.

Bayoumy: How do you specifically see the military and security relationship going forward?

Khan: I don’t know. Post the U.S. withdrawal, I don’t know what sort of military relationship it will be. But right now, the relationship should be based on this common objective that there is a political solution in Afghanistan before the United States leaves, because Pakistan doesn’t want a civil war, a bloody civil war in Afghanistan. And I’m sure neither does the U.S., after it leaves, it wants the country going up in flames after spending, God knows, $1 or $2 trillion. So that’s a common objective.

Bayoumy: Speaking of Afghanistan, Pakistan has played a big role in the intra-Afghan peace talks. You’ve used your leverage with the Taliban, as well. In the last few weeks, we have been seeing violence increase across the country. How worried are you about a civil war in Afghanistan, and are you using your leverage with the Taliban to try and get these peace talks toward a deal?

Khan: Well, firstly, Pakistan has used the maximum leverage it could on the Taliban. What was the maximum leverage? Basically, Pakistan was the country that had recognized Taliban, one of three countries after 1996.

Given that the United States gave a date of withdrawal, from then onward, our leverage diminished on the Taliban. And the reason is that the moment the United States gave a date of exit, Taliban basically claimed victory. They’re thinking that they won the war. And so therefore, our ability to influence them diminishes the stronger they feel.

So the leverage we used was to bring them on — they were refusing to have talks, so it was Pakistan who got them to talk to the United States. And secondly, it was us pressurizing them, and really, it was [us] very toughly pushing them, pressurizing them to talk to the Afghan government. So that’s how far Pakistan has got.

Thottam: So given that long history with Afghanistan and recognizing the Taliban, are you saying that Pakistan has no more leverage left? What can you do now?

Khan: Well, Pakistan has been emphasizing to the Taliban that they should not go for a military victory because it’s not going to happen, because if they go for an all-out military victory, it would mean a protracted civil war. And the country that would be affected by a civil war, after Afghanistan, would be Pakistan. We would be affected because there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

And since the Taliban is primarily a Pashtun movement, this will have two effects. One, we are scared that this will be another influx of refugees into Pakistan. Already, the country has found it very difficult to cope with three million Afghan refugees. And so there will be another influx into Pakistan.

Secondly, our vision for the future is lifting our economy and trading through Afghanistan into Central Asia. We have signed very good trade deals with the Central Asian republics, but we can only go there through Afghanistan. If there is a civil war, all that goes down the drain.

Bayoumy: Are you also talking to the Kabul government about the situation right now? What happens if the Taliban take over Afghanistan by force?

Khan: I paid a visit to President Ghani earlier this year and sort of gave our full support to the Afghan government, telling them we will do everything for this peace settlement. There’s frequent exchanges between our intelligence agencies and the Afghan intelligence agencies, and between our army chief and the Afghan president and their army chief. So there has been constant communication between us.

Unfortunately, there is still a feeling in the Afghan government that Pakistan could do more, which I have to say is very disappointing to us when they blame us for being unable to, after so many years, to come to some sort of a settlement.

Let me assure you, we will do everything except use military action against the Taliban. I mean, we will do everything up to that. All sections of our society have decided that Pakistan will take no military action. We unfortunately — and I have to say, I opposed this military action — the United States pressured Pakistan to send its troops into the tribal areas, to flush out maybe a few hundred Al Qaeda [militants] who had come into Pakistan from Afghanistan after [the Battle of] Tora Bora.

Remember, the whole border [was] completely open. There was never any border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is called the Durand Line. Now, we are fencing it, and almost 90 percent of the border, we’ve fenced now.

What if [the]Taliban try to take over Afghanistan through [the] military? Then we will seal the border, because now we can, because we have fenced our border, which was previously [open], because Pakistan does not want to get into, number one, conflict. Secondly, we do not want another influx of refugees.

Bayoumy: Will you recognize the Taliban if they do carry out a full military takeover in Afghanistan?

Khan: Pakistan will only recognize a government which is chosen by the people of Afghanistan, whichever government they choose.

Bayoumy: On India: Do you think a different government in India than the one that exists right now, would make a difference to your relationship?
Khan: You know, probably out of all the Pakistanis, I know India better than all of them. I have had love and respect from India [more] than any one because cricket is a big sport. It’s almost religion in both the countries.

So when I assumed office, the first thing I did was I made this approach to Prime Minister Modi and said that, “Look, my main objective for coming to power is to alleviate poverty in Pakistan.” And the best way would be if India and Pakistan had a normal, civilized trading relationship. It would benefit both the countries.

So we tried. Didn’t get anywhere. I think that it is a peculiar ideology of the (Hindu nationalist group) R.S.S., which Narendra Modi belongs to, which just came up against a brick wall. And therefore the answer to your question is yes. Had there been another Indian leadership, I think we would have had a good relationship with them. And yes, we would have resolved all our differences through dialogue.

Bayoumy: So if the status quo remains on Kashmir, would you consider that a win for India?

Khan: I think it’s a disaster for India because it will just mean that this conflict festers on and on. And so as long as it festers, it’s going to stop there being any relationship — normal relationship — between Pakistan and India.

Bayoumy: What we’re seeing is a generally very close relationship between the U.S. and India, one that is also increasing mainly because the U.S. sees India as a check in the region against China’s rising influence. You have gone to a lot of lengths to deepen your relationship with the Chinese. So doesn’t that put Pakistan at irreconcilable odds with both the U.S. and India?

Khan: Well, firstly I must say I find it very, very odd that — why would the U.S. and China, become these great rivals? It makes no sense because the world would really benefit if the two giants, economic giants, really got along and traded with each other. So it would be a benefit for all of us.
Secondly, why do we have to choose sides — either it’s the U.S. or China? I think we should have a relationship with everyone. China has been very good to us, in the sense that after the war on terror, or during the war on terror, we took a real battering in this country.

Our debt went up, which happens when a country is in a war situation. Business activity freezes. The provinces and the tribal areas were devastated by this war.

So China is the country that came to Pakistan’s help. And obviously we’ve had a long relationship with China.

So number one, I do not see why the U.S. should think that India is going to be this bulwark against China. If India takes on this role, I think it would be detrimental for India because India’s trade with China is going to be beneficial for both India and China.

So I’m just watching the scenario unfold and with a bit of anxiety.


@Khafee @aliraza @Gripen9 @TomCat @AliYusuf @TsAr
 

Counter-Errorist

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reactions
2,855 149 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Pakistan's key role in Afghanistan echoes in US Congress

Pakistan will decide Afghanistan’s future as the United States only has a minor role now in the country after almost 20 years of uninterrupted military presence.

This claim by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani echoed in the US Congress this week, where lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties expressed concern about Afghanistan’s future after the withdrawal of American and Nato forces and deliberated on the key role that must be played by Pakistan in this regard.

The Biden administration plans to withdraw all foreign troops from Afghanistan by September 11, almost 20 years after the first US troops arrived in the country.

Read: US wants Taliban, Kabul to jointly combat ISIS

In an interview with German publication Der Spiegel earlier this week, President Ghani had said that bringing peace to Afghanistan now was “first and foremost a matter of getting Pakistan on board” and the withdrawal would greatly reduce America’s influence in the country.

“The US now plays only a minor role. The question of peace or hostility is now in Pakistani hands,” he had claimed.

Read:
FO conveys concern to Afghanistan over 'irresponsible statements, baseless allegations'

The alarming message was repeated in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday when Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat, read Ghani’s quote during a hearing on “the US-Afghanistan relationship after the withdrawal.”

She described the Afghan president’s claim as “quite a statement” and asked America's chief negotiator on Afghan affairs, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, about the way forward.

"What specifically are you doing to push Pakistan’s leaders and to ensure that they do step up the way we want them to?" she asked the ambassador.

Khalilzad said that he believed Pakistan’s civilian and military leaderships both recognised there was economic benefit in having peace in Afghanistan.

“COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and Prime Minister Imran Khan both (also) recognise that this economic benefit is where the future is. Gen Bajwa has said countries do not develop, regions develop,” he said.

“And I know there are challenges inside Pakistan, but I believe that Gen Bajwa’s last visit to Kabul was positive. They have discussed some steps that the two sides will take — working with the United Kingdom — in support of the effort to improve relations between these two countries.”

Ambassador Khalilzad called the Pak-Afghan relationship the Achilles heel of Afghanistan’s recent history that “needs to be overcome and we are hopeful, given the recent developments”.

The US envoy also underlined the need to view Ghani’s statement in the regional context, adding: “President Ghani is right in the sense that the region is important for a peace agreement to bring lasting stability to Afghanistan.

“It needs broad support inside […] Afghanistan and in the region, because part of Afghanistan’s problem has been a […] proxy conflict.”

The US, he said, was trying to build a regional consensus and support for peace and that’s why he “has repeatedly emphasised” the importance of this economic dimension of peace.

“The potential connectivity and trade between Central Asia, Afghanistan and South Asia is a vital part of the future of that region and for Afghanistan,” Khalilzad said while urging Afghans also to avail this opportunity for peace.

“One should not absolve the Afghans of their responsibility. They must accept each other and find a formula that can resolve their differences,” he said.

Congressman Ted Lieu, another California Democrat and a former US Air Force colonel, asked if Pakistan was so important for the success of the Afghan peace process, why was it not being treated accordingly.

“I am just curious about what happened earlier this year when 40 world leaders were invited to the climate summit, including the leaders of India and Bangladesh. And the leader of Pakistan was not invited, even though Pakistan is the fifth most climate vulnerable country. Even though 35 of the 40 countries invited have populations smaller than Pakistan’s,” he said.

Read: US invites Pakistan to virtual climate summit after earlier overpass

“It seems to be disrespectful to not have invited the Pakistani leader to this climate summit when the leaders of India and Bangladesh were invited.

“And now we are asking Pakistan to help us, a lot, in Afghanistan. So, I am wondering what was the thinking (behind) that sort of exclusion of the Pakistani leader?”

Khalilzad said: “Of course, you are right. Pakistan is an important country. We have had periods of great cooperation with Pakistan. And Pakistan has a critical role to play in Afghanistan going forward and in a number of other issues.

“As to the climate summit, I am not in a position to respond as to what decisions were made but Pakistan’s participation, I believe, did occur. If you are interested, we can take that question for a response for the record. But I was not involved in it,” he added.

“Yes, I would like a response for the record,” Congressman Lieu responded.

Congressman Darrel Issa, a California Republican, noted that “during the ten years or twenty years, we have watched our ability to have a positive influence on Pakistan and Pakistan having a positive influence on Afghanistan go from bad to worse”.

Responding to a question from the committee’s chair Congressman Greg Meeks, Khalilzad said the US has recently had productive meetings with Russia, China and Pakistan, calling on the two Afghan sides to reduce violence and engage seriously in negotiations and on the Taliban not to pursue a spring offensive.

“We would like Russia and China and Pakistan to back efforts for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. Working to build a consensus on this objective,” he said.

When Congressman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, asked how the US would defend its interests in Afghanistan after the withdrawal, Khalilzad said: “We will maintain assets in the region. We are developing opportunities for enhanced cooperation with regional partners.”

And when Congressman Joseph Chabot, an Ohio Republican, suggested that the Taliban were behind last month’s bombing of a girls’ school in Kabul that killed scores of students, Ambassador Khalilzad said: “I don’t believe that they blew up the school. It’s likely ISIS which is seeking to disrupt any potential peace process and the Talibs have been fighting ISIS forcefully, which is positive.

He pointed out that the Taliban were a formidable force against ISIS and the situation in Afghanistan was different from Iraq where the Shia-Sunni conflict created space for ISIS, while the Taliban and ISIS were from the same sect.

“The Talibs have done a reasonably good job in taking ISIS on,” he added.

Congressman Ami Babulal Bera, a California Democrat, said that since Pakistan “has been supporting the Taliban all along,” how the Biden administration could expect them to support the peace process now.

“There’s no military solution to Afghanistan and that comes to the diplomatic solution and the role of Pakistan. Pakistan has a special responsibility, given the fact that you described,” Ambassador Khalilzad said.

“And if Afghanistan goes towards a protracted war or a long war, Pakistan will suffer and Pakistan will be blamed for it. Gen Bajwa and PM Imran have said they have changed their policy, that peace settlement is the best.”

He noted that Pakistan had signed its name to a document that forbids a Taliban emirate and a military takeover. “We expect that they will deliver on those commitments. And we have found the recent engagement between Afghanistan and Pakistan encouraging,” he said.

Congresswoman Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, asked if the US could use its bases in Qatar and Diego Garcia to conduct airstrikes into Afghanistan, if needed.

“We are going to maintain both monitoring and strike capability in the region and expand cooperation with some of the neighbouring states for counter-terrorism purposes,” Khalilzad said.

“We will also maintain financial support and cooperation with Afghan security forces, but direct military support, such as strikes, are not being contemplated at this time.”

 
Last edited:

Counter-Errorist

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reactions
2,855 149 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan

Even the Taliban are surprised at how fast they're advancing in Afghanistan​

Even the Taliban are taken aback at how fast their forces are moving, one commander said, and have slowed down in some cases to avoid offending the U.S

June 25, 2021, 1:30 PM PKT
By Dan De Luce, Mushtaq Yusufzai and
Saphora Smith

WASHINGTON — The Taliban are advancing at lightning speed across Afghanistan as U.S. troops withdraw. They now control a third of the country, are fighting for control of 42 percent more — and may even be slowing their advance on purpose.

A Taliban commander in Ghazni province told NBC News that he and fellow fighters were surprised at the speed of their advance and had avoided capturing some targets so as not to run afoul of the U.S.

According to Afghan media reports, eyewitness accounts and statements from local Afghan officials, the Taliban are advancing in rural areas and near Kabul. They now hold almost twice as much of Afghanistan as they did just two months ago, raising fresh doubts about whether the Afghan government can survive once U.S. forces depart by Sept. 11.

Since May 1, days after President Joe Biden announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the Taliban have captured 69 of the country's 407 districts, including territory in northern provinces once seen as off-limits for the insurgency and a stronghold for the government, according to Bill Roggio, editor of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal. The Taliban now hold 142 districts, and are fighting for control of about 170 more.

"The Taliban are putting significant pressure on the Afghan government by their operations in the north," said Roggio, who keeps a running tally of how much territory the Taliban controls.



qI7pVwY.png


By seizing ground in far-flung areas in the north, including a border crossing with Tajikistan, the Taliban are forcing the Afghan security forces to balance stretched resources as they try to hold off the insurgents elsewhere in the country, including in provinces near the capital Kabul, he said.

"The Taliban has nearly doubled the number of districts it controls, has captured key areas and military bases, and demoralized segments of the Afghan security forces and the government," Roggio said.

In the country's north, the Taliban have taken control of more than 40 districts since the start of May, including a key district in Kunduz province on Monday, allowing them to encircle the provincial capital.

In a war that has often been a slow grind, the situation on the ground has changed on a daily — sometimes hourly basis — in recent weeks. Some Afghan government units have abandoned their weapons and vehicles without a major fight, as local officials reportedly negotiated surrender agreements with the Taliban.

The Taliban's battlefield victories come as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation, are due to meet Biden at the White House on Friday. The visit "will highlight the enduring partnership between the United States and Afghanistan as the military drawdown continues," the White House said.

In an agreement between the Taliban and the United States negotiated by the previous administration, Washington had committed to withdraw all U.S. troops by last month. Biden opted to pull American forces out by Sept. 11.

The Taliban's progress has moved faster than even the insurgency anticipated.

The Taliban commander who spoke to NBC News, and the insurgency's spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, said the group has intentionally avoided capturing entire provinces or provincial capitals, saying it wanted to abide by commitments under the 2020 agreement with the U.S. signed in Doha last year.

"We are bound to honor the Doha accord that we signed with the United States in the presence of the international community. We don't want to capture any province or provincial headquarters anywhere in Afghanistan by September 2021 when the U.S. forces leave our country," the Taliban commander said.

The Doha accord does not prohibit the Taliban from taking control of provinces or cities, but does bar them from targeting U.S. forces. The decision by the Taliban not to seize cities appears aimed at avoiding antagonizing U.S. and NATO forces as they depart.

Some Taliban fighters had recently reached the entrance of Mazar-e-Sharif but they were called back to their previous positions outside the city, he said.

The commander said that in some already captured areas the insurgency has had to scramble to take over governing duties because the Taliban can't keep up with the pace of their own gains.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the group is not punishing or capturing government soldiers who surrender. . Such an approach would represent a change in tactics for the insurgency, which has been accused by human rights groups of executing and torturing captured troops.

"We neither imprison them nor punish the Afghan security forces who surrender peacefully. We let them go home, those who lay down arms and don't resist," the spokesman said.

'Everyone was crying'

With the Taliban on the march, some civilians are fleeing to larger cities still controlled by the government.

Somal Nazari left his village in Faryab province Sunday along with his young family as Taliban forces approached the city of Maymana.

"There were heavy sounds of weapons, there were AK-47s and everyone was running, leaving their homes," Nazari told NBC News by phone.

His three children watched on confused and upset as tanks and other military vehicles passed by their home, he said.

"Everyone was crying," he said.

Nazari, 30, left everything behind, stuffing a few bags with clothes and buying five plane tickets to Mazar-e-Sharif in neighboring Balkh province. He and other civilians said property prices were plunging, as people try to unload their assets before a possible Taliban takeover.

Having worked as an interpreter for foreign journalists and nonprofit organizations, Nazari said he is afraid for his family and does not hold out hope of being able to return home anytime soon.

"They are very sensitive with people who have worked for foreigners," Nazari said of the Taliban.

He is hoping to apply for asylum abroad but for now doesn't have the funds to move his family to another Afghan town or city. Meanwhile, the Taliban are drawing closer to Mazar-e-Sharif.

The Biden administration announced Thursday that it would be evacuating some former interpreters prior to the Sept. 11 withdrawal deadline.

Afghan government forces have struggled to clear out the Taliban from districts they had captured, suffering serious casualties. In northern Faryab province, elite Afghan special forces — the most capable arm of the Afghan military — attempted unsuccessfully to push the Taliban out of the district of Dawlat Abad last week. More than 20 Afghan commandos were killed in the battle, according to local media.

Afghan special forces also fought to dislodge the Taliban last month from captured territory in the province of Wardak, outside the capital Kabul, but the insurgents remain in control of those districts, according to media accounts

The Taliban's recent seizure of districts in three provinces — Wardak, Logar and Laghman — that surround Kabul signaled a potentially ominous sign for the government's staying power. If those provinces fall, then "the path to take Kabul is wide open," Roggio said.

The Afghan military's retreat has prompted a revival of former anti-Soviet, anti-Taliban militias, with Afghan President Ghani and other officials embracing the groups and calling for a united resistance against the Taliban. The call to arms for local militias seemed to underscore the Afghan government's perilous position, and carried the risk that the rival groups could plunge the country back into a wider, anarchic civil war like the one that raged in the 1990s.

The U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday that the Taliban appeared poised to seize provincial cities once U.S. and NATO forces leave, and painted a bleak picture. "The possible slide toward dire scenarios is undeniable," she said.

 
Top