Category: Afghanistan

  • Speaking from the White House on August 31, President Joe Biden lied to the people of the U.S. and to the world: “Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history.” The U.S. war on Afghanistan did not end— it has only adapted to technological advances and morphed into a war that will be more politically sustainable, one more intractable and more easily exportable. As the president admitted, “We will maintain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries.  We just don’t need to fight a ground war to do it.  We have what’s called over-the-horizon capabilities, which means we can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground — or very few, if needed.”

    Five days before, on the evening of Thursday, August 26, hours after a suicide bomb was detonated at the gate of Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport killing and wounding scores of Afghans trying to flee their country and killing 18 U.S. soldiers, President Biden spoke to the world, “outraged as well as heartbroken,” he said. Many of us listening to the president’s speech, made before the victims could be counted and the rubble cleared, did not find comfort or hope in his words. Instead, our heartbreak and outrage were only amplified as Joe Biden seized the tragedy to call for more war.

    “To those who carried out this attack, as well as anyone who wishes America harm, know this: We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay,” he threatened. “I’ve also ordered my commanders to develop operational plans to strike ISIS-K assets, leadership and facilities. We will respond with force and precision at our time, at the place we choose and the moment of our choosing.”

    The president’s threatened “moment of our choosing” came one day later, on Friday, August 27, when the U.S. military carried out a drone strike against what it said was an ISIS-K “planner” in Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar province. The U.S. military’s claim that it knows of “no civilian casualties” in the attack is contradicted by reports from the ground. “We saw that rickshaws were burning,” one Afghan witness said. “Children and women were wounded and one man, one boy and one woman had been killed on the spot.” Fear of an ISIS-K counterattack further hampered evacuation efforts as the U.S. Embassy warned U.S. citizens to leave the airport. “This strike was not the last,” said President Biden. On August 29, another U.S. drone strike killed a family of ten in Kabul.

    The first lethal drone strike in history occurred in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, when the CIA identified Taliban leader Mullah Omar, “or 98-percent probable it was he,” but the Hellfire missile launched by a Predator drone killed two unidentified men while Mullah Omar escaped. These two recent instances of “force and precision” ordered by Biden twenty years later, marked the presumed end to the war there just as it had begun. The intervening record has not been much better and, in fact, documents exposed by whistleblower Daniel Hale prove that the U.S. government is aware that 90% of its drone strike victims are not the intended targets.

    Zemari Ahmadi, who was killed in the August 29 drone strike in Kabul along with nine members of his family, seven of them young children, had been employed by a California based humanitarian organization and had applied for a visa to come to the U.S., as had Ahmadi’s nephew Nasser, also killed in the same attack. Nasser had worked with U.S. Special Forces in the Afghan city of Herat and had also served as a guard for the U.S. Consulate there. Whatever affinity the surviving members of Ahmadi’s family and friends might have had with the U.S. went up in smoke, that day. “America is the killer of Muslims in every place and every time,” said one relative who attended the funeral, “I hope that all Islamic countries unite in their view that America is a criminal.” Another mourner, a colleague of Ahmadi, said “We’re now much more afraid of drones than we are of the Taliban.”

    The fact that targeted killings like those carried out in Afghanistan and other places from 2001 to the present are counterproductive to the stated objectives of defeating terrorism, regional stability or of winning hearts and minds has been known by the architects of the “war on terror,” at least since 2009. Thanks to Wikileaks, we have access to a CIA document from that year, Making High-Value Targeting Operations an Effective Counterinsurgency Tool. Among the “key findings” in the CIA report, analysts warn of the negative consequences of assassinating so-called High Level Targets (HLT). “The potential negative effect of HLT operations, include increasing the level of insurgent support …, strengthening an armed group’s bonds with the population, radicalizing an insurgent group’s remaining leaders, creating a vacuum into which more radical groups can enter, and escalating or de-escalating a conflict in ways that favor the insurgents.”

    The obvious truths that the CIA kept buried in a secret report have been admitted many times by high ranking officers implementing those policies. In 2013, General James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, reported in The New York Times, “We’re seeing that blowback. If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.” In a 2010 interview in Rollingstone, General Stanley McChrystal, then commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, figured that “for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.” By the general’s equation, the U.S. created a minimum of 130 new enemies for itself in the strikes ordered by President Biden on August 27 and 29 alone.

    When the catastrophic consequences of a nation’s policies are so clearly predictable and evidently inevitable, they are intentional. What has happened to Afghanistan is not a series of mistakes or good intentions gone awry, they are crimes.

    In his novel, 1984, George Orwell foresaw a dystopian future where wars would be fought perpetually, not intended to be won or resolved in any way and President Eisenhower’s parting words as he left office in 1961 were a warning of the “grave implications” of the “military-industrial complex.” Wikileaks founder Julian Assange noted that these dire predictions had come to pass, speaking in 2011: “The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the U.S. and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war.”

    No, the war is not over. From a nation that should be promising reparations and begging the forgiveness of the people of Afghanistan comes the infantile raging, “We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay” and while pledging to perpetuate the conditions that provoke terrorism, the parting taunt “and to ISIS-K: We are not done with you yet.”

    In the simplistic dualism of U.S. partisan politics, the issue seems to be only whether the current president should be blamed or should be given a pass and the blame put on his predecessor. This is a discussion that is not only irrelevant but a dangerous evasion of responsibility. 20 years of war crimes makes many complicit.

    In 1972, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote: “Morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings. Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, [and] in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.” All of us in the U.S., the politicians, voters, tax payers, the investors and even those who protested and resisted it, are responsible for 20 years of war in Afghanistan. We are also all responsible for ending it.

    The post The “Longest War” Is Not Over first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Afghans formerly employed by the British military who are now living in the UK have said home secretary Priti Patel owes it to them to evacuate their extended families too.

    Family

    Nazir is a former interpreter and Shams worked as a communications officer at the British embassy in Kabul for 10 years. They said their employment with Western forces means the Taliban will target the relatives they had to leave behind. Both men were safely evacuated from Kabul at the start of August with their wives and children. They’ve been staying at a hotel in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, for more than a month along with hundreds of other Afghan families.

    The small town’s Baptist Church and council have been leading the resettling effort. They had organised a cricket match to welcome the families on Sunday 5 September. Shams and Nazir were among the refugees playing the friendly but fiercely competitive game with locals. They expressed deep gratitude for the town’s support, but they could not shake grave worries for people left in their homeland.

    Shams said:

    We feel safe, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. But some of my colleagues and relatives are in hiding from the Taliban.

    They have been shifting their locations, but this is a very temporary measure… they are living in a life-threatening situation.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Recently arrived Afghans watch the match at Newport Pagnell Town Cricket Club in Buckinghamshire (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Asked if he feels the UK owes it to him to evacuate his remaining embassy colleagues and relatives, he said:

    Yes. I just remind Priti Patel of her words, when she said that she owes a debt of gratitude to the Afghan people, I think that’s the best way to put it, and we really hope the UK will continue to try its best to evacuate the people who deserve it.

    He added that his six children, aged between three and 14, are “very happy” in their temporary “second home”. And they’re “passionately waiting for their chance” to start school.

    Threats

    Nazir, 43, worked in Helmand between 2009 and 2012. He said his family of nine had to relocate 12 times in Afghanistan “due to being threatened by the Taliban”. Now he fears for his brother and sister-in-law who did not manage to escape. He said:

    I have spent 43 years in my homeland with my relatives and my countrymen so it was really very, very difficult for me to leave, but I was compelled with my family to leave, because we have to live.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Local minister Peter Young (right) talks to recently arrived Afghans (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Nazir added:

    One thing, to be very clear, the Taliban can’t be trusted… so we have deep concerns about our family left behind in Afghanistan. (My relatives) are being tortured, mentally tortured, threatened and they are being intimidated, asking them where we are, because they have got our list according to the information on social media, the Taliban have access to some of the interpreter list data…

    We will keep on trying to evacuate them from Afghanistan… but the process still belongs to the Government.

    In limbo

    Shams added that their own lives are still in limbo because they’re due to be relocated from Newport Pagnell. The Home Office has “not entertained questions” about when they can expect a permanent home.

    Speaking about life in the hotel, he said:

    The noise levels are not manageable, and we also have difficulty when it comes to creating a bank account…

    We really request them (the Home Office) to expediate and speed up the process to help us find suitable housing and start our life properly.

    He added:

    The tricky bit is that you can’t do anything.

    I can’t apply for a job because you don’t have a permanent address. You don’t have the status or the residents’ card so we really need to be moved to houses.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Adbullah watches his father takes part in the cricket match (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Warm welcome

    Nazir said that although their stay is temporary, the welcome his family has received in Newport Pagnell has been “outstanding”. He described the people as “fabulous”.

    Minister for the Newport Pagnell Baptist Church Steve Wood was among the locals playing cricket on Sunday. And he’s been a key coordinator of the Afghans’ settlement in their town. Wood said:

    It’s been a privilege to get to know these families.

    We put labels on people like the Afghans, we put labels on people who arrive into our countries – refugees is the one that is used so often.

    These families that have arrived from Afghanistan are just people like you and I and to get to know them and support them in this way and to help the community do that has been one of the biggest privileges I’ve ever had.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has hailed the new Taliban rulers of Afghanistan for having “broken the chains of slavery”. Green Left‘s Peter Boyle spoke to veteran Pakistani socialist Farooq Tariq about the attitudes of the Pakistani state and ruling elite to the Taliban’s recent return to power. This interview was conducted on September 4, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Three weeks have passed since the fall of Kabul. If one dares to go outside, then all you see is the Taliban — with their guns roaming around — very few women can be seen outside, writes Yasmeen Afghan.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • In the wake of the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul and the ouster of the Afghan national government, alarming reports indicate that the insurgents could potentially access biometric data collected by the U.S. to track Afghans, including people who worked for U.S. and coalition forces. Afghans who once supported the U.S. have been attempting to hide or destroy physical and digital evidence of their identities.

    The post US Collected 4.8 Million Biometric Records Of Afghans appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • David McBride is a former military lawyer in the Royal Australia Regiment and Australia Special Forces. He completed two tours in Afghanistan and submitted an internal complaint against what he witnessed in the war. He immediately faced scrutiny and harassment. What David had to reveal was published as “The Afghan Files.” It was a “quite a big story in Australia,” according to him. But the Australia government responded by raiding the ABC and targeting David with a prosecution for an espionage offense.

    The post Australian Military Whistleblower Shares Perspective On End To Afghanistan War appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Did you hear about the 3 Afghan toddler girls whose flesh was ripped to pieces by a U.S. Drone Strike last Sunday?  Striking in a Kabul NEIGHBORHOOD, the attack also killed 4 other children, including 2 more under 6 years old!  The grief on Amal Ahmadi’s face tells it all!  10 civilian family members dead, 7 of them children, body parts everywhere, and bodies unrecognizable.  It was a horrific and tragic scene.

    And then there was last Friday’s U.S. drone strike in Nangarhar Province that U.S. officials claimed killed two “high profile” ISIS-K targets.”  A witness reported, “…rickshaws were burning.  Children and women were wounded and one man, one boy and one woman had been killed on the spot.”  

    OFFICIALS LIE…CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN DIE!  

    WE MUST UNITE TO STOP THIS RACIST U.S. DRONE TERROR IN THE SKY.

    The post Stop The Terror Of The US Drone Killing Machine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  •  Web Desk:

    According to Reuters, In the weeks since the Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan from a US-backed government, reports have highlighted how biometric databases might be exploited by the new rulers to hunt their enemies. Google has temporarily locked down an unspecified number of Afghan government email accounts.

    In a statement on Friday, Alphabet’s Google stopped short of confirming that Afghan government accounts were being locked down, saying that the company was monitoring the situation in Afghanistan and taking temporary actions to secure relevant accounts.

    “In consultation with experts, we are continuously assessing the situation in Afghanistan. We are taking temporary actions to secure relevant accounts, as information continues to come in,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement obtained by The Post.

    One employee of the former government has told Reuters the Taliban are seeking to acquire former officials’ emails. Late last month the employee said that the Taliban had asked him to preserve the data held on the servers of the ministry he used to work for.

    “If I do so, then they will get access to the data and official communications of the previous ministry leadership,” the employee said.

    Publicly available mail exchanger records show that some two dozen Afghan government bodies used Google’s servers to handle official emails, including the ministries of finance, industry, higher education, and mines. Afghanistan’s office of the presidential protocol also used Google, according to the records, as did some local government bodies.

    Commandeering government databases and emails could provide information about employees of the former administration, ex-ministers, government contractors, tribal allies, and foreign partners.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • A newlywed Afghan-British medical student has been quarantining with his wife because of coronavirus (Covid-19) since he arrived in the UK. He has described the hotel he and his wife are quarantining in as “a prison”.

    Abdul, 25, whose name has been changed, said the couple have not been allowed to go outside or wash their clothes in 14 days. Moreover, they’ve been given rotten food and have already stayed two days longer than expected.

    “We feel like we are in a prison”

    The UK government has pledged to take up to 20,000 Afghan refugees who were forced to flee their home or face threats of persecution from the Taliban, These include 5,000 refugees within the first year.

    Abdul told the PA news agency:

    We thought we would be here for 10 days, so we prepared ourselves mentally, but two [more] days have passed.

    We feel like we are in a prison now because our quarantine period has passed, but why are they still keeping us here?

    The Government promised us we would be provided with accommodation right after our quarantine, but now it has been two days. They have not communicated with us about the next steps.

    Mental health

    The student first came to the UK from Afghanistan as a refugee in 2010 and was granted citizenship in 2015.

    He had travelled to his home country in July to get married after completing his third-year exams. He intended to sponsor his wife to join him only once he had completed his studies and had his own home and a job.

    The couple was forced to flee the Taliban, leaving the country on their fourth attempt. They have been quarantining in a hotel in south London. However, they expected to leave on 1 September.

    They are still stuck there two days later. Abdul said the situation has affected his wife’s mental health:

    She cries at night and early in the morning, when are we going to leave this place?

    We got married four weeks ago and instead of enjoying that, she has gone into a state of depression now.

    Lack of basic provisions

    Other refugees at the hotel have been experiencing the same problems, Abdul said. He added:

    They all feel like they are not being listened to. When we go for our breaks, we can only see them there and I have spoken to a few of them.

    Women don’t have any access to sanitary pads. People haven’t washed their clothes since they have come from Afghanistan.

    I came with a pair of trousers and I haven’t washed them for the past 14 days, since I left Kabul.

    We don’t have access to regular healthcare staff like a GP. There’s no mental health support and I am sure every family here is in the same position.

    Abdul is one of thousands of people to flee to the UK after the Taliban takeover in Afganistan (Khwaja Tawfiq Sediqi/AP)

    ‘Trapped’

    Abdul added that the hotel is providing “rabbit food”, some of which is rotten or spoiled. And those quarantining are not allowed to go outside.

    He said:

    Our movement has been restricted. We cannot go outside. They only take us out for 10 minutes, and that is only to another floor of the hotel.

    They say if we go out to get fresh air, we will have to sleep on the streets because they won’t let us come back.

    We need to be free and to get fresh air… to get exposed to the greenery and nature. We are trapped in a four-wall room.

    I kindly request for the authority to find a prompt solution so that they can accommodate and provide housing for all refugees who have been abandoned and stranded in quarantine hotels.

    Think about the human aspect. People are emotionally suffering every night in hotel rooms.

    Ongoing quarantine

    A government spokesperson said:

    A significant cross-Government effort is under way to ensure the thousands of Afghans who were evacuated to the UK receive the support they need to rebuild their lives, find work, pursue education and integrate into their local communities.

    So far over 100 councils have agreed to house Afghans and we have made £5million to support in housing costs.

    Those arriving have to complete mandatory quarantine in hotels.

    After they leave quarantine, the Government will work with them and local authorities to secure long term accommodation and the necessary financial support.

    While quarantine is supposed to be for 10 days, the reason for refugees remaining restricted past this period remains unclear.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Rebels say they are holding on despite celebratory gunfire in Kabul amid reports that hardliners have wiped out last pocket of resistance

    Militia forces say they are enduring “heavy assaults” as they battle the Taliban in Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley, the final holdout against hardline Islamist control.

    The Taliban face the enormous challenge of shifting gears from insurgent group to governing power, days after the US fully withdrew its troops and ended two decades of war.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Taliban’s lightning fast takeover of Afghanistan was amazingly achieved with relatively little killing and bloodshed. Since the rout of the government, an entity essentially installed by the US, the Taliban has been assuring the Afghan people that its governance style will be more moderate than under its previous rule. Many people in Afghanistan are very fearful and particularly skeptical about the idea that the Taliban will change its ways. Many in the US share this skepticism and view the comments by the Taliban about including women in government, an amnesty and honoring human rights as simply public relations spin.
    In contrast, very few people in the US political arena or the corporate-controlled US media express any skepticism about the US and its trustworthiness. It appears the possibility that the US is not trustworthy never crosses their minds. However, if it does, they realize that it is likely not to their political or professional advantage to raise this possibility with others.
    President Obama benefited from this lack of skepticism when he falsely touted the precision of the US drone program. When Obama claimed that few civilians were killed, the mainstream media generally accepted this claim until there was too much evidence of civilian deaths to be denied.
    The hypocritical US political/media elite are now raising concerns about the safety and well being of the Afghan population under the Taliban’s rule. However, it appears that these concerns about Afghan lives were not a major issue for these elites when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rejected a proposed surrender by the Taliban in December 2001, a surrender that would have brought an end to most of the fighting there.
    These elite also didn’t show much concern about Afghan lives during the past 20 years when the US forces were bombing and then militarily occupying the country. In addition, the fighting with the Taliban, especially the air campaign, continued throughout these past 20 years and killed a large number of civilians. In fact, according to a excellent recent article by Jim Lobe in Responsible Statecraft, using research by Andrew Tyndall, in 2020 the corporate-controlled media mostly ignored Afghanistan with a total of 5 minutes coverage during the 14,000 minutes of weekday evening news coverage on the three national broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC). In the previous five years prior to 2020, the networks averaged 24 minutes per network per year. Thus there is little evidence of any real concern being shown about the safety and well being of the Afghanistan people before the Taliban recaptured control of Afghanistan.
    Moreover, the US has denied the Taliban access to $9.5 billion of Afghan government funds and has worked with the IMF to cut off aid to Afghanistan. These acts clearly demonstrate a hypocritical lack of concern for the welfare of the Afghan people who are facing desperate conditions.
    There is also much concern expressed about the treatment of women under the Taliban rule. However, if the US and its corporate media were really concerned about the treatment of women, both entities would certainly challenge Saudi Arabia about its treatment of women. It appears that the issue of women is used selectively and hypocritically to advance US political interests.
    There are certainly grounds for being very skeptical about the Taliban and its claims of moderation. However, there are overwhelming grounds for doubting US claims as well. For example, under the Trump administration the US reneged on the Obama administration’s agreement with Iran and other nations on the enrichment of uranium. The Biden administration broke the Trump agreement with the Taliban for the withdrawal of US troops by May 1, 2021. The George W. Bush administration used the false claim of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the basis for its illegal attack on Iraq. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all broke the George H.W. Bush promise to the Soviet Union not to expand NATO one inch to the east if the Soviet Union would allow the unification of East and West Germany. This shameful record of the US duplicity stretches all the way back to its very beginning when it broke its treaties with American native peoples.
    Afghanistan’s future is uncertain, but it depends upon how well the Taliban can deliver on its promises. Given that the Taliban consists of very conservative members as well as members who are relatively progressive, it faces a major challenge in being able to live up to its words. If the US and its allies stop being vindictive losers and allow the international community to help Afghanistan through the current dire situation, Afghanistan will have a chance. In addition, Afghanistan’s relations with its neighbors will play a key role in the success of the Taliban and Afghanistan.
    The post Afghanistan and the US corporate media first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Six-year-old pronounced dead a day after his younger brother also died after eating soup made from death cap mushrooms

    A second child of an Afghan family evacuated from Kabul to Poland has died after eating soup containing death cap mushrooms, which the family had unknowingly gathered in a forest outside their quarantine centre.

    The six-year-old boy received an emergency liver transplant but doctors were unable to save him. His five-year-old brother died on Thursday at Poland’s main children’s hospital in Warsaw, where both were treated.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • There are signs of a return to something worryingly close to the hardline restrictions of the past across Afghan life

    When Taliban fighters moved into Herat city in western Afghanistan last month, one thing mattered more to some of them than the battle itself. As gunmen faced off around the governor’s office, a group of militants came to Shogofa’s* workplace and ordered all the women home.

    “They hadn’t even taken all the city, but they came to our headquarters. The manager called an emergency meeting and they told all the women to leave,” she said.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • For twenty years, two dominant narratives have shaped our view of the illegal US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and neither one of these narratives would readily accept the use of such terms as ‘illegal’, ‘invasion’ and ‘occupation.’

    The framing of the US ‘military intervention’ in Afghanistan, starting on October 7, 2001, as the official start of what was dubbed as a global ‘war on terror’ was left almost entirely to US government strategists. Former President, George W. Bush, his Vice President, Dick Cheney, his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and an army of spokespersons, neoconservative ‘intellectuals’, journalists and so on, championed the military option as a way to rid Afghanistan of its terrorists, make the world a safe place and, as a bonus, bring democracy to Afghanistan and free its oppressed women.

    For that crowd, the US war in an already war-torn and extremely impoverished country was a just cause, maybe violent at times, but ultimately humanistic.

    Another narrative, also a western one, challenged the gung-ho approach used by the Bush administration, argued that democracy cannot be imposed by force, reminded Washington of Bill Clinton’s multilateral approach to international politics, warned against the ‘cut and run’ style of foreign policymaking, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere.

    Although both narratives may have seemed at odds at times, in actuality they accepted the basic premise that the United States is capable of being a moral force in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Whether those who may refer to themselves as ‘antiwar’ realize this or not, they, too, subscribe to the same notion of American exceptionalism and ‘Manifest Destiny’ that Washington continues to assign to itself.

    The main difference between both of these narratives is that of methodology and approach and not whether the US has the right to ‘intervene’ in the affairs of another country, whether to ‘eradicate terrorism’ or to supposedly help a victim population, incapable of helping themselves and desperate for a western savior.

    However, the humiliating defeat suffered by the US in Afghanistan should inspire a whole new way of thinking, one that challenges all Western narratives, without exception, in Afghanistan and throughout the world.

    Obviously, the US has failed in Afghanistan, not only militarily and politically – let alone in terms of ‘state-building’ and every other way – the US-Western narratives on Afghanistan were, themselves, a failure. Mainstream media, which for two decades have reported on the country with a palpable sense of moral urgency, now seem befuddled. US ‘experts’ are as confused as ordinary people regarding the hasty retreat from Kabul, the bloody mayhem at the airport or why the US was in Afghanistan in the first place.

    Meanwhile, the ‘humanistic interventionists’ are more concerned with Washington’s ‘betrayal’ of the Afghan people, ‘leaving them to their fate’, as if the Afghans are irrational beings with no agency of their own, or as if the Afghan people have called on the Americans to invade their country or have ‘elected’ American generals as their democratic representatives.

    The US-Western propaganda, which has afflicted our collective understanding of Afghanistan for twenty years and counting, has been so overpowering to the point that we are left without the slightest understanding of the dynamics that led to the Taliban’s swift takeover of the country. The latter group is presented in the media as if entirely alien to the socio-economic fabric of Afghanistan. This is why the Taliban’s ultimate victory seemed, not only shocking but extremely confusing as well.

    For twenty years, the very little we knew about the Taliban has been communicated to us through Western media analyses and military intelligence assessments. With the Taliban’s viewpoint completely removed from any political discourse pertaining to Afghanistan, an alternative Afghan national narrative was carefully constructed by the US and its NATO partners. These were the ‘good Afghans’, we were told, ones who dress up in Western-style clothes, speak English, attend international conferences and, supposedly, respect women. These were also the Afghans who welcomed the US occupation of their country, as they benefited greatly from Washington’s generosity.

    If those ‘good Afghans’ truly represented Afghan society, why did their army of 300,000 men drop their weapons and flee the country, along with their President, without a serious fight? And if the 75,000 poorly-armed and, at times, malnourished Taliban seemed to merely represent themselves, why then did they manage to defeat formidable enemies in a matter of days?

    There can be no argument that an inferior military power, like that of the Taliban, could have possibly persisted, and ultimately won, such a brutal war over the course of many years, without substantial grassroots support pouring in from the Afghan people in large swathes of the country. The majority of the Taliban recruits who have entered Kabul on August 15 were either children, or were not even born, when the US invaded their country, all those years ago. What compelled them to carry arms? To fight a seemingly unwinnable war? To kill and be killed? And why did they not join the more lucrative business of working for the Americans, like many others have?

    We are just beginning to understand the Taliban narrative, as their spokespersons are slowly communicating a political discourse that is almost entirely unfamiliar to most of us. A discourse that we were not allowed to hear, interact with or understand.

    Now that the US and its NATO allies are leaving Afghanistan, unable to justify or even explain why their supposed humanitarian mission led to such an embarrassing defeat, the Afghan people are left with the challenge of weaving their own national narrative, one that must transcend the Taliban and their enemies to include all Afghans, regardless of their politics or ideology.

    Afghanistan is now in urgent need of a government that truly represents the people of that country. It must grant rights to education, to minorities and to political dissidents, not to acquire a Western nod of approval, but because the Afghan people deserve to be respected, cared for and treated as equals. This is the true national narrative of Afghanistan that must be nurtured outside the confines of the self-serving Western mischaracterization of Afghanistan and her people.

    The post On Propaganda and Failed Narratives: New Understanding of Afghanistan is a Must first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In the wake of a remarkably successful Taliban offensive capped by the takeover of Kabul, the responses of corporate media provided what may have been the most dramatic demonstration ever of its fealty to the Pentagon and military leadership. The media did so by mounting a full-throated political attack on President Joe Biden’s final withdrawal from Afghanistan and a defense of the military’s desire for an indefinite presence in the country.

    The post Afghanistan Collapse Reveals Beltway Media’s Loyalty To Permanent War State appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • With the official end of the War in Afghanistan, we speak with Rafia Zakaria, author of Against White Feminism, about how U.S. officials used the plight of the women in the country to justify the 2001 invasion and subsequent occupation. “Feminism has been delegitimized in Afghanistan because it is associated with an occupying force,” says Zakaria. “Now Afghan women are left to pick up the pieces and deal with the Taliban.”

    Please check back later for full transcript.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sanctions advocates from the hardline Foundation for Defense of Democracies recently made the case for piling on sanctions on Afghanistan by adding the Taliban to both the FTO list and the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Hawks have been disastrously wrong about the use of sanctions for decades, and now they propose to strangle a country that has been wracked by war for the last four decades. The last thing that Afghanistan needs after generations of armed conflict is a new US economic war.

    The post Don’t Wage Economic War On Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A group of young Afghan women secretly held a press conference in a Kabul suburb on August 28 to launch a new women’s movement against the Taliban and present their demands, reports Farooq Sulehria.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • By Marcheilla Ariesta in Jakarta

    Indonesia, the world’s fourth largest country by population with 270 million, has not yet determined its stance towards the Taliban leadership after seizing power in Afghanistan.

    It is also the most populous Muslim country.

    The Director-General for Asia Pacific and Africa at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abdul Kadir Jailani, said the same attitude was also being shown by other countries.

    Abdul Kadir Jailani Indonesia
    Indonesia’s Director-General for Asia Pacific and Africa at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abdul Kadir Jailani … “quite warm” response in Indonesia to Taliban takeover. Photo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

    “Why haven’t many countries taken a definitive stance, because the situation is still fluid and (the Taliban) have not yet formed a legitimate government,” said Abdul Kadir in the webinar ‘Post-Conflict Afghanistan: Fall or Rise?’ this week.

    According to Jailani, Taliban officials are negotiating with a number of figures in Afghanistan in a bid to form a new government.

    In addition to the formation of government, Indonesia is also still waiting for the status of the Taliban in the international community.

    Jailani said a common view was needed about the status of the Taliban.

    “This understanding is very important, so we can get faster information to determine our attitude towards the Taliban and its government later,” he added.

    He said the Indonesian government was also careful in determining its stance because the Taliban’s seizure of power in Afghanistan received a “quite warm” and mixed reaction from within Indonesia.

    Jailani stressed that Indonesia’s definitive stance would only be conveyed when the situation in Afghanistan became clearer.

    The Taliban seized control of the civilian government in Afghanistan on August 15 without any resistance. A few days ago, the Taliban claimed to have pocketed a number of names of figures who would later fill the new government.

    Unlike in the 1996-2001 era, the Taliban claimed to be forming an inclusive government that involved all elements and ethnicities in Afghanistan.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • There may no longer be US military boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but there are still plenty of Afghan boots that Washington can mobilize to destabilize the country and, more importantly, the region.

    Already there are tribal leaders in the Panjshir province declaring the beginning of anti-Taliban resistance. One of them, Ahmad Massoud, the young leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post last week in which he appealed to the US for weapons and support to “once again take on the Taliban”.

    Another allied leader is former Vice President of Afghanistan, Amrullah Saleh, who is also based in Panjshir province – the only area not under the control of the Taliban* – and who has vowed that he will never share the same roof as the dominant militant group.

    This week marks a historic and shameful defeat for the United States in Afghanistan after 20 years of futile, destructive military occupation. Two decades since launching a war in the country to oust the Taliban rulers, the latter is back now in power. And what’s more, they are militarily stronger than ever after inheriting entire arsenals of American weaponry abandoned by the fleeing US troops.

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, trying to put a positive spin on the debacle, said the military mission was over and “a new chapter” of diplomacy was opening. We can safely bet that “diplomacy” here is a euphemism for Washington’s political sabotage and machinations to ensure Afghanistan feels the full wrath of Uncle Sam’s vindictiveness for years, if not decades, to come.

    Early signs indicate the form. Since the Taliban took control of Kabul on August 15, Washington has frozen some $7 billion in foreign assets belonging to the state of Afghanistan. The Americans have also ordered the International Monetary Fund to cut off nearly $400 million in immediate funds that were due to Kabul. This suggests that the US is shaping up for a new chapter of economic warfare against the Taliban in much the same way that it has inflicted on Iran following the Islamic Revolution in 1979 against the US-backed Shah, and also more recently against Syria following the defeat of America’s proxy war for regime change.Many other nations that defy the US militarily end up incurring economic terrorism from Washington. Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Venezuela, among others.

    However, in addition to economic warfare, the United States could also exercise the option of fueling a proxy military conflict – a civil war – in Afghanistan by sponsoring the anti-Taliban factions. These factions can be traced to the Northern Alliance and the Haqqani Network which the US-backed in the proxy war against the Soviet Union during the 1980s. No doubt, the CIA and Pentagon still maintain contact lines with these warlords. The fact that one of them was given a high-profile platform in the Washington Post last week to appeal for weapons to fight against the Taliban is a clear sign of such deep state influence.

    It is significant that Russia, China and other regional countries are wary of security repercussions stemming from an unruly Afghanistan. Russia has rebuked the US over its freezing of Afghanistan’s assets, saying that the country needs international support, not isolation, in order to aid war reconstruction and stability. Likewise, China has engaged with the new Taliban authorities with promises of massive economic investment to develop infrastructure and industries in return for guarantees of regional security.

    This alludes to a wider strategy by Washington. Fomenting proxy conflict in Afghanistan through military and economic means is not just a matter of narrow vindictiveness against the Taliban conquerors who gave Uncle Sam a bloody nose for all the world to see. Such machinations provide the US with opportunities to cause regional security problems for Russia and China. One can reasonably surmise that the Americans have been exploiting Afghanistan as a spoiler against Russia and China for at least 40 years, not just the last two decades.

    Afghanistan could potentially become a linchpin in China’s global economic development plans. The country sits at the crossroads of China’s new silk routes crisscrossing between Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Given that the Biden, Trump and Obama administrations have all prioritized “containing” China and Russia as “great power rivals”, it seems that postwar Afghanistan presents a different opportunity for American imperial ambitions.

    From Washington’s cynical point of view, such a new phase of proxy war in Afghanistan and, more widely in the region, would be a lot less costly compared with the full military occupation over the past 20 years involving $2 trillion expenditure. Plus there are no disturbing scenes of body bags arriving back on American soil.

    Thus, celebrating the defeat of the US in Afghanistan comes with caution. The next chapter could be an even more murky and sinister story.

    * The Taliban is a terrorist group banned in Russia and many other countries.

    * First published in Sputnik

    The post What Next After US Defeat? first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Finian Cunningham.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Joe Biden stands in front of glittering chandeliers

    On Tuesday, an American president said the words: “The war in Afghanistan is now over.” One president started it, three presidents shared it and sustained it, and now a fourth president has dropped the curtain at enormous political cost.

    Twenty years of sacrifice beyond comprehension, tens of thousands of civilian and military lives lost, including the scores laid low by the Kabul airport bombing. “$300 million a day for two decades,” President Biden explained on Tuesday, a fortune squandered that could have funded health care, child care, housing, education, clean energy exploration. A fortune squandered that could have provided reasons for our youngest generations to look forward to the future instead of down in despair.

    After days of merciless pummeling from wildly hypocritical Republicans, a number of purple-district Democrats and a “news” media that was instrumental in foisting this fiasco on us in the first place, Biden rose forcefully to his own defense. “By the time I came to office, the Taliban was in its strongest military position since 2001,” he explained, “controlling or contesting nearly half of the country. The previous administration’s agreement said that if we stuck to the May 1 deadline that they had signed on to leave by, the Taliban wouldn’t attack any American forces. But if we stayed, all bets were off.”

    “So we were left with a simple decision,” Biden continued. “Either follow through on the commitment made by the last administration and leave Afghanistan, or say we weren’t leaving and commit another tens of thousands more troops. Going back to war. That was the choice, the real choice. Between leaving or escalating. I was not going to extend this forever war. And I was not extending a forever exit.”

    Addressing the chaotic final days of the war, the president stated flatly, “I take responsibility for the decision.” Following this declaration was Biden’s apologia — not apology — for the mayhem of the withdrawal. He painted a picture of a security situation that would have fallen into chaos no matter what plans were executed. While there is a good degree of truth to this, the fact remains that the Biden administration pulled the string on withdrawal while this country’s immigration/refugee assistance programs were in a deplorable state of disrepair. Thanks in large part to the vandalism of prior administration officials including national security adviser and vivid fascist Stephen Miller, our government was ill-prepared for an influx of help/rescue requests from fleeing Afghan civilians. Our allies were similarly unprepared.

    Not every voice has been raised against Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. “Unlike his three immediate predecessors in the Oval Office, all of whom also came to see the futility of the Afghan operation, Biden alone had the political courage to fully end America’s involvement,” writes David Rothkopf for The Atlantic. “Although Donald Trump made a plan to end the war, he set a departure date that fell after the end of his first term and created conditions that made the situation Biden inherited more precarious. And despite significant pressure and obstacles, Biden has overseen a military and government that have managed, since the announcement of America’s withdrawal, one of the most extraordinary logistical feats in their recent history.”

    The American public appears to agree. Recent surveys show that a solid majority supports the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a supermajority believes this country failed to achieve its goals in that country. Politically, Biden is laying a huge and thoroughly tactical wager on those numbers. While the administration expects another round of brutal news cycles as the Afghanistan situation is folded into the 20th anniversary of September 11, “they assume that attention will shift back again to the coronavirus pandemic, the president’s proposals for large public works projects and social welfare programs, and a dozen other issues that will absorb the public more than far-off Afghanistan,” according to The New York Times.

    It would not have been a speech by an American president without providing a side-serving of menace. “And to ISIS-K,” he growled in an eerie echo of George W. Bush. “We are not done with you yet.” What does that mean? Biden spoke of “the war on terror” and of “over-the-horizon capabilities,” hedged his bets on “boots on the ground,” and made it abundantly clear that the war paradigm which has burdened these last two decades will not be altered by his administration any time soon.

    Russia and China were not spared the treatment, as Biden rattled the chains for the possible onset of the next Cold War. “The world is changing,” he said. “We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia.” Nothing about this was demonstrably aggressive, but American leaders seem to do their best politically when the people have a clear and identifiable enemy to seethe at (and be distracted by). In this, the president was old-school normative establishment right down the line.

    Notably, the speech also failed to even wink at one likely reason the war lasted so long: the trillions of dollars in mineral, gas and oil deposits lying fallow in Afghanistan. This is a rarely spoken answer to why we remained there for so long after the Taliban was defeated, after al-Qaeda was shattered, and after Osama bin Laden was killed: If the country could be brought under some semblance of control, there were riches to be plundered beyond the dreams of avarice. This, then, was another goal our efforts failed to achieve.

    Here — the threats, the vague vocabulary of eternal war, the proffered example of existential menace, all wrapped in a dark fog surrounding our true goals that a thoroughly compromised corporate “news” media appears entirely unwilling or unable to penetrate — are the seeds that, if allowed to germinate again, will make the future look very much like the ash-coated battlegrounds of the present and past.

    Biden’s speech on Tuesday was remarkable for one thing: Despite the occasional bouts of bog-standard bombast, it did not bristle with exuberant confidence, or ooze self-congratulation as if such feelings were an unquestioned birthright. It entirely lacked the glossy veneer of “American exceptionalism” that has scarred so many political speeches over the last 20 years and beyond. The president did not say, “We lost the war,” but that solemn message underscored almost every word he spoke.

    When he was finished on Tuesday, Biden turned away from the podium, giving his back to a hail of questions from the assembled press. He paused, turned and retrieved a black face mask from the podium. Plodding slowly down the red-carpeted hall, he donned the mask before receding from view. Thus do we all plod into an uncertain future, again, but one with one less war to fight. We hope.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Americans have been shocked by videos of thousands of Afghans risking their lives to flee the Taliban’s return to power in their country – and then by an Islamic State suicide bombing and ensuing massacre by U.S. forces that together killed at least 170 people, including 13 U.S. troops. 

    Even as UN agencies warn of an impending humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the U.S. Treasury has frozen nearly all of the Afghan Central Bank’s $9.4 billion in foreign currency reserves, depriving the new government of funds that it will desperately need in the coming months to feed its people and provide basic services. 

    Under pressure from the Biden administration, the International Monetary Fund decided not to release $450 million in funds that were scheduled to be sent to Afghanistan to help the country cope with the coronavirus pandemic. 

    The post Afghan Crisis Must End US’s Empire Of War, Corruption And Poverty appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Kabul, Web desk,

    Pentagon officials confirmed that US military had held secret talks with Taliban, resultant Taliban commute US citizens in groups to Kabul airport’s secret gates. They were brought back to America by planes.

    A day earlier, US General Mackenzie said that the Taliban had cooperated with us in evacuating process from Kabul airport. Another senior official revealed that US special forces had opened a secret gate at Hamid Karzai Airport in Kabul and call centers were set up to explain the evacuation process of US citizens.

    Through these call centers, were inform US travelers to gather at a secret location near the airport. Taliban checked the US citizen’s identity, documents and escorted them to a secret gate set up specifically for Americans to enter the airport.

    The report states that several missions were carried out in a single day of “safe evacuation” with the help of the Taliban.

    The gathering place for the Americans was set up in the Interior Ministry building, located a short distance from the gate of Hamid Karzai Airport.

    A Pentagon staffer who assisted in compiling the report said that the Americans had been given a number of messages about the gathering and that the process had worked stunningly.

    According to CNN, Another senior Pentagon official told that the Elite Joint Special Operations Command and other special operations units had set up separate “call centers” to evacuate US citizens. These call centers instructed Americans to reach the “secret door”, this evacuation is confidential until completed.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • The daily Jeddojehad (Struggle), a left-wing online Urdu-language paper is posting reports from Kabul. Filed by Yasmeen Afghan (not the author’s real name), these reports depict picture from inside Kabul and cover what is often ignored in the mainstream media.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • The daily Jeddojehad (Struggle), a left-wing online Urdu-language paper is posting reports from Kabul. Filed by Yasmeen Afghan (not the author’s real name), these reports depict picture from inside Kabul and cover what is often ignored in the mainstream media.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • The daily Jeddojehad (Struggle), a left-wing online Urdu-language paper is posting reports from Kabul. Filed by Yasmeen Afghan (not the author’s real name), these reports depict picture from inside Kabul and cover what is often ignored in the mainstream media.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • No more profoundly disturbing statement was needed.  In the dying days of the official US departure from Kabul, a US drone etched its butcher’s legacy with a strike supposedly intended for the blood-lusty terrorist group ISIS-K, an abbreviation of Islamic State in Khorasan Province.  Its members had taken responsibility for blasts outside Harmid Karzai International Airport that had cost the lives of at least 175 individuals and 13 US service personnel.  Suicide bombers had intended to target “translators and collaborators with the American army”.

    President Joe Biden promised swift retribution. “To those who carried out this attack, as well as anyone who wishes America harm, know this: We will not forgive.  We will not forget.  We will hunt you down and make you pay.” American “interests and our people” would be defended “with every measure at my command.”

    In his sights was ISIS-K.  “I’ve also ordered my commanders to develop operational plans to strike ISIS-K assets, leadership and facilities.”  A response “with force and precision” would take place “at our time, at the place we choose and a moment of our choosing.”

    On August 28, an announcement by the Pentagon was made that two “high-profile” members of the group had been killed in a drone strike in Khorasan Province.  That same day, the President warned that the group was likely to conduct another attack.  The US military was readying itself.

    The following day, to demonstrate such precision and choice, a vehicle supposedly carrying an unspecified number of suicide bombers linked to ISIS-K and speeding towards Kabul airport was struck in a second drone attack.  The site of the attack, being a residential neighbourhood in the city, should have given room for pause to those precisionists in the military.

    The strike was meant to leave a lasting impression upon ISIS-K fighters.  Initially, US officials were pleased to inform the Associated Press that “multiple suicide bombers” had perished in the attack.  “US military forces conducted a self-defence unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Harmid Karzai International Airport,” stated US Central Command spokesperson Capt. Bill Urban.

    The outcome of the strike was apparently something to be proud of.  “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.”  But this came with a rounding caveat. “We’re assessing the possibilities of civilian casualties, although we have no indications at this time.”

    The story started to congeal over interviews, discussions and threads.  A dribble of information suggested loss of civilian life.  A number quickly emerged in the flood that followed: ten family members had lost their lives.  From the New York Times, there was Matthieu Aikins patching things together.  Bodies were named: Somaya, daughter of Zemari.  Farzard, Zemari’s son, also killed.  The narrative twists, inverts and disturbs more: Zemari’s nephew, Naser, was an Afghan army officer, former guard of the US military.  He had applied for an SIV (Special Immigrant Visa), hoping to flee Afghanistan for the United States.

    To the BBC, Ramin Yousufi, a relative of the victims, could only tearfully despair. “It’s wrong, it’s a brutal attack, and it’s happened based on wrong information.”  Questions followed.  “Why have they killed our family?  Our children?  They are so burned out we cannot identify their bodies, their faces.”

    At a press briefing on August 30, Army Maj. Gen. William “Hank” Taylor of the Joint Staff tried to make something of yet another messy bungle in the annals of the US military.  “We are aware of reports of civilian casualties. We take these reports extremely seriously.”  John F. Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, was “not going to get ahead of it.  But if we have significant – verifiable information that we did take innocent life here, then we will be transparent about that, too.  Nobody wants to see that happen.”  Urban also stated that the Pentagon was aware of civilian casualties “following our strike on a vehicle in Kabul today.”

    The attack had that sheen of atrocious incompetence (Kirby preferred the term “dynamic”), but that would be a misreading.  Killing remotely is, by its nature, inaccurate, though it has a disturbing fan club deluded into thinking otherwise.  The death of civilians, subsumed under the euphemism of collateral damage, is often put down to shonky intelligence rather than the machinery itself.  As Rachel Stohl of the Stimson Centre is a case in point.  “These are precise weapons,” she erroneously observed in 2016.  “The failure is in the intelligence about who it is that we are killing”.

    Drone strikes have demonstrated, time and again, to lack the mythical precision with which they are billed.  Those in proximity to the target will be slain.  Whole families have been, and will continue, to be pulverised.  “Gradually,” the New York Times observed with stunning obviousness in 2015, “it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.”

    In 2016, research conducted by the Bureau of Investigative journalism found that the lethal returns from the US-UAV program proved to be overwhelmingly civilian.  A mere 3.5% could be said, with any certainty, to be terrorists.

    The use of drones in combat is also politically baffling, self-defeating and contradictory.  As Michael Boyle has explained, referring to the use of UAV warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, such a counterterrorism strategy was distinctly at odds in providing, on the one hand, a flow of arms and financial resource to the very governments whose legitimacy they undermined through the use of such strikes.  By all means, we supply you, but have no trust in your competence.

    A mere month after the conviction of whistleblower Daniel Hale, who did more than any other to reveal the grotesque illusion of reliability behind the US drone program, UAV warfare was again shown to be a butchering enterprise praised by the precisionists and found politically wanting.  Those attending the funerals of the slain family members, an event taking place in the shadow of US power in retreat, needed little convincing who their enemy was.

    The post Droning Disasters: A US Strike on Kabul first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The daily Jeddojehad (Struggle), a left-wing online Urdu-language paper is posting reports from Kabul. Filed by Yasmeen Afghan (not the author’s real name), these reports depict picture from inside Kabul and cover what is often ignored in the mainstream media.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • The daily Jeddojehad (Struggle), a left-wing online Urdu-language paper is posting reports from Kabul. Filed by Yasmeen Afghan (not the author’s real name), these reports depict picture from inside Kabul and cover what is often ignored in the mainstream media.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.