Tag: Taliban

  • Taliban confirms release of U.S. citizen in prisoner swap

    Taliban confirms release of U.S. citizen in prisoner swap

    Afghan authorities on Monday confirmed the swap of a prisoner, U.S civil engineer, in exchange for an Afghan drug lord who was sentenced to a life term in prison by a U.S. court.

    The U.S. national, Mark Frerichs, disappeared in Afghanistan in 2020.

    Speaking at a press conference, Taliban Foreign Minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said the swap of famous drug dealer, Haji Bashir Noorzai, for Frerichs took place with a U.S. delegation in Kabul’s International Airport.

    The U.S. authorities have not commented on the prisoner swap yet.

    It was suspected for a long time that Frerichs had been abducted by the Haqqanis, a notorious network within the Taliban, who demanded the release of Noorzai.

    Noorzai was a financial supporter of the Taliban during their first period in power in the 1990s but was hired as an undercover agent on behalf of the U.S. government in the early 2000s.

    He was arrested in 2005 in the U.S. for heroin smuggling and sentenced to life in prison.

    After his release, Noorzai was welcomed at Kabul airport by the Taliban’s notorious GDI intelligence forces with flowers. Later he spoke at a televised event at a grand hotel in the city.

    Noorzai said he was in prison for more than 17 years and his release would have been impossible without the Taliban’s efforts.

    He also hoped that his release would bring the relations between the Taliban in Kabul and Washington closer.

    The Taliban has a history of hostage-taking in return for ransom or other political aims.

    In June, five British nationals being held by the Taliban in Afghanistan were released from detention.

    Simultaneously, London announced it did not support anyone seeking to achieve political change through violence in Afghanistan.

  • Taliban deny their deputy prime minister, Mullah Baradar, is dead

    Taliban deny their deputy prime minister, Mullah Baradar, is dead

    The Taliban have denied that one of their top leaders has been killed in a shootout with rivals, following rumours about internal splits in the movement nearly a month after its lightning victory over the Western-backed government in Kabul.

    Sulail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman, said Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, former head of the Taliban political office who was named deputy prime minister last week, issued a voice message rejecting claims he had been killed or injured in a clash.

    “He says it is lies and totally baseless,” Shaheen said in a message on Twitter.

    The Taliban also released video footage purportedly showing Baradar at meetings in the southern city of Kandahar.

    Reuters could not immediately verify the footage.

    The denials follow days of rumours that supporters of Baradar had clashed with those of Sirajuddin Haqqani, head of the Haqqani network that is based near the border with Pakistan and was blamed for some of the worst suicide attacks of the war.

    The rumours follow speculation over possible rivalries between military commanders like Haqqani and leaders from the political office in Doha like Baradar, who led diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement with the United States.

    The Taliban have repeatedly denied the speculation over internal divisions.

    Baradar, once seen as the likely head of a Taliban government, had not been seen in public for some time and was not part of the ministerial delegation which met Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani in Kabul on Sunday.

    The movement’s supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada, has also not been seen in public since the Taliban seized Kabul on Aug. 15, although he issued a public statement when the new government was formed last week.

    Speculation over Taliban leaders has been fed by the circumstances surrounding the death of the movement’s founder, Mullah Omar, which was only made public in 2015 two years after it happened, setting off bitter recriminations among the leadership.

  • Taliban clears air on social media ban in Afghanistan

    Taliban clears air on social media ban in Afghanistan

    Taliban Spokesman Suhail Shaheen on Tuesday said the Taliban movement had no plans to introduce any restrictions on social media in Afghanistan.

    Shaheen said the Taliban believed in the freedom of speech, ready to accept criticism, and would only make efforts to limit the spreading of fake information.

    “No, there aren’t any restrictions on social media. We believe in the freedom of speech.

    “If someone criticizes our activities or has some views that he wants to express, it is fine with us, it is all part of freedom of speech.

    “But of course we do not want the spread of lies and fabrications, those might be restricted. Otherwise, we don’t have any problem,” Shaheen said.

  • Taliban calls for peaceful solution of Panjshir standoff

    Taliban calls for peaceful solution of Panjshir standoff

    A Taliban senior leader, Mullah Amir Khan Mutaqi has called for peaceful solution of the standoff in Afghanistan’s Panjshir province, urged the people of Panjshir to help stabilise peace and security in the country.

    “Panjshir as a part of Afghanistan deserves to live in peace. The Islamic Emirate has declared general amnesty and there is no reason to fight.

    “War is enough, let’s stop fighting and live in peace,’’ Mutaqi said in a message on Wednesday.

    Panjshir, the only province among Afghanistan’s 34 provinces which has remained out of Taliban’s control since the fall of major cities including capital Kabul.

    Since Monday, there were reports of skirmishes between Taliban forces and the anti-Taliban fighters in areas bordering Panjshir Valley.

    Ahmad Masoud, the son of late anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmad Shah Masoud, who was leading an anti-Taliban resistance in Panjshir Valley, has reportedly said that he was going to find negotiated solution to the standoff.

    He said, though in the meantime, he urged the people to be ready to defend the valley.

    Mutaqi in his message said that the Taliban in spite of deploying troops around Panjshir would continue dialogue.

  • Echoes of Vietnam in the second coming of the Taliban, Dennis Onakinor

    Echoes of Vietnam in the second coming of the Taliban, Dennis Onakinor

    In the words of the Spanish-born American scholar, George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” And by any stretch of imagination, no group of people in recent memory has failed to remember its past more than the United States of America. Within a span of about five decades, the US has twice failed to take cognizance of some ugly occurrences in its past, and has therefore incurred avoidable humiliation and derision.

    The unfolding events in Afghanistan are reminiscent of occurrences in the closing days of the Vietnam War of 1960 – 1975, which saw the US suffer its first major military defeat in the Cold War era. The prevailing chaos amidst frantic efforts to evacuate its citizens and Afghan associates from the troubled country seem very much like a replay of the scenes of Vietnam in April 1975, when US forces raced against time to airlift Americans and Vietnamese collaborators out of the city of Saigon, besieged by enemy forces – the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and its South Vietnamese rebel ally (Viet Cong).

    Specifically, the August 15, 2021 horror-images of Kabul International Airport, showing desperate Afghan men, women, and children struggling to board an American military transport aircraft (with some clinging to its underbelly and rooftop even as it taxied for takeoff), are grim reminders of the events of April 29 – 30, 1975 in Vietnam. In those last two days of America’s misadventure in Vietnam, the world watched in horror as several military helicopters involved in the evacuation of about 7000 Americans and Vietnamese allies to aircraft carriers stationed off the coast of Vietnam were manually pushed overboard into the sea in order to make way for others to land.

    Similarly, the escape of President Ashraf Ghani to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on August 15, 2021 bears close resemblance to the April 21, 1975 exit to Taiwan of a weeping South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu, who accused American President Richard Nixon of “betrayal” and “irresponsibility” for holding peace negotiations with the NVA and Vietcong, thus undermining his war efforts against the enemy forces. While Ashraf Ghani may not have directly leveled such accusations against the US government, most people however share the view that his government was seriously undermined by President Donald Trump’s 2018 – 2020 peace negotiations held with the Taliban, without Aghan authorities in attendance. The eulogies reportedly lavished on the Taliban by President Trump in course of the negotiations apparently contributed to the aura of invincibility that subsequently trailed the militant group, hence Afghan security forces dreaded confronting them as they advanced from province to province on their way to seizing the capital of Kabul on August 15, 2021.

    It is often said that hindsight is always wise, but nearly every analyst agrees that the unraveling Afghan fiasco, like the Vietnam debacle, could have been avoided had the US not succumbed to great-power chauvinism and hubris. There is no gainsaying the fact that the war machine of a super power can pound any Third World country into submission within a matter of months, or even weeks, but the subsequent pacification of the defeated country is another ball game entirely. The defunct Soviet Union realized this fact the hard way in Afghanistan, ditto the US in both Vietnam and Afghanistan.

    Had the US learned from the 1954 bitter experience of France in Vietnam, it might have avoided the ugly fate that similarly befell her. Under the command of the legendary General Nguyen Vo Giap, Vietnamese nationalists (Viet Minh) dealt France a humiliating defeat on May 7, 1954, when they captured more than 10,000 French troops from their military complex at Dien Bien Phu. The humiliation forced the European power into an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Vietnam. Failing to heed the advice of French President Charles De Gaulle, who warned that Vietnam would trap the US in “a bottomless military and political swamp,” President John F. Kennedy, upon assuming power in 1961, escalated the Vietnam War that his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, had unwisely inherited from France.

    Between 1961 and 1975, the US fought a bruising war in Vietnam. By dint of its superior war machine, it narrowly avoided a Dien Bien Phu-type humiliation in January 1968, when an NVA siege on a Marine base at the remote mountain location of Khe Sanh was successfully broken after a 77-day round-the-clock bombardment by waves of B-52 Stratofortress, in what has been described as the heaviest bombardment of a small area in the history of warfare. To say the least, US forces practically saw hell in Vietnam, until the last 10 Marines were hastily evacuated by a helicopter from their embassy in Saigon on April 30, 1975, bringing an end to the 15-year war that saw six different presidents in office. In their casus belli, they all conveniently cited the “Domino Theory,” which erroneously held that victory for communism in Vietnam would spell disastrous consequences for capitalism within the region as the surrounding countries will all fall, one after the other, like a falling row of dominoes.

    Four years after the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union, failing to learn from the ignominious example of its super power rival, rumbled into Afghanistan on December 24, 1979, ostensibly to protect the forces of communism. Swift reaction from the US and its allies, including Arab states, greeted the Soviet invasion. They demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Soviet forces. Afghan Mujahedeen (Muslim fighters) began receiving massive military aid and training from them. As many as 35,000 foreign Muslim fighters (International Mujahedeen) moved into the country to wage a guerilla-style campaign against the Soviet forces massed in Kabul. With the enormous cost of the war almost crippling the Soviet economy, reformist President Mikhail Gorbachev decided to bring the 9-year occupation to an end in February 1989. Unfortunately, the invasion unleashed a chain of events that culminated in the emergence of the Taliban on the Afghan political centre-stage by 1996.

    While the US’ objective in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was the containment of global communist expansionism, the International Mujahedeen had other ideas. At the end of the conflict, most of them became Islamic militants and ideologues in their various countries. Some, like Osama bin Laden, formed the Al Qaeda (the Base) terrorist network for the purpose of fomenting a global Jihad. The group went on to mastermind the September 11, 2001 terrorist operations that saw a combined death toll of 3016 individuals of various nationalities, prompting the US to declare a global “War on Terror.” In his speech to the US Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush declared: “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism … Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

    Consequently, the US asked Mullah Omar’s Taliban-led government in Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden and expel the entire al Qaeda terrorist organization from the country. Unsurprisingly, it refused to accede to the demands. On October 7, 2001, the US and its NATO allies launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” aimed at ousting the Taliban from power and expelling al-Qaeda from the country. Both objectives were achieved by December 17, 2001, although the leadership of both organizations successfully escaped to remote rugged mountain locations within the country and neighbouring Pakistan. A fugitive Osama bin Laden was eventually killed by US forces in his hideout at Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, 2011, while Mullah Omar reportedly died of tuberculosis on April 23, 2013 in Zabul, Afghanistan. But, the rump of the Taliban survived to fight another day.

    Following the success of the Afghan invasion, the US and NATO forces, under the auspices of the UN-backed International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), embarked upon a mission to reorganize the country’s governmental structures and security forces. To a large extent, they succeeded in this task. By 2004, Afghanistan had in place a democratically elected government headed by President Hamid Kazai, while the Afghan National Security Forces were being rigorously trained and equipped to withstand both domestic and external threats. Critics maintain that this is the point at which the US and its allies should have left the country. But, as they say, hindsight is always wise. Rather than leave, they embarked upon an indeterminate nation-building mission, which the Taliban eventually exploited to its own advantage.

    The US and Soviet misadventures in Vietnam and Afghanistan show that pacification missions by invading powers are more likely to fail than succeed, because they are deeply unpopular both domestically and internationally. Incumbent US President Joe Biden corroborates this position in his White House address of August 16, 2021:

    “So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans – Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives – American lives – is it worth? … I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past – the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces …Those are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat …”

    Either due to large-scale corruption, or sheer incompetence on the part of successive Afghan governments, or the brutal terror tactics (suicide-bombing, car-bombing, hostage-taking, extortion, intimidations, etc.) adopted by its militants, a resurgent Taliban made rapid gains overtime, beginning in 2004. In July 2018, the Trump Administration entered into peace talks with the militant group. The negotiations yielded the Doha Peace Agreement of February 29, 2020. That agreement, which established a deadline for US and NATO troop-withdrawal by May 1, 2021, was negotiated and signed without the involvement of the Afghan government. Perhaps, it explains the refusal of the Afghan security forces to engage the advancing Taliban militants, choosing instead to negotiate and surrender their superior weapons. President Biden alluded to this situation in his aforesaid White House address:

    “… We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong – incredibly well equipped – a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies. We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force – something the Taliban doesn’t have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support. We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future…”

    The popular axiom that “people get the type of government they deserve” echoes in President Biden’s statement. If after a 20-year liberal nation-building effort the Taliban could so easily reclaim power without as much as a battle, then Afghans surely deserve a Taliban-led government, even though the group’s murderous reputation precedes it like a long evening shadow. To most liberal-minded Afghans who witnessed its government of 1996 – 2001, the Taliban is nothing but an Islamic fundamentalist death-cult. Its name strikes terror into their hearts and minds. Little wonder their desperate efforts to flee the country before the militants begin to unleash tyranny upon them in the name of governance.

    Otherwise known as “Students” or “Seekers,” the Taliban was founded in the province of Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994 by Mullah Omar, a member of the local Mujahedeen that spearheaded the anti-Soviet insurgency. The group, comprising mainly ethnic Pashtun, was allegedly formed with the support of Pakistani government authorities. Its initial membership was drawn from students (talib) of Islamic religious schools (madrassas) in Pakistan. They espoused strict adherence to the Sharia (Koranic Law). The Taliban took advantage of the factional power-struggle within the ruling Mujahedeen to seize power in September 1996, with Mullah Omar as head of its self-proclaimed Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

    While in government, the Taliban practically operated by the third syllable of its name, Ta-li-ban. It banned nearly every modern feature of the Afghan society. Activities depicting people and other living things, such as painting, photography, movies, television, music, and the Internet, were all banned. Sporting and recreational activities, including mass-appeal sports like football, were banned. Religious and cultural artifacts were deemed idolatrous and therefore banned. Life became drab and dull as the Taliban sought total control over the way of life of all Afghans. All men were forbidden to shave their beards, and the wearing of the turban outside the home was made compulsory. Floggings, imprisonments, and executions attended violations.

    It was, however, the Taliban’s repression of women that drew the attention of the rest of the world to its tyranny. Apart from being prohibited from working, women were forbidden from attending schools, and those already in attendance prior to 1996 (when the Taliban seized power) were withdrawn. They were all required to remain in purdah, and whenever they ventured outside their abode, they had to be attired in the burqa (a traditional dress covering the entire body from head to toe with a small slit for the eyes). Outside the home, they had to be accompanied by male relatives. Non-compliance was met with public flogging and stoning. Women, whether in their parental or marital homes, became glorified prisoners.

    Leopards do not change their spots. Hence, the Taliban cannot be expected to deviate from its religion-based autocracy and misogyny in its second coming. For all its present moderate posturing, the Taliban is part of the global axis of religious extremism and terror, which includes al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), with the likes of Boko Haram and Al Shabaab playing supporting casts. Together, they all view women as objects not deserving of social existence. The untold horrors of sexual violence and slavery committed by ISIS against the Yazidi women of Sinjar in Northern Iraq, in August 2014, attest to this position. One account had it that the women were treated as “spoils of war” and sold “like cattle,” with age determining their price tag: “The younger the slave, the more expensive.” Pray that the victorious Taliban, like ISIL, is not tempted to consider Afghan women “infidels” as part of its spoils of war, just like the American-supplied weapons seized from Afghan forces.

    Twenty years have lapsed since the Taliban’s first tumultuous reign under Mullah Omar was terminated in a blaze of gunfire and missiles by US and NATO forces in collaboration with local Mujahedeen elements represented by the likes of “Northern Alliance” and “Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin,” all of whom are presently watching events from the sidelines. What they might do next is anybody’s guess. In any case, the Taliban would soon come to the realization that it is easier to wage a hit-and-run guerilla campaign, than run a civil government. Now that the common enemy, “the US and its puppet government,” are out of the way, the militants and warlords may soon be at daggers drawn aiming for each other’s jugular in their selfish quest for control of the reins of power. Therefore, it may not be smooth-sailing for Hibatullah Akhundzada’s government.

    Nevertheless, miracles do happen, even in international relations. Like the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which normalized relations with the US in 1995, and has also opened up its communist-oriented society to the rest of the liberal-capitalist world, a Taliban-led Afghanistan might metamorphose into a moderate Islamic state where the basic freedoms and rights of citizens, especially the womenfolk, are respected. Time will tell.

     

    Dennis Onakinor, a self-styled “natural historian,” is a public and international affairs analyst, who lives in Lagos.

  • Several dead in massive explosion outside Kabul Airport

    Several dead in massive explosion outside Kabul Airport

    An explosion went off Thursday outside Kabul’s airport, where thousands of people have flocked as they try to flee the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

    Western nations had warned of a possible attack there in the waning days of a massive airlift. The Pentagon confirmed the blast, with the Taliban saying at least 13 people have been killed.

    In the 11 days since the Taliban took Kabul, the US and its allies have mounted one of the biggest air evacuations in history, bringing out more than 88,000 people. The US military says planes are taking off about every 39 minutes.

    Taliban fighters have been guarding the perimeter of the airport, thronged by thousands of people trying to flee a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

    Al Jazeera’s Charlotte Bellis, reporting from Kabul, said about 1,500 US passport holders meant to be evacuated remained in the capital.

    “The US and the Taliban have a deal. The Taliban are under strict instructions not to let anyone through without a passport, without a green card, without verified documents and there is confusion about what a verified document looks like,” she said.

    She also said Kandahar airport has been reopened, giving hope that international flights will be possible even if Kabul airport closes down or has an interruption.

  • Deadly attack on Kabul airport as Taliban reject extended evacuation

    Deadly attack on Kabul airport as Taliban reject extended evacuation

    An Afghan security officer was killed when members of the Afghan security forces and soldiers from Germany and the U.S. clashed with attackers at the north gate of Kabul airport.

    Three Afghan personnel were injured in the incident at 6:43 am (0213 GMT) on Monday, the German army tweeted.

    They were treated by Norwegian paramedics at the airport compound.

    The north entrance has two sets of gates: The outer ones are guarded by soldiers from the Afghan military, the inner ones by U.S. troops.

    It is not known who carried out the attack.

    On Sunday, the U.S. Government had expressed concern about a potential attack by the terrorist militia Islamic State at the airport or in the vicinity.

    The airport has seen tumultuous scenes in recent days as Western states evacuate their citizens and local Afghan staff in the wake of the Taliban militants taking over the country.

    Seven Afghan civilians had died amid the chaos around the airport, according to the British Ministry of Defence.

    The NGO Emergency, which operates a hospital in Kabul, said on Monday they had received 14 people with severe injuries since Saturday morning.

    Six people brought from the airport had bullet wounds, the group tweeted, adding that none was in life-threatening condition.

    Members of the opposition, journalists, human rights activists and local staff who worked for Western countries have feared acts of revenge from Afghanistan’s returned hard-line rulers.

    The international evacuations had gathered pace, with discussions under way involving the United States and its allies about keeping U.S. forces on the ground longer to enable more people to be flown out.

    The British state minister for the armed forces, James Heappey, said on Monday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson would request an extension to the U.S. troops’ mandate at emergency G7 talks on Tuesday.

    “I think everybody has to be clear that this is not just a discussion that happens between G7 leaders tomorrow.

    ‘’It is a discussion which happens with the Taliban, ’’Johnson said in his remarks to broadcaster Sky.

    A Taliban spokesman said however that the group
    would not agree to an extension of the evacuation mission.

    Speaking to British news channel Sky News on Monday, spokesman Suhail Shaheen said: “If the U.S. or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations the answer is no. Or there will be consequences.

    “It’s a red line U.S President Joe Biden announced that by Aug. 31, they will withdraw all their military forces. So, if they extend it that means they are extending occupation’’.

    Since taking power in the country on Aug.15, the Taliban has been slow to take over the day-to-day running of the country.

    The group has called on former government employees to continue doing their jobs.

    Negotiations with other political groups are under way to form a government.

    The Taliban was also focusing effort on taking control of the province of Panjshir, the only hold-out against the Islamists’ rule.

    Taliban fighters were gathering around the province even as the Taliban said they were seeking political solution.

  • Taliban: Lessons the big countries cannot learn – Owei Lakemfa

    By Owei Lakemfa

    AFGHANISTAN is in chaos. There are videos of Afghans clinging to aircraft taking off and dropping to earth. The dominant media blames the Taliban takeover for the chaos. Not the true story. The chaos has more to do with the Western forces of occupation suddenly fleeing and abandoning the country after a 20-year misadventure, and their puppet government and armed forces collapsing like a pack of cards.

    The mere announcement of the name, Taliban, led to the Western-backed Afghanistan armed forces fleeing city after city, and on Sunday, August 15, 2021 melting away when the Taliban announced their presence at the gates of Kabul. So in a sense, the Taliban was racing to restore some form of law and order.

    Afghanistan, relatively was a liberal, peaceful and development-oriented country before the advent of the Western-packaged Mujahedeen which included the recruitment of foreign fighters and financiers like Osama bin Laden. It was a monarchy until 1973 when King Zahir Shah was overthrown by Mohammed Daoud Khan who in turn was removed by radical Afghans on April 28, 1978 in what was called the Saur Revolution.

    The revolution introduced land reforms by redistributing a lot of lands among the populace, especially the landless. It carried out mass literacy campaigns and insisted on the country being secular, not Islamic. It championed the liberation of women from religious and traditional practices. Clarifying its position on women, the government in a May 28, 1978 editorial in the New Kabul Times declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country … Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.”

    The most famous act of the pre-Mujahedeen government was encapsulating the fundamental rights of Afghans in its “Fundamental Principles of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan”. This guaranteed Afghans fundamental right to demonstration, peaceful assembly, fair trial and freedom of expression. Government, while safeguarding state, cooperative and private property rights, insisted that they must not be based on the exploitation of the populace.

    So, why did the US and its allies raise an army of Islamic fundamentalists with base in Pakistan to overthrow this development-minded Afghan government? Simple. It was the Cold War era and the West which characterised the Afghan government as communist, feared that the Soviet influence was expanding, so there was the need to curb it.

    To them, the best way to mobilise youths in Afghanistan and the Muslim world to enlist in the Mujahedeen army was to claim that the Afghan government was atheist which is why it insisted on a secular state. They sold the dummy that it was the duty of Muslims all over the world to carry out a jihad against a godless government in a country populated by Muslims.

    America had a ready puppet in General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan who had in 1977 declared martial law and needed both funds and American backing to stay in power. Zia provided the base for the Mujahedeen to train and attack Afghanistan. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter through the American Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, spent about $100 million shipping arms to the Mujahedeen, while his successor, President Ronald Reagan, increased this to $700 million annually.

    American official, Thomas Thornton in a memo to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser, said of the Mujahedeen fighters America was propping up: “They tend to be a pretty ugly bunch. I shudder to think of the human rights problems we would face if they came to power.” But he was ignored.

    The Soviet Union which intervened militarily to defend the Afghan government, was defeated by the insurgents and forced to withdraw in February 1989. That led to the collapse of the Afghan government. What followed was seven years of lawlessness until 1996 when the Taliban (students) led by their teacher, Mullah Mohammed Omar, restored order. That remained for five years before the West invaded the country in 2001 leading to civil war, the infiltration of the Islamic State and the anarchy we are witnessing today.

    After the 9/11 attacks, the US became an enraged giant who, without much thought, planning or strategy, went trampling into Afghanistan only to get stuck in the mud. Many of its allies, who accompanied America, began an early extrication of themselves having realised their myopia. But the US persisted in its poor sight.

    The chaos it has created was avoidable if only it had sincere objectives and was clear-headed. In trying to rationalise its defeat in Afghanistan, it claims that it was actually victorious because its reason for invading Afghanistan was to rout the al-Qaeda from the country. Actually, that objective was met over a decade ago, and the killing of al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan was the crowning. So, why did America stay another 10 years in Afghanistan?

    A rather childish rationalisation for what is a clear defeat. When the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban realising the approaching Western forces were like a tsunami, abandoned the city low grounds and climbed into the rural areas. They avoided conventional battles, adopting guerrilla warfare. Perhaps if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had resorted to this basic tactic, the country might have been spared the nightmare it has been subjected to following its invasion by Britain and America under the pretext that the country had nuclear weapons which it was about to unleash on humanity.

    In the last weeks of this war, the Afghans displayed smartness: why destroy their country like was done to Syria in the name of a manufactured civil war? Why devastate their country like Yemen or destroy its basic infrastructure like happened in Libya? So in region after region, city after city, the inhabitants led by the elders met, discussed the situation, and rather than allow fighting, told the Western-backed Afghan government to withdraw its troops and officials, instructed the local pro-government militia to switch sides, and invited the Taliban forces to enter their cities. This is why in five days ending last Saturday, the Taliban took over seven cities, including Khandar, its birth place and second largest city. On Sunday, President Ashraf Ghani left the country, indicating surrender, and the Taliban strolled into Kabul.

    It is not just that the West failed to learn basic lessons in the Afghan case, but that in two decades when they were overlords, they did not understand the basic culture of the Afghan people, including the role of the elders council and mass meetings. Their understanding and brand of democracy precludes local culture and traditions. These are lessons it appears the powerful countries have not learnt.

  • Keeping Afghanistan at bay – Francis Ewherido

    Keeping Afghanistan at bay – Francis Ewherido

    BY Francis Ewherido

    I am not sure which word I became conscious of first, but I suspect “Afghanistan” as a country. In my secondary school days, I studied geography at a point and also followed international affairs. I probably became conscious of “Afghanistanism” (“the practice, as by a journalist, of concentrating on problems in distant parts of the world while ignoring controversial local issues”) in the university.

    But Afghanistan, as used in today’s article, is a metaphor for a person who was offered all the assistance to stand on his feet and live, independent of the helper, but simply refused to take responsibility and went back to square one. The story of Afghanistan is out there and need not be laboured here. On September 11, 2001, the unthinkable happened. Al Qaeda invaded and wreaked havoc on American soil. On 9/11 2015, 14 years later, I was at the new twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York. For someone, who had no previous attachments to those iconic buildings or New York, I could not help but still be emotional.

    America descended on Afghanistan to rout out Al Qaeda. But it knew that would not be enough. As of April, the U.S. had spent $2.261 trillion on the war in Afghanistan, according to the Costs of War project housed at Brown University’s Watson Institute and Boston University’s Pardee Center. Part of this money was spent on putting a government in place, organizing and equipping the military and police, and putting other systems and processes in place to enable the Afghan government stand on its feet.

    The support went on for almost 20 years, enough time for responsible people to sort out themselves. But with a typical third world mindset, they quickly forgot where they were coming from and the task before them. Instead of building enduring institutions, systems and processes, they were embroiled in ethnicity, corruption and opulent living (did you see the presidential palace after the Taliban gained access). The leaders went about living as if America and other donors will sustain them forever. Who does that? Even manna had a terminal date and once the people of Israel were in a position to provide for themselves, it stopped.

    Individuals also make the mistakes of the Afghan Nation. A man had the good fortune of a relative who could buy him a car when he decided to go into cab business. Once the cab was bought and registered for him, his plans changed. He employed a driver and started using the car both for commercial and private use. Soon, he married another wife. Before long, the vehicle had a major fault. He sent a message to his relative for money to fix the vehicle. The relative bought the car for him while he was in his 50s and active. He is now in his 60s and retired; no time and resources to accommodate such foolish behaviour anymore. When you get a life-time opportunity, maximize it. Keep Afghanistanish behaviour at bay.

    When you get support from people, sometimes you have no idea how the people are able to offer the support. Some support out of their abundance, some deny themselves to support you and some are able to offer substantial support once in a while because of an occasional windfall. Thereafter, they are basically back to square one. So, do not trifle with people’s support. Long ago, a relative wanted to start a business. The start-up cost was much and beyond what I could single-handedly shoulder. I got other family members to make their contributions and handed over both cash and materials to him. He set up shop. Rather than settle down and run the business, he left it for others to run. I have been around long enough to know the inevitable outcome. I cautioned him on a few occasions, but he continued shirking his responsibility of running his business.

    Then one day, I started receiving frantic calls from him. What is the problem? He needed money to buy raw materials to produce. I smiled. So, what happened to proceeds of what he was producing? When I took time to go through his operations, what he needed was not just money to buy materials, but major cash injection. All the people, who supported him initially did it on a one-off basis. I could not go back to them. I offered the little assistance I could, but the business died.

    The other bit I want to talk about is the question I asked before I went about his fundraising. I asked him his knowledge of the business he wanted to go into. He did have knowledge of the production bit of the business because he had worked in an organization where he was in the production department, but he had no knowledge of the management of the business. Both skills are essential to the success of any business. At the heart of the successes of the Igbo enterprise in Nigeria is apprenticeship. It is during their apprenticeship that both skills are honed. I cannot seem to place my finger on any bigger magic wand for business success in Nigeria than the Igbo apprenticeship system. You might have issues with some parts of the process, but it is tested, it is enduring and it works.

    Raising capital for business is tough, so you really want to get yourself ready in terms of technical and managerial skills before you start off, especially in a global, fast moving business terrain and our peculiar business terrain. Not all of us are Igbos, so we all might not be privileged to benefit from this apprenticeship. In fact, it is even an informal sector arrangement and only Igbos in the informal sector – many with limited formal education – go through it. I do not know of any of my school mates at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, who went through this apprenticeship.

    But the fact remains that before you embark on an entrepreneurial journey, give yourself a fighting chance by having a hands-on knowledge of the sector you are going into. Then be disciplined and focus on the task. Too many people who got an initial window of opportunity are stranded today because of lack of knowledge and focus. And they continue to blame uncles, relatives and others who would not be there for them. My friend, take responsibility so that when another opportunity comes, you may have a better chance of success.
    PROPOSED OKUGBE MFB CROSSES THE THRESHOOD

    I had something very uplifting to smile about last weekend. Sometime ago, I was part of a team the Urhobo Nation saddled with the responsibility of raising N300m to set up a microfinance bank to serve the interest of woman and youths. Ordinarily, there are a number of Urhobo men and women who can singlehandedly bring out that money, but things do not always work that way and everybody’s business can easily become no man’s business. Anyway, to the glory of God, we have raised the initial N200m the Central Bank requires and the Okugbe train is rolling. God bless all the Urhobo patriots who answered the call.

  • Buhari’s handling of security not different from Taliban in Afghanistan – Ortom

    Buhari’s handling of security not different from Taliban in Afghanistan – Ortom

    The Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom has likened President Muhammadu Buhari’s method of tackling insecurity in Nigeria to that of the Taliban, the terrorist group which recently took over Afghanistan.

    Governor Ortom made the remark on Friday in a statement issued by his Chief Press Secretary, Terver Akase.

    The statement was titled, “Presidency turning Nigeria to a cow republic”, in reaction to Buhari’s approval of the recommendations of a committee to review “with dispatch,” 368 grazing sites across 25 states in the country.

    The governor said It was clear that the Presidency wanted to plunge the country into avoidable crisis.

    He said, “In a country where insecurity has reached an all-time high with hundreds being killed by armed herdsmen, bandits, and other terrorists, the Presidency is only bordered about animals and their safety and is deploying all machinery and arsenals of government to impose grazing reserves and cattle routes on Nigerians. This is unacceptable.

    “The Buhari administration has turned a blind eye to the unimaginable levels of encroachment on lands belonging to Nigerians by cattle. Mr President has never come out even once to condemn activities of herdsmen and the attacks they visit on innocent people. The only time the President is heard speaking about atrocities of the herders is when he defends them.

    “It is now clear that the Presidency wants to plunge the country into avoidable crisis. Otherwise, what is the justification for President Buhari’s insistence that grazing reserves be established across the country when Nigerians have openly kicked against the policy and have embraced ranching in place of open grazing?

    “What is the difference between the Buhari administration’s approach to insecurity and the Taliban agenda in Afghanistan?

    “It is now evident that the government at the centre prioritizes the welfare of cattle over human beings and is bent on taking Nigeria back to the pre-colonial era with some snippets of a society wherein the words of Thomas Hobbes, life has become ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.

    “The country has been turned to a cow republic by the present administration and the basic principles of equality, justice, fairness and equity which engender peace and suppress anarchy are non-existent.”