Current Projects
Obama’s Afghanistan Legacy: What Trump Faces in America’s Longest War
Shamim Seyal should be a symbol of all that Afghanistan has achieved with the help of the U.S. Instead, the principal of a large school for girls is on the shifting frontline of America's longest war, an example of the raw resilience needed to simply survive in the country. "Sometimes there are Taliban checkpoints and sometimes Afghan government checkpoints beside the school," said Seyal, who runs the Fatima Al-Zahra School in the city of Kunduz, which has been fought over for years and briefly fell into the militant group's hands in September 2015. Seyal and her family have been targeted by the insurgents, who often try to kill prominent women and destroy girls' schools. They have also been forced to flee their home after being threatened by the Taliban. It was not supposed to be this way when President Barack Obama took office in 2009. As a candidate, he pledged to run extremists out of the country. But to the dismay of millions of Afghans, the war has not been won or even finished. In fact, many believe the group, which harbored Osama bin Laden before and after the 9/11 attacks, is resurgent. Analysts say they pose a threat not only to Afghanistan but potentially elsewhere in the world. Here is a glimpse of Obama's legacy in Afghanistan, and what the president is bequeathing President-elect Donald Trump. What did Obama pledge to do? As a candidate, Obama complained that his predecessor George W. Bush had missed crucial opportunities in the region. "We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan," he said during a speech on July 15, 2008. As president, Obama declared, he would "make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win." The U.S. "will be taking the fight to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. So how did that...
Afghan Weekly (Jan 13 – Jan 19, 2017)
The thaw in Pakistan and Afghanistan relations could not sustain for long and, again, a kink was observed in the relations of the two neighborly countries following the recent deadly bombings carried out by Taliban in capital Kabul. In a telephonic conversation with Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa on Sunday, President Ashraf Ghani said that terrorists who planned the recently lethal bombings in Kabul are moving around at liberty in Pakistan and that Afghanistan was resolute to hit back at them at an appropriate time. Though, a presidential palace press release states that Bajwa assured Ghani that past mistakes would not be repeated by Pakistan. While, on the other hand, quoting Bajwa on Twitter, a Pakistani army spokesman said that General Bajwa told Ghani that all militant sanctuaries and training encampments have been exterminated in Pakistan and now it is the up to the Afghans to act against the terrorists on their soil. "Blame games are damaging to lasting peace," said Bajwa, while bringing up the anti-Pakistan rhetoric after recent terrorists attacks in Afghanistan.[1] In the midst of this strain, top American and Pakistani military commanders have once again endorsed their backing for an Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process. Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa and US Central Command Chief General Joseph Votel pledged support for Afghan peace efforts at a meeting in Rawalpindi on January 18.[2] Russia’s return in Afghanistan both captures the hopes and skepticism surrounding the Afghan dilemma. This week, Moscow has called on the leaders of the Taliban group to abandon violence and launch an intra-Afghan channel of communication to end the ongoing violence in the country; this statement came from Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia.[3] At the other end of the world, President Obama made his last call to National Unity Government leaders on January 19, 2017, and...
India and Pakistan’s Dangerous War of Words
The arms build-up in the region has raised the nuclear stakes Separating noise from reality on the subcontinent can be especially difficult. Thus the latest rhetorical hostility between India and Pakistan could be just that another spat between nuclear-armed neighbours who hesitate to match words with weapons because of the dangers of mutual annihilation. Yet, the risk of a confrontation that could escalate into something worse has been significantly increased as a result of the arms race in the region. For good reason, global attention is focused on preventing North Korea from developing the ballistic missile capacity to strike the US west coast with nuclear weapons. That should not, however, deflect from the ever-present threat of India and Pakistan stumbling into a nuclear exchange. As a reminder, officials in Islamabad warned on Thursday that they would not hesitate to deploy the full range of their weapons should India invade. That salvo was a response to confirmation from India’s new army chief of the existence of “cold-start” plans. This was an explicit acknowledgment from Delhi of long-rumoured efforts to develop a swift cross-border response that would pre-empt diplomatic intervention in the event, for example, of a major terrorist incident like that in Mumbai in 2008. It was wise to keep these plans under wraps until now. By spelling them out, India has not only lost the element of surprise, it has also raised public expectations — potentially increasing the pressure on government in the future to launch a rapid retaliatory response before the wisdom of such action has been adequately assessed. Pakistan’s retort was predictable if equally unhelpful. It is a reflection of how far things have soured. In December 2015, Narendra Modi became the first Indian premier in a decade to visit Pakistan, when he made a stopover in Lahore to celebrate his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif’s birthday. In the context of 66 years of hostility and three wars, just the...
Beyond Perceptions
The euphoria is swelling in our military circles that Pakistan has finally reached a point in its diplomacy where it has started weaning away the Russian Federation from its strategic partner India. On the face value, the swell seems justified but not to the extent that Pakistan would replace India ever for Russia. The Russia- Pakistan interdependence is imbalanced and marginal, nowhere nearing the partnership witnessed between India and Russia. At best, recent warm up can be deemed as necessary adjustments to advance respective national interest. The volatile developments in the region will continue to ensure that such adjustments should dominate their relations. How far Russia moves from its cold war ally inversely depends how far India deepens its ties with US in areas where Russia directly feels threatened or isolated globally. That stage has not come yet. The first positive readjustment came when in 2014 Russia agreed to sell arms to Pakistan including four Russian-made Mi-35M attack helicopters to be delivered in 2017 to Pakistan’s military. Then, in September 2016, the Russian Federation ignored the Indian protests and held its first joint military exercise (Friendship -2016) in September - October 2016 at the Special Forces Training Centre (Cherat in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa). Not only, Russia ignored the Indian protests, it decided to hold the Second joint exercise in 2017. In 2016, the Russian Kalashnikov Concern participated in the trials for a main new assault rifle for Pakistan’s infantry. These developments caused speculations of possible deals regarding Su-35 and Su-37 aircrafts, and even air-defence systems. Media reported Russian investment ($2 billion) for the proposed natural gas pipeline agreement with Islamabad. In early December, Russia came to Pakistan’s rescue at the Heart of Asia Conference when the Indian Prime Minister and the Afghan President used very offensive language against Pakistan. Russian special envoy to Afghanistan Mr. Zamir...
Afghanistan and The New World Order
As Donald Trump takes oath as the 45th President of the US, history seems to be going full circle in one part of the world. The enemies of yesteryear are cosying up to one another and allies of yesterday are embracing estrangement, if not outright hostility over Afghanistan. The display of shifting sands was witnessed in Moscow on December 27, 2016, where Chinese and Pakistani officials huddled with their Russian hosts. The mooting point was Afghanistan, whose government was not invited. A joint statement, issued after the dialogue, expressed support for talks with the Afghan Taliban and concern over the spread of the Islamic State (IS). The Moscow huddle added one new element to the complicated Afghan chessboard — a reassertive Russia in Afghanistan. Russia admitted its outreach to Taliban last December, and who welcomed the Moscow talks. Three reasons are being ascribed to its new Afghan strategy — to maintain stability in Afghanistan, check proliferation of drug trafficking and to defeat the IS. Taliban consider the IS as a rival and have been fighting it. Russians seem to be following a familiar game plan — change the dynamics of a conflict in its favour through muscular diplomacy and hard military power. It deployed this strategy in Syria and in Crimea before that. It is embracing disenchanted global and regional players — Iran and Turkey in Syria, and China and Pakistan over Afghanistan. Moscow is also reaching out to Iran to join its initiative on Afghanistan, while Afghans, following their public displeasure, are also likely to be invited to the next meeting. Russia is expecting to become a dominant player in the Afghan conflict just like in Syria. In Syria, Moscow’s involvement transformed President Bashar al-Assad government’s shrinking writ over the areas under opposition control into new military gains in cities like Aleppo. It tamed the Western and Arab-backed opposition to a compromise ceasefire on the one hand and the West’s military support to...
Sabawoon Showcase: Performance of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)
January 16, 2017, Peshawar: The latest episode of Sabawoon[i], flagship radio program of Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), focused on the performance of the KP’s RTI Act and its Commission. The central discussion points included the need for the RTI Act and Commission to ensure timely delivery of public services in KP, improvement of governance and accountability mechanism through the Act and review of important sections of the Act. Moreover, the program highlighted the lack of awareness about the Act and Commission’s role and the extension of the Act to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) of Pakistan. The program was aired under the theme of Jarga Marrakka (debate and council) on Monday. Mr. Azmat Hanif Orakzai, Chief Commissioner RTI Commission KP Peshawar, and Mr. Aziz Buneri, a Peshawar based journalist, were the studio guests. A radio report shared statistics about the performance of KP’s RTI Commission. Five callers took live part in the program. They urged government to extend the RTI Act to both FATA and PATA. Mr. Orakzai said: “In addition to its own efforts, RTI Commission has full time liaison with other departments to help public and make the commission work more effectively.” Sabawoon airs Monday through Thursday on FM-101.5 Peshawar & DI Khan 711 KHZ from 3:20 PM to 4:00 PM. [i] Sabawoon is a flagship radio program by CRSS in the KP/FATA region, designed to highlight local issues, and promote fundamental global values such as women’s rights, rule of law, equal citizenry, democracy, governance and accountability. It airs four times a week, under four themes. On Monday, Jarga Marrakka covers current affairs and issues, coupled with government and other senior officials. On Tuesday, Da Semi Jaaj gives a holistic regional overview of the most important stories across the length and breadth of KP/FATA. On Wednesday, Jwandai Jazbey covers issues most important to youth, students...
How to Win in Afghanistan
Fifteen years, thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars later, the United States has failed to meet most of its key objectives in Afghanistan. Mission failed. Now what? Our current approach, if allowed to continue, guarantees a chaotic future for Afghanistan and an open door for radical Islamists in Central Asia. Such a state of affairs would herald a major strategic defeat for the United States. Islamists ultimately seek to seize control in both Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and then expand into Central Asia. A debacle in Afghanistan means we may face another global conflict. Turkey has morphed into an Islamic state, and the Gulf states are financing radical Sunni terror groups meant to encircle and contain the mullahs in Iran—including extremists in Afghanistan. Will the Islamists achieve their objectives? No, and we do not want to find out. They need to be defeated now, while the situation is still manageable. An alternative strategy can avert a strategic catastrophe later. Our incompetent efforts at Afghan nation building rest on three shaky pillars that need to be rethought: Highly centralized political decisionmaking. Pashtun control of the overly powerful central government, the national police and the Afghan National Army. Excessive deference to Pakistan’s interests and policies in Afghanistan and the region. This flawed scheme has its roots in the key events of modern Afghan history: the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (in response to the 9/11 attacks) and the subsequent December 2001 Bonn Agreement to reconstitute the Afghan state structure following the war. With the defeat of the Taliban, the United States and the UN imposed Afghanistan’s first president Hamid Karzai—a Pashtun—on the Afghan people against their will. Later, during a December 2002 constitutional convention in Kabul, the United States and the “international community” forced Afghans to accept centralized governance despite much internal resistance. After Karzai’s departure from the...
In Afghanistan, Trump Will Inherit a Costly Stalemate And Few Solutions
For President Obama, the war in Afghanistan has been a matter of profound ambivalence — a strategic necessity and an unmistakable burden. He has talked about the United States’ interest in preventing the country from ever becoming a sanctuary for global terrorists. Just as often, he has spoken of ending the war and the limits of American military power, money, patience and time. Nearly eight years after Obama began his presidency with a long and contentious Afghanistan strategy review, he is leaving behind for President-elect Donald Trump a war that reflects his divided outlook. By most measures, the conflict is a stalemate. Afghan troops are fighting hard, but “the casualty rate is much higher than we would have hoped,” a senior defense official recently told reporters. Taliban forces are taking territory from the U.S.-backed government, but have not been able to seize and hold any major cities or towns. “Clearly the situation is getting worse, but not to the extent that you see the Taliban winning or the Afghan government is clearly failing,” said Andrew Wilder, a vice president and Afghanistan expert at the United States Institute of Peace. The United States’ longest and most expensive war — with the largest U.S. troop presence in a combat zone — was mostly absent from the presidential campaign. On the rare occasions Trump has spoken about Afghanistan, he has sounded as conflicted as his predecessor. Trump has said the fight against extremist groups is his foreign policy priority. But he also has said that he wants to get the United States out of the nation-building business. “I would stay in Afghanistan,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel this year. “I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. But again, you have nuclear weapons in Pakistan, so I would do it.” Not long after his election, Trump and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani discussed the U.S. military’s counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, the Taliban’s cross-border havens in Pakistan,...
Analysis: Iran’s Game Plan in Afghanistan
Since the nuclear agreement between Iran and 5+1 countries was signed in July 2015 and the economic sanctions were eased, Iran has become even more aggressive in pursuing its radical and hegemonic policies in the region. Its military advances in Syria, the ascendance of the pro-Hezbollah candidate to Presidency in Lebanon and the military dominance of its proxy militias in Iraq that form the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) have further emboldened Iran. As a result, it has increased its support to Yemeni rebels and radical Shiite groups in Bahrain. Simultaneously, the neighboring Afghanistan has emerged as Iran’s next target to expand its influence and shape its future. In order to implement its long-term strategy in Afghanistan, Iran has increased its military support to Taliban and at the same time, counts on its own militia proxy, the Fatemiyoun Division which is made up of Afghan Shiites which was founded by Revolutionary Guards in 2013 to fight in Syria. This battle-experienced force is estimated to have more than 15,000 members and could potentially be used as an important tool to secure Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Iran and Taliban Iranian support to Taliban became more apparent in May 2016 when the group’s top leader, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed by US drone attack in Pakistan as he was returning from Iran. Jahan News, an Iranian outlet close to the Revolutionary Guards, confirmed that he had stayed in Iran for two months prior to his death and had meetings with Iranian officials. In May 2015, an Iranian news websites tied to the Revolutionary Guards reported that a Taliban delegation visited Iran and several editorials have been published in governmental press to justify Iran’s support to Taliban. On December 12, 2016, Iran’s ambassador to Kabul, Mohammad Reza Behrami, told Tasnim News that “Iran maintains contacts with the Taliban for control and intelligence purposes”. According to a report published by Wall Street Journal on June 11,...
Afghanistan: Returnee Crisis Situation (January 12, 2017)
Highlights - In 2016, almost 620,000 undocumented returnees (249,832) and registered refugees (370,102) returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan. The overwhelming majority – 93% (577,454) – returned since July. - In the last month, no registered refugees have returned following the winter pause in UNHCR’s repatriation programme. Undocumented returns have also slowed, with 2,243 arriving between 1 and 10 January. - CHF partners NCRO and Relief International commenced cash distributions for food and shelter to 4,763 undocumented returnees in Behsud, Jalalabad and Sorkhrod districts on 27 December 2016 following extensive coordination to avoid de-duplication with other partners. Cash for winter assistance provided by AfghanAid to 1,847 undocumented returnees started on 5 January 2017, along with post distribution monitoring supported by members of the OCHA Humanitarian Financing Unit. -Reports of two groups of mixed returnee families settling in camp-like situations in Gamberi (500) and Khairokahil (300) districts in Laghman province are being followed up by partners with an inter-agency assessment planned for 15 January. To date, provincial authorities in Laghman have prevented the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those settled in Khairokhail, while only mobile health services, emergency latrines and water trucking (the latter of which stopped on 15 December) has been provided to those in Gamberi. Initial visits to both sites indicates that returnees are living in makeshift shelter and in need of winterisation support. - Following a sudden surge in pediatric admissions to Nangarhar Regional Hospital in early January – 197 children were admitted within 24 hours – the Department of Public Health (DoPH) has called for urgent additional support in the form of beds, equipment, personnel and medical supplies. While temporary measures have been put in place to ease overcrowding, including the allocation of a portion of the casualty ward to accommodate an extra 30-40...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.