US House defeats bill that would have US troops withdraw from Afghanistan

(July 20) The US House of Representatives soundly defeated an amendment to the 2021 National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) that would establish a plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.

Amendment was soundly defeated

The amendment was defeated with only 129 supporting the amendment while 284 opposed it. Only a slight plurality of Democrats supported the measure while all Republicans but two opposed the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.

Trump favors withdrawing all troops

In May President Trump had said that he wanted to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan before the November election. However, since then Democratic leaders have shifted to a more hawkish position and have been trying to prevent a total withdrawal. The Democratic leadership seems to be driven by opposition to Trump's position.

The US has been fighting in Afghanistan for 19 years now, almost two decades. The Taliban show no sign of being defeated. At the end of this February there was a peace deal between the US and the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not involved in the deal and refused to carry out the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the deal. Conflict has continued between the Taliban and the government. However, talks between the Taliban and the government may be possible to reach a deal on the prisoner swap and a possible cease fire and peace deal.

The US Taliban peace deal

The US and the Taliban reached an agreement on February 29h this year. The agreement would require US troop withdrawal but conditional on the Taliban keeping their obligations under the deal: "Under the terms of the deal, the U.S. commits to withdrawing all of its military forces and supporting civilian personnel, as well as those of its allies, within 14 months. The drawdown process will begin with the U.S. reducing its troop levels to 8,600 in the first 135 days and pulling its forces from five bases."

The US has already reached the goal of reducing troops to 8,600. All of the troops need to be withdrawn only my May 1 next year. Trump could further reduce troop numbers but keep some there after the election to placate hawks who would accuse him or withdrawing all troops too early if he takes them all out. He can leave some for a later withdrawal without violating the agreement with the Taliban.

Prisoner swap and Taliban government talks

The Afghan government was not part of the US Taliban agreement. As part of the agreement the Afghan government was to free up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners for up to 1,000 Afghan security forces held by the Taliban. However, the Afghan government did not agree to this. However, there have been attempts to have peace talks with the Taliban and also to negotiate a prisoner swap.

So far Afghan officials claim they have released about 4,400 prisoners but they have refused to release a last batch of about 600 inmates as they insist they are too dangerous to be released and that some foreign governments also want them to remain in jail.

However, the US and the Taliban are bother urging that the prisoner swap issue be resolved and that talks on a permanent cease fire go forward.

Ross Wilson the US ambassador to Afghanistan said: “The Afghan people have made clear their impatience. Start intra-Afghan negotiations now so that discussions on a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire can begin.” The US is apparently frustrated at the Afghan government's failure to complete the prisoner swap. As a result the Taliban have continued attacks so that there has been not the reduction in violence that had been hoped. The US charges d'affairs also urged the government to move on with the prisoner swap and talks:“We urge this country’s leaders promptly to establish the new government, create the High Council for National Reconciliation, complete the exchange of prisoners, and move to the opening of intra-Afghan negotiations.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Shortly after treaty with Taliban US begins withdrawing some troops from Afghanistan

(March 10) Only a week after the US and Taliban signed an Afghan peace deal the first few hundred US troops are rotating out of the country. Although the rotation was planned before the agreement the troops will not be replaced in accordance with the deal.

	1 of 2

Many troops still remain to be withdrawn

After a few hundred withdrawn troops, this will still leave about 13,000 US troops in Afghanistan. The deal with the Taliban would see a further reduction in the near term to a level of about 8,600. If the Taliban keep their commitments under the deal then the remaining troops would be withdrawn, finally ending the 19-year war. The Taliban are to insure jihadists such as Al Qaeda be kept out of areas controlled by the Taliban. Also, the Taliban must enter into intra-Afghan talks including with members of the Afghan government. The deal is so worded that the US could easily claim that the Taliban has not honored the deal and cease their withdrawal.

Afghan government response to deal complicates the situation

As a confidence building measure the deal with the Taliban requires the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners before the start of talks between the government members and the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not part of the deal and on March 1 President Ghani rejected the prisoner exchange claiming the Afghan government had not agreed to the swap and it was only the authority of the Afghan government that could have the prisoners released. Subsequently, the Taliban started attacks on the government again as no talks had been worked out with no prisoner exchange taking place, and the 7 day reduction in violence period was over. However, they did not attack US or other foreign forces.

On March 10 Ghani signed a decree that ordered the Afghan government to start releasing 1,500 Taliban prisoners on March 14 if they agree to sign pledges they will not return to battle. However, if the pledges are not made the decree will be void. It remains to be seen if this will satisfy the Taliban. The same day the US began troop withdrawal.

Afghan government faces its own problems

President Ahraf Ghani has been declared the winner of last September's election. However, challenger Abdullah Abdullah has charged that there was fraud in the vote, along with the elections complaints commission. This threatens the next steps in the peace process and could even result in violence.

On Monday both Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah held swearing in ceremonies. There was an explosion at Ghani's swearing in. The two had been unsuccessful in negotiating a compromise the night before.

In 2014 the situation was similar. Ghani was declared the winner but Abdullah Abdullah contested the result. After two months of talks aided by US mediation a compromise was reached. Ghani remained president but a new position was created Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan and Abdullah Abdullah was awarded that position. The two also agreed to what was called a national unity government. However the CEO office was not renewed when the new election was called. It remains to be seen if it will be necessary for another compromise to be negotiated between the two contending parties.

The issue should be cleared up before talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government take place.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Hawks press Trump to keep US troops in Afghanistan

(March 4) Amost two decades after the US entered into Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban regime, US hawks are still in support of the war and think that any deal to end it would be a bad one.

Hawks lobby Trump to back out of the peace process

Hawks would like to see US troops remain in Afghanistan. However, if the US insists on keeping troops in Afghanistan any deal with the Taliban is likely off. However, this would be fine with the hawks and no doubt with the US military-industrial complex as profits from arms and equipment sales will continue. No doubt they will argue that the war is also creating jobs.

Trump often inconsistent on war issues

Although Trump in his presidential campaigning lashed out at US involvement in useless wars and promised to withdraw troops, in practice he can sometimes given in to pressure by hawks and do the opposite. Although he still claims to want troop cuts he recently walked away from an agreement with the Taliban after a US soldier was killed in an attack. At the time, there was no cease fire in effect.

The recent Taliban US peace agreement

On February 29 the US and the Taliban signed a four part peace agreement after months of talks in Doha Qatar. As part of the agreement US troops in Afghanistan would be reduced from 13,000 at present to 8,600 within 135 days of the deal. Troops would be fully withdrawn with 14 months. US troops would thus remain in Afghanistan for more than a year. If the Taliban did not keep their provisions in the deal obviously they might remain.

Another part of the deal involved a confidence-building prisoner swap releasing imprisoned Taliban as well as those imprisoned by the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not a party to negotiations and claimed that the US had no authority to guarantee release of the prisoners.

Among those attacking the agreement were Liz Cheney a Republican representative from Wyoming who said: "I've expressed my serious concerns about the lack of verification mechanism, about the commitment and the agreement that we would go to zero and primarily about the fact that what we have here are a number of promises by the Taliban.Many of them are promises that have been made before, and I think that the decisions about American troop levels in Afghanistan have to be made based on America's national security interests, not based on empty promises from the Taliban and an agreement that doesn't have any disclosed verification mechanism."

Taliban resumes attacks against the Afghan government

The peace deal presumed there would be talks between the Taliban and Afghans including members of the government to complete peace arrangement and a political way forward. However, with the Afghan government rejecting the prisoner swap, The Taliban considered the period of lessened violence to be over as far as attacks on the government were considered. Attacks resumed but only against the government. The US and Taliban forces kept to the agreement.

The Afghan government no doubt expected the US to come to its aid. Reports now indicate it has done so with an air attack.

However, in spite of all this, Trump said he had a good talk with the Taliban leader: "We had a very good conversation with the leader of the Taliban today, and they’re looking to get this ended, and we’re looking to get it ended. I think we all have a very common interest. We had, actually, a very good talk with the leader of the Taliban.” There is no indication that the talk had any practical positive effect at least so far.

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

US and Afghan troops killed in incident in Nangarhjar Province in Afghanistan

(February 8) News about an incident in Nangarhar province in Aghanistan involving US and Afghan forces and perhaps the Taliban or ISIS is unclear with conflicting reports on what happened.

Varying reports

The New York Times described the event as a deadly shootout between Afghan and US soldiers while engaged in a joint exercise. The Times quoted two Afghan officials reported that five or six US soldiers were killed and six Afghan troops as well. A US military official was quoted as saying the at least 6 Americans were killed but did not say how many on the other side were killed.

Another report by Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesperson for US forces in Afghanistan, said that a combined US and Afghan force in Nangarhar was engaged by direct fire. This implies that an enemy force either Taliban or ISIS were involved. Leggett said: "We are assessing the situation and will provide further updates as they become available." However, Mubartz Khadem, a senior security official in the province said that the clashes took place between US and Afghan forces and that he feared there were casualties. This could then be an insider or "green on blue" attack that have occurred a number of times before during the Afghan conflict.

A senior Afghan defense official told news media that it was not clear whether the clash was a result of clashes between Afghan and foreign soldiers or whether it was by Islamist militants. The official said: "We are not ruling any possibility out but we are not calling it an insider attack, Taliban attack, or 'green-on-blue' at this stage."

A provincial council member in Nangarhar, Sohra Qaderi said the clashes were between the Afghan army and foreign forces in the Shirzad district of the province on Saturday afternoon. Qaderi was unsure what had happened but said it seemed the clashes happened during a raid or there could have been a tactical mistake.

Taliban sources were not immediately available to comment. The Taliban now control more territory than at any point since they were ousted in 2001.

Peace talks have yet to be successful

There are about 14,000 US troops still in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan troops but also to carry out counter-terrorism operations. US negotiators have been for months attempting to arrange for withdrawal of foreign troops in exchange for security guarantees. However, conflict continues. The US would like to see the Taliban reduce violence during talks. However, neither side has stopped attacks.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Afghans fear foreign security forces just as much as the Taliban

(December 13, 2019) The war is Afghanistan has been going on for 18 years. Afghans now fear foreign security forces to about the same degree as the Taliban. While only 1 percent trust the Taliban to negotiate peace for them only 0.5 percent trust foreign forces to do so.

The entire survey by the Asia Foundation can be found here. The survey shows that Afghans are increasingly optimistic about the peace process but most do not see the presence of foreign troops as very important to the process and most are quite wiling to see foreign troops leavej if this will result in a deal. The survey raises questions about the utility and necessity of the US and other foreign troops remaining in Afghanistan.

The survey

The survey is intended to measure Afghan opinions in order to provide useful information for policymakers and other stakeholders. This year the survey consisted of in-person interviews with more than 17,000 Afghans in all the 34 Afghan provinces between July l1 to August 7 this year.

For the first time, the survey asked questions about ongoing negotiations with the Taliban. A huge majority of 89 percent supported the negotiations.

Important factors in negotiations

A slight majoity of Afghans 52 percent thought that the presence of foreign troops was not even an important factor in peace negotiations. Afghans were willing to give up the presence of foreign troops in the country more than anything else. Only 17.5 percent thought that it was an important feature not to give up. 77 percent would not want to compromise on women's rights, Over 80 percent wanted to keep the present constitution and 78 percent would not give up freedom of speech and the press,

Afghans trust their government much more than foreign forces or Taliban

The Taliban had the support of only about 13 percent of the population. Much of any legitimacy that the Taliban has comes from fight foreign forces. In 2019 international forces killed more civilians than the Taliban. While only a minuscule percentage of Afghans trust the Taliban or foreign troops to negotiate for them, 53.6 percent trust president Ashraf Ghani and their government to do so. Many Afghans see the presence of foreign forces in the country as the main reason the Taliban are still fighting.

The US counterinsurgency program has as one of its aims to win hearts and minds as a way of achieving legitimacy. However, the result in Afghanistan is at best quite mixed. The Afghans support their government and army that the US helped prop up. Indeed the Afghan government is seen by the Taliban as a puppet government of the US. However, the US and other foreign forces are not seen as very important or necessary for a peace deal. The US might do better if they let the Afghans pursue their own military strategy as best they can with help from the US rather than emphasis upon their own military action. More diplomatic and economic engagement with the Afghan government may help bring a negotiated peace faster,

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US General claims that the US will keep forces in Afghanistan for several more years

(November 11, 2019)US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley predicted that US troops would stay in Afghanistan for several more years. This is the first such estimate since President Trump refused to accept a peace plan in principle negotiated with the Taliban.

	1 of 2

Milley's defense of the US mission

Milley defended the Afghan war of 18 years now arguing that the mission would ensure that the Afghan government would have sustainable internal security to protect the US and claimed that "the mission is not yet complete".

Afghan government no closer to defeating the Taliban

However even though the war has now lasted nearly two decades it is not clear that the Afghan government is any closer to being self-sufficient for its own security. As of January last year, the Afghan government controlled only a little over half of the country: "According to a report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as of January 31 last year, 229 districts were under the Afghan government's control, which is about 56.3 percent of the total Afghan districts. On the other hand, 59 districts, approximately 14.5 percent of all, were under the Taliban control.The remaining 119 districts, about 29.2 percent, remain contested - controlled by neither the Afghan government nor the rebels."

The situation has probably deteriorated since then. At least there is no sign of the Taliban being defeated. Yet Trump declared an agreement in principle with the Taliban to be dead. A BBC article in September reports: ""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."

US troop numbers may decline

Trump's presidential campaign involved promises he would withdraw from useless wars but he is often resisted by hawks within his own administration. Even though super hawk John Bolton is gone plenty still remain. Having refused a negotiated peace plan it seems that Trump will continue supporting US involvement in Afghanistan with the war stretching on indefinitely. With reduced US numbers the Afghan government control is likely to be challenged in new areas unless the US finally decides to accept a negotiated settlement with the Taliban accepting a power-sharing agreement.

The alternative would involve even more lives lost most of them of Afghans plus even more damage from the conflict.

The Afghan War

Wikipedia describes the Afghan war: "The War in Afghanistan (or the US War in Afghanistan or the Afghanistan War), code named Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–14) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (2015–present),[56][57] followed the United States invasion of Afghanistan[58] of 7 October 2001, when the United States of America and its allies successfully drove the Taliban from power in order to deny al-Qaeda a safe base of operations in Afghanistan.[59][60] Since the initial objectives were completed, a coalition of over 40 countries (including all NATO members) formed a security mission in the country. The war has since mostly involved US and allied Afghan government troops battling Taliban insurgents.[61] The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in US history. This war was entered into without any forward planning or thought of long term stabilisation of Afghanistan.[62]"

Over the long stretch of the war, hundreds of thousands have been killed including more than 4,000 from the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) and over 62,000 Afghan national security forces as well as over 31,000 civilians and even more Taliban.

US deaths: "Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan through mid-2019, nearly 2,400 American service members have died.[160] Additionally, over 20,000 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department.[3][160]

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

Pentagon officials said to be making plans for a quick withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan

(Oct 22)Pentagon officials are quoted by NBC news as claiming they are engaged in prudent planning for a quick withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan should US President Trump decide to do so.

Pentagon officials concerned about Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw in Syria

Trump's decision to withdraw from parts of Syria and to move a number into Iraq apparently caught them by surprise. The officials want to be ready for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, military officials typically tend to drag their feet on decisions they do not like. Trump has rejected the recent agreement in principle reached with the Taliban. It would seem unlikely but possible that he would withdraw completely without an agreement of the Taliban with the US and also with Afghan representatives on power sharing. However, the US has been in Afghanistan about 18 years now.

Trump has long campaigned on removing US troops from what he regards as unnecessary wars but there are a number of hawks in his administration who will oppose the President's moves. Some officials consider the planning a dress rehearsal for a pullout from Afghanistan.

A recent article reports: "The contingency planning is ongoing, the officials said, and includes the possibility that Trump orders all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan within weeks. Officials cautioned, however, that the planning is a precaution and there is currently no directive from the White House to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan." Defense Secretary Mark Esper insists that there has been no policy change in Afghanistan.

Esper claims counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan will continue

Esper claimed: “Counterterrorism operations remain critical to our efforts to achieving peace and ensuring terrorist organizations cannot find safe haven in Afghanistan,” said Esper in a joint press briefing with acting Interior Minister Andarabi, Minister of Defense Assadullah Khalid, and Gen. Scott Miller, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Esper hailed the contribution of the Afghan National Security and Defense Forces (ANDSF) in providing security for the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan and said that the ANDSF is playing a key role to protect the Afghan people from the senseless violence of the Taliban and terrorist groups.“Regardless of the outcome of the election, our security partnership with Afghanistan will remain strong. Our mission in Afghanistan has not changed, we continue to conduct counterterrorism operations while supporting the development of the ANDSF,” said Esper.

However, Trump can often make quick decisions that his officials seem not to have been aware of and so perhaps the withdrawal plans are prudent as officials claim.

The Syria pullout that will see a number of troops deployed to Iraq will nevertheless leave some troops within Syria but not near the border with Turkey in the safe zone demanded by Turkey.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

At least 40 civilians killed in US military operation in Afghanistan

(Sept. 23)For the second time within a week, a US military operation in Afghanistan has resulted in a large number of civilians being killed. For the second time as well the US is offering explanations as to why they were not at fault.

US and Afghan commandos attack

The attack was upon a house in Helmand province. Airstrikes were also launched. Although there were certainly Al Qaeda fighters operating in the area a wedding party was also at the battle site and the airstrikes hit an ongoing wedding reception.

There are various estimates of casualties: "..Abdul Majid Akhundzada, a member of the provincial council in Helmand, said at least 40 civilians, including many women and children, were killed in the operation as a wedding party taking place near the targeted building was caught up in the raid. He said the government had been told in advance that a wedding was taking place, but he did not deny that Taliban militants were known to operate in the area."

US claims that most deaths were caused by Al Qaeda

A US report describes the results of the strikes: "A statement released later Monday by the U.S. military command in Afghanistan confirmed there were "targeted precision strikes," but said, "we assess the majority of those killed in the fighting died from al Qaeda weapons or in the explosion of the terrorists' explosives caches or suicide vests."" Note that this account speaks of al Qaeda rather than the Taliban.

US officials told CBS News that there were at least a dozen militants killed in the raid in the area controlled by the Taliban. The militants killed included several senior members of al-Qaeda officials claim.

The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani's spokesperson Sediq Seddiqi said that the president was saddened and devastated to hear that civilians had lost their lives in the incident despite the fact that President Ghani has repeatedly called for extra caution in conducting military operations. As noted earlier the government had been told in advance that the wedding was taking place but US and Afghan forces went on with the attack and the airstrikes anyway.

Just a few days before civilians were killed in Nangarhar Province

A September 19 Reuters article reports: "A U.S. drone strike intended to hit an Islamic State (IS) hideout in Afghanistan killed at least 30 civilians resting after a day’s labor in the fields, officials said on Thursday.The attack on Wednesday night also injured 40 people after accidentally targeting farmers and laborers who had just finished collecting pine nuts at mountainous Wazir Tangi in eastern Nangarhar province, three Afghan officials told Reuters."

Again the US defends the attack: ""There were IS (fighters) there, but it appears during harvest season the locals cut deals with the IS fighters to act as harvesters," said a senior U.S. official who is privy to the counter-terrorism operations conducted by American forces in Afghanistan."

Notice that there is no evidence given of the US claim just the word of an anonymous source familiar with US counter-terror operations in Afghanistan. It would seem that the US is quite willing to launch attacks even though it knows quite well that the result will be that there will be many civilian casualties no doubt to be considered as unfortunate collateral damage. It is hardly surprising that there is growing resentment of US actions and political opposition to the US troops remaining in Afghanistan.

A recent peace deal worked out between the US and the Taliban has been rejected by Trump partly because one US soldier was killed in a Taliban raid. Now Trump is increasing attacks causing even more Afghan civilian casualties in a war that has been going on for nearly 18 years with no end in sight.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Afghan drone strike kills at least 39 farm laborers

(Sept 19) A US drone strike whose intended target was an ISIS hideout in Afghanistan instead killed at least 30 farm laborers resting after their day of labor in the Khogyani district of Nangarhar province.

The attack

The attack also wounded 40 peope after mistakenly targeting farmers and laborers who were just finished a day's work collecting pine nuts in the mountainous Wazir Tangi in the eastern part of Nangarhar proviince. Tribal elder Malik Gul said: "The workers had lit a bonfire and were sitting together when a drone targeted them.” Pine nuts are eaten in many parts of the world and are described by Wikipedia: "Pine nuts, also called piñón (Spanish: [piˈɲon]) or pinoli (Italian: [piˈnɔːli]), sometimes called pignoli in the US, are the edible seeds of pines (family Pinaceae, genus Pinus). About 20 species of pine produce seeds large enough to be worth harvesting; in other pines, the seeds are also edible, but are too small to be of notable value as a human food."

The owner of the pine nut property said about 150 workers were there harvesting. He said that as well as those confirmed dead or wounded some were still missing. A survivor of the strike said about 200 laborers were sleeping in five tents pitched near the far when the attack took place. Juma Gul who had traveled with the laborers said: “Some of us managed to escape, some were injured but many were killed.”

Some reports give different casualty figures: "Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for the provincial governor of Nangarhar confirmed the air strike. “The government is investigating the incident, so far nine bodies were collected from the attack site near a pine nut field.”"

Some angry residents of Nangarhar province demanded an apology as well as monetary compensation from the US for the attack. Javed Mansur, of Jalalabad city said: that such mistakes cannot be justified. American forces must realize that they will never win the war by killing innocent civilians.

Some sources do not report on civilian casualties

Although both the Afghan Defense Ministry and a senior US official in Kabul the capital confirmed the drone strike they did not share any details about civilian deaths. Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesperson for the US forces in Afghanistan said:“U.S. forces conducted a drone strike against Da’esh (IS) terrorists in Nangarhar. We are aware of allegations of the death of non-combatants and are working with local officials to determine the facts.” Afghan and US officials are often reluctant to report civilian casualties and sometimes even deny reports of their happening.

ISIS in Afghanistan

ISIS forces appeared in Afghanistan in 2014 and since have made inroads in both the east and the north. They are battling not only US and Afghan forces but also the Taliban. The exact number of fighters in not known and groups often switch allegiance. The US military puts the number at about 2,000. ISIS has released no announcement about the US attack.

The collapse of peace talks and renewed fighting

Even though both sides had been carrying out attacks during the peace talks an agreement in principle had been reached. Nevertheless Trump rejected the agreement and called off the talks partly because a Taliban attack had killed a US soldier. Since then both sides have increased their attacks in the 18 year old conflict.

The UN claims that in just six months this year nearly 4,000 civilians have been killed or wounded. This included a large increase in casualties caused by the Afghan and US forces.

Cases of hitting the wrong targets not uncommon

In the past there have been many cases where wrong targets were hit as in this example back in March: " For the second time in a few days, an Afghan Army base was destroyed on Wednesday — but this time by American airstrikes that followed a firefight between the Afghans and Americans, Afghan officials said.A local Afghan official said six soldiers were killed and nine others badly wounded, out of 17 soldiers at the base. Qais Mangal, a spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, confirmed that the airstrikes had taken place after another Afghan unit attacked a joint convoy of Afghan Special Forces and American troops. He put the death toll at five soldiers, with 10 wounded."

Another incident happened in June.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Green Beret service member killed in Afghanistan

(Sept. 17)A US Green Beret service member has been killed in action in Afghanistan. The death was announced in a release by NATO's Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.

Identity of the deceased not at first released

Although an official confirmed the soldier was a Green Beret, the official did not specify the unit to which he was attached. Another official said that there were no indications that the death was any type of incident with any member of Afghan forces firing on him.

The soldier could not be identified until his family had first been notified for 24 hours. However, he is identified later on the appended video.

Casualties this year

So far this year there have been 16 US troops killed in Afghanistan according to Defense Department figures. More than 80 US personnel have been wounded in combat. 2019 has been the deadliest for the US since operations were scaled down in 2015.

Peace talks have broken off after agreement reached in principle

The Taliban carried out attacks just as an agreement was reached in principle between the Taliban and the US. Both sides had been attacking each other during the talks but the talks still had been progressing well. However, after one of the attacks Trump angrily rejected the talks when one US soldier was among the casualties.

The last US soldier killed before the Green Beret was Sargent 1st class Elis Ortiz 34 who died when a vehicle-borne iED exploded near his vehicle in Kabul.

On Monday Sept. 9 Trump called off any talks: "President Trump appeared to pull the plug Monday on the possibility of peace with the Taliban, declaring talks with the militant group “dead” and leaving Afghan leaders in the dark on just what happens next. Speaking on the White House lawn before departing for a political rally in North Carolina, Trump said last week’s Taliban-claimed bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, drove him to cancel a covert meeting at the presidential Camp David retreat in Maryland that was planned for Sunday."

Current situation

At present there are about 14,000 US service members in Afghanistan with many additional international allied troops. Their role is to advise and assist Afghan forces and to fight terrorists such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Prior to the peace talks, President Trump had been considering a reduction in US troop levels perhaps down to 8,600. A reduction was planned in the first phase of the agreement in principle as well. Now it is not clear what reduction if any there will be. During his campaign for the presidency Trump promised to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

After repeating that as far as he was concerned the peace talks with the Taiban are dead, Trump added that US troops have hit the Taliban "harder in the last four days than they've been hit in ten years".

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pompeo promises Afghan troop numbers will be reduced by 2020 election

(July 30) Mike Pompeo US Secretary of State confirmed Monday that the Trump administration plans to reduce the number of US ground troops in Afghanistan before the 2020 election. However the timing and size of the reduction are not yet settled.

If there is an Afghan peace deal all US troops will no doubt be withdrawn.

The Pompeo announcement is odd in that there are hopes for an Afghan peace deal by September. A condition for any deal with the Taliban is that all US and allied troops withdraw from Afghanistan. A reduction in troops by the 2020 election would seem to imply that US troops would still be there but the numbers would be reduced. If there is a peace agreement one would expect that they would all be withdrawn.

The peace process appears to be going well: "The broad basis for the deal is the US withdrawing from Afghanistan and the Taliban agreeing to keep ISIS and al-Qaeda out of the country. A power-sharing agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban, which is likely to be a top priority. There has been hope for some time that the deal could be reached before Afghanistan’s September election. It seems possible that such a deal could still be reached in that time-frame."

US ended combat mission in 2014

Although the US ended its combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014 still about 14,000 US troops remain in the region providing training and air support.

Pompeo said that the reduction would apply to other countries forces as well: "End the endless wars, draw down, reduced. We hope that overall the need for combat forces in the region is reduced. It won't just be us."

The announcement brings into question peace talks with the Taliban

Pompeo claims President Trump made the decision to reduce troops and that he was unambiguous to have the number of troops cut before the election. He said also he wanted the overall need for troops in the region to be reduced and he claimed that this could happen. If the peace deal with the Taliban is reached as the parties seem to think is likely there should be no troops at all at least in Afghanistan. If there are still troops there is likely to be no agreement.

The announcement makes little sense in light of the progress in negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban must be wondering if Trump is really bargaining in good faith. It is strange that the Trump announcement makes no mention at all of the peace negotiations. Perhaps Trump simply means to assure his supporters that he is serious about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and to shore up his support before elections. He may not have even thought of the ongoing negotiations and what the Taliban might think of his proposals.

The best one could hope for is that the Taliban ignore what Trump has said and just write his announcement off as part of his campaign for re-election. Trump would have been better off if he had praised the progress of negotiations and suggested that all US troops might soon be out of Afghanistan.

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