© REUTERS/Ali Khara
Taliban fighters arrive at the site of explosions at a military hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan November 2, 2021.
Taliban fighters arrive at the site of explosions at a military hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan November 2, 2021.
A recent spate of suicide attacks, including Tuesday's brazen daytime assault on a military hospital in downtown Kabul that left at least 25 people dead, has underscored the reality that Afghanistan today has an Islamist terrorist problem. The irony is that, while the US has long labeled the current rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban, as a terrorist organization, the latest acts of terror are being perpetrated by a group, Islamic State-Khorasan (ISIS-K), that has been fighting both the US and Taliban for the better part of seven years.
The failure to defeat ISIS-K, an affiliate of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), in the years since it was founded in 2014 can be laid squarely at the feet of the US, which had overwhelming military capabilities assembled in the region, yet lacked a coherent strategy for Afghanistan around which to build an effective plan for using this power. Moreover, the US continues to demonstrate an abject lack of understanding about current realities in Afghanistan, eschewing support to the Taliban out of spite and, in the process, further empowering the forces of ISIS-K.
Whether ISIS-K will be able to replicate the successes of IS in Syria and Iraq of 2014-15 in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is yet to be seen. The original focus of effort for ISIS-K was Pakistan. Indeed, the first emir of ISIS-K was a Pakistani national named Hafiz Saeed Khan. Khan was a veteran commander of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an alliance of Islamic militant groups formed in 2007 to oppose the Pakistani military in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and neighboring Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. In October 2014, Khan was joined by other TTP leaders when he pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of IS until his death in 2019.
Comment: Though we agree with most of the points made by the author, we don't agree with her statement that "Billionaires should not exist". First, they have a right to exist just as surely as we non-billionaires. Second, being a billionaire, (in and of itself) is not necessarily a guarantee that they will not, or cannot, exercise conscience (though we can certainly see how the author comes to this conclusion). Third, being an "ordinary person" is not a guarantee of having a conscience or being particularly competent at ruling either. Every individual with a potential for leading must be assessed on their own merits. Having stated the above, there is something to be said for individuals who are more "spiritually" qualified to lead humanity - based on a very normal and healthy set of values and competencies. But how such criteria can even be established and evaluated is another story.