Trump to leave 4,000 troops in Afghanistan until after the presidential election

 (July 4) The US has already reached the reduction of troops in Afghanistan from around 12,000 to a lower level of 8,600 as required by an agreement signed with the Taliban the end of February.

At least 4,000 troops to remain through November presidential election

While withdrawals are expected to continue even with withdrawals ahead of schedule, US officials now claim that at least 4,000 US soldiers will stay in the country at least until after the US election in November. Trump has been keen to reduce troop levels before the elections thinking that this would help him win another term in office. However, he has appeared to have decided that he would be better off if he leaves some troops in Afghanistan at least until after the election. By doing so, critics will not be able to accuse him of abandoning Afghanistan in his first term. Earlier, Trump seemed to favor withdrawing all US troops before the election.

Pentagon officials warned Trump that a complete withdrawal before the election could remove leverage to convince the Taliban to start talks with the Afghan government. The Afghan government was not a party to the February agreement and has rejected the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the agreement. While the Taliban has not been attacking US troops except when they have come to the aid of the Afghan government there have been many attacks with accompanying casualties on the Afghan government forces. Officials also warned that withdrawing all troops by November could force the US to leave considerable quantities of equipment behind.

The benefits of Trump's new position

Trump's position allows him to take credit for his drawdown but there will be still enough troops present for him to reverse course and re-escalate the conflict after the election even though this could have politically negative results. However, one positive consequence is that this could assuage many of his hawk critics who were against the withdrawal in the first place. However, the existing agreement with the Taliban required the reduction to 8,600 and a complete withdrawal is required by May 1 next year, but this is contingent upon the Taliban keeping their part of the bargain. Basically the Taliban are required to ensure that neither Al Qaeda, the Islamic State or any other group use Afghan soil to threaten the US or its allies. Leaving 4,000 troops in Afghanistan through the election does not violate the terms of the agreement with the Taliban as full withdrawal is only required next year on May 1.

The Russian bounty issue

There has been a lot of discussion on the issue of the Russians offering bounties to the Taliban for killing Americans. These reports are from intelligence sources with all the sources being anonymous. There is no confirmation or real evidence that these reports are true. The reports have all the marks of a propaganda psyop campaign. They distract from the peace agreement with the US and Taliban which appears to have disappeared from the news. The appended video talks about the issue. The discussion can easily turn into a defense of leaving troops in Afghanistan. This is a bit strange in that, assuming the reports are true, if the US troops are not there then they cannot be killed because of the bounty. and the Taliban cannot use the bounties to help finance their activities.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Information about Taliban attacks in Afghanistan lack hard data

(May 3) Attempting to find proper figures to measure the effects of the civil war in Afghanistan has been challenging for some time now. Analysts need to make do with publicly available information.

Even people such as the US Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) struggle to gather reliable data as Afghan officials prefer that SIGAR not be too well informed about what is happening.

Situation becoming even less transparent

SIGAR's latest quarterly report shows that even less data is forthcoming. One of the few remaining sources of data NATO statistics on Taliban attacks are now being withheld both from the public and from SIGAR as well. The NATO report says only that the Taliban had increased attacks against Afghan forces and were above seasonal norms in March. However, there is no hard data to confirm this or to what extent the increase is,. There is no exact hard data at all.

It is not even certain that the report is correct. Earlier reports indicated that Taliban violence was higher than they had hoped after the Taliban US peace deal but was still down considerably from the situation before the peace deal. However, it is not clear why both descriptions could not be true without more exact numbers.

Afghan government failed to carry out terms US Taliban peace agreement

At the end of February, the US and Taliban signed a peace agreement. Among its provisions was a prisoner swap of 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the Taliban for 1,000 Afghan forces imprisoned by the Taliban. The Afghan government was not part of the agreement and refused to carry out the swap which was to be a confidence building measure to be followed by government talks with the Taliban. The Taliban reacted by renewing attacks on the Afghan government but not foreign troops. When the US defended the Afghan government the US again started to fight the Taliban.

John Sopko, SIGAR, wrote in his quarterly report: "The signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement followed a successful week-long 'reduction in violence.' Without the background reported above one cannot understand why it is that the Taliban reacted the way they did. It was not due to the Taliban rejecting their treaty with the US it was due to the Afghan government rejecting that agreement and refusing to carry out its provisions. The US did nothing to force the government to carry the provisions out and talks with the Taliban have yet to result in a satisfactory resolution of the situation.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Thousands died in US Afghan reconstruction projects

(February 12)There has been much documentation to show that the Afghan war has been quite expensive with considerable sums spent on reconstruction but little has been achieved.

The human costs of Afghan reconstruction

The US Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John Sopko warns the US Congress that financial expenditures give an incomplete picture of the costs. There has been a very high human cost to the reconstruction program.

The SIGAR report said: "While considerable effort is made to track the amount of U.S. dollars spent, this review shows that we do not adequately capture the human cost of conducting reconstruction and stabilization projects while combat operations are still ongoing, especially third country nationals and Afghans," the report concludes. "Unless the U.S. Government considers the human costs, the true costs of reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Afghanistan are not accurately captured."

The reconstruction program has resulted in 2,214 people being killed so far. 216 American soldiers were among those killed but also 68 American civilians. There were 2,921 wounded, and another 1,182 who are simply missing. Most casualties identified in the report were Afghan civilians, 1,447 were killed, 2,008 wounded, and 1,003 kidnapped during reconstruction operations.

The US Congress created the SIGAR office to find where there was waste and corruption in the billions of dollars the US taxpayer spent in the war in Afghanistan. Up until this report SIGAR was almost exclusively focusing on the financial costs of the US operation but now it is revealing the huge human costs as well.

The casualties reported were the result of Taliban and other militant attacks on reconstruction projects since 2002.

When asked to assign a letter grade to the US reconstruction effort in Afghanistan Sopko said he thinks even a D-minus would be a bit high. He said that the US should only get credit for attendance.

Trump conditionally accepts Afghan peace plan

The New York Times reports that Trump has conditionally approved a peace deal with the Taliban that will see US troops withdraw if the Taliban will commit to a reduction in violence for roughly a one-week period this month. However the Taliban had already agreed to a demand that the deal include a ceasefire. The Taliban have indicated that they are fed up with the US backing out of a deal to ask for additional demands. It remains to be seen if they accept this further demand.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Air strike in Afghanistan kills five business men in a vehicle

(February 10) A number of provincial officials from Farah Province in Afghanistan report that on Saturday a vehicle was destroyed in an airstrike killing all five businessmen who were inside. The five were traveling from Farah city to Abu Nasar Farah Port.

One official, Farah Governor Massoud Bakhtor said that authorities are obliged to investigate and share findings about what had happened. He pledged serious action.

Not clear who was responsible for the strike

Provincial officials are in the dark so far about what happened. It could be a US airstrike thinking the vehicle was occupied by terrorists or it could be an Afghan military strike. The Afghan Ministry of Defense has had no comment as yet. The Afghan Defense Ministry is often tight-lipped about any reports where civilian casualties are concerned. However, not informing the Farah governor on such an event could further alienate the province from the central government.

Concerns expressed about civilian casualties in attacks

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission AIHRC expressed concern about the casualties and took note that the numbers had increased lately. The AIHRC spokesperson Zabiullah Farhang called on all parties to respect international law and the Afghan constitution. Zaman Sultani, Amnesty International Researcher for South Asia said:“Unfortunately, we do not see any proper action towards civilian victims of the Afghan conflict, and we do not see any accountability for those who caused civilian casualties.”

Last November Farah residents protested against another airstrike in the province that caused a number of casualties.

US delegation meets with families of airstrike victims

On Saturday a delegation of US troops went to Kunduz province to meet with and apologize to families of an airstrike two weeks ago. The strike allegedly caused the death of five militants but five civilians as well including two women and a child.

A spokesperson for the governor of Kunduz province said: “The foreign forces special operations commander had arrived on a trip with a delegation. They apologized to the family for the martyrdom of the five civilians in Dasht-e-Archi district and assured them that they would seriously investigate the airstrike." There was no word as to whether the families would receive any compensation for the deaths.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Afghan airstrike kills prominent Mullah along with 15 civilians

(January 22) US airstrikes against a splinter group of the Taliban killed Mullah Raaz Mohammed Nangyalai. However, according to the Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan (IHRC) 15 civilians were also killed.

IHRC describes attack as a clear violation of human rights

The IHRC issued a report calling on foreign forces to be more careful that civilians are not harmed by their military operations. The IHRC said the civilian killings were a clear violation of human rights. Those killed included 3 women and 3 children.

A recent article notes: "A spokesman for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan confirmed an American aircraft conducted the strike but said further questions should be directed to the Afghan Defense Ministry." The Ministry said earlier that the January 8 attack was being investigated.

In the first quarter of 2019 more Afghans were killed by US and Afghan forces than the Taliban: "During the first three months of 2019, international and pro-government forces were responsible for the deaths of 305 civilians, whereas insurgent groups killed 227 people, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in a quarterly report."

Nangyalai was regional commander of a Taliban splinter group

Nangyalai was a commander of the Rasoul Group that split from the main Taliban faction back in 2015. Although theoretically itself an insurgent group it has often operated with the tacit consent of the Afghan government. No doubt this is in part because the Rasoul group has often fought with the main Taliban forces in Herat. However, infighting is not as heavy as it was earlier.

The attack happened when there was an attempt to arrest one of Nangyalai's deputies that resulted in a battle with the militants with US air support being called in according to a former spokesperson for the group.

A recent article notes: " An official in Herat said the killing of Nangyalai may have weakened locals’ support for the government in Kabul.“He (Mullah Nangyalai) was a Taliban member at one time but he supported the security forces,” Kamran Alizaee, head of Herat’s provincial council, told Tolo News after the attack."

Afghan officials have warned that the killing of Mullah Nangyalai could weaken support for the government locally as he was a comparatively popular religious figure in the local area,.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US spent $132 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan since 2002

(November 3)The US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has issued a new report that estimates that the US has spent $132 billion on Afghan economic development since 2002.

Details of the SIGAR report A recent news article provides a breakdown of the spending: $82.55 billion for security (including $4.57 billion for counter-narcotics initiatives). $34.46 billion for governance and development (including $4.37 billion for counter-narcotics initiatives). $3.85 billion for humanitarian aid. $11.70 billion for civilian operations. The amount provided to the nine largest active US funds accounts for more than 86.1% (nearly $114.17 billion) of total reconstruction assistance in Afghanistan since 2002. Of this amount, over 92.9% (nearly $106.11 billion) has been promised, and nearly 89.2% (nearly $101.80 billion) has been disbursed.'" Some $5.8 billion of the appropriated funds are estimated to have expired and will not be disbursed. SIGAR claims that another $5.2 billion will be required after any political settlement is reached. A World Bank plan cited in the report says that another $5.2 billion would be required for social and economic development if a political settlement was reached.  

 

Trump refuses to accept a recent deal in principle reached with the Taliban After 18 years into the war a deal in principle was reached between the Taliban and the US but Trump rejected it as a BBC reported in September at the time: ""As far as I'm concerned, they are dead," he told White House reporters on Monday.Over the weekend Mr Trump cancelled secret plans to host a Taliban delegation in the US after the militant group admitted killing a US soldier." The death of just one US soldier at the hands of the Taliban appears to have been crucial in the decision. This will save the $5.2 billion for reconstruction for now but will mean spending more billions perhaps before any settlement is reached. The spending is deferred until later after what so far has been unending.

 

 The Afghan economy The report citing the Afghan statistical authority says that the GDP contracted by 0.2 percent in 2018. This year the SIGAR report shows that the GDP during the first 8 months of this fiscal year grew 3.2 percent. The Afghan Ministry of Finance said the national revenue this year of $114 million has achieved the government's target. A spokesperson for the ministry said: “We had a Afs10 billion increase this year and we earned a Afs160 billion so far and we will achieve our goal by the end of the year."  

 

Critics claim that international aid spending not transparent As a result political analyst Naqibullah Hashemi said: “Our politicians have failed to use the US funds, and, at the same time, the US did not want to give the authority of spending some of the fund on big projects.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Taliban remove ban on Red Cross operations and guarantee security for humanitarian work

(Sept. 17)Taliban leaders in Afghanistan announce that they are revoking their ban on Red Cross operations in parts of the country they control. They are now offering security guarantees for any Red Cross staff doing humanitarian work in Taliban-held areas.

Taliban could use help as attacks on them escalate

A recent Reuters article notes: Afghan security forces, backed by U.S. air strikes, killed two of the movement’s shadow provincial governors on Sunday, as fighting stepped up in the wake of the collapse of talks aimed at ending the conflict, officials said...The defence ministry in a statement said at least 85 Taliban fighters were killed in a joint ground and air operation in southern Paktika province on Saturday night."

The attacks have intensified since Trump refused to agree to a peace deal with the Taliban. As is often the case, the Taliban gave their own figures. A spokesperson claimed that seven of their fighters had been killed and 11 wounded while Afghan security forces casualties were over 20. With the Taliban suffering more casualties help from the Red Cross would no doubt be welcome.

A recent article reports: "The Islamic Emirate restores the former security guarantees to ICRC in Afghanistan and instructs all mujahideen to pave the way for ICRC activities and be mindful of security to this committee's workers and equipment," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid in a statement." The Taliban refers to itself as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The Taliban had also banned the World Health Organization (WHO) but did not refer to it in the announcement.

Red Cross claims neutrality in the conflict

The guarantee of security for the Red Cross is essential otherwise the organization could suffer from attacks. It might take some time for the organization to cover the considerable area controlled and contested by the Taliban.

Taliban and others had been suspicious of western aid organizations

The CIA organized a fake vaccination program as a 2011 article notes: "The CIA organised a fake vaccination programme in the town where it believed Osama bin Laden was hiding in an elaborate attempt to obtain DNA from the fugitive al-Qaida leader's family, a Guardian investigation has found. As part of extensive preparations for the raid that killed Bin Laden in May, CIA agents recruited a senior Pakistani doctor to organise the vaccine drive in Abbottabad, even starting the "project" in a poorer part of town to make it look more authentic, according to Pakistani and US officials and local residents." This operation made the Taliban and other radical groups suspicious of western humanitarian programs and hurt legitimate vaccination programs. A number of aid groups were banished from certain areas.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump says he would withdraw troops but leave intelligence officers in Afghanistan

(July 3) Trump said Monday that he would like to have a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan but wants to leave a "strong intelligence" there a number of intelligence officers. He called Afghanistan the "Harvard of terrorists".

US and Taliban negotiating a deal for US withdrawal

The US is in ongoing talks with the Taliban on a peace deal that would see the US withdraw all its troops from the country a Taliban precondition for any agreement. In return for the withdrawal the Taliban would promise not to allow ISIS and Al Qaeda to stay within Afghanistan.

Mike Pompeo has already confirmed that the US has agreed to withdraw but only as part of a completed agreed upon plan as reported in a recent Digital Journal article: "We've made clear to the Taliban that we're prepared to remove our forces. I want to be clear, we've not yet agreed on a timeline to do so."

As discussed in a recent Digital Journal article , Pompeo said: "We've made clear to the Taliban that we're prepared to remove our forces. I want to be clear, we've not yet agreed on a timeline to do so."

Recent peace talks attempt to set a firm timetable for US withdrawal.

Trump says US needs to watch the country

It is not clear how the US would place their intelligence agents in the country without an occupation force. No doubt they could be part of embassy staff but if the Taliban knew they were spying they could very well be ejected.

It is not evident that this issue has been discussed in negotiations with the Taliban. If it has not it could very well cause difficulties in the negotiations. If the US insists on such a condition it could very well jeopardize the success of the talks.

Trump has long been interested in US withdrawal from Afghanistan

Trump has long expressed interest in pulling out of Afghanistan, though some in the administration have been keen to keep troops in the country, and many in Congress have expressed discomfort with the idea of the war, the longest in US history, ever ending.

The Taliban have refused to negotiate with members of the Afghan government which they consider a puppet of the US. However , a recent article in the Digital Journal indicates there have been fresh attempts to bring the Afghans into the process.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Peace talks on Afghanistan in Qatar postponed indefinitely

The Qatari government which is hosting peace talks with the US, Taliban and Afghan representatives announced that the talks are postponed indefinitely as they never even started even though they were scheduled to begin earlier this week.

A big blow to peace efforts

US and Taliban representatives have been working for months to arrange the talks. The Taliban refuse to negotiate with the Afghan government as they consider it a puppet of the United States. This is probably behind the problems as the Afghan government has been a drag on the process. This move may have stopped the process altogether. It certainly has for now as no dates to resume the talks have been set.

The probable cause of the situation

The Afghan government appointed a large 250 member delegation but when they arrived at the airport the government stopped their departure. No reason was given for the action. Some signs are the Afghan president Ghani was annoyed that many of those chosen to attend the talks were not his direct allies. The delegation included many other political factions other than his own and his allies. No doubt without such a selection the Taliban would not have agreed to the talks. A Taliban spokesperson also complained of the size of the delegation. A commentator on the appended video suggests this as part of the cause for the talks not taking place.

Another account of the situation

Another article notes that Sultan Barakat who is director of the Qatar Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies which is sponsoring the talks said the postponement was necessary to build further confidence as to who should participate in the talks.

The talks were scheduled to begin on Friday and were considered a significant step in finding a solution to end the war and for the eventual withdrawal of US troops ending America's longest lasting war.

A senior official claimed that the problem was that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani opposed a list of participants announced by Barakat's organization, a list of 243 people announced by Qatar on Thursday. Ghani has submitted his own list of 250 people which an official said contained many more women. No doubt they along with the others were allies of Ghani. The Taliban will not recognize any officials sent as part of the government except as ordinary Afghans. A Taliban spokesperson questioned the size of the delegation.

It seems clear that Afghan government will sabotage the talks if president Ghani does not get the Afghan representatives he wants to be there. However, if he does it is not clear the Taliban will agree to the talks. Perhaps there will be pressure on Ghani to agree to a compromise as it seems reasonable that groups other than Ghani's allies should represent Afghans at the talks. If all the Afghans are Ghani supporters it is not clear that even if the Taliban accept them that there would be any progress possible. It is clear that a consensus about which Afghans and how many should take part in the talks is needed.

Published earlier in Digital Journal

Protesters killed in anti-government protest in Kabul, Afghanistan

(June 2)Protesters in the Afghan capital Kabul demanded the resignation of the president Ashraf Ghani's government after the recent devastating truck-bomb attack in the capital.

There were deadly clashes with the riot police. Four protesters were killed as police fired live ammunition to break up the demonstration. Health Ministry spokesperson Waheed Majrooh said; “In today’s protest four people died and eight others were wounded." The protests and no doubt the casualties added pressure on Ghani's weak and divided government that has been powerless to prevent attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians.

Ghani condemned what he called the cowardly truck-bomb attack that ripped through the diplomatic district supposedly the most secure area of Kabul. The attack killed at least 90 people and wounded hundreds more.

In the Kabul protests more than 1,000 demonstrators with many carrying pictures of bomb victims rallied in the morning near the site of the blast. They hold Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah responsible for the blast due to lax security. The two share power. Niloofar Nilgoon, one of many women in the protest said: "The international community has to put pressure on them and force them to resign. They're not capable of leading the country." As the standoff lasted longer the situation grew more tense and regular gunfire bursts were heard. Police in riot gear used water cannon and tear gas to stop protesters from access to the road that leads to the presidential palace. Among those killed according to Afghan media reports was the son of a prominent politician.

The protesters are angry at the Western-backed government which has failed to provide security even in the capital, 3 years after most foreign troops have left. One banner read: "Ghani! Abdullah! Resign! Resign!" Given the weak government and unstable political situation the U.S. may find its plan to possibly send 3,000 to 5,000 more troops to break the stalemate with the Taliban even more problematic than it already is. The Taliban control about 40 percent of the country. Even before the truck attack 715 civilians had been killed in the first three months of 2017. In 2016 nearly 3,500 civilians were killed the worst year for civilian deaths on record.

Kabul has been on edge ever since the devastating bombing as it showed militants could strike arguably the most secure district in the city which is home not only to foreign embassies surrounded by concrete blast walls but also the presidential palace. Rahila Jafari, a social activist said: “Our brothers and sisters were martyred in the bloody attack and our leaders are doing nothing to stop this carnage. We want justice, we want the perpetrators of the attack to be hanged to death.” Another demonstrator claimed that until the two rulers resigned the demonstrations would continue: “Day after day, innocent civilians are being killed by terrorists. If our leaders cannot restore security they should step down.” The enclosed video claims that even more were killed in the protests, seven.

Afghan Taliban leader urges reforestation

A special message carried on Taliban news outlets from new leader Hibatullah Akhundzada urges Afghan's to plant more trees. Trees in Afghanistan are cut down for fuel and illegal timber sales creating a severe deforestation problem.

In his statement Akhundzada asked civilians and fighters to "plant one or several fruit or non-fruit trees for the beautification of Earth and the benefit of almighty Allah's creations". Such a statement on environmental issues from the Taliban is quite rare. Usually statements deal with military successes or criticism of the Afghan government and its NATO supporters.

The Jihad website Afghan Taliban Voice quotes the message as saying: "Tree plantation plays an important role in environmental protection, economic development and beautification of earth. Planting trees and agriculture are considered actions which hold both worldly good and benefit as well as immense rewards in the hereafter." Many Afghans especially in rural areas heat their homes and cook using wood-burning stoves. The statement was issued in four languages including English.

The message also tried to represent the tree-planting as part of Islam: "Tree planting plays an important role in environmental protection, economic development and the beautification of the earth. Allah Almighty has interconnected the lives of human beings with plants. Plants live off soil while humans and animals live off plants. If the plants and trees are eradicated, life itself would be put in peril, Allah Almighty says."

Shah Murtazawi a spokesperson for Afghan president Ashraf Gani, dismissed the statement as an attempt to deceive Afghan public opinion and distract attention from their crimes and destruction. Murtazawi said: "Since the establishment of the Taliban movement the only things that these people have in their minds are fighting, crimes and destruction. How is it possible for the Taliban to think about planting trees or protecting the environment in the country?" The Taliban is more associated with opium poppy production than reforestation. It taxes the production of opium in areas under its control. The Taliban has been offered a role in government if they end their insurgency. However, the Taliban have demanded the withdrawal of foreign forces as a condition of making peace. Wahid Muhda, a political analyst in Kabul said that announcements such as this and others where the Taliban claim to be building roads and bridges may be part of a campaign to show that they display enlightened leadership in areas they control.

The Taliban leader Akhundzada a religious scholar and cleric from Kandahar is believed to be in hiding since he became leader in May 2016 after the previous leader was killed in a US drone strike. The statement also noted that the Taliban were still "actively engaged in a struggle against foreign invaders and their hirelings" , that is against the Kabul government and NATO supporters. It is estimated that the Taliban now control up to 40 percent of Afghanistan.

President Obama breaks promise on troop reduction in Afghanistan

Obama had pledged to reduce U.S. troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,500 troops by the end of this year but instead he is withdrawing about 1,400.

This will leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan until the end of his presidency, 2,900 more than he promised. Obama defended his decision saying:

“I strongly believe that it is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we've invested in Afghanistan over the years, that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed. The decision I'm making today ensures that my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in Afghanistan as well as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves.”

Obama said his national security advisers had recommended that he move away from his earlier pledge to reduce numbers to 5,500. Officials said the decision was based for the most part on assessments made by General John Nicholson Jr. who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Obama said the basic nature of the present mission to assist and advise local Afghan forces will not change but last month the White House approved giving U.S. commanders greater freedom to use air strikes whenever U.S. or Afghan troops were in danger. Obama said he will not let Afghanistan become a safe haven for terrorists to attack the U.S. The U.S. spends about $4 billion annually to fund the Afghan military. The U.S. is trying to get some NATO partners to share the burden as described in a recent article. This October, the US will have been in Afghanistan for 15 years. As of now, the Taliban control more territory than they have any time since 2001.

Many members of the U.S. Congress want the U.S. to send more troops. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, said:“The precision of the president’s new Afghanistan troop cap would be comical were its consequences not so tragic for our mission and military readiness. It is time that the president level with the American people about what it will really take to achieve our goals in Afghanistan, and how much it will cost. The truth is that many thousands more Americans are performing military functions in Afghanistan than even the current troop cap authorizes."In spite of the fact that the combat role of the US in Afghanistan is over, 38 Americans including troops, contractors, and workers lost their lives last year.

The UK is to send 50 more troops to Afghanistan. With the 450 troops already there, the UK contingent will be 500 troops. The mission was to end this year but has been extended to 2017.

Australia has also extended its Afghan mission until at least mid-2017. It was to end at the end of this year. Australia also pleadged $100 million a year to fund the Afghan National Army and National Police until 2020. There are only 270 Australian troops in Afghanistan.

NATO allies promised the US they will contribute about $1 billion a year over the next three years to help fund the Afghan military. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stotlenberg said that there were more pledges to come. 12,000 NATO troops will stay in Afghanistan into 2017.

US still refuses to approve independent investigation of Kunduz hospital bombing

There are three different investigations being carried out of the air attack by an AC-130 gunship on a hospital run by Doctors without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

+ Add Image

The three investigations are led by U.S., NATO, and Afghan officials. All are themselves connected to the attack. MSF has demanded an independent investigation. The death toll from the U.S. air strike has now reached 30 and could yet go higher.

MSF wants the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate the attack: The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) is an international body that is available to perform investigations of possible breaches of international humanitarian law. The Commission may investigate matters to determine what has happened, but does not pass judgement on issues it raises.

The IHFFC was activated in the middle of October according to MSF:"MSF has been informed that the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission has been activated. This is the first step needed to undertake an independent investigation into the attack."Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said that the U.S. would work with those affected by the attack to determine appropriate amounts of compensation. However, the U.S. has not agreed to an independent investigation as the MSF demands, and in spite of the fact that the IHFFC has been activated. The Commission vice-president, Thilo Marauhn, sent letters to the United States and Afghanistan asking for permission to go ahead with their investigation. So far there has been no response from either party.

While the MSF noted that it had received apologies and condolences, Joanne Liu, the MSF head said this was not enough:"We are still in the dark about why a well-known hospital full of patients and medical staff was repeatedly bombarded for more than an hour. We need to understand what happened and why."

The official U.S. story has changed several times. Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, General John Campbell, commander of the U.S. and NATO war in Afghanistan, gave a fourth account of the attack. He said Afghan forces had requested air cover while fighting with the Taliban near the hospital. Unlike an earlier account he had given he now admitted that Afghan forces had no direct communication with the pilots of the AC-130 gunship that carried out the attack. Campbell said: “Even though the Afghans request that support, it still has to go through a rigorous US procedure to enable fires to go on the ground. We had a special operations unit that was in close vicinity that was talking to the aircraft that delivered those fires.”

Campbell insists the hospital was mistakenly struck. This explanation is hard to accept. The coordinates of the hospital were regularly shared. There is another reason to disbelieve the "mistake explanation" as well.

U.S. special operations analysts were busy gathering intelligence on the hospital days before it was destroyed in the attack. The group believed the hospital was being used by a Pakistani intelligence operative to coordinate Taliban activity. Originally the attack was explained as an attempt to protect U.S. troops in a firefight, then it was supposedly ordered by Afghans, and finally it turns out that it was ordered by U.S. special forces but was a mistake. Surely the special forces would have the information from intelligence sources about the supposed use of the hospital as a command unit to direct the Taliban battle. According to one report:After the attack — which came amidst a battle to retake the northern Afghan city of Kunduz from the Taliban — some U.S. analysts assessed that the strike had been justified, the former officer says. They concluded that the Pakistani, believed to have been working for his country’s Inter-Service Intelligence directorate, had been killed.The mistake may not have been bombing the hospital but acting upon false intelligence.

US could keep up to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2016

Although the Afghan war was supposedly "ended" as far as foreign combat troops were concerned a couple of years ago, almost 10,000 US troops still remain.

+ Add Image

After recent deliberations among officials, the present plans include options that would leave thousands of troops in Afghanistan through 2016. Plans for successive withdrawals may be scrapped in the face of a continuing Taliban threat and with the Islamic State also trying to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. The Taliban claims there will be no peace agreement as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

Proponents of keeping more U.S. troops in place argue that the Afghan forces are simply not capable of beating back the Taliban on their own. The Taliban have gained ground over this year in several areas. The U.S. has already been in Afghanistan for 14 years.

The top international commander in Afghanistan, US General John Campbell, has sent five separate recommendations to both the Pentagon and NATO each with its own risk assessment. Among the options is one that would keep the U.S. presence at near 10,000 troops. At the other end of the scale would be a minimal force of just several hundred troops.

As the officials consider the alternatives, many point to what happened in Iraq after the U.S. left. Opposition to the government grew and the Islamic State was able to take advantage of a weak military. While the emphasis will no doubt remain on training and advising, with counter-terrorism missions as well, many in the military worry that any force reduction could result in a failed mission. The Afghan government itself wants foreign troops to remain.

Current plans call for all US remaining bases to be handed over to Afghan control by the end of 2016 and just a few hundred troops to remain in Kabul by the end of his term of office. Obama already agreed to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan to the end of this year at the request of the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, even though Obama had planned to reduce the level to 5,500.

Other NATO members also may keep more troops in Afghanistan than planned. Some officials insist that continued financial support is also crucial in keeping the Taliban and Islamic State at bay. The total NATO and US forces in Afghanistan at present are about 13,000. NATO will be closely monitoring any US decision on troop levels. One NATO official said: "There are 30-plus countries ready to contribute; the question is how big the U.S. will be...Enablers give others confidence that if they get in a real pinch, the U.S. will be able to help them out. Will the U.S. provide the backbone around which NATO brings 30 more countries?"

US attack blows up arms cache of Afghan warlord

US forces attacked a village of local commander Jan Ahmad and blew up an arms cache belonging to him. The US said the raid was carried out to destroy the weapons.

+ Add Image

The stated role of the remaining US troops in Afghanistan is to advise and train Afghan forces as well as engage in counter-terrorism operations. In exceptional circumstances the Americans can launch attacks on their own as in this case. However, Ahmad the target is a veteran of the Afghan war against the former Soviet-backed regime and also fought later against the Taliban. He appears to be quite popular locally. Ahmad and other local warlords with their own weapons and militia are regarded by the US and often the Afghan government as a threat against them. However, Afghan officials say they were not informed of the raid and that any concern about Ahmad should have been handled by the Afghan government.

The raid resulted in huge protests. Protesters blocked the main highway to Kabul. Ahmad supporters shouted "Death to America" and "Death to the Enemies of Islam". Shops in Charikar the capital of Parwan province remained closed due to the protests.

Public affairs director Colonel Brian Tribus said:"U.S. forces conducted an operation ... to destroy a cache of munitions that could be used to conduct attacks against Afghans and coalition forces." Former commanders and local elders see the raid as politically motivated and perhaps a settling of scores from the hotly contested presidential campaign last election.

Ahmad had supported Abdullah Abdullah who was the opponent of President Ashraf Ghani. Ahmad was among a number of commanders who had threatened to use force to create a rival government to Ghani. However, a compromise was finally worked out. Abdullah, who was made chief executive in a power-sharing government with Ghani called for restraint and for protesters to remain calm. He called on General John Campbell who commands the US forces in Afghanistan to provide further information on the raid. An aide to Ahmad said the raid on Ahmad's home was carried out about 4:30 AM in the morning with US forces descending from helicopters. After searching the home, the soldiers blew up the arms depot.

The largest US base in Afghanistan Bagram is in Parwan. It has been frequently under rocket attack of late but by the Taliban not local warlords. Nevertheless, the US is concerned that local armed warlords might also turn against the Americans. Negotiations involving Ahmad and Parwan officials led to the opening of the highway at noon. Special forces of the Afghan intelligence service have also carried out raids in Parwan during recent weeks The manner of the searches has angered local residents. They found no weapons.

Night raids were very unpopular during the era of former President Karzai who refused to sign the Status of Forces agreement with the US as they were still allowed in "exceptional circumstances". Local authorities had no notice that the Parwan raid would happen. There are about 9,800 US troops remaining in Afghanistan. About 3,000 operate outside the NATO training mission set to end in 2016. There is very little reporting about the activities of US counter-terrorism troops with this raid being an exception. A combat video appended shows them in action last year in Afghanistan.

Islamic State recruiting in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Kabul - General John Campbell, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan reports that the Islamic State is recruiting fighters in Afghanistan and next door in Pakistan as well.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Campbell claims that recruiters have funds for recruiting. While he does not believe the Islamic State is fully operational in either country, in Afghanistan some Taliban have split off and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Campbell see this as an attempt for some Taliban to "rebrand" and as a way of bringing attention and resources to themselves. In other areas, this same type of change has led to a significant rise in Islamic State presence. In Libya, some members of Ansar al Sharia, an Al Qaeda-linked group, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Subsequently their strength grew and they now control two coastal cities.

In Afghanistan's Helmand province, Mullah Abdul Rauf has pledged allegiance to the Ilamic State. He is a former senior Taliban commander and former Guantanamo inmate. An elder from the area told the BBC there had been a fight between the new group and the Taliban after they had replaced the Taliban white flags with the black flag of the Islamic State. The elder said about 20 people from both sides had been killed or injured in the clash. The governor of Nimruz province, Amir Mohammed, said the IS tried to recruit people in the south-western province of Farah but were driven out by local people with the help of the police. However, he said the group still had the same program, though they were changing their name.

The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, has not been seen in public since 2001.There now appears to be a challenge to his leadership from the Islamic State not just in Afghanistan but in Pakistan too. In Pakistan an online video appeared in which several commanders claimed they had pledged allegiance to Abu Al-Baghdadi, the IS leader.

One Afghan news agency reported IS militants already were in control of most of the province of Nangahar in the north-east of Afghanistan, but General Campbell dismissed the report saying:"We are not seeing it operationalized to the point of like what you are seeing in Syria. But I think, given time, that is where they want to go, so I think we have to squash that out now while we can."

He did not deny the reports of Taliban and Islamic State fighters had fought with each other.

A suicide attack in the Afghan eastern city of Jalalabad killed 33 people and injured over a hundred last March. The Taliban condemned the attack but a former spokesperson for the Pakistan Taliban claimed the attack as the work of the Islamic State in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a visit to Washington last month Afghan president Ghani claimed that the Islamic State posed a "terrible threat" to Afghanistan