Category: Afghanistan

  • The US‘s withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan has gone alongside a stunning recapture of much of the country by the Taliban. This has naturally raised predictable whines from neoconservative elements who believe that withdrawal has “led to a Taliban triumph”.

    However, not only is continuing the occupation of Afghanistan an abject exercise in futility, the US also has partly itself to blame for the rise of the radical Islamist group. A closer examination of history shows that this ascendency traces its roots to US interference in earlier decades.

    Taliban sweeps up control of most of the country

    On 14 August, the Guardian reported that the Taliban had taken control of Mazar-i-Sharif. This is Afghanistan’s fourth-largest city and “the government’s last major stronghold in the north”. On the same day, the New York Times reported:

    President Biden’s top advisers concede they were stunned by the rapid collapse of the Afghan army in the face of an aggressive, well-planned offensive by the Taliban that now threatens Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital.

    President Biden repeated that he wouldn’t reverse his decision. He pointed out that four presidents have presided over the US occupation of Afghanistan. He affirmed that he “would not, and will not, pass this war on to a fifth”. Biden first announced a US withdrawal on 14 April. He had set a deadline of 11 September, 2021 – the 20 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

    Another attempt at peace?

    Meanwhile, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani said in an address to the nation that he would reorganise the military and begin a process of consultation with Afghan society and international allies. Rumours have been swirling that Ghani might step down as part of some kind of peace deal. In 2018, the Trump administration sent a ‘special envoy’ to begin a peace dialogue with the Taliban. The US then agreed to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for a ceasefire in 2020.

    The Taliban eventually agreed to peace talks with the Afghan government in that same year, but the talks didn’t go anywhere. The former didn’t have much incentive to negotiate even then given their military strength throughout the country. The Afghan government, meanwhile, has never had much credibility. It’s largely considered a US puppet that owes its position to the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, which toppled the then-Taliban-led government.

    A proxy war with each of the world’s superpowers on either side

    There is a stunning irony to this. The US labelled the Taliban an enemy in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks (based on arguably dubious allegations that the Taliban had ‘harboured terrorists’ and had links to Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida). The reality, however, is that the Taliban owe their rise in part to US interference in Afghanistan.

    During the Cold War, Afghanistan became a major focal point of proxy conflict between the world’s then dominant powers, the US and the Soviet Union (USSR). The USSR was allied to Afghanistan’s socialist government of Mohammed Najibullah. So the US intervened on the side of its opponents by launching ‘Operation Cyclone’.

    Most expensive covert action in history

    The operation was hatched by the US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Its aim was to covertly arm and finance a group of rebel guerrilla fighters called the ‘mujahideen’. It ultimately channeled $2bn to the Islamist group in what became the most expensive covert action in history.

    Hostilities culminated in the Afghan Civil War, which pitted US-backed mujahideen against the Soviet-backed government. The problem was that, having now given this latter group support, the US couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle. When hostilities ended in the early 1990s, the Taliban emerged as a mujahideen splinter group. By 1996, it had taken control of most of the country and was essentially the government of Afghanistan.

    A vicious cycle

    So when the US invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, it was toppling a ruling faction that it had helped create in the first place. And this shines a light onto the vicious cycle that can emerge when Western powers interfere. Initial interference creates unintended consequences that then provide a ruse for further interference.

    Another example is that of Vietnam. The country’s move toward communism was sparked in large part by French colonialism. (The communists were, after all, the most militant and committed of the anti-colonial movement’s factions.) This ‘problem’ was then ‘solved’ by the US first backing a puppet government in South Vietnam. It then invaded when this weak and unpopular government struggled to resist both an invasion from the communist-controlled north and an internal guerrilla insurgency.

    Let Afghans lead the fight against the Taliban

    To be clear, given its poor record on issues like women’s rights, the Taliban’s return to power is nothing to celebrate. But those who actually have credibility when it comes to opposing the Taliban are local Afghan democratic socialist factions like the Progressive Democratic Party of Afghanistan and the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan (SPA). Though these parties unequivocally stand against the Taliban, they stand against the US occupation in the same way. In fact, the SPA boycotted the last election since it claims no one can get elected without US support.

    The US, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t have a shred of credibility when it comes to opposing the Taliban. Because just like the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the US created a problem that it ultimately couldn’t contain. Worst still, Washington then ended up using that problem to provide bogus justification for its self-serving foreign policies. It’s time to break this vicious cycle of interference begetting further interference.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – isafmedia

    By Peter Bolton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The historical vectors are moving with conviction and purpose; the weak and lacking in conviction are in retreat and the gun is doing the talking.  The government of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the security services and the Afghan National Army, seem to be either huddled in despair, capitulating or fleeing before the inexorable advance of the Taliban.  They have the upper hand, the cards, the means, storming through and winning half of the country.

    For months, it was assumed that the Taliban would not have the means to capture cities.  The National Army would be able to garrison and lord in the cities, offering protection.  In July, US President Joseph Biden claimed that, while he did not trust the Taliban, he did “trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- – more competent in terms of conducting war.”

    Then, the cities started falling. Kandahar, Ghazni, Herat.  On August 14, Taliban fighters captured Mazar-i-Sharif, finding itself ever closer to the capital.  Members of the Afghan army and security personnel had reportedly made a highway dash north to Uzbekistan.

    The US is hurriedly deploying 5,000 troops in an exercise of circularity, given that they were already leaving in numbers even prior to July 2.  As Biden tried to explain on August 14, the troops would ensure “we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel, and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance.”

    His statement, for the most part, was a spiritless effort to justify some continued role of the US in Afghanistan even as it cuts the cord to their corrupt clients in Kabul.  The Armed Forces and Intelligence Community had been “ordered” to keep an eye on “future terrorist threats from Afghanistan.”  Secretary State Anthony Blinken had been “directed to support President Ghani and other Afghan leaders” in their efforts to avoid “further bloodshed and pursue a political settlement.”  There was some finger wagging regarding the Taliban, warning that any military acts against US personnel or its mission would “be met with a swift and strong US military response.”

    Within the crumbling layers of the Kabul government, there is much quaking, shifting and internal bloodletting. As has been pointed out by Candace Rondeaux, “the greater threat to Afghanistan’s stability has always been the fecklessness of so many in positions of power in the Afghan government.”

    The defence minister Hayatullah Hayat has been given the heave-ho by Ghani, to be replaced by General Bismillah Khan Mohammadi on Wednesday.  Khan is a testament that current events in Afghanistan are always reminders of history: he was a former member of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, a body that was favoured by the now defunct Soviet Union.

    US forces find themselves again being drawn into the maelstrom.  There are the warnings, almost shrill, that forces must recommit, and decisions reversed.  Former CIA director General David Petraeus wishes for a proper re-deployment of troops to prevent the consignment of a “country of 40 million people to a medieval, theocratic, ultra-conservative Islamist emirate.”  The editors of the conservative National Review envisage the creation of a “launchpad of a global movement that had for years been kept at bay by the presence of US forces – most recently a small, relatively low-cost contingent”.

    Such sentiments are also being echoed in Britain, which is also sending 600 troops.  Conservative chairman of the Commons Foreign Select Committee Tom Tugendhat reminisced that, “We got to the point where the insurgent forces were outmatched and a standoff saw civic institutions grow.”  The chair of the Defence Select Committee, Tobias Ellwood, told the BBC that the UK “should really be reconsidering what’s going on”, warning that the withdrawal would precipitate a “massive humanitarian disaster” and permit terrorism to “raise its ugly head again”.

    This is charmless window dressing.  When chaos is spoken of in tones of panic, it is often forgotten how significant Washington’s own disruptive role has been.  The US continues its less than angelic streak in Afghanistan, funding cut throat militias – many co-opted by the Ghani government – for the simple vulgar purpose that they are against the Taliban.  (This is unlikely to change in the long term.)

    Characters such as the blood soaked Abdul Rashid Dostum, a notorious warlord who has had it all ways, promises to remain in the mix.  Last year, he felt that loyalty to the Ghani government needed some recognition.  His absurd promotion to the rank of marshal was considered fitting, and did nothing to hide a butcher’s record almost without peer.  With a crude Falstaffian wisdom, Dostum is a character who knows that cowardice is useful to draw upon when facing a losing cause.  As Taliban fighters made their way unopposed into Mazar-i-Sharif, he was fleeing to safety.

    A blind eye has been given to other militias who threaten to cause mischief in due course, a point which only serves to strengthen the Taliban’s cause.  One of them is Iran’s Shia Fatemiyoun militia.  In February 2020, Rahmatullah Nabil, head of Afghanistan’s intelligence agency through periods over the last decade, told Radio Free Europe that the Fatemiyoun did not pose an “immediate threat to Afghan national security”.  Call it what you will: having such agents milling about in the landscape does every little bit to add to the chaos so lamented by the commentariat.

    Any victory for the Taliban will be premised upon the fundamental failure of a rotten centre, the decay of which has been encouraged for years behind the mirage of development, the building of schools and women’s rights.  The pantomime that is Afghan governance has always existed on borrowed time.

    The Biden administration, short of reawakening a bloodlust to re-intervene, will let it be, subject to stints of interference from special forces, contractors and adventurers.  The intelligence community generationally obsessed with being in Afghanistan will continue to have the president’s ear, and hope to haunt him during the course of his sedated premiership. But not even they could prevent a moment of candour from Biden on Saturday.  “One more year, or five more years, of US military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country.”

    The post A Taste of Panic: The Taliban Continues its Advance first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    I love how everyone’s just pretending the Afghanistan Papers never happened and the Taliban takeover is some kind of shocking tragedy instead of the thing everyone knew would happen because they’ve been knowingly lying about working to create a stable government this entire time.

    If the US had a free press and was anything like a democracy, the government wouldn’t be getting away with squandering thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on a twenty-year war which accomplished literally nothing besides making assholes obscenely wealthy.

    Thousands of human lives. Trillions of dollars. If western mass media were anything remotely resembling what they purport to be, they would be making sure the public understands how badly their government just fucked them. Instead it’s just “Oh no, those poor Afghan women.”

    War apologists talk about “doing nothing” like that’s somehow worse than creating mountains of human corpses for power and profit. “We’ve got to DO SOMETHING about the Taliban! We can’t just do NOTHING!”

    Uhh, yes you can. Please for the love of God do nothing. Doing nothing would be infinitely better than more military interventionism in a nation you’ve already tortured for twenty years for no valid reason.

    People who think US interventionism solves problems just haven’t gone through the mountains upon mountains of evidence that it definitely definitely does not at all. Nobody honestly believes the US needs to invade every nation in the world with illiberal cultural values; they only think that way with Afghanistan due to war propaganda. And women’s lives in Afghanistan have still been shit under the occupation.

    They had twenty years to build a stable nation in Afghanistan. Twenty years. If you believe that’s what they were really trying to do there, or that results would be any different if you gave them twenty more, you’re a fucking moron.

    If you think the US needs to be in Afghanistan so the Taliban doesn’t take over then have some integrity and intellectual honesty and admit you want perpetual occupation. In which case you should be arguing for Afghan annexation so they get votes and congressional representation.

    The objection shouldn’t be that there was no “withdrawal plan”, it should be that there was no occupation plan. Nothing was done in those entire twenty years for the long-term benefit of Afghans. The entire plan was “Stay and plunder as much as we can until we feel like leaving.”

    And of course more than this we should be upset that the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan at all, killing hundreds of thousands of people for no legitimate reason.

    When all you’ve got is an insanely overfunded military every problem looks like a job for your insanely overfunded military.

    I am once again asking you to stop believing US military invasions have noble intentions.

    And stop blaming this on the “corrupt Afghan government”. There was no “Afghan government”; there was just whatever random Afghans happened to be willing to align with the occupying force that invaded their country while it was there. All blame rests entirely on that occupying force.

    Now would be a great time to un-rehabilitate public opinion of George W Bush.

    People who think the US military can be used for good remind me of that scene in Edward Scissorhands where he’s going around the house accidentally slashing things and then trying to fix them but he can’t fix them because he’s got horrible scissor hands that can only slash.

    Every time mass military murder fails to achieve good things the proponents of mass military murder show up saying “The problem is we didn’t murder enough people.”

    You’ll never see westerners so concerned about humanitarian issues as when there’s a chance some distant part of the world might not be subjected to military occupation by the most murderous power structure on earth.

    Oh no, the country is immediately returning to the state it was in before we started using mass military violence to force it to look a bit different for a while. That’s like dressing your kid up as Batman for Halloween and then getting sad the next day because Batman’s gone.

    Can’t figure out why Americans keep consenting to a government foreign policy of piracy and mass murder which is killing people by the millions via starvation and military violence. All that theft must be buying them awesome benefits like great healthcare and quality of life. Americans must be the happiest most thriving people in the world.

    So many movies depict young men coming home from World War 2 like “Howdy Ma, hey Pop, boy it’s great to be home, now I gotta go see about that girl!” instead of hollowed out husks who’d go on to live out miserable half-lives beating their children and trying to drink away their trauma.

    I still can’t get over how mainstream news stories about empire-targeted countries can be based entirely on reports by think tanks that are openly funded by weapons manufacturers. How is the fact that this is journalistic malpractice not obvious to everyone in the world?

    The international symbol for the United States should be the Pentagon. It’s far more representative of what that nation stands for and what it does than some flag or an eagle.

    War is the worst thing in the world. It’s the single most insane, destructive and unsustainable thing humans do. People who tell me I shouldn’t focus on it as much are people I just disregard, because they simply don’t grasp the horrific nature of war and the need to condemn it.

    Sure they could have just killed Assange. But then the message to journalists would’ve been “We’ll get you if you expose our crimes, but we’ll have to be sneaky about it,” which is less intimidating than “We’ll get you if you expose our crimes, and we’ll do it right in the open.”

    Western rightists are being trained to blame western civilization’s rising authoritarianism on “communism” and “Marxism”, and as a result they are reacting to anti-capitalists like myself with increasing shrillness and hysteria while the actual (very capitalist) authoritarians go unopposed.

    Just another regular reminder that there will never be peace and economic justice as long as the majority are successfully convinced by establishment propaganda that those things are not in their interest. The propaganda machine must first be discredited and rendered nonfunctioning.

    If you’ve got any urge to write articles or make videos or a podcast, just do it. You’re infinitely more qualified to be the media than people who are paid by billionaires to lie, and they’re not asking anyone for permission to speak. If Chris fucking Cuomo gets a voice, then so do you.

    You don’t have to be perfect or professional quality or whatever; hell, give yourself permission to outright suck at first if that’s how it plays out. Give yourself permission to not be perfect and just learn as you go and correct your mistakes as you make them. That’s allowed. Again, no matter how bad you are you’re still infinitely more qualified to report the news and tell the truth than any of the shitstains who are being platformed by multibillion-dollar media outlets right now, and whatever you make will be better than what they make. Just do it.

    Don’t stop if you don’t get a big audience right away, or if you never do. It’s not about that. If you can open even one person’s eyes to one aspect of reality, you are helping humanity to become a more conscious species by that much. That’s what it’s about. That’s what matters. And even if you don’t do that, fleshing out your ideas in some public medium is a great way to help yourself become aware of more things and deepen your own understanding, so you’re still improving humanity by that much. So no matter what happens you can’t lose.

    If we’re ever to turn things around it will be the result of a very large number of us grabbing a rope and tugging. You don’t have to be a megastar, you just have to do your bit. Start from there and see what happens.

    It’s impossible to be a truly good person without loosening your relationship with mental narrative. If you’re clinging tight to thoughts and beliefs you’re not able to relate to life as it is, you’re just relating to your own mental stories, so you can’t respond to life wisely.

    Les Miserables’ Inspector Javert is a perfect depiction of what goes wrong when you emphasise narrative over reality, in his case replacing true goodness with moralism, with shoulds and shouldn’ts and rules and laws instead of responding to life as it shows up like Valjean. In contrast to Javert, Valjean is able to recognize that Fantine’s plight was a result of his own negligence even though she shows up as a prostitute in trouble with the law. Because his eyes are open to life as it is, he’s able to exercise true compassion and help her and Cosette.

    People like Valjean are able to see through not just their own mental narratives, but the narratives that are imposed upon them externally by mass-scale propaganda. People like Javert will support every power agenda no matter how depraved, because they believe mental stories.

    Ego doesn’t make it out alive. One way or another, it’s a goner. It either dies by being seen through, or it takes us all out with it. The good news is that every single one of us gets to make that choice in every single moment.

    __________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • As a veteran of the war, and a journalist who has reported from the country, the endgame in Afghanistan is a bizarre and rather personal spectacle.

    To see generals and politicians who were involved in the disaster finger-pointing at each other, even as the UK deploys troops to evacuate the last remaining Britons, demeans the tragic human story of that country.

    The news of the rescue mission comes as the Taliban take territory at an alarming rate. The latest major city to fall is Kandahar, the insurgent group’s spiritual home. One report suggests that Kabul could fall within 90 days. Or perhaps even within a month.

    Nearer to home, the same sorts of people – and, in some cases, literally the same people – who oversaw the disaster for decades have picked out US president Joe Biden as the culprit.

    Biden’s decision to pull out, they claim, risks plunging the country into chaos.

    Finger pointing

    I am hardly a fan of Biden, who on matters of war is as imperialistic as a Bush, an Obama, a Trump, Blair or Cameron. But those protesting loudest are just as implicated.

    To name just a few, the finger-pointers include:

    All of them say the decision to pull out (albeit, of a place the west never had any right to occupy) is a terrible one for all concerned.

    General Richards also attacked the UK government. As did members of the Murdoch press, which supported the disastrous wars throughout. Among those levelling blame at the UK government is the Times‘ Tom Newton Dunn:

    But the truth is, it isn’t quite as simple as any of these figures want to suggest. They talk as if the decision that doomed Afghanistan was made in 2021. But the truth is that it is was made in 2001.

    Squandered peace

    As political hip-hop artist Lowkey has correctly pointed out, it never had to be this way. Way back in the beginning, the 20-year conflict could have been avoided. And with it hundreds of thousands of deaths. Including those of several people I knew personally.

    US journalist Spencer Ackerman, whose new book on the wars has just been released, makes a similar point:

    Remember that the Taliban offered terms in December 2001. Donald Rumsfeld rejected them. Everything that followed made the Taliban stronger.

    Elsewhere, NATO, which officially oversaw the US-led occupation for most of the 20-year period, announced that leaders would meet Friday to discuss the crisis. And in London, a Cabinet Office Briefing Room (better known as ‘Cobra’) meeting of senior ministers and military figures was announced for 13 August

    Unfolding disaster

    Amid the chaos, it seems likely the rescue party of troops will be from the Parachute Regiment. That’s ironic given that the unit’s deployment in 2006 led to years of fighting in Helmand province – the location where most of the UK’s 456 deaths occurred. I remember it well. I deployed with 16 Air Assault Brigade that spring.

    What’s missing among the finger pointing is a little honesty about the events of that period. That deployment was neither necessary nor wise. Before 2006, the Taliban were a spent force. Their leadership had mostly fled to Pakistan – an ally of the UK and US whose intelligence services consistently support the Taliban to this day.

    I have no doubts that that deployment – codenamed Operation Herrick – led us to this point. Our presence there became a lighting rod for an insurgency which previously had not existed. And it set the pattern for the following years, energising locals against our unwanted presence.

    And I am aware today that the reasoning behind the 2006 deployment was deeply hubristic: the British had failed in Iraq in American eyes. This left the British desperate for another theatre in which to prove their usefulness to the US. Helmand, with horrific results, was that opportunity.

    And, as fate would have it, the army brigade which lobbied successfully for a new deployment was my own. Within months what was framed as a peacekeeping-style operation had turned into a brutal counter-insurgency war.

    Blame

    This background, just one of the important details missing from the analysis of people like Richards, Tugendhat and Stewart, is key to understanding how we got here.

    Their arguments for pulling out being a bad idea forget to mention that we never had any right to be there in the first place.

    Their disingenuous appeal to humanitarian ideals ignores the fact that the UK isn’t in the business of morality when it comes to international affairs.

    And their placing blame on particular governments or leaders skips over the fact that they themselves were happy to be key players in the disaster which is unfolding today.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Sgt Steve Blake RLC.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A round-up of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Thailand to Mexico

    Continue reading…

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

  • The Pentagon announced Thursday that the US is sending 3,000 US soldiers and Marines into Afghanistan with the ostensible mission of securing US diplomatic facilities in Kabul and organizing the evacuation of American civilians. Britain is sending 600 soldiers for the same purpose. The US deployment of one Army and two Marine infantry battalions has been ordered as the lightning offensive of the Taliban—and the unmitigated rout of the US-backed Afghan security forces—has steadily tightened a noose around the Afghan capital.

    The collapse of security forces loyal to the US puppet regime in Kabul accelerated exponentially on Thursday with the Associated Press reporting the Taliban’s conquest of Afghanistan’s second largest city, Kandahar, in the south.

    The post US Sending 3,000 Troops To Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Taliban claim to have seized 17 provincial capitals across Afghanistan, including Kandahar and Herat, the country’s second- and third-largest cities, as the group continues its sweep through the country. The Taliban now have almost full control of the south, west and north of Afghanistan and are advancing on the capital Kabul, where the United States is preparing to evacuate its embassy in case of a Taliban defeat of the Afghan government. The sudden and dramatic Taliban gains come as the U.S. withdraws its ground troops from Afghanistan after nearly two decades of war, with aid groups warning of a humanitarian crisis unfolding. Since January, nearly 400,000 have been displaced. Over 1,000 civilians have been killed or injured in fighting over the past month. “The Taliban is making very bold moves in their attempt for a military takeover,” says Afghan journalist Lotfullah Najafizada, director of TOLOnews. He warns that a Taliban victory would threaten the tenuous gains for civil society and press freedoms over the past 20 years, saying there needs to be international pressure for a political solution to the fighting. “The cloud of uncertainty is over Afghanistan,” says Najafizada.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has seized at least 17 provincial capitals, including Kandahar and Herat, the country’s second- and third-largest cities. The Taliban now has almost full control of the south, west and north of Afghanistan. Earlier today, the Taliban seized the capital of Logar province, the city of Puli Alam, which is about 50 miles from Kabul. Taliban’s sweeping offensive comes as the United States is pulling out its troops after nearly 20 years in Afghanistan — the longest war in U.S. history. On Thursday, Biden officials announced that the United States is sending 3,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to help evacuate U.S. Embassy staff in Kabul. Britain and Canada are also sending in new troops. State Department spokesperson Ned Price spoke Thursday.

    NED PRICE: This is not abandonment. This is not an evacuation. This is not the wholesale withdrawal. What this is is a reduction in the size of our civilian footprint. This is a drawdown of civilian Americans, who will, in many cases, be able to perform their important functions elsewhere, whether that’s in the United States or elsewhere in the region. So, the message shouldn’t be — the implications of this shouldn’t be outsized.

    AMY GOODMAN: Aid groups are warning of a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan as tens of thousands flee their homes to escape the Taliban. The United Nations says more than a quarter of a million people have been displaced since the militants began their assault in May. Over 1,000 casualties have been reported in fighting over the past month. On Thursday, Pakistani forces clashed with hundreds of Afghans stranded at the border between the two countries after they fled the Taliban offensive.

    FAIZ REHMAT: [translated] There are sick people here, as well as travelers. The travelers have spent all the money they had. All of it. They’re stranded here, taking refuge under trees or under vehicles. There are too many difficulties here.

    AMY GOODMAN: Aid groups are warning of a humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations, again, says more than a quarter of a million people have been displaced. And again, over 1,000 casualties have been reported in the last month. We talked about Pakistani forces clashing with hundreds of Afghans at the border. On Thursday, after talks in Doha, the United States, China and other nations issued a call for an immediate peace process and an end to the fighting. The Afghan government has reportedly offered a power-sharing proposal with the Taliban. Meanwhile, the United States is threatening to cut off future aid if the Taliban attacks the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

    We go now to Kabul, where we’re joined by Lotfullah Najafizada. He’s the director of TOLOnews, a 24-hour news channel based in Kabul, Afghanistan.

    Thanks so much for joining us. With this latest news of the Taliban capturing Kandahar, following Herat, can you talk about the significance of these latest events, and what’s happening overall in Afghanistan?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: I think these two major cities, including Ghazni, including Lashkar Gah, falling into Taliban hands in just a few hours is a significant, significant loss for the Afghan government. That means the Taliban is making very bold moves in their attempt for a military takeover. I think they’re getting closer to Kabul.

    As you describe, the humanitarian crisis is unfolding. There are thousands of Afghans who have come to Kabul from the provinces, and that’s really, really alarming. The cloud of uncertainty is over Afghanistan. The visibility for what’s going to happen past 24 hours isn’t there. I think the Afghan people have never seen something like this in the past 20 years.

    AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the U.S. now sending in 3,000 more troops, sending back to where you are, in Kabul, they say, to help evacuate embassy staff, and then the Canadians and British following suit?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: That’s very clear that they come here to evacuate their staff, their embassy people. I’m not sure if that is helping with the situation.

    I think what we need immediately right now is ceasefire, is an emergency meeting at the U.N. Security Council, is an understanding with regional countries that there has to be a political compromise as soon as possible, in a few days. And that should include compromise on the Afghan government’s side, on the Taliban side, more importantly, who are seeming to be not very welcoming, as well as, of course, pressure put on countries like Pakistan.

    AMY GOODMAN: What does Pakistan exactly have to do with it, your understanding?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: I think Pakistan had a lot of leverage that it could use over the past few years as we were discussing with the Taliban a political solution to the crisis. I think Pakistanis, they claim that they have done enough, but they said that they could — under no circumstances, they can go after the Taliban bases inside Pakistan militarily. So, if you rule out — if you rule out your most important option or leverage, then that means you’re not doing enough. So I think that opportunity is lost.

    But I think what can be done is that for the Afghan government and the Taliban, with mediation of the U.N. and the U.S., to see if they can reach some sort of a reduction in violence or ceasefire immediately. As you said, so many civilian casualties, so many destructions, so many Afghans leaving. That has to be stopped in order to prevent collapse of the country.

    It’s not just Taliban taking over Afghanistan from the Afghan government. I think it’s about unrolling all of the achievements we have made in the past 20 years. With Taliban taking over Kabul, if that happens, we don’t know if media channels are going to be there. All TV stations and radio stations and newspapers have shut down their operation in places the Taliban have taken control, including Kandahar, including Herat, yesterday. So, we know what Taliban’s takeover is bringing with itself to the rest of the country.

    AMY GOODMAN: Have shut down or have been shut down?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: They have been shut down. They have — since yesterday, I think they started seizing their operation, and media staff have not shown up at work.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, in the last weeks, you have the bombing outside the defense minister’s house in Kabul. You have the killing of the spokesperson for the president of Afghanistan, someone you must have been familiar with since you’re a journalist and he’s the spokesperson. How are you preparing in Kabul, as you talk about the shutting down of news organizations? And what do you think is the timeline for Kabul now? The U.S. government was saying one to three months; some are now saying under a month.

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: Well, I hope — I hope that we’re not going to come to that option. I mean, that’s my hope. And I hope that we don’t have to be able — we’re not forced to stop our operation, and journalists should be able to continue their work, not just in Kabul, but in the provinces. So, I can’t really put a time on when Kabul will fall, but I think the possibility is there, especially after the collapse of Kandahar and Herat yesterday.

    AMY GOODMAN: Nearly a quarter of a million people have been internally displaced since May alone. On Wednesday, internally displaced Afghans set up makeshift camps in Kabul, in a Kabul park, after being forced out of their homes by Taliban fighters. This is an Afghan woman who fled, Zar Begum.

    ZAR BEGUM: [translated] Taliban militants forcibly evicted me at gunpoint, killed my sons and forcibly married my daughters-in-law. They forcibly took three or four girls from each house and married them. We had to leave.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the displaced people, and also specifically the plight of women and girls, Lotfullah?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: I think in one of these camps just north of Kabul, we heard that there were — children died because they had no access to powder milk. And in one of the parks which is closer to where I am right now, you see thousands of people living in a very, very miserable condition. I think that can also — I mean, that face of the city, I haven’t seen for many, many years. So, it’s really, really striking to see that the number of IDPs is growing. Let’s not forget that these are people coming from the far provinces. But once Kabul is further surrounded, there is going to be more coming from the districts around Kabul, so the city will definitely become a large hub for internally displaced people.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, you have, on Wednesday, the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan saying that Taliban told him that the Taliban will refuse to negotiate as long as Ashraf Ghani remains president, the Taliban saying it wants to be recognized as the legitimate leadership of Afghanistan. Let me go to this clip.

    PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN: The Taliban senior leadership came here, and we tried to persuade them to come to some sort of a political settlement. The only thing that would stop Afghanistan from descending into anarchy is a political settlement. But, unfortunately, the Taliban, when they were here, they felt that they would not — they refused to talk to Ashraf Ghani. Their condition is that as long as Ashraf Ghani is there, we are not going to talk to the Afghan government.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. Lotfullah, the significance of what he’s saying?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: I hope that — I mean, that is really Pakistan’s and Taliban’s statement. If that is just a precondition for talking, that’s not good enough. If that is a precondition for peace, for ceasefire, for guaranteeing a political settlement, then I think the Afghan leadership should seriously think about that. So, I don’t want to defend contamination of President Ashraf Ghani’s term, because the government is really, really becoming very limited, but I think Afghans should ask themselves one question: that if Ghani leaves, what are we going to get in return? A meeting with the Taliban or peace?

    AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Lotfullah, again, we’ve spoken to you a few times, once after a member of your staff — and you have had a few — have been killed. If you could comment further on how you are preparing right now, living and working in and covering Kabul, Afghanistan, and the whole country at TOLOnews?

    LOTFULLAH NAJAFIZADA: I spend a lot of time talking to my colleagues every day, including today, which is Friday, a day off, on what should we do to continue our work, what are our options, to hear their concerns, concerns of their family members. I think that is a common story of every Afghan right now.

    But what we — I think what we should do is to make sure and try our best to keep press freedom, free media, part of the Afghan society, because this is really, as you said, a very hard-won gain. You know, we have come here with so much prices that we have paid and sacrifices that we have made over the years, including 11 colleagues of mine who have been killed just in the past five years.

    AMY GOODMAN: Lotfullah Najafizada, I thank you so much for being with us, director of TOLOnews, the 24-hour news channel based in Kabul, Afghanistan. Stay safe.

    Coming up, we go to Mexico, where a drug cartel has threatened to murder a prominent news anchor. It hasn’t stopped her from speaking out. We’ll have more. Stay with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: “Seneca” by Patti Smith. She’ll be performing at a massive “We Love New York City: Homecoming Concert” with Bruce Springsteen and many others on August 21st in Central Park.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As horror stories emerge from areas that have fallen to the Islamist militants, women living alone fear they have no route of escape

    There’s an old saying in Afghanistan that encapsulates the country’s views on divorce: “A woman only leaves her father’s house in the white bridal clothes, and she can only return in the white shrouds.”

    In this deeply conservative and patriarchal society, women who defy convention and seek divorce are often disowned by their families and shunned by Afghan society. Left alone, they have to fight for basic rights, such as renting an apartment, which require the involvement or guarantees of male relatives.

    As provinces and cities fall under Taliban control across Afghanistan, women’s voices are already being silenced. For this special series, the Guardian’s Rights and freedom project has partnered with Rukhshana Media, a collective of female journalists across Afghanistan, to bring their stories of how the escalating crisis is affecting the lives of women and girls to a global audience.

    I left my family with only the clothes I was wearing. I got into a taxi to Kabul and never looked back

    Related: ‘I worry my daughters will never know peace’: women flee the Taliban – again

    ​Now more than ever, Afghan women need a platform to speak for themselves. As the Taliban’s return haunts Afghanistan, the survival of Rukhshana Media depends on ​readers’ help.​ To continue reporting​ ​over ​the next crucial year, ​it is trying to raise $20,000.​ If you can help, go to ​this crowdfunding page.

    Continue reading…

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

  • American flag is lowered as U.S. soldiers leave Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, May 2, 2021. Photo: Afghan Ministry of Defense Press Office.

    Nine provincial capitals in Afghanistan have fallen to the Taliban in six days – Zaranj, Sheberghan, Sar-e-Pul, Kunduz, Taloqan, Aybak, Farah, Pul-e-Khumri and Faizabad – while fighting continues in four more – Lashkargah, Kandahar, Herat & Mazar-i-Sharif. U.S. military officials now believe Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, could fall in one to three months.

    It is horrific to watch the death, destruction and mass displacement of thousands of terrified Afghans and the triumph of the misogynist Taliban that ruled the nation 20 years ago. But the fall of the centralized, corrupt government propped up by the Western powers was inevitable, whether this year, next year or ten years from now.

    President Biden has reacted to America’s snowballing humiliation in the graveyard of empires by once again dispatching U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to Doha to urge the government and the Taliban to seek a political solution, while at the same time dispatching B-52 bombers to attack at least two provincial capitals.

    In Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand province, the U.S. bombing has already reportedly destroyed a high school and a health clinic. Another B-52 bombed Sheberghan, the capital of Jowzjan province and the home of the infamous warlord and accused war criminal Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is now the military commander of the U.S.-backed government’s armed forces.

    Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that U.S. Reaper drones and AC-130 gunships are also still operating in Afghanistan.

    The rapid disintegration of the Afghan forces that the U.S. and its Western allies have recruited, armed and trained for 20 years at a cost of about $90 billion should come as no surprise. On paper, the Afghan National Army has 180,000 troops, but in reality most are unemployed Afghans desperate to earn some money to support their families but not eager to fight their fellow Afghans. The Afghan Army is also notorious for its corruption and mismanagement.

    The army and the even more beleaguered and vulnerable police forces that man isolated outposts and checkpoints around the country are plagued by high casualties, rapid turnover and desertion. Most troops feel no loyalty to the corrupt U.S.-backed government and routinely abandon their posts, either to join the Taliban or just to go home.

    When the BBC asked General Khoshal Sadat, the national police chief, about the impact of high casualties on police recruitment in February 2020, he cynically replied, “When you look at recruitment, I always think about the Afghan families and how many children they have. The good thing is there is never a shortage of fighting-age males who will be able to join the force.”

    But a police recruit at a checkpoint questioned the very purpose of the war, telling the BBC’s Nanna Muus Steffensen, “We Muslims are all brothers. We don’t have a problem with each other.” In that case, she asked him, why were they fighting? He hesitated, laughed nervously and shook his head in resignation. “You know why. I know why,” he said. “It’s not really our fight.”

    Since 2007, the jewel of U.S. and Western military training missions in Afghanistan has been the Afghan Commando Corps or special operations forces, who comprise only 7% of Afghan National Army troops but reportedly do 70 to 80% of the fighting. But the Commandos have struggled to reach their target of recruiting, arming and training 30,000 troops, and poor recruitment from Pashtuns, the largest and traditionally dominant ethnic group, has been a critical weakness, especially from the Pashtun heartland in the South.

    The Commandos and the professional officer corps of the Afghan National Army are dominated by ethnic Tajiks, effectively the successors to the Northern Alliance that the U.S. supported against the Taliban 20 years ago. As of 2017, the Commandos numbered only 16,000 to 21,000, and it is not clear how many of these Western-trained troops now serve as the last line of defense between the U.S.-backed puppet government and total defeat.

    The Taliban’s speedy and simultaneous occupation of large amounts of territory all over the country appears to be a deliberate strategy to overwhelm and outflank the government’s small number of well-trained, well-armed troops. The Taliban have had more success winning the loyalty of minorities in the North and West than government forces have had recruiting Pashtuns from the South, and the government’s small number of well-trained troops cannot be everywhere at once.

    But what of the United States? Its deployment of B-52 bombers, Reaper drones and AC-130 gunships are a brutal response by a failing, flailing imperial power to a historic, humiliating defeat.

    The United States does not flinch from committing mass murder against its enemies. Just look at the U.S.-led destruction of Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria. How many Americans even know about the officially-sanctioned massacre of civilians that Iraqi forces committed when the U.S.-led coalition finally took control of Mosul in 2017, after President Trump said it should “take out the families” of Islamic State fighters?

    Twenty years after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed a full range of war crimes, from torture and the deliberate killing of civilians to the “supreme international crime” of aggression, Biden is clearly no more concerned than they were with criminal accountability or the judgment of history. But even from the most pragmatic and callous point of view, what can continued aerial bombardment of Afghan cities accomplish, besides a final but futile climax to the 20-year-long U.S. slaughter of Afghans by over 80,000 American bombs and missiles?

    The intellectually and strategically bankrupt U.S. military and CIA bureaucracy has a history of congratulating itself for fleeting, superficial victories. It quickly declared victory in Afghanistan in 2001 and set out to duplicate its imagined conquest in Iraq. Then the short-lived success of their 2011 regime change operation in Libya encouraged the United States and its allies to turn Al Qaeda loose in Syria, spawning a decade of intractable violence and chaos and the rise of the Islamic State.

    In the same manner, Biden’s unaccountable and corrupt national security advisors seem to be urging him to use the same weapons that obliterated the Islamic State’s urban bases in Iraq and Syria to attack Taliban-held cities in Afghanistan.

    But Afghanistan is not Iraq or Syria. Only 26% of Afghans live in cities, compared with 71% in Iraq and 54% in Syria, and the Taliban’s base is not in the cities but in the rural areas where the other three quarters of Afghans live. Despite support from Pakistan over the years, the Taliban are not an invading force like Islamic State in Iraq but an Afghan nationalist movement that has fought for 20 years to expel foreign invasion and occupation forces from their country.

    In many areas, Afghan government forces have not fled from the Taliban, as the Iraqi Army did from the Islamic State, but joined them. On August 9th, the Taliban occupied Aybak, the sixth provincial capital to fall, after a local warlord and his 250 fighters agreed to join forces with the Taliban and the governor of Samangan province handed the city over to them.

    That very same day, the Afghan government’s chief negotiator, Abdullah Abdullah, returned to Doha for further peace talks with the Taliban. His American allies must make it clear to him and his government, and to the Taliban, that the United States will fully support every effort to achieve a more peaceful political transition.

    But the United States must not keep bombing and killing Afghans to provide cover for the U.S.-backed puppet government to avoid difficult but necessary compromises at the negotiating table to bring peace to the incredibly long-suffering, war-weary people of Afghanistan. Bombing Taliban-occupied cities and the people who live in them is a savage and criminal policy that President Biden must renounce.

    The defeat of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan now seems to be unfolding even faster than the collapse of South Vietnam between 1973 and 1975 The public takeaway from the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia was the “Vietnam syndrome,” an aversion to overseas military interventions that lasted for decades.

    As we approach the 20-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we should reflect on how the Bush administration exploited the U.S. public’s thirst for revenge to unleash this bloody, tragic and utterly futile 20-year war.

    The lesson of America’s experience in Afghanistan should be a new “Afghanistan syndrome,” a public aversion to war that prevents future U.S. military attacks and invasions, rejects attempts to socially engineer the governments of other nations and leads to a new and active American commitment to peace, diplomacy and disarmament.

    The post Biden Must Call Off the B-52s Bombing Afghan Cities first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    US officials are telling the press that Kabul will fall to the Taliban within 90 days and perhaps within the month as US troops withdraw from the war-torn nation.

    “One official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the issue’s sensitivity, said Tuesday that the U.S. military now assesses a collapse could occur within 90 days. Others said it could happen within a month,” reports The Washington Post. “Some officials said that although they were not authorized to discuss the assessment, they see the situation in Afghanistan as more dire than it was in June, when intelligence officials assessed a fall could come as soon as six months after the withdrawal of the U.S. military.”

    Meanwhile the US is still raining down explosives and murdering Afghan civilians to temporarily slow the inevitable Taliban takeover long enough for the Biden administration to have its ridiculous 9/11 “victory” party. Biden has said the US will continue providing “air support” (imperialist for bombing campaigns) to the Afghan government, for however long that government exists.

    This is an unforgivable outrage that cries out to the heavens for vengeance. Not the Taliban takeover; that was always the inevitable result of letting Afghanistan be controlled by Afghans. I’m talking about the invasion and 20-year occupation of that nation by the US and its allies.

    It is only by the most aggressive narrative management and journalistic malpractice that people around the world are not calling for the heads of the architects of this occupation. For twenty years the world was systematically lied to that the US coalition was building a government and military that could stand on its own, and that this goal was right around the corner and just needs a little more time. Now it’s crunch time, and we learn that what they’ve been building in Afghanistan this entire time was a fake movie set made of cardboard.

    The cost of that fake movie set? More than two trillion dollars, and hundreds of thousands of human lives.

    This should be an international scandal for which scores of people should be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. More than this, every military which participated in this unforgivable crime should have its budget slashed to a tiny fraction of what it is.

    A military which can afford to spend trillions of dollars on a devastating 20-year war which accomplished literally nothing besides making war profiteers fabulously rich is a military which needs its budget slashed to ribbons. Clearly if Pentagon officials can waste such unfathomably vast fortunes lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex to the benefit of not one single ordinary American, they do not need anything like the obscenely bloated military budget the United States currently has.

    Just thinking about the things those two trillion dollars could have been spent on instead, like fully ending both homelessness and child poverty in the United States, for example, should make Americans howl with rage. Hell, spending two trillion dollars building a useless brick mountain in the middle of the Mojave Desert would’ve been an infinitely better use of that money than murdering hundreds of thousands of people with US troops dying by the thousands and wounded by the tens of thousands. That last bit alone should have every military family member marching on Washington and Arlington today.

    The US government is the single most tyrannical regime on this planet, without exception. It has killed millions and displaced tens of millions just since the turn of this century, solely in its wars that are still currently happening, all in the name of power and profit and destroying anyone who disobeys its dictates. Anyone who cares about humanity should place the defanging of this horrific monster at the very forefront of their values.

    ________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Baseer Hotak, Helmand,

    The Taliban advancements for capturing the cities and gain the power continued in Afghanistan. Dozens of journalists have been killed in various incidents in Afghanistan since 2018. War torn country is the most dangerous for Journalist, the government and the Taliban both imprisonments Journalists.

    Voice of Paktia radio producer Toofan Omeri was shot dead along with his companion on the Parwan-Kabul highway while returning to Kabul from Bagram district of Parwan province. Omeri was also worked for the Kabul Attorney General’s Office. Last year Tofan Omeri brother’s Zahal Omeri, was also shot dead in Kabul.

    The war escalates by Taliban, ongoing uncertainty and weakens rule of law has created terror among citizens, this situation of Afghanistan have lot of concerns among local journalists.

    On the other end, Lashkar-Gah, the capital of southern Helmand province, a local journalist Naimatullah Himmat was abducted from Gharghasht radio and television channel and transferred him to an unknown location.

    A member of the Afghan Journalists Safety Committee, Zainullah Iss-tanakzai, said he had contacted Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid to rescue abducted journalist, but so far no progress had been made.

    Afghan journalists’ organizations have expressed deep concerns over both incidents. The Kabul Press Club, the Journalists’ Safety Committee, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Information Party have called on the government to immediately arrest the killers of the slain journalist and release the abducted journalist safely.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Afghanistan,

    Taliban enter Zaranj, the capital of the southwestern province of Nimroz, and captured the provincial governor’s house.

    Former spokesman of President Ashraf Ghani and head of Afghan government media cell Dawa Khan Mina Pal was killed in a firing incident in the capital Kabul.

    Taliban have reportedly captured the capital city of Nimroz, Zaranj, at 12 noon local time, without any resistance. Nimroz is the first province in southwest of the country where Taliban have managed to take control after three months of fierce attacks. After capturing the city, Taliban advancements towards the provincial governor’s house. Members of the security forces and provincial agencies had left Zaranj.

    According to reports, workers from various agencies, including government security and defence personal, had entered neighboring Iran before the Taliban arrived on Zaranj. Videos circulated on social media shows that security and government personals crossing the border into neighboring Iran in dozens of vehicles.

    On the other end, after the fall of government control over Nimroz and capturing by Taliban, a series of looting of equipment in various government institutions in the capital has begun. Even before this, in some areas of the country where government control was lost, complaints and incidents of looting have been reported in various institutions and private households. Some videos show armed men looting various items, while children and civilians can be seen as same.

    Civilians in Nimroz have called the looting a dangerous act and reacted strongly to the corrupt provincial administration handing over the province to the Taliban without resistance. According to citizens, the provincial officials of Nimroz were corrupt people and this was the reason they fled.

    There are no reports of Nimroz Governor Karim Brahui or other provincial officials weather they were killed or alive.

    On the other end, a former spokesman for President Ashraf Ghani and head of the Afghan government media cell, Dawa Khan Mena Pal died in firing in the Darulaman area west of the capital Kabul on Friday. Mina Pal hailed from the southern province of Helmand and by profession he was a journalist.


    President Ashraf Ghani, the head of the Reconciliation Commission, Dr. Abdullah, and other members of the government have expressed regret over the killing of Dawa Khan Mina Pal, calling it tantamount to killing the media person.

    Taliban has claimed responsibility for the killing of head of the government’s media cell
    Dawa Khan Mina Paul.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • As the United Nations Security Council holds an emergency session to discuss the crisis in Afghanistan, we speak with Polk Award-winning journalist Matthieu Aikins, who is based in Kabul. The Taliban have been seizing territory for months as U.S. troops withdraw from the country, and the group is now on the verge of taking several provincial capitals. “In the 13 years I’ve been working here, I’ve never seen a situation as grim,” says Aikins.

    Please check back later for full transcript.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In May, the HBO television network aired a new two-part documentary exploring America’s ongoing opioid epidemic entitled The Crime of the Century. The first episode summarized the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the crisis, specifically that of Sackler family drug-maker Purdue Pharma and its deadly prescription painkiller, OxyContin. Part One also thoroughly investigates the complicity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the deceptive marketing by the drug company to obtain U.S. government approval for oxycodone despite its high risk of abuse and dependency, just as the pharmaceutical lobby bribes lawmakers in Washington. Later, the second half of the series charts the current rising use of even more powerful synthetic opioids like fentanyl. During COVID-19, the number of fatal overdoses have reportedly spiked in an epidemic already estimated to be taking nearly 50,000 lives per year. The HBO production is one of a slew of recent films such as Netflix’s The Pharmacist and The Young Turks’ The Oxy Kingpins which highlight the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry but omit discussion of a related issue that has become taboo for media to even mention. While the film’s scathing indictment of Big Pharma is certainly relevant, it unfortunately neglects to address another enormous but lesser-known factor in America’s escalating drug problem.

    Corporate media would have us believe it is simply fortuitous that during the exact time opioid overdose deaths in the U.S. began to increase in the early 2000s, the so-called War on Terror began with the conquest and plundering of a country abroad that has since become the world’s epicenter for opium production. By the end of August, American combat forces are scheduled to fully withdraw from Afghanistan shortly before the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that preceded the October 2001 invasion and subsequent two decade occupation. Contrary to the spin put on the announcement by the Biden administration, the pledge to finally remove troops from the longest war in U.S. history was actually yet another postponement, as the Trump administration had previously agreed with the Taliban to a complete draw-down by May. Time will tell whether the new deadline is Washington kicking the can down the road again in the endless war, but the withdrawal has already drawn criticism from the bipartisan foreign policy establishment with former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice voicing their objections to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Unfortunately for the Beltway chicken hawks, polls show an increasingly war-weary American public are unanimously in support of the move, which is little wonder given they have endured a silent epidemic that can be partly traced back to the conflict-ridden nation.

    Even though the FDA approved OxyContin six years before the U.S. took control of the South Central Asian country, an increase in domestic heroin overdoses has been intertwined with the uptick in abuse of commonly prescribed and man-made opioids which have become gateway drugs to the morphium-derived opiate in the new millennium. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has become the globe’s leading narco-state under NATO occupation which accounts for more than 90% of global opium production that is used to make heroin and other narcotics. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), poppy cultivation in the Islamic Republic increased by 37% last year alone. At the same time, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that heroin use in the U.S. more than doubled among young adults in the last ten years, while 45% of heroin users were said to be hooked on prescription opioid painkillers as well. Yet the impression one gets from mainstream media is that the vast majority of smack on America’s streets is coming solely from Mexican cartels, a statistical impossibility based on the scale of the U.S. user demand in proportion to the amount of hectares produced in Latin America, when the majority is inevitably being sourced from a country its own military has colonized for two decades.

    The predominant narrative is that the illegal trade is the Taliban’s primary source of income financing its insurgency which has put the Pashtun-based group in nearly as strong a position today as it was prior to its overthrow when it presided over three quarters of the country. While the newly rebranded movement’s bloody and intolerant history cannot be whitewashed, one would have no idea that the lowest period in the previous thirty years for Afghan opium growth was actually under the five-year reign of the Islamists who strictly forbid poppy farming a year before the U.S. takeover, though it is claimed they were merely deceiving the international community. Nevertheless, where opium harvesting really flourished preceding the NATO invasion was under the border lands controlled by the Northern Alliance, the same coalition of warlords and tribes later armed by the C.I.A. to oust the Taliban, while United Nations observers even acknowledged the success of the Sharia-based ban until its ouster.

    Beginning in 2001, Afghanistan was instantly transformed into the chief global heroin supplier entering Turkey through the Balkans into the European Union and via Tajikistan eastward into Russia, China and beyond. In the midst of the U.S. exit, there is a general agreement that the days are numbered for the Kabul government as the Taliban continue to make gains. Still, the question remains — if the self-described Islamic Emirate and its asymmetric warfare is to blame for the opium boom, then where on earth did the billions NATO allocated for its counter-narcotics strategy go? Even in the rare instances when major news outlets have reported on the U.S. military’s non-intervention policy toward opium farming with American marines suspiciously under orders to turn a blind eye to the poppy fields, the yellow press simply refuses to connect the dots. Under the smokescreen of supposedly protecting the only means of subsistence for the impoverished locals, NATO forces are in reality safeguarding the lethal product lining the pockets of the Afghan government. Why else would the Western coalition continue to overlook the Taliban’s main source of revenue if it is only the Pashtun nationalists who profit?

    In reality, it was under the initial post-Taliban regime of President Hamid Karzai where drug exports began to surge as the very regime installed by the Bush administration shielded the unlawful trade from its cosmetic prohibition effort. Even though voter fraud was rampant during both the 2004 and 2009 Afghan elections, Karzai was championed as the country’s first “democratically-elected” leader while receiving tens of millions in behind the scenes payments from the Central Intelligence Agency. A longtime Western asset, Karzai had previously raised funds in neighboring Pakistan for the anti-communist mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet War in the 1980s. Not only did the ranks of the Islamic ‘holy warriors’ armed and funded in the C.I.A.’s Operation Cyclone program include Karzai and the eventual core of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda — including Osama bin Laden himself — but it is also well established the jihadists were deeply immersed in drug smuggling as the U.S. looked the other way. The late, great historian William Blum wrote:

    CIA-supported mujahideen rebels engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting the Soviet-supported government, which had plans to reform Afghan society. The Agency’s principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading drug lords and the biggest heroin refiner, who was also the largest recipient of CIA military support. CIA-supplied trucks and mules that had carried arms into Afghanistan were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The output provided up to one-half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug operation because of a desire not to offend their Pakistani and Afghan allies. In 1993, an official of the DEA dubbed Afghanistan the new Colombia of the drug world.

    As maintained by the UNODC, the heroin flooding out of Afghanistan and Central Asia into Western Europe passes through the Balkan route consisting of the independent ex-Yugoslav states, together with Albania and the partially-recognized protectorate of Kosovo. Not coincidentally, this transit corridor largely began to swell with narcotraffic proceeding the NATO war on Yugoslavia in the 1990s, especially in the wake of the Kosovo conflict which saw the Clinton administration shore up the Al Qaeda-linked Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) to secede the disputed province from Serbia. Even with their previous State Department designation as a terrorist organization until 1998, the Islamist militants were given an instant facelift as freedom fighters. Apart from the fact that the ethnic Albanian separatists had considerable ties to Salafist extremist networks, the C.I.A.-backed Kosovar insurgents also subsidized their military campaign, which involved serious war crimes and ethnic cleansing, through narcoterrorism and drug running with Albanian crime syndicates — in above all, heroin. As journalist Diana Johnstone writes inFools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions:

    The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and other Western agencies were well aware of the close links between the UCK/KLA and the Kosovo Albanian drug traffickers controlling the main flow of heroin into Western Europe from Afghanistan via Turkey. The CIA has a long record of considering such groups as assets against governments targeted by the United States, whether in Southeast Asia, Africa or Central America.

    Shortly after the Red Army retreated in 1989, Afghanistan became one of the world’s top opium producers for the first time throughout the next decade until Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar issued a fatwa against the lucrative crop in 2000. When the comprador Karzai assumed office the very next year, another family figure emerged as a key coalition ally in the country’s south — younger half-brother Ahmed Wali Karzai — who was appointed to govern poppy-rich Kandahar Province until his assassination in 2011. Just a year earlier, it was revealed by WikiLeaks embassy cables that Washington was well aware the younger Karzai was a corrupt drug lord, not long after The New York Times divulged his key role in the opium trade while simultaneously on the C.I.A. payroll. Even though this partial hangout was publicized by the Old Gray Lady, the newspaper of record never bothered to further investigate the links between Langley and the Karzai family’s deep pockets from the drug market. Instead, they continued to craft the misleading perception that taxes on poppy farming within Taliban-held areas was chiefly responsible for the illegal industry dominating the Afghan economy and fueling the never-ending war that Washington has a vested interest in prolonging.

    Many commentators have drawn parallels between the recent disorganized abandonment of Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan, and the final evacuation of American combat troops from South Vietnam during the Fall (Liberation) of Saigon in 1975. The mountainous country situated at the intersection of Central and South Asia along with Pakistan and (to a lesser extent) Iran comprises what is known as the ‘Golden Crescent’, one of two main hubs of opium turnout on the continent. In the Vietnam era, most of the globe’s heroin came from the other major axis of poppy-plant growth in the ‘Golden Triangle’ of Southeast Asia located at the border junction between Thailand, Laos and Myanmar. This crossroads continued to be the largest region for harvesting of the flower until the early 21st century when Afghanistan surpassed it in out-turn. While there has yet to be revealed a smoking gun, per se, implicating the C.I.A. in drug trafficking from the Golden Crescent, it is at the very least food for thought given the precedent set by the agency throughout its 73-year history.

    From the beginning of the Cold War, Langley intimately conspired with organized crime to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives. Following the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the rogue spy agency frequently enlisted the Mafia in its many failed attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro and decades later many still believe that the same elements likely had a hand in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Still, it was not until 1972 during the Vietnam War when historian Alfred W. McCoy famously uncovered the extent to which the C.I.A. was involved in the international drug trade in The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. The explosive study meticulously documented how the narcotics coming out of the Golden Triangle were being transported on a front airline known as Air America run by U.S. intelligence as part of its covert operations in bordering Laos.

    In the Laotian civil war, the C.I.A. had secretly organized a guerrilla army of 30,000 strong from the indigenous Hmong population to fight the communist Pathet Lao forces aligned with North Vietnam and the highland natives were economically dependent on poppy cultivation. When the heroin exported out of Laos didn’t find its way to cities in America, it ended up next-door in Vietnam where opiate habits among G.I.s reached epidemic proportions, one of many instances of ‘blowback’ from U.S. collusion with worldwide drug smuggling. Believe it or not, however, this was not the first correlation between an American war and an opiate epidemic at home, as previously during the Civil War in the 1870s there was widespread morphine addiction among Union and Confederate soldiers.

    It appears that almost everywhere U.S. interventionism goes, the drug market seems to follow. In the early 1980s, the C.I.A. mobilized another counter-revolutionary fighting force in Central America as part of the Reagan administration’s dirty war against the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua. During the Nicaraguan civil war, Congress had forbidden any funding or supplying of weapons to the right-wing Contras as stipulated in the Boland Amendment. Instead, Washington used go-betweens like Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, a long-standing C.I.A. operative closely linked to narco-trafficking through Pablo Escobar’s Medellín Cartel, until the U.S. later turned against the strongman. In what became known as the Iran-Contra affair, the Reagan White House was embroiled in scandal after it was divulged that the C.I.A. had devised a rat line funneling arms to a most unlikely source in the Islamic Republic of Iran — a sworn enemy of the U.S. under embargo — by which the takings were diverted to the Nicaraguan terrorists. Although the official excuse for the secret deal was an arms-for-hostages exchange for U.S. citizens being held in Lebanon, the real purpose for the arrangement was to finance the Contras whose other proceeds happened to come from a different illicit enterprise — cocaine.

    Despite the fact that a 1986 inquiry by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that the agency knew the anti-Sandinista rebels were engaged in cocaine trafficking just as use of its highly-addictive freebase variation was surging in cities across America, it was not until a decade later when investigative journalist Gary Webb in his controversial Dark Alliance series fully exposed the link between Contra drug operations under C.I.A. protection and the crack epidemic domestically. Public outcry over the three-part investigation resonated most strongly within the African-American community whose inner city neighborhoods were devastated by the crack explosion and the indignation culminated in a Los Angeles town hall where a large audience confronted C.I.A. Director John Deutch.

    Amid the fallout, Webb found himself the target of a media-led smear campaign disputing the credibility of the exposé which destroyed his life and derailed his career, even though his findings were based on extensive court documents and corroborated by former crack kingpins like “Freeway” Rick Ross and ex-LAPD narcotics officer Michael C. Ruppert. Sadly, the journalist would later die of a highly suspicious suicide in 2004 but eventually Webb’s muckraking was the subject of a favorable Hollywood depiction in 2014’s Kill The Messenger. In the end, the fearless reporter was punished for revealing that many of the individuals most involved in cocaine trafficking in the eighties were the same exact individuals the C.I.A. employed to channel guns to the Contras, thereby permitting drugs to flow into the U.S..

    Although there has yet to be the equivalent of a Vietnam or Nicaragua-level disclosure of incontrovertible evidence incriminating Uncle Sam in the Afghan drug business as the troop removal approaches, the answer may lie with who is set to replace them. A Defense Department report from earlier this year indicates that at least 18,000 security contractors remain in the war-torn country, where outsourcing to private military companies like Academi (formerly Blackwater) has increasingly been relied upon in the 20-year war, including for futile drug enforcement measures. As the services of guns-for-hire with a penchant for human rights abuses grew in the lengthy conflict, oversight and accountability diminished to the point where the Pentagon is unable to accurately keep track of defense firms or what mercenaries are even doing in the country. Meanwhile, private security services have made a fortune being contracted out for the abortive anti-drug effort just as Afghanistan set records in opiate production.

    Alfred W. McCoy, the acclaimed historian who unearthed C.I.A. collaboration with opiate trafficking in Indochina, not long ago chronicled the imminent downfall of the U.S. as a superpower in In the Shadows of American History: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power. In his work, McCoy notes how the U.S. has set out to fulfill the “Heartland Theory” geostrategy envisioned by the architect of modern geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, in his influential 1904 paper “The Geographical Pivot of History.” The English analyst reconceived the continents as poles of interconnected global power and cited the way in which the British Empire joined with the other Western European nations in the 19th century to prevent Russian imperial expansionism in “The Great Game” with Afghanistan serving as a battleground. Fearing that the Russian Empire would enlarge toward the south, the British sent forces to Afghanistan as a containment strategy, a decision which ultimately proved to be a humiliating defeat for the East India Company but according to Mackinder blocked the Russian sphere of influence in British India. He then theorized that the country which conquered the Eurasian ‘Heartland’ of the Russian core would come to dominate the world. For the strategist, the geographical notion of Eurasia also consisted of China which the British had used drug addiction to destabilize and overcome in the Opium Wars.

    In 1979, the National Security Adviser in the Jimmy Carter administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski, put Mackinder’s blueprint into practice after the U.S. was forced to pull back in Vietnam by luring the Soviet Union into its own impregnable quagmire in a new “Great Game.” The scheme worked like a charm and just months after the Polish-born Russophobe persuaded the 39th president to lend clandestine support to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, aid from Moscow was requested by the socialist government in Kabul and the rest was history. Like the British Empire and Alexander the Great before it, the U.S. is itself now bogged down in the ‘graveyard of empires’ after  forgetting the lessons of history. Unintended or not, one of the adverse results of America’s empire-building has been the pouring of fuel on the fire of an initially homegrown opioid crisis begun by Big Pharma by turning Afghanistan into a multi-billion dollar narco-economy whereby heroin is circulated for consumption all over the map.

    Like the Pentagon Papers released during the Vietnam War, the internal memos of the Afghanistan Papers made public in 2019 proved officials were deceiving the American people about the reality of the no-win situation on the ground. It remains to be seen what impact the U.S. handover to the corrupt Kabul regime will have for dope distribution as a Taliban seizure of power appears near, but the latest report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) determined that officials have long known the war was ill-fated from the outset and warns Washington is bound to repeat the same errors in the future. Unless critical steps are taken to rein in the military-industrial complex, we have to assume that with another forever war there will unavoidably come the opening of another C.I.A.-controlled international drug route with Americans either suffering the consequences with their pocketbooks or their lives.

    The post The War in Afghanistan: The real “Crime of the Century” behind the Opioid Crisis first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • UK military forces must return to Afghanistan, a Tory MP has said. Tobias Ellwood insisted that only a new deployment could stop a potential civil war. In recent weeks, the Taliban has made massive gains in the territory. This has led to fears the country could end up back under its control.

    Airstrikes against the Taliban were underway on Thursday 5 August. But the same report suggested that more and more territory is falling to the insurgent group regardless.

    Ex-army officer Ellwood also tweeted that a coalition force of 5,000 could prop up the current government. And he warned the other option was a failed state:

    A large-scale deployment so soon after an official withdrawal seems unlikely. And the UK government does not seem to want to rake over the past 20 years in Afghanistan. For instance, Boris Johnson recently rejected calls for a full Iraq War style inquiry into the war.

    Withdrawal

    Ellwood’s call comes just over a month after the US officially withdrew. It did so in an unusual way: by sneaking out in the dead of night on 4th July and without telling Afghan allies.

    Ellwood also attacked the US decision to withdraw at all, saying it was “made for political reasons”.

    Earlier in the week, senior general Nick Carter was asked if Afghanistan could become a failed state again:

    That is one of the scenarios that could occur, but we have to get behind the current Afghan government and support them in what they are trying to do.

    Interpreters

    Meanwhile, the safety of Afghan interpreters who helped UK forces during the war has become a flashpoint as the Taliban has advanced. On 28 July, a group of former military officers demanded that the Afghans be re-homed in the UK more quickly than they are being.

    The UK MOD announced a package of measures to help those affected in June 2021. The former officer’s letter sparked an angry response from defence secretary Ben Wallace, who disputed their claims.

    Endgame

    Ellwood’s call for more troops may not go anywhere. There’s little appetite in the UK to return to Afghanistan – a location of major international embarrassment and defeat. But what he says is telling. Even now in the upper echelons of the UK security and defence establishment, some still believe that military intervention is a cure-all.

    This proves true even in places like Afghanistan, where military occupation is what caused the problems in the first place.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/L/Cpl Jeremy Fasci

     

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Bashir Hotak, Kabul,

    The Political situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan due to unexpected withdrawal of US coalition forces. Citizens stood up against Taliban.

    According to a survey report, more than 200,000 people have been displaced from three provinces in just one week, due to fierce fighting and are forced to refuge in open fields.

    According to displaced Afghan’s, we are human and Muslims, Taliban or the government, solve problems through dialogue, people’s homes were destroyed, even many families did not bury their loved ones. We are forced to leave our homes and refuge in open fields with children, women and the elderly in scorching sun in 42 degree Celsius heat.

    In Taliban stronghold areas we lost our homes. On the other side government bombard our homes to target Taliban, we have nothing no food no water to drink and no shelter. What we do? Where we go and why this oppression to us?

    Taliban and the government listen to our pleas and stop fighting so that we can go back to our homes.

    According to reports, the Taliban have also advancing to capture the city of Kandahar city while city has been besieged for three days. According to Afghan security officials Taliban have suffered heavy casualties in Kandahar, they attempts to seize the city but government forces retaliate and they have been failed.

    According to the security forces, the Taliban tried hard for three days to capture the city, but they were severely defeated.

    They targeted Kandahar from outskirts of the Spin Boldak and Dund districts, but the timely Afghan defence and airial bombardment killed thirty-seven fighters and wounded more than fifty in a single day.

    The bodies of some people are still in the area while some of the bodies were taken away by their companions. Afghan forces assure the residents of Kandahar to show patience and unity, the situation will soon change and we will not allow the Taliban to take over Kandahar city.

    According to the Afghan forces, city of Herat also has been under intense attack for several days, but Taliban’s every attack has been foiled, there is no threat to the city and to civilians until the presence of forces, Residents and city should be safe in Herat.

    Following the Taliban’s advancements to capture towns, districts and cities. Former Jihadi leaders, Mujahideen (armed outfits) and civilians in country side have stood up against Taliban oppression. They are on front lines of war along with security forces to protect their areas.

    According to former Governor Ismail that we believe in the help and support of Allah Almighty, we are here with our security forces to defend Herat. We assure people of Herat that Taliban attacks will be responded with heavy resistance. They retaliated and not in position to capture the city.

    President Ashraf Ghani also determined to defend the city of Herat. President said that we will not hand over Herat to the enemy under any circumstances. President message to the Taliban fighters, that “We will defend Herat till last moment and will not allow capturing this city in any situation”.

    A week has passed since the battle for control of the city of Herat. Fresh troops have been sent from the capital Kabul to protect the Herat. Security forces advancing towards the outer gates of the city and expected to heavy gun battle with Taliban fighters.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Bashir Hotak, Kabul,

    The Doha talks between United States and Taliban was reached to peace deal, its included the withdrawal of US troops and release of captured Talibans.

    The Taliban are bound on several clauses such of them were not to attack and capture cities and major highways, immediate twitch inter-Afghan dialogue with Afghan authorities and an immediate ceasefire or at least a reduction of war intensity, but all this did not happen accordingly as Doha peace deal talks and intensity increases.

    Taliban occupy dozens of districts as US troops withdrew from Afghanistan, and spectrum of war now extended in civilian territory.

    Taliban fighters have seized hundreds of districts and commercial ports in some parts of the country.

    While Spin Boldak- Durand Line, Sher Khan-Tajik border, two ports in Herat province, Turgundai, and commercial ports of Islam Qila and Abu Nasr Farahi in Farah province.

    Meanwhile Afghan security forces are conducting special operations to bring these commercial ports back under government control, a month has passed US forces withdrew; Talibans are still in control on these ports.

    According to Afghan Finance Ministry website, annual import and export from these five ports animatedly generates 70billion revenue and that was directly deposited in government treasury.

    An important question raised that how and where Taliban fighters will use this ports revenue, Afghan experts were expressing their concerns that Taliban-controlled trade routes are no longer crowded and some business communities are reluctant to take out their assets from these ports due to insecurity.Taliban are actively control these ports and receiving large sums of money.

    According to national news agency, Zabihullah Mujahid Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan, told that we collect taxes in a very systematic manner and generate revenue. In past this revenue annually deposited in treasury but now Taliban collects this revenue.

    The spokesman also said that Taliban have occupied more than two hundred districts in the country where millions of civilians need basic infrastructure, health facilities, education system and transport while Taliban keenly look forward for development of infrastructure and welfare of these citizens from this revenue.

    On the other side Analysts overseeing the Afghan situation have a lot of reservations on Taliban controlled ports, they said that Taliban have no credibility, if they were sincere with Afghans and  wants development on public welfare. They would not damage infrastructure while bombed hospitals, clinics, schools and government buildings in these districts even more that Taliban allow mass to looting public buildings in their control territory.

    If Taliban are sincere to the people, they should declare a ceasefire immediately, Analysts demanded.

    Some analysts highlight weak government policies and corruption in institutions and fear that revenue could be used for war. Once again Afghanistan grips in a series of wars that has entered in civilian territory.

    Analyst added that Taliban may spend money on arms purchases and bear foreign fighters’ expenses, including food and shelter. How much truth in this has not been confirmed by any source.

    Analyst said that it is noteworthy that NATO coalition forces withdrew in 2014 from Afghanistan, Taliban began occupying some districts. Electricity and utility bills imposed in areas under their control. News circulating that Taliban fighters not only continued to collect electricity bills from the citizens of these areas, but also collect usher and zakat, every farmer is bound to pay one tenth of their crop, food from the common residents including monthly protection money from mobile towers has been taken by force.

    For the past three years, Taliban collects toll tax and inter-provincial tax from freight vehicles on major highways. On average they collect 15,000 to 30,000 (Afghan currency) per vehicle.

    However, all this happened under nose of the government. The Government forces targets these Taliban controlled toll tax check posts from land and conduct several air strikes. However, after few days, Taliban regains these check posts and re-imposes taxes and recovery process.

    Interestingly, truck drivers, owners, traders and government officials, are forced to pay taxes, otherwise they are not allowed to move on these trade routes. Due to taxing to two different elements Taliban forces and Government authorities, the value of commodities increases, which directly affect ordinary Afghans.

    According to a report, compared to 2017, food prices in Afghanistan have increased by 70% while the graph of poverty has also risen up.

    Tax collection check posts set up by Taliban fighters on the highway north of the capital Kabul at Dand Ghauri in Baghlan Province and on the highway from Kabul to the northeastern provinces at Jir Khoshk in Baghlan Province, from Kabul. Roads leading to the southern areas have been set up in Muqur area of ​​Ghazni province.

    There are lot of unanswered questions left behind about where, how and in what way the money spend by Taliban.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • It is a country other powers simply cannot leave alone.  Even after abandoning its Kabul post in ignominy, tail tucked between their legs, Australia is now wondering if it should return – in some form.  The Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has been sending out a few signals, none of them definitive.  “We will not comment on intelligence matters,” a spokesman for foreign minister Senator Marise Payne stated tersely earlier this month.

    The spokesman was, however, willing to make general remarks about a belated return.  When, he could not be sure, but Canberra’s diplomatic arrangements in Afghanistan “were always expected to be temporary, with the intention of resuming a permanent presence once circumstances permit.”  Australia continued “to engage closely with partners, including the Afghanistan government and coalition member countries.”  Rather embarrassing remarks, given the sudden closure of the embassy on June 18.

    The Australian response, confused and stumbling, is much like that of their counterparts in Washington.  While the Biden administration speeds up the departure of troops, the cord to Kabul remains uncut though distinctly worn.  In April, the US House Services Committee was told by General Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, head of US Central Command, that the Pentagon was “further planning now for continued counterterrorism operations from within the region.”

    Amanda Dory, acting undersecretary of defense for defense policy, also informed members that the Pentagon remained interested in considering “how to continue to apply pressure with respect to potential threats emanating from Afghanistan.”  Hazily, she claimed that the department was “looking throughout the region in terms of over-the-horizon opportunities.”

    Such window dressing does little to confront the situation on the ground, which looks monstrously bleak for the increasingly titular Kabul government.  General Scott Miller, top US military commander in Afghanistan, clumsily admitted in June that, “Civil war is certainly a path that can be visualized if this continues on the trajectory it’s on right now.”  The hasty withdrawal from Bagram airbase on July 2 certainly gave the Taliban much scope to visualize that fact.

    Unceremoniously hung out to dry in the Doha agreement forged by the US and the Taliban, the frail and terminal regime has imposed a month-long countrywide curfew to address the vigorous onslaught.  According to the interior ministry, the curfew is intended “to curb violence and limit the Taliban movements”, though it would not apply to Kabul, Panjshir and Nangarhar.

    The US Air Force has also made a dozen airstrikes in southern Afghanistan, concerned by the Taliban’s push towards Kandahar, the second-largest city in the country.  “The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan security forces in the past several days,” announced General McKenzie.  “And we’re prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks.”

    Such actions are only band aid measures at best.  The surrender of Afghan soldiers to the Taliban across numerous districts is inking the writing on the wall.  The response from Kabul is that the Afghan army is behaving strategically, refocusing attention on protecting urban centres.  In reality, they have lost both their mettle and the plot, with the Taliban in control of some 85 per cent of the country’s territory, including critical border checkpoints.  As a reminder of their emerging dominance, ghoulish material such as video footage showing the execution of 22 elite Afghan commandos, trained by US forces, terrifies government soldiers.

    But McKenzie is a picture of hope over experience.  “The Taliban are attempting to create a sense of inevitability about their campaign.  They’re wrong.  There is no preordained conclusion to this fight.”

    Other countries are also bubbling with concern, which, when translated into security matters, imply future interference.  Russia, bloodied and bruised by its own Afghanistan experience, casts a concerned eye at the Taliban train.  “The uncertainty of the development of the military-political situation in this country and around it has increased,” stated Russia’s grave foreign minister Sergey Lavrov earlier this month.  “Unfortunately, in recent days we have witnessed a rapid degradation of the situation in Afghanistan.”  It was “obvious that in the current conditions there are real risks of an overflow of instability to neighbouring states.”

    Moscow shares, with Washington, a dark paternalism towards the country.  While the Biden administration has shown less interest of late, Moscow is looking for reassurance against impending chaos.  “It is the feeling in Moscow,” reasoned Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the Moscow-based Russia in Global Affairs, “that the US is not able to, or even interested in, maintaining a presence in the region to guarantee any particular future direction in Afghanistan.”  The implications of this are ominous enough.

    The emptying of the barracks does not put an end to the prying and meddling from non-Afghan personnel.  The country will still host a myriad of special forces and intelligence officials.  Excuses for maintaining some militarised footprint will be traditional: the threat posed by terrorism; the thriving opium trade.  The contractor business will also boom.  A Taliban victory promises a slice of violence for everybody, but so does the presence of this feeble Afghan government.

    The post Afghanistan, Failure and Second Thoughts first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The war in Afghanistan is meant to be effectively over, with the last US troops leaving by the end of August. McKenzie, however, suggests that the US intention to continue to support its partners means that they’ll continue to “offer” airstrikes to Afghanistan. McKenzie didn’t want to admit to intentions to carry out more airstrikes, but did concede that the US has been stepping up airstrikes, and believes they’ve had a “good effect” in the fighting.

    The post Top US General Won’t Commit To Ending Afghanistan Airstrikes appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Photo credit from the archives of Newsonline

    Exits of Netanyahu and Trump: chance to dial down Mideast tensions

    The Iraqi geopolitical analyst, Ali Fahim, recently said in an interview with The Tehran Times: “The arrival of [newly elected Iranian President] Ebrahim Raisi at the helm of power gives a great moral impetus to the resistance axis.” Further, with new administrations in the United States, Israel, and Iran, another opportunity presents itself to reinstate fully the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, as well as completely lift the US economic sanctions from Iran.

    Let us wait and see after Raisi is in power in August 2021. It is a fact that, since the Trump administration pulled out of the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal, tensions have been on the rise. One can legitimately suspect that the Trump pull-out had as its real intentions: first, to provoke Tehran; second to undo one of the only foreign policy achievements of the Obama administration, which was negotiated by John Kerry for the US. The Trump administration also used unfair economic sanctions on Iran as a squeeze for regime-change purposes. This was a complete fiasco: the Islamic Republic of Iran suffered but held together.

    As far as military tensions in the region, there are many countries besides Syria where conflicts between Iran-supported groups and US-supported proxies are simmering, or full blown. The US does its work, not only via Israel in the entire region, but also Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in Yemen, and presently Turkey in Syria. Right now conflicts are active in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine, but something could ignite in Lebanon at any time.

    Photo credit from the archives of Newsonline

    Iran views itself as the lead supporter of the resistance movement, not only through its support for regional allies like Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad, but also beyond the Middle-East, for Maduro in Venezuela. The upcoming Iranian administration does not hide its international ambition. For better or worse, Iran sees itself as a global leader of smaller nonaligned countries that are resisting US imperialism, be it Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, or Venezuela. Even though Iran is completely different ideologically, it has replaced the leadership of Yugoslavia’s Tito or Cuba’s Castro. Both were not only Marxists but also leaders of the nonaligned movement during the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were competing to split the world in two. Now the dynamics have shifted because of China’s rising global influence, and the Iran Islamic Republic thinks it has a card to play in this complex geopolitical imbroglio.

    Photo credit from the archives of Newsonline

    In the US, Europe and Gulf States, Raisi has been categorized as a hardliner cleric and judge, but this gives Raisi more power than he will have as president. In Iran, major foreign policy issues are not merely up to the president to decide but a consensus process involving many. In the end such critical decisions are always signed off by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has already indicated that he supports going back to the 2015 nuclear deal. During his electoral campaign, Raisi, who is close to Khamenei despite previous opposition, said that if elected he would uphold the 2015 landmark nuclear agreement.

    Photo Credit:  Gilbert Mercier

    Ottoman empire revival under Erdogan

    Turkey’s President, Recep Erdogan, often behaves as a modern day Sultan. He is shrewd and extremely ambitious. He fancies himself to be the global leader, politically and militarily, of Sunny Islam. Under Erdogan, Turkey has flexed its military muscles, either directly or through Syrian proxies, not only in Syria, but also in Libya, as well as in Turkey’s support for Qatar in the small Gulf State’s recent skirmish with Saudi Arabia. Erdogan thinks he now has a card to play in Afghanistan. More immediately and strategically, the serious issue on Erdogan’s plate is called Idlib.

    Photo credit from the archives of Newsonline

    The problem of the pocket of Idlib has to be resolved, and unfortunately, for all the civilian population that has been and will be in the crossfire, it can only be solved by a full-on military operation, with troops from Bashar al-Assad and Russia. Turkey is, of course, adamant about keeping a military presence and influence within Syria to prevent a complete Assad victory. Time will tell, but the war of attrition has to end. For this to happen, Russia has to commit to face Turkey from a military standpoint. If Russia is ready for a direct confrontation with Turkey, then Bashar al-Assad’s troops, and Russian forces bringing mainly logistic and air support, should prevail.

    What should make this easier is the fact Erdogan has overplayed his hand for quite some time. This includes his tense relationships with his supposed NATO allies, many of whom, including France, Greece and even Germany, would not mind having him out of NATO altogether.

    There are important factors that explain, not only why Erdogan is quite popular with Turks, but also why his position could become precarious. Erdogan is playing on the Turkish nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire.

    From one Empire to two others: the Sykes-Picot agreement

    To understand better this imperial dynamic, we must go back to the middle of World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany. In 1916, the Sykes-Picot secret agreement effectively sealed the fate of post World War I Middle-East. This British-French agreement, in expectation of a final victory, was a de-facto split of the Ottoman Empire. In the resulting colonial or imperial zones of influence, a euphemism for an Anglo-French control of the region, the British would get Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and the Gulf area, while France would take control of Syria and Lebanon. More than 100 years later, the misery created by this imperialist deal lingers in the entire region, from Palestine, with the 1948 English-blessed creation of the Zionist state of Israel, to Iraq. France put in place two protectorates in Syria and Lebanon, in which the respective populations did not fare much better. Even today, French governments still act as if they have a say in Lebanese affairs.

    Photo Credit from the archive Magharebia

    The weight of history and the nostalgia of 600 years of rule in the Middle-East are why some Turks — especially Erdogan — feel entitled to an intrusive role in the region. The unfortunate story of the Middle-East has been to go from one imperialism to another. With the American empire taking over in the mid-1950s, the only competition during the Cold War became the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had carte blanche. It became more blunt about the exploitation of resources, regime-change policies and its role as the eternal champion of the sacred state of Israel. Quickly, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar became the US’ best friends in the Arab world. I have called this alliance between the West, Israel and the oil-rich Gulf states an unholy alliance. It is still at play, mainly against Iran.

    Photo Credit: David Stanley

    Since the collapse of the USSR, the US empire has tried to assert a worldwide hegemony by mainly two different approaches: support of autocratic regimes like those in the Gulf States, or pursuit of regime change policies to get rid of sovereign nations. This is what I have identified as engineering failed states: a doctrine at play in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Often, Islam soldiers of fortune — called at first freedom fighters as in Afghanistan, or the so-called Free Syrian Army — have mutated down the line into ISIS terrorists. Once the mercenaries developed independent ambitions, they served a dual purpose: firstly, as tools of proxy wars; secondly as a justification for direct military interventions by the empire and its vassals. Since the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the bottom line results have been the same: death and destruction. Tabula rasa of Iraq, Libya and Syria, with countries left in ruins, millions killed, and millions of others turned into refugees and scattered to the winds. The numbers are mind boggling in the sheer horrors they reflect. According to the remarkable non-partisan Brown University Costs of War project, since the start of the US-led so-called war on terror, post September 11, 2001, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere the direct cost in people killed has been over 801,000. So far, the financial burden for US taxpayers has been $6.4 trillion.

    Photo credit from the archives of Newsonline

    Does Erdogan think he can do better than Alexander the Great with Afghans?

    Apparently Erdogan’s imperial ambitions reach as far as the land of the Pashtuns. The Taliban already control about 85 percent of Afghanistan. While most NATO troops have either left or are in the process of doing so, Erdogan has volunteered Turkish troops to secure Kabul’s airport. Some in the Middle-East speculate, rightly or wrongly, that Erdogan plans to send to Afghanistan some of his available Syrian mercenaries, like those he has used in Libya. Even if this is rubber stamped by regional powers like Pakistan or Iran, which it won’t be, such a direct or proxy occupation will fail. If Turkish or Syrian mercenaries, or any other foreign proxies for that matter, try to get in the way of the Taliban, they will be shredded to bits.

    Does Erdogan think he is a modern day version of Alexander the Great? This is plainly laughable! The Taliban are resuming control of Afghanistan, and that is the reality. Something Afghans agree upon is that they want all occupying foreigners out. This will include Turkish and Syrian mercenaries.

    Photo Credit:  Gilbert Mercier

    Post Netanyahu Israel: more of the same for Palestinians?

    For the Palestinians living either in Gaza or in the occupied territories, one element that has changed in Israel is that Netanyahu is no longer in power. It would be naive to think that the new Israeli administration will be less Zionist in its support for Jewish settlers expanding their occupation of Palestinian land, but we might see a small shift, more like a pause in Israel’s bellicose behavior.

    Lebanon on the brink: opportunity for Israel to attack Hezbollah?

    Despite Lebanon’s dreadful political and economic situation, Israel would be ill advised to consider any military action. Hezbollah is a formidable fighting force of 70,000 men, who have been battle hardened for almost a decade in Syria. Vis a vis Iran, a direct aggression of Israel is even less likely. With Trump gone, it seems that Israel’s hawks have missed out on that opportunity. Furthermore, it would be borderline suicidal for the Jewish state to open up many potential fronts at once against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Bashar al-Assad’s army. All of them would have the backing and logistic support of Iran.

    Once the 2015 nuclear agreement is in force again, with the Biden administration, the tensions in the region should significantly decrease. It is probable that in the new negotiations, Iran will request that all the US economic sanctions, which were put in place by the Trump administration, be lifted.

    Photo credit from Resolute Support Media archive

    Neocolonial imperialism: a scourge that can be defeated

    One thing about US administrations that has remained constant pretty much since the end of World War II is an almost absolute continuity in foreign policy. From Bush to Obama, Obama to Trump, and now Trump to Biden, it hardly matters if the US president is a Democrat or Republican. The cornerstone of foreign policy is to maintain, and preferably increase, US hegemony by any means necessary. This assertion of US imperial domination, with help from its NATO vassals, can be blunt like it was with Trump, or more hypocritical with a pseudo humanitarian narrative as during the Obama era.

    The imperatives of military and economic dominance have been at the core of US policies, and it is doubtful that this could easily change. Mohammed bin-Salman‘s war in Yemen is part of this scenario. Some naively thought MBS would be pushed aside by the Biden administration. The clout of the Saudis remained intact, however, despite the CIA report on the gruesome assassination of a Washington Post journalist in Turkey. All evidence pointed to bin-Salman, but he was not pushed aside by his father. Under Biden, MBS is still Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and de-facto autocratic ruler. The Saudis’ oil and money still have considerable influence in Washington.

    The Saudis understand very well that, since the 1970s, their real geopolitical power has resided in the way they can impact global oil prices. They can still make the barrel price go up or down to serve specific geopolitical interests. For example, recently the Saudis tried to help the US regime change policy in Venezuela by flooding the global market to make oil prices crash. Saudi Arabia and its United Arab Emirates ally have used the black gold as an economic weapon countless times, and very effectively.

    The great appetite of the Saudis for expensive weapons systems is another reason why they have a lot of weight in Washington and elsewhere. How can one oppose the will of a major client of the corporate merchants of death of the military-industrial complex?

    Photo Credit from archive of DVIDSHUB

    History will eventually record the 20-year Afghanistan war as a defeat and perhaps the beginning of the end for the US empire that established its global dominance aspiration in 1945. People from countries like Yemen, Palestine, as well as Mali, Kashmir, and even Haiti, who are fighting against an occupation of their lands, respectively, by the imperial little helpers Saudi Arabia, Israel, France, India and the United Nations, should find hope in what is going on in Afghanistan. My News Junkie Post partner Dady Chery has explained the mechanics of it brilliantly in her book, We Have Dared to Be Free. Yes, occupiers of all stripes can be defeated! No, small sovereign nations or tribes should not despair! The 20-year US-NATO folly in Afghanistan is about to end. The real outcome is a victory of the Pashtuns-Taliban that is entirely against all odds. It is a victory against the most powerful military alliance ever assembled in history. Yemenites, Palestinians, Tuaregs, Kashmiris, Haitians and other proud people, fighting from different form of neocolonial occupations, should find inspiration from it. It can be done!

    Photo Credit from the archive of Antonio Marin Segovia

    The post Afghanistan War Outcome: Hope for Sovereign Nations Fighting the Scourge of Neocolonial Imperialism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • President Joe Biden speaks about the situation in Afghanistan from the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 8, 2021.

    Former president George W. Bush recently took a break from painting portraits of the wounded soldiers he fed into the maw of dual wars 20 years ago to complain about the end of one of those wars. In a rare interview, given to German news agency Deutsche Welle (DW), Bush had himself a nice little sad about the fact that the Biden administration was finally shutting down U.S. military involvement in the two-decade bottomless pit that was, and will ever be, his Afghanistan conflict.

    Calling the withdrawal a “mistake,” Bush said, “I think the consequences are going to be unbelievably bad and sad.” Of course, the results of U.S. intervention (and its aftermath) in Afghanistan are indeed bad and sad. After 20 years of war, thousands of dead, wounded and traumatized U.S. servicemembers and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians killed, severely injured or displaced, absolutely nothing of substance was accomplished beyond lining the pockets of the warmaking industry. Despite U.S. propaganda to the contrary, the women and girls who suffered unspeakable abuse at the hands of the Taliban before the war are threatened with the same fate now, because U.S. intervention was never actually about human rights — and imperial war and militarism aren’t solutions to human rights abuses in any event.

    After the interview, DW reached out to Kabul-based journalist Ali Latifi for his thoughts on Bush’s comments. “I think it’s very interesting that he’s suddenly, you know, concerned about women and children,” said Latifi. “His war made a lot of widows and made a lot of children orphans.”

    A number of comparisons have been made to the U.S.’s scrambling retreat from Vietnam 46 years ago. While sailors are not pushing perfectly good helicopters off the flight decks of Navy ships to make room for fleeing U.S. personnel, the onrushing chaos in Afghanistan cannot be denied. A major effort is underway to evacuate Afghan translators and others who aided the U.S. war effort. There is no good way to end an unwinnable war. “A hundred percent we lost the war,” special operations forces Marine Raider Jason Lilley told Reuters. It was time to go.

    But are we going? Mr. Bush can rest easy on that score, because while virtually all U.S. military forces have been withdrawn, the private military contractors (read: mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan in force. In fact, those companies are hiring at an enormously escalated rate, as they rush more private soldiers into the country to fill the gaps left by the U.S. military.

    “Contractors are a force both the U.S. and Afghan governments have become reliant on, and contracts in the country are big business for the U.S.,” reported New York Magazine back in May, when the withdrawal was in its early stages. “Since 2002, the Pentagon has spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis. The Department of Defense currently employs more than 16,000 contractors in Afghanistan, of whom 6,147 are U.S. citizens — more than double the remaining U.S. troops.”

    If the war is over, and ultimately lost, why do these contractors remain? For that, you’ll have to ask the mining industry, not that the leaders of that industry tend to do much talking. They’re too busy, see. Afghanistan holds upwards of 1,400 mineral fields containing lucrative materials like barite, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron ore and lead. The country has huge reserves of natural gas, as well as petroleum. The gemstone mines turn out emeralds, rubies, red garnet and lapis lazuli.

    Mining interests from all over the world had their eye on Afghanistan’s natural riches long before the war began, and that interest has never waned. Back in 2018, Donald Trump claimed the U.S. was “getting very close” to achieving a safer strategic situation there so those resources could be exploited. “In a partial survey conducted by the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum, the country’s mineral wealth is estimated at $3 trillion,” reported CNBC at the time, “more than enough to compensate for the war’s cost.”

    There was always more to that war than September 11 and terrorism, and those resources likely offer part of the reason why the U.S. spent thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and more than 7,300 long days trying to make that country safe for plunder.

    Any student of history could have told them: Empires don’t tend to fare well in Afghanistan. U.S. assistance during the Soviet war there only strengthened that reality.

    Hearing George W. Bush pule about our withdrawal from Afghanistan is galling, as he and his administration — in combination with almost all the Democrats and Republicans in Congress at the time — own majority stock in blame for this debacle. Both Presidents Obama and Trump stayed in that war for a combined 12 years. Nothing got better, because neither wanted to be the White House left standing without a chair when the music stopped. They did not want defeat and retreat on their records, and so it finally fell to President Biden to say enough, thanks in part to many years of pressure from grassroots antiwar movements.

    Yet Biden is not without culpability in all this. In a CBS interview in February of 2020, the topic of withdrawal from Afghanistan was raised by host Margaret Brennan, who asked if Biden would bear responsibility if the U.S. withdrew and the nation collapsed into chaos. “Do I bear responsibility?” Biden replied. “Zero responsibility.”

    A nasty echo of Trump in those words, and far from the truth besides. In September of 2001, then-Senator Biden voted with 97 other senators to give Bush the authority to wage war in Afghanistan. That vote also approved what has become known as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), one of the most broad, violent and insidious pieces of legislation ever to pass through Congress. That AUMF is why the U.S. was legally able to remain in Afghanistan for 20 years, and served as a blueprint for the 2002 AUMF, which gave us the Iraq War. Biden voted for that, as well.

    If you voted for it, Mr. President, you’re responsible for it, too. It’s a big ol’ crap sandwich, and everyone gets to take a bite.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Kabul/Web desk:

    Rockets fired at around 8:00 am (0330GMT) on Tuesday were heard across the heavily fortified Green Zone that houses the presidential palace and several embassies, including the US mission.

    According to the spokesperson on interior ministry Mir Wais Stanekzai, at least three rockets landed in the Afghan capital ahead of a speech by President Ashraf Ghani marking the start of the Muslim holiday of Eid al Adha.

    “Today the enemies of Afghanistan launched rocket attacks in different parts of Kabul city; all the rockets hit three different parts. Based on our initial information, we have no casualties. Our team is investigating” said the spokesperson.

    The attack interrupted an outdoor gathering for prayers in the palace compound attended by President Ashraf Ghani, television images showed. The prayers continued amid the sound of explosions, however, minutes after the attack, Ghani Ghani began an address to the nation in the presence of some of his top officials from an outdoor podium, broadcast on local media.

    Insecurity has been growing in Afghanistan, largely drove by fighting in its provinces as foreign troops withdraw and Taliban insurgents launch major offensives, taking districts and border crossings. Unlike some previous years, the Taliban did not declare a ceasefire during the Eid holiday this year.

     

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Yet, unquestionably, the warring party in Afghanistan with the most sophisticated weapons and seemingly endless access to funds has been the United States. Funds were spent not to lift Afghans to a place of security from which they might have worked to moderate Taliban rule, but to further frustrate them, beating down their hopes of future participatory governance with twenty years of war and brutal impoverishment.

    The post Reckoning And Reparations In Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Afghanistan,

    US Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad stated in an interview with a foreign newspaper, that for peace in Afghanistan, we have made it clear to Taliban that we and many other countries will not recognize those who form governments by force and will not provide any support.

    Two issues were important for reaching an agreement for stability, development and peace in Afghanistan and that is acceptable to Afghan people and has the support of neighbors, donors and other countries around the world, it requires understanding political issues and prioritizing public opinion, Zalmai added.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • As the US Empire makes its major military retreat from Afghanistan, learn about the CIA forces that will be staying behind—and their disturbing 20-year track record of war crimes.

    The post CIA Stories: Death Squads In Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Quod deus vult perdere prius dementat. (Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad).

    One of the more enduring mysteries of Australian foreign policy is its continued adherence to the American way of war. One has only to look at the history of the post-World War II period to be presented with a host of examples of where Australia has followed the United States into one war after another where a compelling Australian national interest is impossible to identify.

    This history of adherence began in Korea in the war that raged in that country between 1950 and 1953. It will be recalled that for years following World War II both the North and the South of Korea waged a guerrilla campaign against each other. The war commenced when the North invaded the South and made major moves on the Southern capital of Seoul and were on the verge of capturing it.

    The United States, already alarmed at the Communists taking over China the previous year, reacted to the North’s invasion of the South.  Taking advantage of the temporary non-presence of the Russians in the Security Council, and with China’s seat still held by the defeated Nationalists (a disgrace that lasted a further 22 years) the United States pushed through a resolution in the Security Council authorising military intervention.

    Australia was one of the countries that willingly joined this ostensible United Nations action to restore the status quo in Korea. An expeditionary force was rapidly gathered and succeeded in expelling the North from the South of Korea. The United States commander Douglas MacArthur was not content with restoring the status quo. He invaded the North and moved all the way to the Chinese border. We now know that his intention was to invade China and endeavour to restore the Nationalist government. That, of course, was never mentioned at the time.

    The United States presence on their border brought the Chinese into the war and they rapidly succeeded in pushing the United States and its allies, including Australia, back south of the border. Stalemate then ensued for the next two years until an uneasy peace deal was reached. This has never been ratified and the North and South of Korea are still technically at war.

    Australia’s next involvement in United States aggression was to take part in the war on Vietnam which was precipitated by the South of the country refusing to allow a national election that would undoubtedly have been won by the North’s Ho Chi Minh.

    Australia’s involvement in that fiasco lasted more than a decade before the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972 saw that government withdrawing Australian troops. That action earned the animosity of the Americans, who together with their agent, the Governor General John Kerr,worked tirelessly for the defeat of the Whitlam government which they achieved in November 1975. Since that time no Labor government has dared to cross the United States. Australia’s foreign policy is an unbroken chain of adherence to United States aggression ever since.

    This manifested itself in 2001 when Australia joined the attack on Afghanistan. That commitment ended only two weeks ago when Australian troops were unilaterally and suddenly withdrawn from Afghanistan. The fate of the hundreds of Afghanis who worked with Australian troops during that 20 years is still undecided. They appear to have been abandoned, although public pressure may force a change of heart by the government.

    One of the least mentioned features of that conflict was that the Labor Party, although opposing the initial engagement, did nothing to withdraw Australian troops during the six years they were in government during that 20 year involvement.

    Similarly, Australia was among the first of the western nations to join the entirely illegal invasion of Iraq. Again, the Labor Party retained that commitment when they were in power, although they initially opposed it. The Australian troops still occupy that country despite a unanimous resolution of the Iraqi parliament demanding that they leave. The Australian government does not bother to justify its position to the Australian parliament and in that they are unchallenged by the Labor opposition. That commitment is also rapidly approaching the 20th anniversary.

    Australia’s most recent show of support for United States aggression has been to join the so-called “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea. It is in Australia’s willingness to join in blatantly anti China exercises that the gap between self-interest and adherence to United States aggression is most marked. China is Australia’s largest trading partner by a considerable margin, although the future of that relationship is now seriously in doubt. There can be no clearer example of a country pursuing a foreign policy that is manifestly at odds with its national interest than the Australian government conflict vis-à-vis China.

    The United States alliance goes beyond joining a succession of wars of minimal national interest to Australia. The United States has a number of military bases in Australia, of which arguably the most important is the electronic spying facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. This base had also been targeted by the Whitlam Labor government. It is absolutely no coincidence that the sacking of the Whitlam government by the attorney general John Kerr occurred the day before Whitlam was to announce to the Australian parliament his government’s intention of closing the Pine Gap facility.

    That also is a policy that has been abandoned by the Labor opposition. Their foreign policy is not indistinguishable from that of the Liberal government. The fate of the Whitlam government, the last to demonstrate even an inkling of foreign policy independence, is a lesson has been well absorbed by the president Labor leadership.

    Even the ignominious United States withdrawal from Afghanistan has been insufficient to encourage even a modicum of rethinking Australia’s foreign defence stances. It can only be a matter of time before Australia follows the United States into yet another war of aggression somewhere in the world. There is no reason to believe that the eventual outcome of that conflict will differ in any way from the experience of the past 70 years: vast expense, huge loss of human life and eventual humiliating retreat.

    China may eventually demonstrate to the Australians that there is a price to pay for this endless adherence to the violence of a fading empire. It is a price that Australia will not bear lightly.

    The post In Foreign Policy Australia Proves to be a Slow Learner first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Spin Boldak, Afghanistan,

    Journalist Danish Siddiqui was killed on Friday while covering a clash between Afghan security forces and Taliban fighters near a border crossing with Pakistan, an Afghan commander said, Reuter’s reported.

    According to Reuter’s, Afghan Special Forces had been fighting to retake the main market area of Spin Boldak when Siddiqui and a senior Afghan officer were killed in what they described as Taliban crossfire, the official told Reuters.

    Siddiqui had been embedded as a journalist since earlier this week with Afghan Special Forces based in the southern province of Kandahar and had been reporting on fighting between Afghan commandos and Taliban fighters.

    “We are urgently seeking more information, working with authorities in the region,” Reuters President Michael Friedenberg and Editor-in-Chief Alessandra Galloni said in a statement published on Reuters web site.

    “Danish was an outstanding journalist, a devoted husband and father, and a much-loved colleague. Our thoughts are with his family at this terrible time.”

    Siddiqui told Reuters he had been wounded in the arm by shrapnel earlier on Friday while reporting on the clash. He was treated and had been recovering when Taliban fighters retreated from the fighting in Spin Boldak.

    Siddiqui had been talking to shopkeepers when the Taliban attacked again, the Afghan commander said.

    Reuters was unable to independently verify the details of the renewed fighting described by the Afghan military official, who asked not to be identified before Afghanistan’s Defence Ministry made a statement.

    Siddiqui was part of the Reuters photography team to win the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography for documenting the Rohingya refugee crisis.

    Since 2010, Siddiqui’s works was covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Rohingya refugee’s crisis, the Hong Kong protests and Nepal earthquakes.

    Taliban fighters had captured the border area on Wednesday, the second-largest crossing on the border with Pakistan and one of the most important objectives they have achieved during a rapid advance across the country as U.S. forces pull out Reuters publicized on its Web Site.

     

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • After nearly two decades of war, occupation and political meddling, the occupying United States and NATO forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan, leaving Afghans to pick up the pieces, reports Pip Hinman.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Hey kids! Got some fun and relatable comic strips for you to share on social media:

    Image

    Garfield knows what’s up:

    Marmaduke dropping truth bombs, as usual:

    Image

    This is pretty insightful. Whoever does the Dilbert comic should consider getting into political commentary:

    I’d honestly never noticed Family Circus has such biting social commentary:

    Image

    Man I forgot how high-brow this comic was:

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    BREAKING: Sources report violent right-wing extremists have seized the US Capitol, established a globe-spanning empire, and murdered millions of people.

    Think tank name translation guide:

    Foreign = War
    Policy = Crimes
    Democracy = Neoliberalism
    Strategic = Murderous
    International/Global = Imperialist
    Relations = Domination
    American = Oligarchic
    Research = Indoctrination
    Institution/Institute/Council/Center/Foundation/House = Propaganda Firm

     

     

    Me, an idiot: It’s disturbing how government-tied Silicon Valley oligarchs exert so much control over people’s access to free speech.

    You, a genius: It’s not a free speech issue because you can still take your opinions down to Ye Olde Printing Presse and distribute them manually on horseback.

    We haven’t talked enough about how the US military not only lied for twenty years about their stated goals in Afghanistan nearly being accomplished, but it turns out they were also lying about doing anything during that time that could possibly have led to their stated goals being accomplished.

    Seeing the “Afghan government” just melting under the Taliban after the US pretended to spend twenty years building it up is like paying someone billions of dollars to build a palace and then after twenty years checking it out and realizing the whole thing is a stage play set made of cardboard.

    A military which can afford to spend trillions on a twenty-year war which accomplished literally nothing besides making horrible people wealthy is a military that needs its budget slashed to ribbons.

    When your elected officials never ask “How do we solve this problem?” but rather “How do we solve this problem without upsetting rich people or warmongers?”, most of the problems will necessarily remain unsolved. This is of course entirely by design, because the circumstances which created the problems were set up by and for the rich people and warmongers.

    Anyone who accuses you of working for a foreign government when you criticize US imperialism is accidentally admitting that they cannot imagine any possible scenario under which someone might criticize the worst impulses of the most powerful people on earth without being paid to. They’re giving you a very embarrassing insight into the way they think and live. They’re telling you that they are unprincipled hacks who never question authority and only speak from within the framework of blind sycophantic loyalty.

    It was a major propaganda victory for imperial narrative managers to convince people that being skeptical of any claim about a foreign government made by the US — no matter how flimsy the evidence — is the same as Holocaust denial.

    The poor have all the responsibility and none of the wealth or power, and for the rich it’s the exact opposite: all of the power and wealth but none of the responsibility. Nobody ever tells them “See all that plastic in the ocean? That’s your fault. Fix it.” They burn the world for fun and profit and face no consequences. They’re a bunch of spoiled little boys with flamethrowers.

    If it had just been “Let’s end racism” instead of “Let’s end racism by supporting horrible corporate warmongers” there’d be a lot less racism today.

    Any time I talk about racial justice I get people calling it “identity politics” when it’s really not; becoming conscious of racial injustices in our society isn’t about promoting any political party or politician, it’s about becoming conscious. But people assume that because it’s been so exploited for so long.

    If people weren’t so acutely aware of the disgusting ways in which race and racism have been leveraged to promote the political agendas of absolutely horrible people and parties, that aversion to seeing this stuff would not be there. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize phoniness, opportunism and cynicism when you see it; most people can smell it a mile away. This causes a rejection of the examination of the problem of racism which would not be there otherwise.

    The fact that racism has been exploited in a way that prevents it from being healed is itself a metastasis of that same racism.

    Stomp out the authentic revolutionary impulse and you’re left with inauthentic revolutionary impulse. You don’t kill people’s impulse to rise up and push for change, you just get them doing it in weird, ridiculous, ineffective ways. Hence the pseudo left and “populist” right.

    Most of the bizarre things about western politics in general and US politics in particular ultimately boil down to this. “Okay we need to overthrow the elites and change things… let’s elect that rich casino guy for president.” All the IDpol and shitlib stuff, same thing.

    If the door to real leftward movement hadn’t been bolted shut, you wouldn’t see one side trying to change things by freaking out about immigrants and trans people and the other side trying to change things by punching them in black bloc without either threatening real power. What you’d see is change.

    This situation of course suits those in power just fine. They’re happy to have the right advancing their interests and the left shrieking impotently at anything that moves for all eternity. That’s why they spent generations deliberately turning that into the existing reality.

    ___________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Boris Johnson doesn’t want an inquiry into the 20 year long Afghanistan war. In his withdrawal announcement on Thursday 8 July, he said:

    I don’t think that that is the right way forward at this stage.

    He added that internal investigations had already taken place and mentioned that the Chilcot Report into Iraq had cost millions.

    Johnson had already told the Commons Liaison Committee on Wednesday 7 July that he would not comment until the planned announcement on Thursday. However, he did admit during the hearing that he was concerned about the security situation there.

    He told the committee:

    We have to be absolutely realistic about the situation that we’re in, and what we have to hope is that the blood and treasure spent by this country over decades in protecting the people of Afghanistan has not been in vain.

    Meanwhile, the US withdrew the bulk of its remaining forces on 4 July – US Independence Day – in strange circumstances. AP reported that the military forces based at Bagram Airbase left quietly at night. And they didn’t even tell the local Afghan commander they were going. During the early part of the war, Bagram became notorious as a site of US torture.

    Fierce fighting

    The suggestion that the UK was ever in the business of protecting Afghans is, of course, contestable. But on the ground, the security situation appears to be spiralling out of control. Reports warn of a quick Taliban advance into new territory and cities.

    The western city of Qala-i-Naw was the scene of fierce fighting on 7 July. Taliban forces reportedly captured the local police station before being beaten back by Special Forces.

    Neighbouring countries are also concerned. Tajikistan closed its border and mobilised military reserves. Meanwhile Iran hosted talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Turkey and Russia also shut consulates in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in response to Taliban gains locally.

    Inquiry?

    John Chilcot led the last inquiry into a major war; in that case, Iraq. The Chilcot Report was announced in 2009 and was eventually published several years behind schedule in 2016. It was 2.6m words long and made a number of important findings. They included that the military action had not been warranted and that claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction, used to justify the assault, had been made with unjustified confidence.

    Then-PM Tony Blair, who also led Britain to war in Afghanistan, faced withering criticism. But the inquiry had no legal powers to bring any of the Iraq War leaders to trial.

    It remains to be seen if there will be an inquiry into Afghanistan. But if there is, the 20 year scope of the war is likely to make it even more complex than Chilcot’s investigation into Iraq.

    Featured image via EliteForcesUK/Sgt James Elmer.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.