Russia Returns to Afghanistan: Arif Rafiq, National Interest, Jan. 12, 2017— Russia is a great power that retains muscle memory (and a strategic arsenal) from its past superpowerdom.
Russia’s New Favorite Jihadis: The Taliban: Thomas Joscelyn, Long War Journal, Jan. 4, 2017— More than 15 years into America’s war in Afghanistan, the Russian government is openly advocating on behalf of the Taliban.
Trump Must Get Tough With Pakistan: Fulvio Martusciello, Washington Times, Dec. 20, 2016— President-elect Donald Trump made headlines after Pakistani officials released details of his phone call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Why I’m Not a Feminist: Paula Stern, Jewish Press, Jan. 23, 2017 — When I was 20 years old, I took a course at Columbia University for the easy A I expected (and got).
In Afghanistan, Trump Will Inherit a Costly Stalemate and Few Solutions: Greg Jaffe & Missy Ryan, Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2017
Donald Trump’s Phone Conversation With the Leader of Pakistan Was Reckless and Bizarre: Nikhil Kumar, Time, Dec. 1, 2016
Following Trump’s Inauguration: What’s Next?: Jacob Kornbluh & Aaron Magid, Jewish Journal, Jan. 19, 2017
Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine: George Friedman, Realclearworld, Jan. 2, 2017
Arif Rafiq
National Interest, Jan. 12, 2017
…Moscow has impressively deployed hybrid warfare tactics to create the perception that it has influenced the U.S. presidential election and forged a rift between the incoming commander-in-chief and elements of the U.S. intelligence community. Surprisingly, Afghanistan is emerging as another arena in which Moscow is pointedly working at odds with Washington’s interests. Indeed, recent moves by Russia now represent a pivot toward Afghanistan, posing a set of challenges that have been unanticipated by U.S. observers of the region. The incoming Trump Administration ought to be aware of Russia’s newfound assertiveness vis-à-vis Afghanistan, both in the threats it poses as well as the potential opportunities it may present.
In late December, Moscow hosted a trilateral dialogue with Beijing and Islamabad on the future of Afghanistan. Importantly, left out of the talks were Kabul, Washington and New Delhi—a historic Russian ally now moving closer to the United States. The joint statement released after the dialogue expressed support for talks with the Afghan Taliban and concern over the spread of Islamic State.
The Russo-Sino-Pak trilateral did not emerge out of thin air. It is the latest in a series of Russian efforts to engage both Islamabad and the Afghan Taliban. Together, these moves mark a definitive departure from Moscow’s decades-old policy toward the region. Pakistan was a strong U.S. ally during most of the Cold War, while the Soviet Union had a defense pact with the nominally non-aligned India. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan, in concert with the United States, helped make Afghanistan a graveyard for the Red Army, forcing its withdrawal. Over the 1990s, Moscow, in concert with New Delhi and Tehran, supported the Northern Alliance against groups backed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—first, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i Islami (HIG) and then the Afghan Taliban.
After 9/11, Moscow supported the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, which ousted the Taliban and brought back to power elements of the Northern Alliance that Russia had supported. The post-9/11 Afghan war and broader global war on terror also gave Moscow space to brutally crush the Chechen insurgency, which had been taken over by Salafi jihadists after Russia sidelined Chechen Sufi separatists. Russia also provided diplomatic and logistical support for a sizable U.S. military presence in its backyard. From 2009 into 2015, Russia served as a supply route for U.S. and NATO forces through what was known as the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which lessened Washington’s dependence on Islamabad for the Pakistan-based ground lines of communication into Afghanistan.
Moscow’s relations with Washington have taken a turn for the worse since 2014, following the Russian intervention in the Ukraine. In the same year, U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan came to an end without having meaningfully weakened the Afghan Taliban. Moscow has had to contend with the reality that there are insufficient U.S. and NATO troops to defeat the Taliban, but still a troubling number of residual Western forces too close to home in its strategic backyard. Additionally, as the Taliban resurges, Islamic State has developed an embryonic presence along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Russia has legitimate fears about the group using Afghanistan to establish networks nearby in Central Asia. Meanwhile, opium production in Afghanistan continues at near-record levels, which severely impacts Russia as it is both a transit route for Europe-bound Afghan opiates and a major consumer market. Russia consumes around a fifth of the world’s illegal opiate supply and is afflicted by a heroin addiction epidemic.
It is in this context that, last year, Moscow has stepped up its engagement with the Afghan Taliban. Communication between Russia and the Taliban, according to unnamed Taliban officials, goes back to 2007, but outreach appears to have not only intensified last year, it may have also grown to material support for the militant group. An unnamed Taliban commander told the AFP that Russia aided the insurgent group’s takeover of Kunduz this past fall. Additionally, Moscow is also reportedly hindering the implementation of a peace deal between Kabul and HIG, which hardliners in the Afghan Taliban have opposed.
These latter two developments beget two questions. If Russia supports a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan, why is blocking a deal that, if successful, could provide a model for a future settlement with the Taliban? And if Moscow is indeed providing lethal support to the Afghan Taliban, are its objectives merely to curry favor with the group and counter Islamic State?…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
RUSSIA’S NEW FAVORITE JIHADIS: THE TALIBAN
Thomas Joscelyn
Long War Journal, Jan. 4, 2017
More than 15 years into America’s war in Afghanistan, the Russian government is openly advocating on behalf of the Taliban. Last week, Moscow hosted Chinese and Pakistani emissaries to discuss the war. Tellingly, no Afghan officials were invited. However, the trio of nations urged the world to be “flexible” in dealing with the Taliban, which remains the Afghan government’s most dangerous foe. Russia even argued that the Taliban is a necessary bulwark in the war against the so-called Islamic State.
For its part, the American military sees Moscow’s embrace of the Taliban as yet another move intended to undermine NATO, which fights the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Islamic State every day. After Moscow’s conference, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova spoke with reporters and noted that “the three countries expressed particular concern about the rising activity in the country of extremist groups, including the Afghan branch of IS [the Islamic State, or ISIS].”
According to Reuters, Zakharova added that China, Pakistan, and Russia agreed upon a “flexible approach to remove certain [Taliban] figures from [United Nations] sanctions lists as part of efforts to foster a peaceful dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban movement.”
The Taliban, which refers to itself as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, quickly praised the “Moscow tripartite” in a statement posted online on Dec. 29. “It is joyous to see that the regional countries have also understood that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a political and military force,” Muhammad Sohail Shaheen, a spokesman for the group’s political office, said in the statement. “The proposal forwarded in the Moscow tripartite of delisting members of the Islamic Emirate is a positive step forward in bringing peace and security to Afghanistan.”
Of course, the Taliban isn’t interested in “peace and security.” The jihadist group wants to win the Afghan war and it is using negotiations with regional and international powers to improve its standing. The Taliban has long manipulated “peace” negotiations with the U.S. and Western powers as a pretext for undoing international sanctions that limit the ability of its senior figures to travel abroad for lucrative fundraising and other purposes, even while offering no serious gestures toward peace.
The Obama administration has repeatedly tried, and failed, to open the door to peace. In May 2014, the U.S. transferred five senior Taliban figures from Guantanamo to Qatar. Ostensibly, the “Taliban Five” were traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an American who reportedly deserted his fellow soldiers and was then held by the Taliban and its jihadist allies. But the Obama administration also hoped that the exchange would be a so-called confidence-building measure and lead to more substantive negotiations. The Taliban’s leaders never agreed to any such discussions. They simply wanted their comrades, at least two of whom are suspected of committing war crimes, freed from Guantanamo.
Regardless, Russia is now enabling the Taliban’s disingenuous diplomacy by pretending that ISIS is the more worrisome threat. It’s a game the Russians have been playing for more than a year. In December 2015, Zamir Kabulov, who serves as Vladimir Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, went so far as to claim that “the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours” when it comes to fighting ISIS head Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s loyalists. Kabulov even conceded that Russia and the Taliban have “channels for exchanging information,” according to The Washington Post.
The American commanders leading the fight in Afghanistan don’t buy Russia’s argument—at all. During a press briefing on Dec. 2, General John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, discussed “the malign influence of external actors and particularly Pakistan, Russia, and Iran.” Gen. Nicholson said the U.S. and its allies are “concerned about the external enablement of the insurgent or terrorist groups inside Afghanistan, in particular where they enjoy sanctuary or support from outside governments.” Russia, in particular, “has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.”
According to Nicholson, the Russian “narrative” is “that the Taliban are the ones fighting the Islamic State, not the Afghan government.” While the Taliban does fight its jihadist rivals in the Islamic State, this is plainly false. The “Afghan government and the U.S. counterterrorism effort are the ones achieving the greatest effect against Islamic State,” Nicholson said. He went on to list the U.S.-led coalition’s accomplishments over the past year: 500 ISIS fighters (comprising an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the group’s overall force structure) were killed or wounded, the organization’s “top 12 leaders” (including its emir, Hafiz Saeed Khan) were killed, and the group’s “sanctuary” has been reduced from nine Afghan districts to just three.
“So, this public legitimacy that Russia lends to the Taliban is not based on fact, but it is used as a way to essentially undermine the Afghan government and the NATO effort and bolster the belligerents,” Nicholson concluded. While Nicholson was careful not read too much into Russia’s motivation for backing the Taliban, he noted “certainly there’s a competition with NATO.”
There’s no doubt that ISIS’s operations in Afghanistan grew significantly in the wake of Baghdadi’s caliphate declaration in 2014. However, as Nicholson correctly pointed out, Baghdadi’s men are not adding to the territory they control at the moment. Their turf is shrinking. The same cannot be said for the Taliban, which remains the most significant threat to Afghanistan’s future. At any given time, the Taliban threatens several provincial capitals. The Taliban also controls dozens of Afghan districts and contests many more. Simply put, the Taliban is a far greater menace inside Afghanistan than Baghdadi’s men. Regardless, the Russians continue to press their case. Their argument hinges on the idea that ISIS is a “global” force to be reckoned with, while the Taliban is just a “local” nuisance…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
TRUMP MUST GET TOUGH WITH PAKISTAN
Fulvio Martusciello
Washington Times, Dec. 20, 2016
President-elect Donald Trump made headlines after Pakistani officials released details of his phone call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. While the reported kind words exchanged could be interpreted as the beginning of a renewed friendship between the two countries, Islamabad’s thirst for headlines alone have made this less likely. More importantly, in the past Mr. Trump has stressed the security challenges associated with Pakistan and its potential global reach.
The new administration is not alone in having mixed feelings. Rightfully so, Washington’s patience has been showing signs of wearing thin as Pakistan, a military-run country with nuclear weapons, has not been cooperative, particularly in the fight against terrorism. Indeed, there is evidence of ambiguous relations between Islamabad and several terrorist organizations. Pakistan is known as a safe haven for terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and for supporting terrorists groups such al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Haqqani network. Islamabad’s attitude regarding terrorism within its borders is unacceptable — and a major source of concern for both the United States and Europe.
In this context, it is essential to remember that the United States and the EU represent the bulk of the financial aid and trade with Pakistan. Although Pakistan has happily received numerous types of aid from both sides of the Atlantic, relations have often been ambivalent, and Western security and human rights concerns — most certainly justified — are perceived as an annoyance. Pakistan is even suspected of misusing of military equipment provided by the United States. The U.S. alone is to transfer close to $1 billion to Pakistan in 2017, giving Washington considerable leverage over Islamabad — leverage that must now be used.
Over the years Pakistan has failed to live up to its promises to the United States, whether on providing troops for the U.S. fight against communist forces in the days of the Cold War or against al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Haqqani network in present times. What’s even worse: Large chunks of funding to Pakistan found its way to arm jihadi groups, the same groups that have been responsible for killing of NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.
What is needed going forward is a new approach to Pakistan — one that recognizes the need to engage with Pakistan on certain key security issues while also applying stronger conditions on Islamabad to perform in ways that are not counterproductive to these objectives in the first place. The incoming Trump administration and Congress should accordingly take a closer look at U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan, beginning with the fundamental question: Does this assistance to Pakistan serve U.S. national interests or not?
Equally important is that any such re-assessment of U.S. policy to Pakistan takes place in close coordination with America’s European allies. Should Pakistan fail to comply and become transparent, both the U.S. and the EU need to consider taking appropriate joint trans-Atlantic actions, including reducing or withdrawing funds or boycotting inappropriate arms sales.
Terrorism is a serious threat that affects both America and Europe. Both sides of the Atlantic certainly recognize the importance of fighting terrorism as we are seeing now with the Umbrella Agreement — a landmark deal strengthening the cooperation between Washington and Brussels in the fight against terrorism by transferring trans-Atlantic criminal data.
Both the United States and the European Union have leverage over Islamabad, and they should use it in a coordinated fashion to dismantle terrorist networks inside Pakistan and to guarantee regional stability in South Asia. As many of the concerns and interests are shared across the Atlantic, namely with NATO, cooperation with European counterparts should be considered by establishing a trans-Atlantic dialogue on global counterterrorism.
Paula Stern
Jewish Press, Jan. 23, 2017
When I was 20 years old, I took a course at Columbia University for the easy A I expected (and got). It was called “Women and Religion” and was presented by a Jewish woman who declared on the very first day that she was a “witch.” It was attended by many different young women, though I only remember one. Her mother was Catholic; her father was Jewish. By Catholic rule, she was a Jew; by Jewish rule, she was not Jewish (I won’t say we rule that she is a Catholic – we simply say that according to Jewish law, which is matriarchal, she was not a Jew).
Her response to this was that she hated both religions; all religions. The class had little to do with “Women AND religion” and everything to do with “Women AGAINST religion.” I thought about dropping the course but I really needed that filler course and so I decided to continue and take it as a philosophical experiment. I never argued back in anger because I really felt more pity than anything else.
I tried to paint images of my religion as loving and open and they condemned it for animal sacrifices that haven’t taken place in over 2,000 years. I tried to show how Judaism was very advanced for its time, that in a world that mostly enslaved and abused women, Judaism was teaching women to read, certainly giving them equality in ways that were foreign to most other religions. I tried to show them that you can have separate but equal and equal but different, but they bought nothing and ridiculed everything.
At the end of the class, the witch…I mean the instructor…announced that all grades were final, papers done, everything marked and now, as a last exercise of the last class she wanted to go around the room and have everyone freely and without consequence, speak about what they had learned. The non-Catholic/non-Jewish girl spoke of how repressive and reprehensible religion was; others spoke of male domination, the fallacy of believing in one God or even many gods. I wanted to pass but they wouldn’t let me and so finally, I agreed to speak. I looked around the room and then explained, “I learned that I am not a feminist.” That enraged a few of them – but the teacher quieted them and asked me to continue. And more or less, this is what I said to them…
I am a Jew. I was born a Jew and I will die a Jew. I was also born a woman. Never once in my life have I felt those to collide or contradict and I pity anyone who feels that they do. I am not less; I am not inferior. I don’t view myself that way and I won’t let anyone think of me that way. But when the Nazis came to murder me, my Christian sisters of the world didn’t rise up to save me – they stood with their Christian brothers and fathers and sons. When the Crusaders came, same deal. When the Cossacks came and set fire to the synagogue in which my grandmother hid, no woman rushed forward to put out the flames.
A feminist will tell me that I’m being persecuted but the only way I’ve ever been persecuted is as a Jew and my “sisters” never once stood up for me because in their eyes I was as much as Jew as my father and brothers. I am a Jew. At that point, I got up, thanked the teacher and walked out of the room and to her credit, she gave me the “A” I had earned. Yesterday, women marched in Washington. The marches were sponsored and organized, in part, by a Muslim woman who supports Sharia and is anti-Israel.
I am the CEO of my company. I have never been discriminated against as a woman. I have applied for dozens of projects and never once been made to feel as if the decision to take my company or not rested on my gender. Dozens of years ago, an Orthodox rabbi asked me to address a very large shul and give a lesson to the entire audience – from the center of the men’s area.
I felt some 30 years ago, that those women needed to feel miserable to feel fulfilled. I didn’t and so I walked out of that class and went out on a date with a man who would later become my husband. A man with whom I have raised five children. A good man. An honest one. A man who doesn’t do the dishes nearly enough, but takes apart the car or the dishwasher or the air conditioner, my computer, or refrigerator whenever it breaks. A man who has never treated me as an object or said anything sexually inappropriate to me (or any other woman).
I have never understood violence. I didn’t spank my children (okay, I think I spanked my first two a very few times and then realized it didn’t accomplish anything) and no, I do not equate spanking children with violence but I still don’t believe in it. I have never attacked anyone, never set fire to anything (inappropriate). I have never thrown anything at anyone (other than a ball in a game and even then I missed). I do not understand violence. I do not understand the marches yesterday. (And yes, I am aware that hundreds of thousands of people marched without violence…I don’t understand that but respect everyone’s right to rally…I just wish I understood what they hoped to accomplish and more, I wish that the rally-rouser wasn’t who it was)…[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
In Afghanistan, Trump Will Inherit a Costly Stalemate and Few Solutions: Greg Jaffe & Missy Ryan, Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2017—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 about the limits of American military power, money, patience and time.
Donald Trump’s Phone Conversation With the Leader of Pakistan Was Reckless and Bizarre: Nikhil Kumar, Time, Dec. 1, 2016—There are few foreign policy topics quite as complicated as the relationship between India and Pakistan, South Asia’s nuclear-armed nemeses.
Following Trump’s Inauguration: What’s Next?: Jacob Kornbluh & Aaron Magid, Jewish Journal, Jan. 19, 2017—As President-elect Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration approached, Jewish Insider — a division of TRIBE Media, which produces the Journal — asked a diverse group of experts and activists from across the Jewish community about their expectations for the upcoming administration in its first 100 days, its relationship with Israel and more.
Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine: George Friedman, Realclearworld, Jan. 2, 2017—During the campaign for the American presidency, Donald Trump promised that in his administration only good things would happen. He was somewhat vague about what precisely was good and what was bad.
