Afghanistan Archives - Page 22 of 24

February 10, 2019May 16, 2019 by Rise to Peace

Afghanistan: Results of the Moscow talks with Taliban

Taliban representatives at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation / Sergei Savostyanov / TASS

Earlier this week, Channel News USA discussed how the Taliban and Afghan government held talks in Moscow regarding women’s rights, a new Islamic Constitution, and the exit of the United States from the war-stricken country.

The meeting was headed by former president Hamid Karzai, Afghan politicians consulted with Taliban members to reach an agreement on how to reach long-lasting peace. The New York Times noted that Afghan politicians wanted to focus on keeping the rewards from the past twenty years, whereas the Taliban mostly discussed how they know believe that women should be given more rights, such as the right to work and education. Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, who heads the Taliban delegation, discloses to the reporters that the talks went successfully.

“We agreed on many points and I am hopeful that in future, we can succeed more further, and finally we can reach a solution. We can find complete peace in Afghanistan.”

The Afghan delegation consisted mostly of former Mujahideen political leaders, elites, members from political parties, and current members Parliament. There were only two women in the entire delegation.

Afghans expressed on different kinds of social media that this delegation does not necessarily accurately represent Afghanistan. However, Afghan politician Atta Muhammad Noor stated that the participants of the delegation viewed themselves to be more representative of Afghanistan than the current government.

The National discusses how in the end, there was a joint declaration formed that addressed “removal of foreign forces, the release of Taliban prisoners and removal of Taliban leaders from a UN blacklist.”

However, even though the talks seemed to have helped make progress with current issues, Afghan civilians and political commentators feel that the talks have actually harmed chances of long-term peace, while also giving Taliban insurgents an advantage with their negotiations with the United States.

Although such talks had not happened in the past due to fear of disapproval from the United States, there is still debate on whether the current talks were successful. Hekmatullah Azamy, deputy director at Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies, believes that the Moscow talks greatly increased the insurgents’ influence and advantage.

“The Taliban had made military progress in the last year, but with this meeting, they have also gained certain political status and legitimacy, in terms of local diplomacy,” he said.

“To see them recognized by the Afghan political elite should worry the government because in some ways it brings the Taliban mainstream. The next time they sit with the US, the Taliban can say confidently that the Afghan people don’t have a problem with them. This will affect the Afghan government.”

Mr. Azamy also believes that the president has been handling these talks diplomatically, as Mr. Ghani offered the Taliban to open an office inside of Afghanistan, even though the insurgents quickly declined the offer. Overall, a majority of civilians have reacted by criticizing the absence of government during the talks and the lack of accurate representation. Afghans fear that there will be the return of communism and mujahideen if American forces leave the country.

Ultimately, holding these talks in Moscow in the first place was a good step in the right direction. Beginning negotiations will help in producing solutions that work for both parties, while also benefiting the citizens. Mr. Karzai should have presented a more diverse and representative delegation, in order to prove to civilians that these talks are to help them, too.

Additionally, the Afghan government, specifically the president, should have been present at the talks, since the Afghan government is such a crucial part in bringing peace to the country, and the government itself plays a major role in the country.

Lastly, more talks should be held in the future, possibly with the involvement of the United States, since the role that America plays in Afghanistan’s long-term peace is of concern to citizens and politicians.

August 31, 2018October 1, 2018 by Liam Timmons & Keelin Wolfe

Analyzing Election Violence in South Asia

In this May 11, 2017 photo, supporters of Nepali Congress party march during an election campaign event in Bhaktapur, Nepal. (AP Photo/Niranjan Shrestha)

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nepal all held national elections between late 2017 and mid-2018. All three experience significant election security concerns due to political violence that targets campaign events, infrastructure, and political leaders themselves. While this violence focused on election disruption, the scope, targets, and attack methods varied from country to country.

Leading up to the election, the three regions were targeted differently. In Pakistan, terroristic violence targeted campaign events and candidates. These politically influenced attacks included a suicide bombing on July 13th in Mastung resulting in 149 people dead including Balochistan Awami Party leader and political candidate Siraj Raisani.

The attack, later claimed by ISIS, was the third deadliest in Pakistan’s history. Raisani was not the only candidate killed. Other murdered candidates included Haroon Bilour and Ikramullah Gandapur. Candidates Arkham Durrani and Dawood Khan Achakzai survived pre-election attempts on their lives. All of the attacks were organized and executed by skilled, experienced strategists.

Afghanistan’s parliamentary elections have been delayed since 2016, with voting set to take place on October 20th, 2018. Attacks in Afghanistan targeted electoral institutions, including the bombing of voter registration centers and the assassination of election officials. An attack claimed by ISKP killed 57 outside a Kabul voter registration center.

Like the Pakistan attacks, these, perpetrated by the Taliban and a few by ISIS, were well orchestrated and highly effective. Between April 1st and June 13th, more than 100 Afghans were killed in election violence. Afghanistan was also plagued by non-electoral violence, perhaps prompted by election-related instability, during this period.

This includes a June 20th attack wherein Taliban militants attacked a military base and killed 30 Afghan soldiers, followed by an attack on July 3rd wherein a car bomb, targeting a foreign military convoy, detonated. Another example is a July 7th attack which saw a police convoy ambushed by Taliban fighters in the Ghazni province, leaving four officers dead and six wounded.

For planned attacks such as these that are heavily reliant on timing, terrorist organizations require intelligence, location analysis for the strategic placement of IEDs, and experienced members to successfully execute the attacks.

Nepal held legislative elections in stages between May and December 2017, and presidential elections in March 2018. These elections transpired despite contention surrounding federalism and provincial-level voting within the rewrite of the Nepalese constitution.

While the campaign silence period and voting day for the legislative elections’ first phase were largely peaceful, the campaign period itself saw the use of IEDs targeting political leaders and campaign events. There were 72 instances of election violence in these elections and 161 in the three phases of local and provincial elections.

Compared to the attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pre-election attacks in Nepal appear to lack planning and clear goals. Civilian locations such as a jewelry store, a hydropower project, and a cell tower, were targetted rather than locations or people connected with the opposition. No active Nepalese terrorist group formally claimed responsibility for the attacks.

In Nepal, the presidency is a ceremonial role. Consequently, there is less incentive to carry out election violence before a presidential vote. However, there was a significant uptick in overall political incidents prior to these elections. These included a number of attacks on civilian infrastructure and clashes involving politically-motivated, although not necessarily terrorist, groups.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nepal all experienced terrorism that was intended to disrupt elections prior to their national votes. However, the threats faced by these countries diverged in terms of target type and tactics. ISKP and the Taliban carried out attacks on election infrastructure including voter registration centers and election officials, while Nepal suffered attacks against civilian infrastructure and clashes between opposing political parties.

A Nepalese policeman helps a woman to cast her vote during the legislative elections in Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal. (AP Photo/Niranjan Shrestha)

May 6, 2018October 3, 2018 by Scott Moshen

Special Report On Child Terrorists and Violent Extremism in Afghanistan

[gview file=”http://www.risetopeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Special-Report-04252.pdf”]

in Asia / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

April 28, 2018October 3, 2018 by Ahmad Mohibi

The 40-year Afghan War and the Everlasting Hope for Peace

The 40-year Afghan War and the Everlasting Hope for Peace

Security forces run from the site of a suicide attack after the second bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, April 30, 2018. A coordinated double suicide bombing hit central Kabul on Monday morning, (AP Photo/Massoud Hossaini)

Today marks the 40-year anniversary of the Afghan civil war. A country at war for four decades, Afghans continue to have faith that peace is possible.

The people are tenaciously hopeful, but for how long, given the unstable environment and competing for socio-political agendas? Terrorism continues to rise, and the democratic process is under fire. Just last week, more than 60 men, women, and children in Kabul and Baghlan province were killed in the voters’ registration attack. The following chronological framework of the Afghan Civil War may provide some perspective into this complex country turmoil and its psyche.

Outside the presidential palace gate (Arg) in Kabul, the day after the Saur revolution on 28 April 1978

In 1978, The People’s Democratic Party, a political party in Afghanistan backed by the Soviet Union, attacked the presidential palace. The party killed the first president of Afghanistan, Sardar Mohammad Daoud Khan, and his entire family. Then, the Party took the throne. The People’s Democratic Party would remain in power for 14 years while fighting the U.S.-backed Afghan Mujahideen, a rebel group of freedom fighters that stood against the communist regime.

United States, Afghan Mujahideen, France, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other allies fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the proxy war between the East and West, the West came out the winner and the Soviets subsequently lost the fight in Afghanistan. In 1989, the last of the Soviet troops pulled out, but the civil war continued as the Afghan Mujahideen set their sights on the last communist president of Afghanistan, Mohammad Najibullah.

Soviet Army soldiers wave their hands as their last detachment crosses a bridge on the border between Afghanistan and Soviet Uzbekistan, Feb. 15, 1989.

In 1992, although the Mujahideen declared victory, a devastating civil war followed. From 1992-1996, Afghanistan experienced one of the most destructive civil wars in its history. Afghans often refer to it as the “Bloody War”. The Afghan Mujahideen did not compromise on a shared power by a unified government. Instead, fought for the throne, and like Syria resulted in a devastated Afghanistan. The most perilous party was the Hezbi Islami, meaning Islamic Party, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, also known as the “Butcher of Kabul”. Hekmatyar’s missiles killed thousands of innocent residents of Kabul. According to the Human Rights Watch, by the year 2000, roughly 1.5 million people died as a direct result of the conflict, and some 2 million people became permanently disabled.

In 1996, as the Mujahideen fought for power, the Taliban (“students” in Arabic) emerged in Pakistan. Backed by the Saudis and Pakistan, the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996. They introduced an extreme version of Islam, banning women from studying and working, and inflicting severe Islamic punishments upon the citizens, such as stoning people to death, public beheadings and amputations.

Taliban militiamen drive toward the front line near Kabul in November 1997. (Reuters)

Afghans were struggling for deliverance when on September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda brought down the World Trade Center in an attack that killed more than 3,000 innocent Americans. That was the year that the United States declared a War on Terror and entered Afghanistan. Since then, the U.S. has remained, combating terrorism to build democracy and help bring more peace to the country. Despite the U.S.’ long tenure in Afghanistan, the same challenges exist.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s bombardment of Kabul during the 1990s inflicted some of the worst damage in more than 40 years of war, destroying one-third of the city and killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Afghanistan is not an easy fix. Afghans are ready for a democratic change in order to bring more peace to their homeland, but establishing democracy requires time. The question remains as to whether the government is ready to hold a transparent election because Afghans are so tired of war. In fact, most Afghans are willing to give up almost everything, including many civil liberties, in exchange for a semblance of peace in their homeland. It is hopeful that, despite the failures of the government, Afghans, and particularly the young generation, the generation of war, will be able to make some traction.

Through higher education, new opportunities will present themselves to these young men and women. Armed with a level of understanding and the kind of knowledge aimed at progress over destruction, this generation will be the agents of change.

Ahmad Shah Mohibi is founder and president of Rise to Peace, and a national security expert. Ahmad Mohibi is a published writer, as well as a George Washington University and George Mason University Alumni. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

in Ahmad Mohibi / Asia / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by Austin Ludolph

The War in Afghanistan: Will It Ever End?

(The U.S. Army/Flickr) -American military personnel in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan has ground on for more than 16 years since its start on October 7th, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom was part of the response to the September 11th attacks, but there does not appear to be a clear end in sight. [1] Over the years, the number of troops in Afghanistan has risen and fallen, but the war has ground on. At one point, in August of 2010, [1] there were as many as 100,000 troops. The budget for 2018 was just released and the sum will cost the American taxpayers $45 billion dollars. [4] 3,200 young American men and women have lost their lives fighting for our freedom. Mustn’t we acknowledge that from where things now stand, you’d be forgiven for asking if will this war never end?

Our main goals in 2001 were to dismantle the Taliban government in Afghanistan and end Osama Bin Laden’s reign as leader of Al-Qaeda. Although Osama Bin Laden was killed and the Taliban were disassembled, the latter have been regrouping. It seems we are in a Doom Loop.

(AP/BBC News)- “Defecting Taliban fighters drive through the front line in the village of Amirabad, northern Afghanistan”

Our leaders realize there is no end to this war. The cat and mouse game of killing and capturing Taliban has been going on for a decade and a half. Afghanistan does not have a stable government or infrastructure to rely on. There is a “combination of state collapse, civil conflict, ethnic disintegration and multi-sided intervention that has locked it in a cycle that may be simply beyond outside resolution.” [2] Afghanistan has been in disarray for a long time; any hope for a stable country may reside ten years down the road.

The main reason the U.S. stays in Afghanistan is to avoid creating a vacuum that would turn into a terrorist breeding ground. Roger Shanahan from Sydney’s Lowy West Asia Program said to achieve what we want, “You need to destroy that safe-haven element and as part of that strategic aim, you want to build Afghan governance so that it can control the areas it supposedly has sovereignty over” [1].

Much as we would like to leave, we simply can’t. During the past few weeks, we have seen how strong the Taliban remains. There was a “series of bold terror attacks in Kabul that kill[ed] more than 115 people” [3]. The Trump Administration has responded to these attacks by, “…deploying troops across rural Afghanistan to advise Afghan brigades and launching air strikes against opium labs to try to decimate the Taliban’s finances.” [3] President Trump has also ruled out the idea of directly negotiating with the Taliban. [5]

Training the local Afghan military has seen some progress, but not nearly enough for the Afghan military to take on the Taliban itself. The Army recently announced that six units of 1,000 soldiers from the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade will deploy in the Spring “specially designed to ‘advise and assist’ foreign armies so that they can contain guerrilla movements on their own” [5]. The goal of creating these special units is that they will be able to advise the Afghanistan military rather than simply overseeing operations.

The harsh reality is that America’s longest running war will not end for some time unless the U.S.decides to pull its troops from the country precipitously. To the contrary, the U.S. presence will remain for the foreseeable future. That fact notwithstanding, the Washington Post recently noted our outlook, how we approach elements of the war may change. According to the Washington Post, “The expansion of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan to target a little-known Chinese terrorist group is an example of how the 16-year-old war has changed under President Trump” [6].

Targeting groups such as ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) and TAP (Turkistan Islamic Party) betrays just how many formerly independent terrorist organizations are beginning to consolidate in-country. The war, simply stated, is not simply about fighting the Taliban anymore. According to Air Force Brigadier General Lance R. Bunch – the director of future operations at U.S.-led military headquarters in Kabul – it’s about fighting, “anybody that is an enemy of Afghanistan” [6].

(U.S. Air Force)-A B52 Bomber dropping its payload on training camps of ETIM and TAP

Sources:

in Asia / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

« Previous