Current Projects
Elephants In Afghanistan: The Military’s Counterinsurgency Failure
Earlier this year, several former ISAF commanders and diplomats wrote President Barack Obama, imploring him to freeze troop levels in Afghanistan until the next administration takes office. Obama ultimately agreed to keep 8,400 troops in country, but while President-elect Donald Trump said many things about many foreign policy during the election season, he gave few hints as to how he would handle the conflict. As the transition is underway, U.S. military planners are still grappling with building effective Afghan security forces — an effort that could take many more years, if not decades. Such an extended endeavor may be in order to secure U.S. interests in Afghanistan, but Trump would do well to ask a few questions of our military leadership before writing another blank check. After all, our collective efforts under the leadership of those who signed the letter to Obama have left us, after 15 years of war, with muddled results at best. We have expended $64 billion to create a massive security force that shows an incredible willingness to fight but cannot hold off the Taliban, a force with a fraction of the resources. We have also plowed $113 billion into development projects with only reports of endemic corruption, waste, and inefficiency to show for it. Much has been written — some of it even commissioned by the military — about the larger failures of our post-9/11 strategy. Yet very little has been said about how the military’s approach to Afghanistan shaped, and ultimately limited, our overall strategy. Having deployed to Afghanistan in a tactical role in 2009, from 2012 to 2013 as an advisor to the Afghan Border Police, and again briefly in 2014 to assess the advisory mission, I saw firsthand the futility of our approach. In a previous article at Tom Ricks’ Best Defense, I outlined how the American military failed to make counterinsurgency a priority, despite publicly saying that it was the key to success in Iraq and Afghanistan. But beyond the shortcomings...
Reality Check: No Justice for Women In Ghor Province
Ghor province, in western Afghanistan,has been in the headlines in the past few years. Not only was the appointment of its first female provincial governor overturned, there has also been a series of extreme cases of violence against its women. In this unsettling provincial case study, AAN’s Salima Ahmadi takes a closer look at how conservative attitudes and customary practices, combined with insecurity and a failing justice system, result in an environment of near-constant violence against Afghan girls and women, where perpetrators literally get away with murder. (Written in cooperation with Ehsan Qaane and Sari Kouvo). Women’s leadership: too soon for Ghor? On 28 June 2015, Sima Joyenda (1) was appointed governor of Ghor province. Joyenda was one of two female governors introduced by the National Unity Government (the other one being Masuma Muradi, governor of Daikundi). On 4 July 2016, a week after Joyenda’s appointment, the Ulema Council in Ghor sent an official letter demanding her resignation. The letter was written and signed by Ghor’s former Ulema Council Head, Mawlavi Esmatullah Nadim, and stated: “Considering Sharia provisions, the current chaotic situation in Ghor and the will and opinion of the people, the governor of Ghor should step down from her position and respect the will of Ulema. The Ulema will not be obedient to a female governor.” .The council’s spokesman, Mawlavi Haidari, on his social media account, called women “incomplete” .Tolo News quoted another of the Ulema Council members, Mawlavi Muhammad, saying: “We expect the government to introduce a male governor, noting that a woman cannot be a prayer leader for men,” from which he concluded that neither could women govern a province. Senator Muhammad Dawud Ghafari from Ghor province also opposed her appointment and said that: “A woman cannot manage one million people. There is conflict in Ghor; no one listens to a man, much less to a woman.” In response to these positions, there was also...
Afghan Weekly (Nov 25 – Dec 02, 2016)
Recent surges in casualties among children and women caused by Taliban’s militant attacks, as well as the group’s willingness to consider peace negotiation talks, seems to have dampened the generosity of Taliban’s financial backers. Where the Taliban had previously expressed satisfaction over their gains on the battlefield, a senior member of the insurgent group Mullah Rahmatullah Kakazada revealed to The Guardian this week that Taliban backers are no longer willing to provide the group with funding. As a result, the group is facing a financial crisis.[1] On the other hand, figures reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs revealed a shocking number of more than 500,000 Afghans internally displaced by conflict in 2016 this week; the highest number on record so far.[2] In the development sector, the Afghan and Turkmen governments inaugurated the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan railway which is expected to boost exports of fuel and reduce Afghanistan’s dependence on China and Russia.[3] Other such updates on the security, internal politics, international engagements and socio-economic situation in Afghanistan follow below. A Security Overview 5 killed, 27 wounded in three back to back explosions in Jalalabad city – November 25, 2016 At least 5 people were killed and 27 others were wounded in a series of explosions in in the 2nd police district of Jalalabad city, the provincial capital of eastern Nangarhar province. According to Provincial governor’s spokesman Ataullah Khogyani, the target of the explosion was the chief of the detention center of the provincial jail who was killed along with his son in the first attack. The second blast targeted the convoy of the security forces as they were on their way to the blast site while the third blast occurred in the same area after the security forces had gathered and cordoned off the area.[4] Taliban leader among 4 killed in Nangarhar province – November 25, 2016 The provincial police...
Book Launch: Book on Democratic Transition In Pakistan Launched
For a country with conflict-orientation, it is natural to have a civil-military convergence and for the establishment to be actively involved in public policy and play its role. The power structure in Pakistan has changed. Several drivers of change including external environment, domestic security and economic situation, and the challenges in its major relationships, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Director of the School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad said, back the recent democratic transition and transformation in Pakistan. He was speaking at the launching ceremony of United Kingdom's Routledge Publications book ‘Pakistan’s Democratic Transition: Change and Persistence', which he co-edited with Adnan Rafiq, hosted at Hill View Hotel Islamabad by Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), on Saturday December 3, 2016. The book brings together 13 prominent scholars and experts on politics in Pakistan and South Asia. “There are 13 different perspectives from various scholars around the themes of political economy, democratic transition, foreign policy, and a bit about media with a structural level analysis” said the editor while introducing his book. He also said that there is a popular image attached to Pakistani politics about military domination so this book has been able to go beyond the popular discourse, explore history, linkages between facts, and come up with factual analysis with variable that are more influential in shaping realities. He introduced chapters from other contributors of the book. Leading Pakistani columnist, diplomat and government advisor Mosharraf Zaidi who was also a keynote speaker at the launch and a contributor to the book, said that to strengthen human capital there is a need to refine democracy because democracy helps human capital formation. If there was a competition between democracies and non-democracies, democracies are slightly ahead in comparison to other systems when it comes to human...
It's Time for America To Get Out Of Afghanistan
After 15 years and $115 billion of taxpayer dollars spent on failed “nation-building,” it’s time for the U.S. to let go of Afghanistan. (The actual “total cost of war and reconstruction” which includes all U.S. military spending, has been estimated at $783 billion by the Cost of War project at Brown University.) The situation in 2016 has been described by one senior U.S. government official as an “eroding stalemate.” That’s optimistic. We are losing whatever has been achieved there and the Afghan government is slowly collapsing under the Taliban onslaught and its own ineptitude driven by corruption. The Taliban control more territory now than at any time since their overthrow by the U.S. in 2001 with the Afghan government controlling only two-thirds of the country — during daylight hours. Since January 2016, the Taliban have contested five provincial capitals, carried out some of the largest terrorist attacks in the capital city of Kabul, and have pressed attacks in all 34 provinces of the country, with an average of 68 attacks a day. As a result, the Afghan army and police forces have incurred about 15,000 casualties so far this year, with civilians suffering more than 5,000 casualties, the highest levels ever recorded. An estimated 1.2 million Afghans have been displaced because of the fighting and are living as refugees in their own country, with another 85,000 opting to leave the country in the first six months of 2016 alone for the migrant trail to Europe. Adding to the Taliban threat, ISIS has now established itself in two eastern Afghan provinces and Al Qaida operatives are active in seven provinces, according to a recent report in “The Guardian.” With opium production also up by 43 percent in the country, there is no shortage of funds to fuel the insurgency and corruption. According to a 2016 World Bank report, the social and economic gains achieved with international assistance over the last 15 years are also quickly eroding due to war and...
It’s Time for America To Get Out Of Afghanistan
After 15 years and $115 billion of taxpayer dollars spent on failed “nation-building,” it’s time for the U.S. to let go of Afghanistan. (The actual “total cost of war and reconstruction” which includes all U.S. military spending, has been estimated at $783 billion by the Cost of War project at Brown University.) The situation in 2016 has been described by one senior U.S. government official as an “eroding stalemate.” That’s optimistic. We are losing whatever has been achieved there and the Afghan government is slowly collapsing under the Taliban onslaught and its own ineptitude driven by corruption. The Taliban control more territory now than at any time since their overthrow by the U.S. in 2001 with the Afghan government controlling only two-thirds of the country — during daylight hours. Since January 2016, the Taliban have contested five provincial capitals, carried out some of the largest terrorist attacks in the capital city of Kabul, and have pressed attacks in all 34 provinces of the country, with an average of 68 attacks a day. As a result, the Afghan army and police forces have incurred about 15,000 casualties so far this year, with civilians suffering more than 5,000 casualties, the highest levels ever recorded. An estimated 1.2 million Afghans have been displaced because of the fighting and are living as refugees in their own country, with another 85,000 opting to leave the country in the first six months of 2016 alone for the migrant trail to Europe. Adding to the Taliban threat, ISIS has now established itself in two eastern Afghan provinces and Al Qaida operatives are active in seven provinces, according to a recent report in “The Guardian.” With opium production also up by 43 percent in the country, there is no shortage of funds to fuel the insurgency and corruption. According to a 2016 World Bank report, the social and economic gains achieved with international assistance over the last 15 years are also quickly eroding due to war and...
Afghan Security Crisis Sets Stage for Terrorists’ Resurgence
Afghanistan’s security crisis is fueling new opportunities for Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other extremist groups, Afghan and American officials say, voicing concerns that the original American mission in the country — removing its use as a terrorist haven — is at risk. As intense Taliban offensives have taken large portions of territory out of the Afghan government’s hands, those spaces have become the stage for a resurgence of regional and international militant groups. That is despite the extended presence of nearly 10,000 American troops in the country, tasked with performing counterterrorism operations and supporting the Afghan forces who are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the chief of the United States Central Command, said the Afghan government now controls only about 60 percent of the country, the Taliban hold sway over about 10 percent, and the remainder is contested. Which group or groups fill those voids of increasing ungoverned territory in Afghanistan “is something we’ll have to contend with,” he said. “We have to be concerned about this — about the Taliban pulling together and cooperating and collaborating with other terrorist organizations,” General Votel said at a security forum in Washington this week. Over all, Western and Afghan officials estimate that 40,000 to 45,000 militants are active across Afghanistan. The Taliban are estimated at 30,000 fighters, some of them seasonal. But the rest are foreign militants of different — and often fluid — allegiances, at times competing but mostly on the same side against the Afghan government and its American allies. “Of the 98 U.S.- or U.N.-designated terrorist organizations around the globe, 20 of them are in the Af-Pak region,” Gen. John W. Nicholson, the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said recently. “This is the highest concentration of the numbers of different groups in any area in the world.” It is that situation that President-elect Donald...
Instead of trading bullets, try a truck full of walnuts
8 years of cross-LoC barter has been the strongest CBM despite hostilities If there was one thing that could be celebrated as an achievement in India and Pakistan relations on Jammu and Kashmir, it was the ceasefire announced on November 23, 2003. This landmark understanding paved the way for a new chapter in history with two major confidence-building measures rolled out across the Line of Control. Trade was one of them. In 2013, the ceasefire turned a decade old and thousands of people living along the 725 kilometer LoC were ecstatic about its success and longed for its sustainability. Though violations had interrupted it in between, the hope it would become permanent persisted. After all, it had brought an abrupt end to their sufferings as the guns and shells stopped raining from either side. Tens of thousands of people were able to return to home soon after Pervez Musharraf (the then Pakistan president) announced the ceasefire, immediately reciprocated by New Delhi. However, it has been derailed in the past three years and in the last few months the violations have surged, with civilians being killed in firing on both sides. The ceasefire is in tatters and the renewed levels of hostility have forced thousands of people from their homes. Since both New Delhi and Islamabad are refusing to return to normalcy, it may take longer to achieve it. The Pakistan Army has just acquired a new chief in Gen. Qamar Bajwa which is why it is perhaps too early to comment on the outlook on India. For the Modi government in Delhi, however, these levels of hostility might just be acceptable, given the public anger over demonetization and the mood ahead of the elections in Uttar Pradesh that are linked to a hyperbolic attitude towards Pakistan. Despite these seemingly difficult ground realities, there is something to cheer about. Cross-LoC trade—that completed eight years on October 21—has emerged as a successful confidence-building measure despite many challenges. This success was...
Brinkmanship there, restraint here?
Despite escalation at the LoC, the army is exuding confidence. Pakistan summoned the Indian deputy high commissioner yet once again on Nov 22 to protest “unprovoked firing” that has killed dozens in the last few months. It hardly mattered it seems because the next day, the ISPR claimed more Indian firing killed three soldiers and seven civilians, including young captain Taimoor Ali. India seems to be ratcheting up the pressure as Kashmiris endure incessant repression and a curfew for the fifth month, and guns continue to roar from across the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan’s outgoing Army Chief General Raheel Sharif has been quite outspoken in condemning this “madness” but the civilian leadership has opted for muted responses such as summoning the Indian diplomats for demarches and protests. The army, we are told, has been responding “befittingly” to the hostilities from across the LoC yet its actions sofar indicate a conscious decision i.e. neither to initiate any aggressive act on its own nor allow aggression go unmet. Despite the escalation in the situation along the LoC, the army doesn’t seem to be alarmed, exuding a certain unusual degree of confidence. This stems from multiple reasons as far as Rawalpindi is concerned. The Pakistani leadership has refused to give up advocacy for hapless Kashmiris but it has not panicked or indulged in any action that might be construed as a declaration of war by the Indians. A big reason for Pakistan’s restrained conduct, probably is the nuclear tactical weapons it has developed in the last couple of years. This weapon has simply blunted the Indian cold start regime, says an army official. They know that the 60km radius capability of these weapons will make it very difficult for them to survive and retain control of a captured Pakistani territory. These weapons, it seems, represent a major deterrent even in the current circumstances and thus a tool to preclude the possibility of a full-fledged war. Another consciously...
Why Only the Bangladeshi or Indian Narrative on the 1971 Partition?
While the year 2016 is ending on a slightly positive note for Pakistan due to the lower number of terror-related casualties compared with 2015; yet there is one date that always affects Pakistanis aware of the 1971 partition of East (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan: the 16th of December. The 16th of December is marked as a Victory Day in Bangladesh, signifying not only its independence from West Pakistan (now Pakistan) but also its apparent victory over the Pakistani military. On this day every year, social media, not only in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also in neighbouring India is abuzz with different narratives, opinions, and sentiments. While some see the partition as an inevitable conclusion to a hasty and less practical division of the subcontinent, others blame the whole saga on the atrocities committed by the Pakistani establishment and the military. These massacres boiled down to the establishment of Mukti Bahini (Freedom Fighters) and, consequently, to the creation of an independent Bangladesh. A famous quote (attributed to Winston Churchill) notes, “History is written by the victors.” And in the case of Bangladesh and the 1971 war, history was mostly written – and dominated – by accounts of Indian and Bangladeshi writers. Anything written by Pakistani authors and academics was merely tagged as state-sponsored propaganda and, thus, completely rejected on this premise alone in regional and global academia. Reading Bangladeshi accounts of the 1971 war, mostly focused on mass murders and rape, gave me nothing but feelings of shame and embarrassment towards the security forces of Pakistan at the whelm of affairs during that time. So much so, that reading the local and “bipartisan” foreigner accounts, I, somehow, started believing that India was in its right to protect the Bangladeshi people against the Pakistani atrocities. It would be naïve to completely accept or reject accounts from both the sides, and also discount the incompetence of Pakistani...
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.