Taliban Enter Afghan Capital Kabul

Taliban entered Afghanistan's capital Kabul on Sunday and said they expected to take power within days, promising to moderate their earlier hard-line Islamist rule even as foreign diplomats and many locals tried to leave. 

Taliban fighters were reaching the capital "from all sides", a senior Afghan interior ministry official told Reuters. However, there were no reports of fighting.

The group was in talks with the Western-backed government for a peaceful surrender, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. "Taliban fighters are to be on standby on all entrances of Kabul until a peaceful and satisfactory transfer of power is agreed," he said in a statement.

Ali Ahmad Jalali, a US-based academic and former Afghan Interior Minister, could be named head of an interim administration in Kabul, three diplomatic sources said, though it was unclear whether the Taliban had agreed.

Known during their past rule for keeping girls out of school and their hard-line practice of Islamic law, including punishments of amputation, stoning and hanging, the Taliban appear to be trying to project a more modern face.

Another spokesman Suhail Shaheen said the group would protect the rights of women, as well as freedoms for media workers and diplomats.

"We assure the people, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe," Shaheen told the BBC, saying a transfer of power was expected in days.

The ease of the Taliban's advance, despite billions of dollars spent by the United States and others to build up local Afghan government forces, has stunned the world.

Just last week, a US intelligence estimate said Kabul could hold out for at least three months.

There was no immediate word on the situation from President Ashraf Ghani. A palace official said he was in emergency talks with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and officials from the NATO transatlantic alliance.

Power would be handed over to a transitional administration, the government's acting interior minister, Abdul Sattar Mirzakawal, tweeted on the Tolo news channel. "There won't be an attack on the city, it is agreed that there will be a peaceful handover," he said without elaborating.

A tweet from the Afghan presidential palace account said firing had been heard at a number of points around Kabul but that security forces, in coordination with international partners, had control of the city.

Many of Kabul's streets were choked by cars and people either trying to rush home or reach the airport, residents said.

"Some people have left their keys in the car and have started walking to the airport," one resident told Reuters by phone. Another said: "People are all going home in fear of fighting."

Afghans had fled the provinces to enter Kabul in recent days, fearing a return to hard-line Islamist rule.

Early on Sunday, refugees from Taliban-controlled provinces were seen unloading belongings from taxis and families stood outside embassy gates, while the city's downtown was packed with people stocking up on supplies.

US officials said diplomats were being ferried by helicopters to the airport from its embassy in the fortified Wazir Akbar Khan district. More American troops were being sent to help in the evacuations after the Taliban's surge brought the Islamist group to Kabul in a matter of days.

"Core" US team members were working from the airport, a US official said, while a NATO official said several European Union staff had moved to a safer location in the capital.

Earlier on Sunday, Taliban captured the eastern city of Jalalabad without a fight, giving them control of one of the main highways into landlocked Afghanistan. They also took over the nearby Torkham border post with Pakistan, leaving Kabul airport the only way out of Afghanistan still in government hands.

"The governor has surrendered to Taliban," a Jalalabad-based Afghan official told Reuters. "Allowing passage to Taliban was the only way to save civilian lives."

After US-led forces withdrew the bulk of their remaining troops in the last month, Taliban campaign accelerated as the Afghan military's defences appeared to collapse.

President Joe Biden on Saturday authorized the deployment of 5,000 US troops to help evacuate citizens and ensure an "orderly and safe" drawdown of military personnel. A US official said that included 1,000 newly approved troops from the 82nd Airborne Division.

Taliban said its rapid gains showed it was popularly accepted by the Afghan people.

Ashraf Ghani must immediately leave Afghanistan to save his life

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is calling on the international community to aid in the country’s fight against Taliban, getting too close to Kabul and fears are growing that the capital could soon be overrun by them.

The US-backed leader said in a televised address on Saturday, his first public appearance in days as Taliban have made significant territorial gains. 

Ghani said he wished to “stop the civil war imposed on Afghans and prevent more innocent deaths and the loss of 20 years of achievements” since US troops first arrived in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban in 2001. 

“We have started consultations, inside the government with elders and political leaders, representatives of different levels of the community as well as our international allies,” he said, as reported by The Associated Press. 

“The consultations are happening at great speed and the results will soon be shared with you dear countrymen,” added the president, who is facing growing pressure to step down amid the crisis. 

The address came as Taliban captured Afghanistan’s Logar province Saturday, with Afghan lawmaker Hoda Ahmadi saying that the group has now reached the Char Asyab district, located just seven miles south of Kabul, according to the AP. 

Ghani is facing diminishing support at home, with thousands of his soldiers surrendering en masse, a move former Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said indicates the Afghan troops believe the president is not “worth fighting for.” 

The president’s plea to the international community comes as the US and others such as Canada and the United Kingdom are removing large numbers of their diplomats from Afghanistan amid the worsening security situation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday urged the Biden administration to conduct airstrikes against Taliban to support local security forces and prevent the insurgent group from taking control of Kabul, warning that failing to act would allow the security threat to the US to "assuredly grow" and lead to a "catastrophic" humanitarian cost within Afghanistan.

The State Department confirmed to The Hill on Friday that the US Embassy in Kabul had ordered staff to start destroying sensitive material, including “embassy or agency logos, American flags, or items which could be misused in propaganda efforts.”

The US has significantly reduced its military presence there amid President Biden’s goal to remove all troops from the country by the 20th anniversary of the 11th September 2001, terrorist attacks, though the Defense Department this week said it would temporarily be sending an additional 3,000 US troops to assist in the large departure of US diplomats.

US defeat in Afghanistan

As the last men of the dwindling American garrison in Afghanistan pack their bags, there is an echo of the Soviet Union's own withdrawal from the country, more than 30 years ago. But, in truth, Washington's defeat is far greater.

In December 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to support the unpopular government of the ruling People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). They soon found themselves bogged down in a war against Mujahedeen.

Nine years later, the Soviets decided that there had been enough bloodshed and, in May 1988, they began their exit. The final contingent of Soviet troops drove back across the bridge to the USSR in February the following year.

Twelve years later, US troops arrived to fight Taliban. Soldiers of other NATO states then followed. Together, they stayed even longer than the Soviets, but are now on the way out. US President Joe Biden has promised that American soldiers will leave Afghanistan by the end of August.

As the US completes its retreat from its longest war, its enemy is on the march. Lately, Taliban have captured 12 of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals, including the second and third largest cities in the country, Kandahar and Herat, both of which fell on Thursday.

The pace of Taliban advance has been remarkable. In some places, government forces simply ran away without a fight. The Governor of Ghazni province was said to have surrendered his city in exchange for free passage out of the area. US-trained government troops have fled or deserted en masse and, in some cases, gone over to Taliban. It’s fair to say that it’s been a rout, and the Americans haven’t even fully left yet. The government may be able to hold onto the country’s capital Kabul, but even that is no longer certain.

In short, the 20 years of America’s and NATO’s war in Afghanistan has ended in ignominious failure – total and absolute. So, of course, did the Soviets’ war, but not quite so abruptly.

After the last Soviet troops crossed over the Friendship Bridge linking Afghanistan and Soviet Uzbekistan, Mujahideen launched a major offensive, confident that they would be able to defeat the government forces in short order. Their offensive collapsed completely. The Afghan army stood its ground and not a single major population center fell into the hands of their opponents. It was not until two years later, when the post-Soviet Russian government of Boris Yeltsin cut off funding to the Afghans that the PDPA regime finally fell.

The contrast with what has happened this past week could not be clearer. Even after the Soviets had left, the troops they had trained and equipped fought hard and successfully. Today, the troops that America and its allies trained and equipped at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars have scattered to the four winds with only the slightest effort at resistance.

But, to be fair, the problem lies not in army exercises or crates of machine guns. The current batch of Afghans has had plenty of both. They outnumber Taliban and are better supplied. The problem is one of morale: not many of them are willing to die for their government.

The PDPA had a well-deserved reputation for corruption, incompetence, factional in-fighting, and dogmatic, counterproductive policies that alienated the Afghan people, such as its Marxist assaults on religion and private enterprise. Mujahideen, the Taliban’s precursor, enjoyed substantial support from the United States, including signing for the delivery of sophisticated Stinger missiles.

The fact that the Soviet-backed government put up a better fight than its contemporary counterpart can, therefore, only have one explanation, Afghans respect their current rulers even less than they respected the socialist PDPA. And that is really saying something.

All of which begs the questions of why America and NATO spent so long supporting the regime in Kabul, and why the latter got to be so disliked.

The answer to the first question is largely one of prestige. Having installed the current government, Western states felt that their reputation was tied to its survival and thus refused to abandon it even when it became clear that it wasn’t worth supporting.

The answer to the second question is that the awfulness of the current government owes a lot to the policies pursued by Western states.

After Najibullah was overthrown in 1992, Afghanistan suffered a vicious civil war in which drug-running warlords competed for power and inflicted all sorts of atrocities on the Afghan people. When Taliban came along offering fierce but incorruptible justice, many Afghans breathed a sigh of relief and gave them their support.

Canadian General Rick Hiller famously said that Taliban were “detestable murderers and scumbags.” What he failed to note was that Taliban enemies were, on occasion, even worse. When America and its allies moved into Afghanistan, these enemies returned to their homes, this time with the backing of Western powers, and resumed their criminal ways. Unsurprisingly, the locals weren’t too impressed.

Beyond that, Western powers flooded the country with money. Pour cash into an impoverished country without adequate controls, and the consequence will be mass corruption. So it was in Afghanistan.

Not only did this delegitimize the government, but much of the aid flowed down into the hands of Taliban. As John Sopko, the US official responsible for auditing American expenditures in Afghanistan put it, “the end of the US supply chain in Afghanistan is Taliban.” If you want to know who armed and paid for Taliban, the answer is that America did.

While innocent civilians and Afghan soldiers are dying, Biden has no regret

It is height of disgrace to humanity to read a statement of Joe Biden, saying he does not regret his decision to pull US forces out of Afghanistan amid reports of rising civilian casualties as the Taliban makes gains in the country.

On the contrary he said, "We spent over US$ one trillion over 20 years. We trained and equipped with modern equipment over 300,000 Afghan forces," Biden said at a news conference.

"And Afghan leaders have to come together. We lost to death and injury, thousands of American personnel. They’ve got to fight for themselves. Fight for their nation."

Biden vowed the US would keep its commitments to provide air support, resupply Afghan forces with food and equipment and pay their salaries. "But they’ve got to want to fight," Biden added.

Over the weekend, the Taliban seized a string of provincial capitals including the strategically and economically important city of Kunduz. The battlefield gains come as the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is largely done, with an official end date set by Biden of 31st August 2021.

Using so-called over-the-horizon forces, the US military in recent days has conducted some airstrikes in support of Afghan forces, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby confirmed, but declined to provide any specifics.

Moral of the story

Over the last two decades, US troops helped achieve their ‘undeclared’ objectives. Among these weeding out terrorists and ushering development in Afghanistan were on the lowest priority.  Now the same will be done by ‘operators’ who can work the best under the chaotic condition. The US president is not talking about security of Afghans, but the operators living under the disguise of Afghan soldiers.

Defense officials have not confirmed whether such airstrikes will continue after US troops are fully withdrawn as per the deadline.

Lawmakers and critics of Biden's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan have raised concerns over the possibility of a full Taliban takeover of the country and the chaos that will be created without American forces.

Administration officials also briefed senators on the situation behind closed doors and faced what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell described as “tough” questions.

US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad warned the Taliban government that assumes power through use of force in Afghanistan will not be acknowledged by the international community.

Lately, Khalilzad traveled to Doha, Qatar, where Taliban has a political office, to help formulate a joint international response to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

He will urge the Taliban to stop their military offensive and arrange a political settlement, which the State Department said “is the only path to stability and development in Afghanistan.”

Khalizad, who negotiated the peace deal brokered with the Taliban under the Trump administration, and other officials reportedly hope that the stern warning will encourage Taliban leaders to engage in peace talks with the Afghan government.

CIA head to meet Israeli Military Intelligence Chief

The head of the CIA, Bill Burns will meet with the head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Tamir Hayman during his visit to Israel on Tuesday. He will also meet with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and with the new Mossad Director David Barnea.

Burns is in Israel amid reports that the US is considering alternative ways to get Iran to stop advancing its nuclear program as negotiations to return to the 2015 Iran deal stall.

Israel considers Iran’s nuclear program as the number one concern. Though, Tehran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons, it is believed that they are continuing to develop the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapons arsenal as well as produce ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Last week Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that Israel was ready to strike Iran, saying that the Islamic Republic was a threat to the country, Middle East and the entire world.

“Iran is an international and regional problem. The world witnessed one example on Friday,” Gantz told Ynet, referring to the deadly attack against the Mercer Street tanker that was struck by a suicide drone. “This could happen to anyone,” he said.

With new Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi taking over from moderate Hassan Rouhani on Thursday, Gantz said that he could lead Iran to even more extreme regional and security policies.

Between the long lull in negotiations and Raisi entering office, plus recent attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf, including on the Mercer Street, in which a Romanian and a British national were killed, many in the State Department think a return to the JCPOA is unlikely, though there is still a faction that remains hopeful, according to an Israeli official involved in talks with the US on Iran.

Israel and the US have been working on preparing for that scenario, including when Bennett’s diplomatic adviser Shimrit Meir and National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata visited Washington last week.

Burns will also reportedly meet with Palestinian Authority intelligence chief Majed Faraj in Ramallah, as well as PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Resort bombed in Gaza by ISIS

One might ask if Washington’s obsession with terrorism includes supporting radical armed groups as long as they are politically useful in attacking countries that the US regards as enemies. 

Many analysts say that the American CIA created al-Qaeda to attack the Russians in Afghanistan and the same my-enemy’s-enemy thinking appears to drive the current relationships with radical groups in various countries.

Reportedly, Islamic State (ISIS) inspired groups in the Gaza Strip attacked. Bianco Resort, one of the Gaza Strip’s most luxurious seaside tourist sites came under attack after the resort was accused by Muslim extremists of holding a mixed-gender concert. No one was hurt, but a wall surrounding the resort was damaged. Palestinian sources accused terrorists belonging to Salafi-Jihadist groups of being behind the attack.

Some members of the groups said they had warned the owner against holding the event, but he ignored the warning. Salafi-Jihadist terrorists have regularly clashed with Hamas members in the Gaza Strip over the past decade. Hamas has also arrested or killed some members of the groups.

Earlier, Issa Miqdad, one of the men affiliated with the groups, wrote on Facebook, “Today we went to Bianco Resort in order to deny the evil before it happens, as this resort will hold a mixed singing party tomorrow on the beach of Beit Lahiya. Therefore, we ask the Hamas government to stop this evil before it happens. I call on all preachers and sheikhs to publicly denounce this evil after the owner refused our request not to hold the party.”

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip reacted with mixed feelings to the bombing of the resort. Some expressed appreciation for the perpetrators, while others denounced the attack.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemned the attack and said it was aimed at intimidating the residents of the Gaza Strip.

“PCHR points out that this resort is a modern and private investment project that opened in the middle of last month employs about 120 workers, and it has been very popular since its inauguration,” the center said in a statement.

“We stress the importance of supporting such projects, which contribute to supporting domestic tourism, upgrading the Palestinian economy, creating job opportunities for young people and mitigating the effects of the siege on the Gaza Strip.” It demanded that legal measures be taken against all those involved in “this criminal act.”

According to PCHR’s investigations, at approximately 11:55 Friday night, unknown persons planted an explosive device next to the northeastern wall of the resort and detonated it. The explosion resulted in the collapse of parts of the wall.

A man came to the resort last Wednesday and demanded that the staff cancel a concert that was scheduled to take place the following evening, said the resort’s owner, Suhail al-Saqqa, who rejected the request. He said he had obtained a permit from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior. Some suspects have been arrested in connection with the bombing, a source close to Hamas said.

A number of Palestinian factions, including the PLO’s Leninist-Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and the Palestinian People’s Party (formerly the Palestinian Communist Party) condemned the attack on the resort and called on Hamas to find the perpetrators.

Exploring motive behind attack on Israeli ship

What makes the attack on Mercer Street puzzling is its timing, as it occurred just days before the inauguration of the newly elected president of Iran, the ultraconservative hardliner Ebrahim Raisi.

Could Raisi have ordered a provocative attack on an Israeli-managed vessel, just days before taking office, when his highest priority is a lifting of the "maximum pressure" sanctions imposed on his country by former President Donald Trump? Why?

Would Raisi put at risk his principal diplomatic goal, just to get even with Israel for some earlier pinprick strike in the tit-for-tat war in which Iran and Israel have been engaged for years? Again, why?

If not Raisi, could the outgoing president, the moderate Hassan Rouhani, have ordered such an attack on his last hours in office and risk igniting a war with Israel and the US that his country could not win?

Could the attack have been the work of rogue elements in the Iranian Republican Guard Corps? Gantz and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid claim that Saeed Ara Jani, head of the drones section of the IRGC, "is the man personally responsible for the terror attacks in the Gulf of Oman."

Or was this simply a reflexive Iranian reprisal for Israeli attacks?

For years, Israel and Iran have been in a shadow war, with Iran backing Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the Shia militia in Syria and Iraq.

Israel has both initiated and responded to attacks with strikes on Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and by sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program and assassinating its nuclear scientists.

But whoever was behind the attack in the Gulf of Oman, and whatever the political motive, the US was not the target, and the US should not respond militarily to a drone strike that was not aimed at us.

No one has deputized us to police the Middle East, and we have not prospered these last two decades by having deputized ourselves.

With America leaving Afghanistan and US troops in Iraq transiting out of any "combat" role, now is not the time to get us ensnared in a new war with Iran.

It was in an August, 57 years ago, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred, which led America to plunge into an eight-year war in Vietnam.

President Joe Biden’s diplomatic goal with Iran, since taking office, has been the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear deal from which former President Donald Trump walked away. In return for Iran’s reacceptance of strict conditions on its nuclear program, the US has offered a lifting of Trump’s sanctions.

Whoever launched the drone strike sought to ensure that no new US-Iran deal is consummated, that US sanctions remain in place, and that a US war with Iran remain a possibility.

But, again, why would Tehran carry out such a drone attack and kill crewmen on an Israeli-managed vessel – then loudly deny it?

Since he took office, Biden has revealed his intent to extricate the US from the "forever wars" of the Middle East and to pivot to the Far East and China. By this month’s end, all US forces are to be out of Afghanistan, and the 2,500 US troops still in Iraq are to be repurposed, no longer to be designated as combat troops.

Those behind this attack on the Israeli-managed vessel do not want to reduce the possibility of war between the United States and Iran.