No visa is required for Afghanistan origin Hindu and Sikh Indian citizens residing in India to travel to Afghanistan as Afghanistan government has granted long term permits and National identification card to them even if they have taken an Indian passport.

"Under this scheme, the Afghan Hindu and Sikh citizens can travel to Afghanistan on special travel documents. I also extended the embassy’s full support to the Afghans living in India in this regard", Tahir Qadiry, Chief of the mission, Afghan Embassy, Delhi.

"This is part of the Afghan government’s plan to acknowledge special status of Afghan Hindus &amp; Sikhs," he further said.

In the past, only month-long, single entry permits were granted to the Afghan Origin Hindus and Sikhs. Now the permit will last as long as the validity of the passport, viz. if the passport is valid for 10 years, the permit will be valid for 10 years.

The process to grant permits started on November 19 at Khalsa Diwan Gurdwara, Tilak Nagar and ended on December 13. Some 3500 Afghan and Afghan origin Hindus and Sikhs benefitted from the Afghan government's initiative.

The process of granting the special permit and national identity card or Tazkera was done by an ad-hoc team of Afghan National statistics and information authority under a special decree by Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani.

No visa is required for Afghanistan origin Hindu and Sikh Indian citizens residing in India to travel to Afghanistan as Afghanistan government has granted long term permits and National identification card to them even if they have taken an Indian passport.

No visa is required for Afghanistan origin Hindu and Sikh Indian citizens residing in India to travel to Afghanistan as Afghanistan government has granted long term permits and National identification card to them even if they have taken an Indian passport. "Under this scheme, the Afghan Hindu and Sikh citizens can travel to Afghanistan on special travel documents. I also extended the embassy’s full support to the Afghans living in India in this regard", Tahir Qadiry, Chief of the mission, Afghan Embassy, Delhi. "This is part of the Afghan government’s plan to acknowledge special status of Afghan Hindus & Sikhs," he further said. In the past, only month-long, single entry permits were granted to the Afghan Origin Hindus and Sikhs. Now the permit will last as long as the validity of the passport, viz. if the passport is valid for 10 years, the permit will be valid for 10 years. The process to grant permits started on November 19 at Khalsa Diwan Gurdwara, Tilak Nagar and ended on December 13. Some 3500 Afghan and Afghan origin Hindus and Sikhs benefitted from the Afghan government's initiative. The process of granting the special permit and national identity card or Tazkera was done by an ad-hoc team of Afghan National statistics and information authority under a special decree by Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani.

Afghanistan grants long term permits to Afghan origin Hindu, Sikh Indian citizens 

Ten civilians, including four women and a child, were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in eastern <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-at-least-5-people-killed-in-badakhshan-landslide-35-went-missing-267851">Afghanistan</a>, officials said Friday.

The explosion happened in the volatile district of Jaghatu in Ghazni province after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-announces-a-pause-in-peace-talks-with-taliban-after-airbase-attack-267989">US and Taliban</a> paused ongoing talks on Thursday.

"Unfortunately, in the explosion 10 people, including four women and a child, were killed," Ghazni provincial governor spokesman Aref Noori told AFP on Saturday.

All the victims of the blast were civilians, he added, saying six others were wounded.

Marwa Amini, deputy spokeswoman for the interior ministry in Kabul, confirmed the blast and toll.

There was no claim of responsibility for the explosion.

Earlier this week the Taliban launched an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-damages-hospital-near-bagram-airbase-in-afghanistan-267600">attack near Bagram</a>, a major American airbase.

Insurgents often use roadside bombs and landmines to target Afghan security forces, however, the lethal weapons also inflict heavy casualties on civilians.

The explosion comes just hours after Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said insurgent leaders had held "positive talks" with a US delegation in Doha, adding the two sides planned to restart talks after a few days.

Years of conflict have left Afghanistan strewn with landmines, unexploded mortars, rockets and homemade bombs - and many are picked up by curious children.

Last month, 15 civilians including eight children were killed when their vehicle hit a land mine in northern Kunduz province.

Ten civilians, including four women and a child, were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan, officials said Friday. The explosion happened in the volatile district of Jaghatu in Ghazni province after the US and Taliban paused ongoing talks on Thursday.

Ten civilians, including four women and a child, were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan, officials said Friday. The explosion happened in the volatile district of Jaghatu in Ghazni province after the US and Taliban paused ongoing talks on Thursday. "Unfortunately, in the explosion 10 people, including four women and a child, were killed," Ghazni provincial governor spokesman Aref Noori told AFP on Saturday. All the victims of the blast were civilians, he added, saying six others were wounded. Marwa Amini, deputy spokeswoman for the interior ministry in Kabul, confirmed the blast and toll. There was no claim of responsibility for the explosion. Earlier this week the Taliban launched an attack near Bagram, a major American airbase. Insurgents often use roadside bombs and landmines to target Afghan security forces, however, the lethal weapons also inflict heavy casualties on civilians. The explosion comes just hours after Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said insurgent leaders had held "positive talks" with a US delegation in Doha, adding the two sides planned to restart talks after a few days. Years of conflict have left Afghanistan strewn with landmines, unexploded mortars, rockets and homemade bombs - and many are picked up by curious children. Last month, 15 civilians including eight children were killed when their vehicle hit a land mine in northern Kunduz province.

Roadside bomb blast kills 10 civilians in eastern Afghanistan

Afghanistan presidential election result soon. Poll watchdog missed 2 deadlines.

Afghanistan presidential election result soon

At least five people were killed in a landslide at a gold mine in the province of Badakhshan in northeastern Afghanistan, while 35 others went missing, Nek Mohammad Nazari, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said.

"Residents so far have discovered five dead bodies and the fate of another 35 workers remains unknown," the spokesman said as quoted by the Afghan TOLOnews broadcaster.

According to the official, since the landslide occurred on the territory that is under the control of the Taliban movement, the local government cannot conduct rescue operations.

The media also reported that the incident was similar to the one that took place in the province last year and claimed 10 lives.

At least five people were killed in a landslide at a gold mine in the province of Badakhshan in northeastern Afghanistan, while 35 others went missing, Nek Mohammad Nazari, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said.

At least five people were killed in a landslide at a gold mine in the province of Badakhshan in northeastern Afghanistan, while 35 others went missing, Nek Mohammad Nazari, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said. "Residents so far have discovered five dead bodies and the fate of another 35 workers remains unknown," the spokesman said as quoted by the Afghan TOLOnews broadcaster. According to the official, since the landslide occurred on the territory that is under the control of the Taliban movement, the local government cannot conduct rescue operations. The media also reported that the incident was similar to the one that took place in the province last year and claimed 10 lives.

Afghanistan: At least 5 people killed, 35 missing in Badakhshan landslide

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill or CAB, which grants Indian citizenship to the non-Muslims of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was passed by the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill will now go to the President for his assent. In the latest update coming in from Guwahati, one protestor has been killed and three others have been injured after the police opened fire. Reports indicated that the protestors hurled stones at a convoy of a foreign delegation.

WION Dispatch: Security forces move to Assam and Tripura as clashes erupt after 'CAB'

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill or CAB, which grants Indian citizenship to the non-Muslims of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was passed by the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill will now go to the President for his assent. In the latest update coming in from Guwahati one protestor has been killed and three others have been injured.

CAB Aftermath: Northeast India hit by protests, 1 dead and 3 injured

New documents reveal how United States officials misled Americans on the War in Afghanistan. The documents paint a stark picture of missteps and failures in the American effort in the war-torn country.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fineprint-report-calls-us-bluff-on-afghanistan-war-267536/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Washington Post Report by investigative reporter Craig Whitlock called America's bluff on Afghanistan. The newspaper reported on Monday that it had obtained a confidential trove of government documents.

Craig interviewed close to 400 officials involved in the war in Afghanistan, including people such as the commanding generals, diplomats and the on-field workers.

Officials had made rosy pronouncements they knew were false and hidden unmistakable evidence which showed that the war had become unwinnable.

The Report details how Pentagon officials privately told a watchdog for years about their deep concerns about the US war strategy in Afghanistan, which included senior officials who were publicly more hopeful.

The Report quotes a three-star Army General John Sopko claiming that the US was devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan and that it did not know what it was doing.

Sopko served as the White House’s Afghan War Czar during the presidencies of Geroge W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The General also claimed that the US didn’t have the foggiest notion of what it was undertaking in Afghanistan and blamed the deaths of US military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among the legislature and the government.

However, in public, US military commanders throughout the war spoke about how the conflict in Afghanistan was turning a corner.

This, even as the Taliban held on to large parts of the country and killed US and Afghan forces, without having any air combat capability.

The documents accessed by the Washington Post show US Generals and officials acknowledging that the strategies for fighting the Afghan War were flawed and that the US wasted hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make Afghanistan into a stable, democratic nation.

US Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, all vowed they would avoid becoming mired in Afghanistan.

But, the Report shows how even from the early days of the war, the US was confused about its basic objectives and strategy for achieving them.

The United States along with its allies had invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban from power for sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders who were accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks on the American World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

The Afghan War is estimated to have killed more than 1,50,000 people, including civilians, insurgents, local and foreign troops.

The conflict has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 US military personnel and cost Washington nearly one trillion dollars.

The disclosure comes as US President Donald Trump and the Pentagon look to draw down the number of forces in Afghanistan.

This is in order to focus more on battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terror groups, as the US government hopes to establish a peace deal with the Taliban.

The US and the Afghan Taliban restarted peace negotiations on Saturday, three months after Trump abruptly stopped the yearlong process aimed at finding a political settlement with the insurgent group and ending the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghan-born US Special Representative, Zalmay Khalilzad, led his team at a meeting Saturday in Doha, where Taliban negotiators are presently based.

The draft agreement reached between the US and Taliban would have set the stage for a phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan.

New documents reveal how United States officials misled Americans on the War in Afghanistan. The documents paint a stark picture of missteps and failures in the American effort in the war-torn country.

New documents reveal how United States officials misled Americans on the War in Afghanistan. The documents paint a stark picture of missteps and failures in the American effort in the war-torn country. Watch: The Washington Post Report by investigative reporter Craig Whitlock called America's bluff on Afghanistan. The newspaper reported on Monday that it had obtained a confidential trove of government documents. Craig interviewed close to 400 officials involved in the war in Afghanistan, including people such as the commanding generals, diplomats and the on-field workers. Officials had made rosy pronouncements they knew were false and hidden unmistakable evidence which showed that the war had become unwinnable. The Report details how Pentagon officials privately told a watchdog for years about their deep concerns about the US war strategy in Afghanistan, which included senior officials who were publicly more hopeful. The Report quotes a three-star Army General John Sopko claiming that the US was devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan and that it did not know what it was doing. Sopko served as the White House’s Afghan War Czar during the presidencies of Geroge W. Bush and Barack Obama. The General also claimed that the US didn’t have the foggiest notion of what it was undertaking in Afghanistan and blamed the deaths of US military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among the legislature and the government. However, in public, US military commanders throughout the war spoke about how the conflict in Afghanistan was turning a corner. This, even as the Taliban held on to large parts of the country and killed US and Afghan forces, without having any air combat capability. The documents accessed by the Washington Post show US Generals and officials acknowledging that the strategies for fighting the Afghan War were flawed and that the US wasted hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make Afghanistan into a stable, democratic nation. US Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, all vowed they would avoid becoming mired in Afghanistan. But, the Report shows how even from the early days of the war, the US was confused about its basic objectives and strategy for achieving them. The United States along with its allies had invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban from power for sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders who were accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks on the American World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The Afghan War is estimated to have killed more than 1,50,000 people, including civilians, insurgents, local and foreign troops. The conflict has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 US military personnel and cost Washington nearly one trillion dollars. The disclosure comes as US President Donald Trump and the Pentagon look to draw down the number of forces in Afghanistan. This is in order to focus more on battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terror groups, as the US government hopes to establish a peace deal with the Taliban. The US and the Afghan Taliban restarted peace negotiations on Saturday, three months after Trump abruptly stopped the yearlong process aimed at finding a political settlement with the insurgent group and ending the war in Afghanistan. The Afghan-born US Special Representative, Zalmay Khalilzad, led his team at a meeting Saturday in Doha, where Taliban negotiators are presently based. The draft agreement reached between the US and Taliban would have set the stage for a phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan.

US officials mislead public with false evidence in Afghanistan War: Report

Suicide <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-damages-hospital-near-bagram-airbase-in-afghanistan-267600">blasts in Afghanistan</a> killed one and injured more than 60 on Wednesday.

The attack targeted US' main military base of Bagram which was contained after a 30-minute clash, Afghan and NATO officials said.&nbsp;

"A 30-minute clash also happened between the attackers, who obviously wanted to enter the base, and foreign forces," Wahida Shahkar, a spokeswoman for the governor of Parwan province said.

The attack reignites a spark that the United States is trying to mellow down, by reviving talks with the Taliban militants in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

The Taliban currently controls more territory than ever, after being ousted from power by coalition forces in 2001.

A provincial official said the casualties were all Afghans. Nobody has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's blast.

According to sources, two attackers detonated vehicles with explosives strapped onto them at the southern entrance of the base, while five opened fire.

Shahkar further added that there is no clarity as to how <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-mislead-public-with-false-evidence-in-afghanistan-war-report-267566">many gunmen were killed</a>.

Resolute Support, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan in a statement said that the attacked was ''quickly contained and repelled'' and that were no American or coalition casualties.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)

Suicide blasts in Afghanistan killed one and injured more than 60 on Wednesday. The attack targeted US' main military base of Bagram which was contained after a 30-minute clash, Afghan and NATO officials said.

Suicide blasts in Afghanistan killed one and injured more than 60 on Wednesday. The attack targeted US' main military base of Bagram which was contained after a 30-minute clash, Afghan and NATO officials said. "A 30-minute clash also happened between the attackers, who obviously wanted to enter the base, and foreign forces," Wahida Shahkar, a spokeswoman for the governor of Parwan province said. The attack reignites a spark that the United States is trying to mellow down, by reviving talks with the Taliban militants in Afghanistan. The Taliban currently controls more territory than ever, after being ousted from power by coalition forces in 2001. A provincial official said the casualties were all Afghans. Nobody has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's blast. According to sources, two attackers detonated vehicles with explosives strapped onto them at the southern entrance of the base, while five opened fire. Shahkar further added that there is no clarity as to how many gunmen were killed. Resolute Support, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan in a statement said that the attacked was ''quickly contained and repelled'' and that were no American or coalition casualties. (With inputs from Reuters)

Blast at US military base in Afghanistan kills one, injures 60

A bomb exploded close to the largest <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-misled-americans-on-war-in-afghanistan-report-267498">US military base</a> in Afghanistan on Wednesday, injuring at least five people and damaging a hospital that was under construction near the entrance to Bagram Airfield, officials said.&nbsp;

The attack which has not yet been claimed comes as <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-mislead-public-with-false-evidence-in-afghanistan-war-report-267566">Washington</a> resumed talks with the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-taliban-abducts-six-tribal-elders-267504">Taliban </a>on Saturday, three months after President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fate-of-wto-top-court-threatened-with-trump-administrations-move-to-block-new-appointments-267597">Donald Trump</a> abruptly halted diplomatic efforts that could end America's longest war.

"The explosion happened in front of the gate of the Korean hospital which is almost adjacent to Bagram airfield," Parwan governor spokeswoman Wahida Shahkar said, referring to the US airbase in eastern Parwan province.

"So far five injured civilians have been transferred to the hospital."

NATO's Resolute Support mission said there were no US or coalition casualties and "Bagram remained secure throughout the attack".

"The attack was quickly contained and repelled but the future medical facility was badly damaged," it added in a statement.

Bagram district governor Abdul Shukoor Qudoosi gave a higher toll of at least 50 civilians wounded in what he said was a "powerful" suicide car bomb. He said the blast was followed by fighting with armed assailants. &nbsp;

President Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Bagram, north of Kabul, on November 28 to celebrate Thanksgiving with his troops and meet with Afghan President Ashraf Ghan

A bomb exploded close to the largest US military base in Afghanistan on Wednesday, injuring at least five people and damaging a hospital that was under construction near the entrance to Bagram Airfield, officials said.

A bomb exploded close to the largest US military base in Afghanistan on Wednesday, injuring at least five people and damaging a hospital that was under construction near the entrance to Bagram Airfield, officials said. The attack which has not yet been claimed comes as Washington resumed talks with the Taliban on Saturday, three months after President Donald Trump abruptly halted diplomatic efforts that could end America's longest war. "The explosion happened in front of the gate of the Korean hospital which is almost adjacent to Bagram airfield," Parwan governor spokeswoman Wahida Shahkar said, referring to the US airbase in eastern Parwan province. "So far five injured civilians have been transferred to the hospital." NATO's Resolute Support mission said there were no US or coalition casualties and "Bagram remained secure throughout the attack". "The attack was quickly contained and repelled but the future medical facility was badly damaged," it added in a statement. Bagram district governor Abdul Shukoor Qudoosi gave a higher toll of at least 50 civilians wounded in what he said was a "powerful" suicide car bomb. He said the blast was followed by fighting with armed assailants. President Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Bagram, north of Kabul, on November 28 to celebrate Thanksgiving with his troops and meet with Afghan President Ashraf Ghan

Blast damages hospital near Bagram airbase in Afghanistan

Six tribal elders were reportedly abducted by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan today, Jowzjan province's governor confirmed.&nbsp;

According to the provincial governor's spokesperson Mohammad Maruf Azar, the abductees were picked up from the Jowzjan-Balkh highway today afternoon.

The incident coincides with the resumption of Taliban and American negotiations to end the war in Afghanistan.

(With inputs from ANI, further details awaited)

Six tribal elders were reportedly abducted by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan today, Jowzjan province's governor confirmed. According to the provincial governor's spokesperson Mohammad Maruf Azar, the abductees were picked up from the Jowzjan-Balkh highway today afternoon.

Six tribal elders were reportedly abducted by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan today, Jowzjan province's governor confirmed. According to the provincial governor's spokesperson Mohammad Maruf Azar, the abductees were picked up from the Jowzjan-Balkh highway today afternoon. The incident coincides with the resumption of Taliban and American negotiations to end the war in Afghanistan. (With inputs from ANI, further details awaited)

Afghanistan: Taliban abducts six tribal elders

While the Afghan government is optimistic about US-Taliban talks that started over the weekend in Doha, it has said that the group has to integrate into the new Afghanistan.&nbsp;

While speaking exclusively to WION's diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Afghanistan's chief of mission Tahir Qadiry said the Afghan government wants peace talks which are dignified and peace-enduring. He also lauded the Indian government's position on the peace talks and called New Delhi an all-weather friend of Afghanistan.

Here is the transcript of the interview.

WION: How do you see the current talks between US-Taliban in Doha?

Qadiry: The Afghan government has a road map for peace talks in Afghanistan. A few months ago, the Afghan government convened a grand assembly with 2,000 people and they gave a roadmap to President Ghani. The Afghan government want peace talks which are dignified and enduring peace. The government has made a composition for an intra-Aghan dialogue in Bejing and they are waiting for the Taliban to respond. All we want is to reflect and project the will of the Afghan people which is to preserve the gains made over the last 18 years.

 
WION: Are you optimistic that Taliban will join the intra-Afghan talks?

Qadiry: Peace is the only solution. Taliban knows that we have very strong Afghan defence and security forces now which are fighting at different fronts. Our security forces are at the front line of fighting international terrorism as well. We are talking about the new Afghanistan, we have a powerful army, we have professional resilient security forces, a legitimate government and many democratic institutions. Taliban doesn't have any other way rather than integrating and accepting and respecting the Afghan constitution. If they want to join, a dignified life, the way is there, they can do it via a political campaign like in the election which is the legitimate way. We are hoping the Taliban would be speaking because our government, the road map is present, the structure is present so all our people want is to preserve the gains, the elections, the constitution, human rights, women's rights, freedom of expression and things like that. Today's Afghanistan is very different and the Taliban needs to integrate into the new society and accept that Afghanistan has moved forward.

WION: How do you see India's stand. New Delhi has stood by the Afghan government, your thoughts?&nbsp;

Qadiry: India is an all-weather friend of Afghanistan. India is our trusted ally - a good friend who has been standing with Aghan people and Afghan government and this is appreciated. The term "Afghan-owned, Afghan-run" came from our Indian partner; they stood with us for elections while many people were pessimistic. India was one of the few countries that supported us. What do you expect from a good friend? You expect them to stand by you and India stood by us. India, as a big country, can use many platforms to lobby for Afghanistan.

WION: In terms of connectivity, you have been a land bridge country, how are you making sure that your country becomes the hub in Asia?

Qadiry: Afghanistan is no longer a land-locked country but a land bridge. We are very much connected to the world via the Chabahar - thanks to India and Iran. The port has connected Afghanistan. And we have air corridor to India. Lapis Lazuli is a milestone. We are very much moving towards doing partnership rather than just being an aid receiving country. India being the prime location for Afghan products has been a very good example. We have two successful events happening in India, one was the "passage to prosperity" and Indian International Trade Fair in Delhi which was was a great success. Afghanistan has a lot of potential and India is a prime market. We are increasing flights via the air corridor. This is what Afghanistan deserves. Security in Afghanistan is good for the region and the whole region will be prosperous. Location-wise, Afghanistan is a passageway to central Asia,

WION: What about connectivity translating to trade? Especially with India?

Qadiry: We are hoping trade will reach 2 billion dollars which is very good and substantive. We are moving towards a target. So far, everything is going very very well. India is giving a good platform to traders our businessmen. India is a very good platform, it has been a good friend and a good ally and also a good trade partner.

WION: What has been the status of the Chabahar port? &nbsp;Challenges ahead?

Qadiry: When you start a project, a dream project for Afghanistan, it means a lot and of course it has problems before it gets to the point. Regarding sanctions, to some extent, it is impacted. Afghanistan has been exporting things via Chabahar to India and soon the Indian government will send a consignment of wheat via Chabahar. Both Indian and Afghan governments, Afghan traders are working closely. This is a golden opportunity for Afghanistan and it changes us from the landlocked nation to a land bridge country. From our side, we are doing all that we can and we are talking with the Indian side who are extending all the assistance. There are some challenges but they won't stay there forever. 
&nbsp;

While the Afghan government is optimistic about US-Taliban talks that started over the weekend in Doha, it has said that the group has to integrate into the new Afghanistan.

While the Afghan government is optimistic about US-Taliban talks that started over the weekend in Doha, it has said that the group has to integrate into the new Afghanistan. While speaking exclusively to WION's diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Afghanistan's chief of mission Tahir Qadiry said the Afghan government wants peace talks which are dignified and peace-enduring. He also lauded the Indian government's position on the peace talks and called New Delhi an all-weather friend of Afghanistan. Here is the transcript of the interview. WION: How do you see the current talks between US-Taliban in Doha? Qadiry: The Afghan government has a road map for peace talks in Afghanistan. A few months ago, the Afghan government convened a grand assembly with 2,000 people and they gave a roadmap to President Ghani. The Afghan government want peace talks which are dignified and enduring peace. The government has made a composition for an intra-Aghan dialogue in Bejing and they are waiting for the Taliban to respond. All we want is to reflect and project the will of the Afghan people which is to preserve the gains made over the last 18 years. WION: Are you optimistic that Taliban will join the intra-Afghan talks? Qadiry: Peace is the only solution. Taliban knows that we have very strong Afghan defence and security forces now which are fighting at different fronts. Our security forces are at the front line of fighting international terrorism as well. We are talking about the new Afghanistan, we have a powerful army, we have professional resilient security forces, a legitimate government and many democratic institutions. Taliban doesn't have any other way rather than integrating and accepting and respecting the Afghan constitution. If they want to join, a dignified life, the way is there, they can do it via a political campaign like in the election which is the legitimate way. We are hoping the Taliban would be speaking because our government, the road map is present, the structure is present so all our people want is to preserve the gains, the elections, the constitution, human rights, women's rights, freedom of expression and things like that. Today's Afghanistan is very different and the Taliban needs to integrate into the new society and accept that Afghanistan has moved forward. WION: How do you see India's stand. New Delhi has stood by the Afghan government, your thoughts? Qadiry: India is an all-weather friend of Afghanistan. India is our trusted ally - a good friend who has been standing with Aghan people and Afghan government and this is appreciated. The term "Afghan-owned, Afghan-run" came from our Indian partner; they stood with us for elections while many people were pessimistic. India was one of the few countries that supported us. What do you expect from a good friend? You expect them to stand by you and India stood by us. India, as a big country, can use many platforms to lobby for Afghanistan. WION: In terms of connectivity, you have been a land bridge country, how are you making sure that your country becomes the hub in Asia? Qadiry: Afghanistan is no longer a land-locked country but a land bridge. We are very much connected to the world via the Chabahar - thanks to India and Iran. The port has connected Afghanistan. And we have air corridor to India. Lapis Lazuli is a milestone. We are very much moving towards doing partnership rather than just being an aid receiving country. India being the prime location for Afghan products has been a very good example. We have two successful events happening in India, one was the "passage to prosperity" and Indian International Trade Fair in Delhi which was was a great success. Afghanistan has a lot of potential and India is a prime market. We are increasing flights via the air corridor. This is what Afghanistan deserves. Security in Afghanistan is good for the region and the whole region will be prosperous. Location-wise, Afghanistan is a passageway to central Asia, WION: What about connectivity translating to trade? Especially with India? Qadiry: We are hoping trade will reach 2 billion dollars which is very good and substantive. We are moving towards a target. So far, everything is going very very well. India is giving a good platform to traders our businessmen. India is a very good platform, it has been a good friend and a good ally and also a good trade partner. WION: What has been the status of the Chabahar port? Challenges ahead? Qadiry: When you start a project, a dream project for Afghanistan, it means a lot and of course it has problems before it gets to the point. Regarding sanctions, to some extent, it is impacted. Afghanistan has been exporting things via Chabahar to India and soon the Indian government will send a consignment of wheat via Chabahar. Both Indian and Afghan governments, Afghan traders are working closely. This is a golden opportunity for Afghanistan and it changes us from the landlocked nation to a land bridge country. From our side, we are doing all that we can and we are talking with the Indian side who are extending all the assistance. There are some challenges but they won't stay there forever.

Taliban has to integrate into new Afghanistan: Afghan chief of mission tells WION

The Afghan govt while it is optimistic about US Taliban talks that started over the weekend in Doha, has said that the group has to integrate in the new Afghanistan. Speaking exclusively to our diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Afghanistan's Chief of mission Tahir Qadiry said Afghan govt want peace talks which are dignified and enduring peace. He also lauded Indian govt position on the peace talks and has been an all-weather friend of Afghanistan.

TALIBAN HAS TO INTEGRATE INTO NEW AFGHANISTAN SAYS AFGHAN CHIEF OF MISSION

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who tabled the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 in the Lok Sabha on Monday, said that Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh won`t get the benefit of this amendment as they have not faced religious persecution.

"If any Muslim from these three (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh) nations applies for citizenship according to our law, then we will consider it, but the person won`t get the benefit of this amendment as the person has not faced religious persecution," said Shah in the Lower House.

"In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains have been discriminated against. So, this bill will give these persecuted people citizenship. Also, the allegation that this Bill will take away the rights of Muslims is wrong," he said.

"Why do we need this Bill today? After independence, if the Congress had not done the partition on the basis of religion, then today we would have not needed this Bill," he said.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

Through this Bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country.

It is important to note that the Bill was passed by the Lower House of Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi government at the Centre.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who tabled the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 in the Lok Sabha on Monday, said that Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh won`t get the benefit of this amendment as they have not faced religious persecution.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who tabled the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 in the Lok Sabha on Monday, said that Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh won`t get the benefit of this amendment as they have not faced religious persecution. "If any Muslim from these three (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh) nations applies for citizenship according to our law, then we will consider it, but the person won`t get the benefit of this amendment as the person has not faced religious persecution," said Shah in the Lower House. "In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains have been discriminated against. So, this bill will give these persecuted people citizenship. Also, the allegation that this Bill will take away the rights of Muslims is wrong," he said. "Why do we need this Bill today? After independence, if the Congress had not done the partition on the basis of religion, then today we would have not needed this Bill," he said. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Through this Bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country. It is important to note that the Bill was passed by the Lower House of Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi government at the Centre.

Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh won't get benefits of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill: Amit Shah

The mortal remains of Japanese doctor Tetsu Nakamura, who died in an attack by unidentified gunmen in Afghanistan earlier this week, were sent back to Japan following a ceremony at the Kabul airport attended by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Addressing the ceremony here on Saturday, Ghani described the Japanese aid worker as a "hero" and announced that all completed, as well as incomplete projects he worked on, will be named after him, reported Tolo News.

Ghani extended his condolences to the Nakamura's family, and helped carry his coffin at the airport.

"Dr. Nakamura was a great man who dedicated his whole life for improving the lives of the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan," Ghani said.

Nakamura headed the NGO Peace Medical Service and made great contributions in areas of medical care in the Nangarhar province. His death sparked a strong backlash and an outpouring of grief from the Afghan people with whom he spent thirty years of his life.

The Japanese doctor came to Afghanistan in the 1980s to treat leprosy. He had been awarded honorary Afghan citizenship by President Ghani.

Outside of his contribution in the areas of medical care, he had contributed in the building of 11 dams, over 1500 wells and a 25.5 kilometres long canal.

Nakamura, along with his driver and bodyguards, were killed after unidentified gunmen attacked their vehicle in Afghanistan's eastern province of Nangarhar on Wednesday.

The gunmen had fled the scene after the incident and no group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet.&nbsp;

The mortal remains of Japanese doctor Tetsu Nakamura, who died in an attack by unidentified gunmen in Afghanistan earlier this week, were sent back to Japan following a ceremony at the Kabul airport attended by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

The mortal remains of Japanese doctor Tetsu Nakamura, who died in an attack by unidentified gunmen in Afghanistan earlier this week, were sent back to Japan following a ceremony at the Kabul airport attended by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Addressing the ceremony here on Saturday, Ghani described the Japanese aid worker as a "hero" and announced that all completed, as well as incomplete projects he worked on, will be named after him, reported Tolo News. Ghani extended his condolences to the Nakamura's family, and helped carry his coffin at the airport. "Dr. Nakamura was a great man who dedicated his whole life for improving the lives of the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan," Ghani said. Nakamura headed the NGO Peace Medical Service and made great contributions in areas of medical care in the Nangarhar province. His death sparked a strong backlash and an outpouring of grief from the Afghan people with whom he spent thirty years of his life. The Japanese doctor came to Afghanistan in the 1980s to treat leprosy. He had been awarded honorary Afghan citizenship by President Ghani. Outside of his contribution in the areas of medical care, he had contributed in the building of 11 dams, over 1500 wells and a 25.5 kilometres long canal. Nakamura, along with his driver and bodyguards, were killed after unidentified gunmen attacked their vehicle in Afghanistan's eastern province of Nangarhar on Wednesday. The gunmen had fled the scene after the incident and no group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet.

Afghanistan: Mortal remains of Tetsu Nakamura sent back to Japan

An investigation into the incident has been initiated, Muradi added.

The governer of Chardara district and his two bodyguards were injured on Sunday after a roadside bomb in Afghanistan's northern province of Kunduz.

According to government sources, Hafizullah Safi, the governor of Chardara district was on his way to inspect a development project when the bomb detonated on a roadside.

Provincial government spokesman Esmatullah Muradi told Xinhua News Agency that it was allegedly placed by terrorists.

According to Muradi, an investigation has also been initiated.

(With inputs from ANI)

An investigation into the incident has been initiated, Muradi added. The governer of Chardara district and his two bodyguards were injured on Sunday after a roadside bomb in Afghanistan's northern province of Kunduz.

An investigation into the incident has been initiated, Muradi added. The governer of Chardara district and his two bodyguards were injured on Sunday after a roadside bomb in Afghanistan's northern province of Kunduz. According to government sources, Hafizullah Safi, the governor of Chardara district was on his way to inspect a development project when the bomb detonated on a roadside. Provincial government spokesman Esmatullah Muradi told Xinhua News Agency that it was allegedly placed by terrorists. According to Muradi, an investigation has also been initiated. (With inputs from ANI)

Afghanistan: District chief among three wounded in roadside blast

The people of Afghanistan on Thursday held candlelight vigils in Kabul and Nangarhar as a tribute to Japanse physician and aid worker,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/japanese-doctor-and-aid-worker-tetsu-nakamura-shot-dead-in-afghanistan-266200">Tetsu Nakamura</a>&nbsp;who shot dead a day before.&nbsp;

Nakamura&nbsp;was shot dead along with five Afghans including his bodyguards, driver and another passenger in an attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday.&nbsp;

Nakamura, the head of Peace Japan Medical services - known as Peshawar-kai in Japanese - devoted 35 years of his life to healing the wounded in Afghanistan of which he became an honorary citizen last year in October.&nbsp;

The doctor had opened a clinic in a remote village in Afghanistan in 1991, before which he treated leprosy in Pakistanis and sick Afghan refugees. The native Fukuoka had been heading the Nangarhar aid group since 2008.&nbsp;

Nakamura's death sparked intense backlash and outpouring grief from the people of the conflict-ridden region. The doctor's death came a week after a grenade attack on a United Nations vehicle in Kabul increasing fears of the humanitarian workers in Afghanistan.

There was no claim for the responsibility of the attack for which the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-should-accept-us-proposal-for-ceasefire-afghanistan-government-265605">Taliban</a> has denied responsibility claiming to have "good relations"&nbsp;with organisations that "contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan."

The police have launched a search operation to arrest the gunmen who fled the scene said officials who claimed to believe that the doctor was targeted for his work.&nbsp;

"Dr Nakamura has been doing great work in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, especially in irrigation and agriculture," the official said.

Japan Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-blasts-japans-shinzo-abe-warns-of-real-ballistic-missile-265425">Shinzo Abe</a> on Wednesday said he was “shocked” at the aid worker’s death who risked his life to do “various work” for which the people of Afghanistan were thankful.&nbsp;

"I am shocked that he had to die in this way," Abe told reporters in a news conference in Tokyo.

"He risked his life in a dangerous environment to do various work, and the people of Afghanistan were very grateful to him," he added.

The people of Afghanistan on Thursday held candlelight vigils in Kabul and Nangarhar as a tribute to Japanse physician and aid worker, Tetsu Nakamura who shot dead a day before.

The people of Afghanistan on Thursday held candlelight vigils in Kabul and Nangarhar as a tribute to Japanse physician and aid worker, Tetsu Nakamura who shot dead a day before. Nakamura was shot dead along with five Afghans including his bodyguards, driver and another passenger in an attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday. Nakamura, the head of Peace Japan Medical services - known as Peshawar-kai in Japanese - devoted 35 years of his life to healing the wounded in Afghanistan of which he became an honorary citizen last year in October. The doctor had opened a clinic in a remote village in Afghanistan in 1991, before which he treated leprosy in Pakistanis and sick Afghan refugees. The native Fukuoka had been heading the Nangarhar aid group since 2008. Nakamura's death sparked intense backlash and outpouring grief from the people of the conflict-ridden region. The doctor's death came a week after a grenade attack on a United Nations vehicle in Kabul increasing fears of the humanitarian workers in Afghanistan. There was no claim for the responsibility of the attack for which the Taliban has denied responsibility claiming to have "good relations" with organisations that "contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan." The police have launched a search operation to arrest the gunmen who fled the scene said officials who claimed to believe that the doctor was targeted for his work. "Dr Nakamura has been doing great work in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, especially in irrigation and agriculture," the official said. Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday said he was “shocked” at the aid worker’s death who risked his life to do “various work” for which the people of Afghanistan were thankful. "I am shocked that he had to die in this way," Abe told reporters in a news conference in Tokyo. "He risked his life in a dangerous environment to do various work, and the people of Afghanistan were very grateful to him," he added.

Afghans hold candlelight vigil for slain Japanese aid worker Tetsu Nakamura

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/consumer-inflation-hits-9-year-high-in-pakistan-266392">Pakistan</a> has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same.

"Pakistan welcomes the announcement regarding the resumption of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/no-specific-date-fixed-for-resumption-of-talks-with-us-taliban-political-office-spokesperson-tells-wion-266422">US-Taliban talks</a>. We hope that it will lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and ultimately to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan," the country's Foreign Office said in a statement, as cited by Dawn.

"Pakistan encourages all parties to the conflict to engage constructively as a shared responsibility," it added.

The US State Department said on Wednesday that&nbsp;America will shortly resume talks with the Taliban.

A statement released in this regard read that US negotiator on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, will head to Qatar to "rejoin talks with the Taliban to discuss steps that could lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire."

The US and Taliban had held 9 rounds of peace talks in Doha and had reached upon an agreement "in principle", albeit, the negotiations were called off by US President Donald Trump citing the group's continued attacks.

Pakistan has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same.

Pakistan has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same. "Pakistan welcomes the announcement regarding the resumption of the US-Taliban talks. We hope that it will lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and ultimately to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan," the country's Foreign Office said in a statement, as cited by Dawn. "Pakistan encourages all parties to the conflict to engage constructively as a shared responsibility," it added. The US State Department said on Wednesday that America will shortly resume talks with the Taliban. A statement released in this regard read that US negotiator on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, will head to Qatar to "rejoin talks with the Taliban to discuss steps that could lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire." The US and Taliban had held 9 rounds of peace talks in Doha and had reached upon an agreement "in principle", albeit, the negotiations were called off by US President Donald Trump citing the group's continued attacks.

Pakistan welcomes resumption of US-Taliban talks

India can engage with the Taliban if the group engages with the Afghan government and is acceptable to Afghan people, India's former ambassador to Afghanistan and member of the National Security Advisory Board Amar Sinha said at <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-needs-to-create-its-own-club-focus-on-indian-ocean-region-ram-madhav-at-wion-world-order-event-266452">WION's World Order event</a> in New Delhi today.&nbsp;

"The only way forward is through a ceasefire and the Taliban engaging with the Afghan government and the Afghan people. Once they engage with them, India will have no hesitation with engaging with the Taliban," Sinha said.

Sinha added, "let the Afghan people accept them. We have stood behind the Afghan govt. It is a good policy to carry and it is a matter of a month when we would be engaging, as they say, very popular Hindi song, 'Apna time agayega', our time will come. Afghanistan is not going away".

India's official policy on the Afghan peace process has been "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled" with the Afghan government playing a key role.&nbsp;

Sinha further said that India won't be forgiving the Taliban easily and its links with Pakistan are well known. He highlighted that its "deputy leader is Haqqani which is an ISI agency and has carried out all the attacks in Kabul and against India. So, I don't think we should forgive them as easily."

India, as per its policy, doesn't engage with the Taliban. The only contact that happened was during the 1999 hijacking of the Indian Airline IC 814 when the plane was taken to Kandahar and Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban. 
&nbsp; 
Asked, if New Delhi should engage with the Taliban like other countries as part of the peace process, Sinha said, "not engaging with the Taliban has not boomeranged at all".

"We have absolutely zero equity with the Taliban. All our equity is with the Republic of Afghanistan and the young and modern Afghanistan, where we have a very good standing," he said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RvGtNeCU5xI" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Sinha said that India's "position has been very mature" and if one looks around "what is happening... just about everyone is following a me-too policy". While countries like China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran have been talking with the Taliban "what has been achieved is nothing, the violence level is as high."

Amar Sinha, along with former Indian envoy to Pakistan TCA Raghavan in 2018 represented India at a "non-official" level at Moscow talks on Afghanistan wherein the Taliban was also present but no statement was made by any of the Indian diplomats.

Last week, US President Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and announced that Washington will start talks with the Taliban. One of the pre-condition, Trump said, would be a be ceasefire by the grouping which means putting an end to violence by the group on the landlocked South Asian country.&nbsp;

US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad will "rejoin talks" with the Taliban in Doha according to the US State Department that could "lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire".

President Trump cancelled the talks with the Taliban in September after an attack killed a US soldier in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

India can engage with the Taliban if the group engages with the Afghan government and is acceptable to Afghan people, India's former ambassador to Afghanistan and member of the National Security Advisory Board Amar Sinha said at WION's World Order event in New Delhi today.

India can engage with the Taliban if the group engages with the Afghan government and is acceptable to Afghan people, India's former ambassador to Afghanistan and member of the National Security Advisory Board Amar Sinha said at WION's World Order event in New Delhi today. "The only way forward is through a ceasefire and the Taliban engaging with the Afghan government and the Afghan people. Once they engage with them, India will have no hesitation with engaging with the Taliban," Sinha said. Sinha added, "let the Afghan people accept them. We have stood behind the Afghan govt. It is a good policy to carry and it is a matter of a month when we would be engaging, as they say, very popular Hindi song, 'Apna time agayega', our time will come. Afghanistan is not going away". India's official policy on the Afghan peace process has been "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled" with the Afghan government playing a key role. Sinha further said that India won't be forgiving the Taliban easily and its links with Pakistan are well known. He highlighted that its "deputy leader is Haqqani which is an ISI agency and has carried out all the attacks in Kabul and against India. So, I don't think we should forgive them as easily." India, as per its policy, doesn't engage with the Taliban. The only contact that happened was during the 1999 hijacking of the Indian Airline IC 814 when the plane was taken to Kandahar and Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban. Asked, if New Delhi should engage with the Taliban like other countries as part of the peace process, Sinha said, "not engaging with the Taliban has not boomeranged at all". "We have absolutely zero equity with the Taliban. All our equity is with the Republic of Afghanistan and the young and modern Afghanistan, where we have a very good standing," he said. × Sinha said that India's "position has been very mature" and if one looks around "what is happening... just about everyone is following a me-too policy". While countries like China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran have been talking with the Taliban "what has been achieved is nothing, the violence level is as high." Amar Sinha, along with former Indian envoy to Pakistan TCA Raghavan in 2018 represented India at a "non-official" level at Moscow talks on Afghanistan wherein the Taliban was also present but no statement was made by any of the Indian diplomats. Last week, US President Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and announced that Washington will start talks with the Taliban. One of the pre-condition, Trump said, would be a be ceasefire by the grouping which means putting an end to violence by the group on the landlocked South Asian country. US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad will "rejoin talks" with the Taliban in Doha according to the US State Department that could "lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire". President Trump cancelled the talks with the Taliban in September after an attack killed a US soldier in Afghanistan.

If Taliban engages with Afghan government, India can drop its hesitations: Former ambassador to Afghanistan

By Mallika Singh

Japanse physician and aid worker, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/five-afghans-killed-in-jalalabad-attack-japanese-doctor-wounded-266121">Tetsu Nakamura</a>, was shot dead along with five Afghans including his bodyguards, driver and another passenger in an attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<meta charset="utf-8" />

The Japanese aid agency was shot on the right side of his chest when gunmen open fired on his car in Jalalabad in Nangarhar province, said Afghan officials.&nbsp;

The doctor underwent surgery at a local hospital and was in the process of being transferred to Bagram near Kabul when he passed away at the Jalalabad airport.&nbsp;

“Sadly, Dr Nakamura has passed away from the wounds he received in the armed attack this morning,” said a spokesman for Nangarhar’s governor.

The attack on the aid worker comes a week after a grenade attack on a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ready-for-talks-if-united-states-lifts-sanctions-iran-266151">United Nations</a> vehicle in Kabul increasing fears of the humanitarian workers in the conflict-ridden region.&nbsp;

Nakamura, the head of Peace Japan Medical services - known as Peshawar-kai in Japanese - devoted 35 years of his life to healing the wounded in Afghanistan of which he became an honorary citizen last year in October.&nbsp;

The doctor had opened a clinic in a remote village in Afghanistan in 1991, before which he treated leprosy in Pakistanis and sick Afghan refugees. The native Fukuoka had been heading the Nangarhar aid group since 2008.&nbsp;

Nakamura, last year claimed last year that his posting was meant to be for “five or six years” in an interview with national broadcaster NHK. “The plan was to come home when I was done.”

“We didn’t have proper facilities (for surgery and rehabilitation) but I couldn't just run away and abandon these people," he said.

There was no immediate claim for the responsibility of the attack for which the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-should-accept-us-proposal-for-ceasefire-afghanistan-government-265605">Taliban</a> has denied responsibility claiming to have “good relations” with organisations that “contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.”

Japan Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-blasts-japans-shinzo-abe-warns-of-real-ballistic-missile-265425">Shinzo Abe</a> said he was “shocked” at the aid worker’s death who risked his life to do “various work” for which the people of Afghanistan were thankful.&nbsp;

"I am shocked that he had to die in this way," Abe told reporters in a news conference in Tokyo.

"He risked his life in a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/eight-including-newborn-killed-in-airstrike-in-afghanistans-khost-province-265602">dangerous environment</a> to do various work, and the people of Afghanistan were very grateful to him," he added.

The police have launched a search operation to arrest the gunmen who fled the scene said officials who claimed to believe that the doctor was targeted for his work.&nbsp;

"Dr Nakamura has been doing great work in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, especially in irrigation and agriculture," the official said.

"The Afghan government strongly condemns the heinous and cowardly attack on Afghans' greatest friend, Dr Nakamura," said a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

"He has dedicated all his life to change the lives of Afghans."

(With inputs from agencies)

By Mallika Singh Japanse physician and aid worker, Tetsu Nakamura, was shot dead along with five Afghans including his bodyguards, driver and another passenger in an attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday.

By Mallika Singh Japanse physician and aid worker, Tetsu Nakamura, was shot dead along with five Afghans including his bodyguards, driver and another passenger in an attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday. The Japanese aid agency was shot on the right side of his chest when gunmen open fired on his car in Jalalabad in Nangarhar province, said Afghan officials. The doctor underwent surgery at a local hospital and was in the process of being transferred to Bagram near Kabul when he passed away at the Jalalabad airport. “Sadly, Dr Nakamura has passed away from the wounds he received in the armed attack this morning,” said a spokesman for Nangarhar’s governor. The attack on the aid worker comes a week after a grenade attack on a United Nations vehicle in Kabul increasing fears of the humanitarian workers in the conflict-ridden region. Nakamura, the head of Peace Japan Medical services - known as Peshawar-kai in Japanese - devoted 35 years of his life to healing the wounded in Afghanistan of which he became an honorary citizen last year in October. The doctor had opened a clinic in a remote village in Afghanistan in 1991, before which he treated leprosy in Pakistanis and sick Afghan refugees. The native Fukuoka had been heading the Nangarhar aid group since 2008. Nakamura, last year claimed last year that his posting was meant to be for “five or six years” in an interview with national broadcaster NHK. “The plan was to come home when I was done.” “We didn’t have proper facilities (for surgery and rehabilitation) but I couldn't just run away and abandon these people," he said. There was no immediate claim for the responsibility of the attack for which the Taliban has denied responsibility claiming to have “good relations” with organisations that “contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.” Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he was “shocked” at the aid worker’s death who risked his life to do “various work” for which the people of Afghanistan were thankful. "I am shocked that he had to die in this way," Abe told reporters in a news conference in Tokyo. "He risked his life in a dangerous environment to do various work, and the people of Afghanistan were very grateful to him," he added. The police have launched a search operation to arrest the gunmen who fled the scene said officials who claimed to believe that the doctor was targeted for his work. "Dr Nakamura has been doing great work in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, especially in irrigation and agriculture," the official said. "The Afghan government strongly condemns the heinous and cowardly attack on Afghans' greatest friend, Dr Nakamura," said a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. "He has dedicated all his life to change the lives of Afghans." (With inputs from agencies)

Japanese doctor and aid worker Tetsu Nakamura shot dead in Afghanistan

Speaking at the WION World Order, Amar Sinha former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan said we have a competitive approach towards China.

WION World Order: Rekindling India's diplomatic might  | Session-3

Afghan residents prayed and lit candles on Wednesday (December 4) after six people, including the head of a Japanese aid agency, were killed in a gun attack on an NGO vehicle.

Prayers held after gunmen kill head of Japan aid agency, five others in Afghanistan

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan.

Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani.

The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">meet Taliban negotiators</a>, news agency Reuters reported.

"The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman.

Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same.&nbsp;

"The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.&nbsp;

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US".

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan. Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani. The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to meet Taliban negotiators, news agency Reuters reported. "The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman. Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same. "The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.

No specific date fixed for resumption of talks with US: Taliban political office spokesperson tells WION

Five Afghans were killed and a Japanese aid worker wounded Wednesday in an attack in Jalalabad city in the eastern province of Nangarhar, officials said.

The attack comes as humanitarian groups remain on high alert just days after an American aid worker for the UN was killed in a bombing in Kabul.

Tetsu Nakamura, a doctor who heads Peace Japan Medical Services, known as Peshawar Kai in Japanese, was targeted by gunmen while in a vehicle in Jalalabad.

"Dr Nakamura was wounded and his three security guards, a driver and another colleague were killed," Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for Nangarhar's governor, told AFP.

Nakamura is well known in Japan for his aid work, which dates back decades.

The Peshawar Kai website states that Nakamura began aid work in Peshawar in northwest Pakistan in 1984, going on to open a clinic in a remote Nangarhar village in 1991.

The organisation in 1998 established a hospital in Peshawar to serve as the group's permanent base for medical programmes in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Jalalabad resident Auzubillah, who only uses one name, told AFP that he heard shooting at about 8:00 am (0330 GMT).

"I saw there were gunmen attacking a Japanese and his security guards," he said. "Then the gunmen left the area through a small street."

Photos from the scene showed a white pickup truck with a large cabin. Its side windows appeared to have been shot out, and at least three bullet holes could be seen in the windscreen.

No group immediately claimed responsibility.

According to Zahir Adil, a spokesman for Nangarhar's public health department, Nakamura was taken to a regional hospital.&nbsp;

The bodies of the five others, all Afghan, were also taken to the hospital.

Aid agencies and non-governmental groups are sometimes targeted in Afghanistan's war.&nbsp;

On November 24, Anil Raj, an American who worked for the UN Development Programme in Afghanistan, was killed when his vehicle was targeted in a bombing in Kabul.&nbsp;

Also in the capital, the Taliban in May targeted Counterpart International, a US-funded non-profit group working with marginalised people. Nine people were killed in that attack.

Five Afghans were killed and a Japanese aid worker wounded Wednesday in an attack in Jalalabad city in the eastern province of Nangarhar, officials said. The attack comes as humanitarian groups remain on high alert just days after an American aid worker for the UN was killed in a bombing in Kabul.

Five Afghans were killed and a Japanese aid worker wounded Wednesday in an attack in Jalalabad city in the eastern province of Nangarhar, officials said. The attack comes as humanitarian groups remain on high alert just days after an American aid worker for the UN was killed in a bombing in Kabul. Tetsu Nakamura, a doctor who heads Peace Japan Medical Services, known as Peshawar Kai in Japanese, was targeted by gunmen while in a vehicle in Jalalabad. "Dr Nakamura was wounded and his three security guards, a driver and another colleague were killed," Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for Nangarhar's governor, told AFP. Nakamura is well known in Japan for his aid work, which dates back decades. The Peshawar Kai website states that Nakamura began aid work in Peshawar in northwest Pakistan in 1984, going on to open a clinic in a remote Nangarhar village in 1991. The organisation in 1998 established a hospital in Peshawar to serve as the group's permanent base for medical programmes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Jalalabad resident Auzubillah, who only uses one name, told AFP that he heard shooting at about 8:00 am (0330 GMT). "I saw there were gunmen attacking a Japanese and his security guards," he said. "Then the gunmen left the area through a small street." Photos from the scene showed a white pickup truck with a large cabin. Its side windows appeared to have been shot out, and at least three bullet holes could be seen in the windscreen. No group immediately claimed responsibility. According to Zahir Adil, a spokesman for Nangarhar's public health department, Nakamura was taken to a regional hospital. The bodies of the five others, all Afghan, were also taken to the hospital. Aid agencies and non-governmental groups are sometimes targeted in Afghanistan's war. On November 24, Anil Raj, an American who worked for the UN Development Programme in Afghanistan, was killed when his vehicle was targeted in a bombing in Kabul. Also in the capital, the Taliban in May targeted Counterpart International, a US-funded non-profit group working with marginalised people. Nine people were killed in that attack.

Five Afghans killed in Jalalabad attack, Japanese doctor wounded

US&nbsp;Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, after a visit to Kabul, will travel to Qatar to rejoin talks with Taliban negotiators on steps that could lead to a ceasefire and a settlement to the war in Afghanistan, the State Department said on Wednesday.

Khalilzad arrived in Kabul earlier on Wednesday to follow up on US&nbsp;President Donald Trump's visit to Afghanistan last week and to discuss with Afghan officials and others how to convene talks with the Taliban on a political settlement, the State Department said.

US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, after a visit to Kabul, will travel to Qatar to rejoin talks with Taliban negotiators on steps that could lead to a ceasefire and a settlement to the war in Afghanistan, the State Department said on Wednesday.

US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, after a visit to Kabul, will travel to Qatar to rejoin talks with Taliban negotiators on steps that could lead to a ceasefire and a settlement to the war in Afghanistan, the State Department said on Wednesday. Khalilzad arrived in Kabul earlier on Wednesday to follow up on US President Donald Trump's visit to Afghanistan last week and to discuss with Afghan officials and others how to convene talks with the Taliban on a political settlement, the State Department said.

US envoy to rejoin Doha talks with Taliban after Kabul visit: State Department

Lawyers representing victims of the Afghanistan conflict on Wednesday urged the International Criminal Court to allow a war crimes investigation that would include scrutinizing the actions of US&nbsp;forces.

ICC judges in April rejected the request of prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to examine atrocities allegedly committed in the conflict between 2003 and 2004, including by US&nbsp;troops, Afghan forces and the Taliban.

Judges argued that a successful prosecution was unlikely.

The prosecution has appealed that decision and is arguing the case in three days of hearings before a panel of appeals judges in The Hague.

Lawyer Fergal Gaynor called the hearings "a historic day for accountability in Afghanistan". The 82 victims he represented were "united" in wanting an investigation, he said.

US&nbsp;forces and other foreign troops intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and overthrew the Taliban government, which had been protecting al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In what has become the United States' longest war, about 13,000 US&nbsp;troops remain there.

More than 32,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict, according to the United Nations.

Later on Wednesday, one of US&nbsp;President Donald Trump's personal lawyers will address the court.

Counsel Jay Sekulow, who was allowed to file a "friend of the court" brief as an independent expert, said in a statement that he intends to defend the interests of members of the US&nbsp;military "who sacrifice everything to defend us".

Trump has denounced the ICC, the world's only permanent war crimes court, for its "broad, unaccountable, prosecutorial powers". Washington revoked US&nbsp;travel visas for ICC personnel in response to its work on Afghanistan.

Another legal representative of victims, Katherine Gallagher, who acts for two Guantanamo Bay detainees, stressed that so far no high-level US&nbsp;official has been held accountable for alleged violations of the rules of war in Afghanistan or at CIA "black" sites.

"The opening of an investigation into the US&nbsp;torture program would make clear that no one is above the law," she told judges.

Prosecutors have cited preliminary evidence suggesting that international forces in Afghanistan, including employees of the US&nbsp;Central Intelligence Agency, mentally and physically abused detainees, which could constitute a war crime.

The ICC, which opened in 2002, has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity if they have been committed by nationals of a signatory state or if they took place on the territory of one of its members. Afghanistan is a member, the United States is not.

The ICC is also only empowered to act when a country is found to be unable or unwilling to examine misdeeds by its own military and leaders. It has struggled due to opposition from the United States, Russia and China.

Lawyers representing victims of the Afghanistan conflict on Wednesday urged the International Criminal Court to allow a war crimes investigation that would include scrutinizing the actions of US forces.

Lawyers representing victims of the Afghanistan conflict on Wednesday urged the International Criminal Court to allow a war crimes investigation that would include scrutinizing the actions of US forces. ICC judges in April rejected the request of prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to examine atrocities allegedly committed in the conflict between 2003 and 2004, including by US troops, Afghan forces and the Taliban. Judges argued that a successful prosecution was unlikely. The prosecution has appealed that decision and is arguing the case in three days of hearings before a panel of appeals judges in The Hague. Lawyer Fergal Gaynor called the hearings "a historic day for accountability in Afghanistan". The 82 victims he represented were "united" in wanting an investigation, he said. US forces and other foreign troops intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and overthrew the Taliban government, which had been protecting al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In what has become the United States' longest war, about 13,000 US troops remain there. More than 32,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict, according to the United Nations. Later on Wednesday, one of US President Donald Trump's personal lawyers will address the court. Counsel Jay Sekulow, who was allowed to file a "friend of the court" brief as an independent expert, said in a statement that he intends to defend the interests of members of the US military "who sacrifice everything to defend us". Trump has denounced the ICC, the world's only permanent war crimes court, for its "broad, unaccountable, prosecutorial powers". Washington revoked US travel visas for ICC personnel in response to its work on Afghanistan. Another legal representative of victims, Katherine Gallagher, who acts for two Guantanamo Bay detainees, stressed that so far no high-level US official has been held accountable for alleged violations of the rules of war in Afghanistan or at CIA "black" sites. "The opening of an investigation into the US torture program would make clear that no one is above the law," she told judges. Prosecutors have cited preliminary evidence suggesting that international forces in Afghanistan, including employees of the US Central Intelligence Agency, mentally and physically abused detainees, which could constitute a war crime. The ICC, which opened in 2002, has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity if they have been committed by nationals of a signatory state or if they took place on the territory of one of its members. Afghanistan is a member, the United States is not. The ICC is also only empowered to act when a country is found to be unable or unwilling to examine misdeeds by its own military and leaders. It has struggled due to opposition from the United States, Russia and China.

Afghan victims ask ICC to open Afghan war crimes investigation on appeal

Renowned Japanese doctor Tetsu Nakamura among six people shot dead in Afghanistan, Nakamura headed an NGO in Afghanistan, Tetsu Nakamura won the Ramon Magsaysay award in 2003

Afghanistan: Japanese doctor Tetsu Nakamura shot dead in gun attack

Afghan farmer Gulnar Malik had seen her share of hardships as war-ravaged her country for decades but nothing prepared the mother of five for the arrival of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indonesia-two-hurt-in-suspected-grenade-blast-near-presidential-palace-265828">Islamic State group</a>.

IS militants seized her village in the&nbsp;eastern&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;province of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan, nearly five years ago, unleashing a tide of carnage and slaughter as they sought to expand their self-declared Syria and Iraq "caliphate" into&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/eu-uzbek-special-envoys-on-afghanistan-to-visit-india-next-week-265554">Afghanistan</a>.

The IS "fighters committed a lot of atrocities", Malik, 55, told AFP shortly&nbsp;after&nbsp;the Afghan army dislodged the jihadists from her home district of Achin, following weeks of house-to-house fighting, shelling and US airstrikes.

"They shot dead one of my children and injured another. My dead boy was trying to run away when they shot him," she recalled, adding that her husband had been detained and tortured over a three-week period.

Malik went home last month having spent years in the comparative safety of a nearby town after&nbsp;Afghan military officials announced that IS's Afghan branch, also known as IS in the Khorasan, or IS-K, had been completely defeated in Nangarhar.

While some local officials are not convinced that the loss is comprehensive, the Nangarhar gains if they hold would mark a major accomplishment for&nbsp;Afghanistan's beleaguered security forces.

The exact nature of links between IS in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and the Middle&nbsp;East&nbsp;remains unclear, but IS-K first emerged in the region in 2014, largely made up of disaffected fighters from the Taliban and other jihadist groups in&nbsp;Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.

IS-K fighters coalesced in the hilly district of Achin in Nangarhar in 2015, the first time they controlled territory inside&nbsp;Afghanistan.

They confounded early US predictions they would be defeated quickly, withstanding continual airstrikes, as well as battles with the rival Taliban.

They replenished their ranks using a mix of cash and extreme ideology spread inside Kabul's universities.

Afghan farmer Gulnar Malik had seen her share of hardships as war-ravaged her country for decades but nothing prepared the mother of five for the arrival of the Islamic State group.

Afghan farmer Gulnar Malik had seen her share of hardships as war-ravaged her country for decades but nothing prepared the mother of five for the arrival of the Islamic State group. IS militants seized her village in the eastern Afghanistan province of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan, nearly five years ago, unleashing a tide of carnage and slaughter as they sought to expand their self-declared Syria and Iraq "caliphate" into Afghanistan. The IS "fighters committed a lot of atrocities", Malik, 55, told AFP shortly after the Afghan army dislodged the jihadists from her home district of Achin, following weeks of house-to-house fighting, shelling and US airstrikes. "They shot dead one of my children and injured another. My dead boy was trying to run away when they shot him," she recalled, adding that her husband had been detained and tortured over a three-week period. Malik went home last month having spent years in the comparative safety of a nearby town after Afghan military officials announced that IS's Afghan branch, also known as IS in the Khorasan, or IS-K, had been completely defeated in Nangarhar. While some local officials are not convinced that the loss is comprehensive, the Nangarhar gains if they hold would mark a major accomplishment for Afghanistan's beleaguered security forces. The exact nature of links between IS in Afghanistan and the Middle East remains unclear, but IS-K first emerged in the region in 2014, largely made up of disaffected fighters from the Taliban and other jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. IS-K fighters coalesced in the hilly district of Achin in Nangarhar in 2015, the first time they controlled territory inside Afghanistan. They confounded early US predictions they would be defeated quickly, withstanding continual airstrikes, as well as battles with the rival Taliban. They replenished their ranks using a mix of cash and extreme ideology spread inside Kabul's universities.

Afghanistan: Residents return after Islamic State suffers losses in eastern region

At least two persons have been killed and three others suffered injuries after gunmen attack an Afghan security forces vehicle in Pul-e-Charkhi area of Kabul on Monday, the government confirmed. 
 
Gunmen opened fire at the security vehicle and fled from the area, reported Tolo News. 
 
The police are investigating the incident. 
 
No group has so far taken the responsibility of the attack.

At least two persons have been killed and three others suffered injuries after gunmen attack an Afghan security forces vehicle in Pul-e-Charkhi area of Kabul on Monday, the government confirmed.

At least two persons have been killed and three others suffered injuries after gunmen attack an Afghan security forces vehicle in Pul-e-Charkhi area of Kabul on Monday, the government confirmed. Gunmen opened fire at the security vehicle and fled from the area, reported Tolo News. The police are investigating the incident. No group has so far taken the responsibility of the attack.

Two killed, three injured after gunmen open fire at army vehicle in Kabul

By Cian O'Driscoll

Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner.

And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat.

This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated.

The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one.

As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today.

The view from Washington

The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more."

Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”.

Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism.

The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war.

Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.”

Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.”

Victory is dead

Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic.

But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it.

For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait.

My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept.

This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames.

So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago."

What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century.

Was victory ever really alive?

There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict.

But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic.

The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815).

Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm.

This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame.

The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war.

Long live victory! 
 
So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience.

This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end.

Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense.

Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle.

There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy.

In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.”

Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought.

The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic.

And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities.

‘Mowing the lawn’ 
The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers.

It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this.

To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory.

The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach.

Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals.

As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation.

There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness.

How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver.

My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses.

What does winning mean today? 
 
Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real.

But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring.

One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it.

The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. 
 
(Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-wars-no-longer-be-won-126068">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world.

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner. And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat. This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated. The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one. As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today. The view from Washington The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more." Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism. The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war. Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.” Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.” Victory is dead Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic. But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it. For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept. This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames. So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago." What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century. Was victory ever really alive? There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict. But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic. The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815). Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm. This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame. The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war. Long live victory! So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience. This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end. Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense. Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy. In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.” Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought. The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic. And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities. ‘Mowing the lawn’ The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers. It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this. To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory. The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach. Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals. As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation. There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness. How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver. My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses. What does winning mean today? Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real. But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring. One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it. The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. (Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can wars no longer be won?

As many as 31 Islamic State terrorists, along with 62 women and children have surrendered to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-phones-scripted-tweets-how-trumps-afghanistan-trip-was-kept-under-wraps-265368">Afghan </a>security forces in the eastern province of Nangarhar, the government said on Saturday.

The terrorists gave themselves in to the security forces in the Achin district, Sputnik reported, citing a government`s press release.

A number of heavy and light weapons were also seized.

On November 16, 18 Islamic State terrorists along with 24 women and 31 children surrendered to Afghan forces in the Achin district.

The government has maintained its stance that the increase in the number of surrenders is due to ramped-up military operations by the forces.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

As many as 31 Islamic State terrorists, along with 62 women and children have surrendered to the Afghan security forces in the eastern province of Nangarhar, the government said on Saturday.

As many as 31 Islamic State terrorists, along with 62 women and children have surrendered to the Afghan security forces in the eastern province of Nangarhar, the government said on Saturday. The terrorists gave themselves in to the security forces in the Achin district, Sputnik reported, citing a government`s press release. A number of heavy and light weapons were also seized. On November 16, 18 Islamic State terrorists along with 24 women and 31 children surrendered to Afghan forces in the Achin district. The government has maintained its stance that the increase in the number of surrenders is due to ramped-up military operations by the forces.

Afghanistan: Nearly 31 Islamic State terrorists surrender to security forces

Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Vinay Kumar has urged Pakistan to act on terror which impacts the entire region from Afghanistan to India. Speaking at the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS), ambassador Kumar said, "We in last 3-4 decades, have seen, the same source of terrorism impacting both the countries.

Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Vinay Kumar has urged Pakistan to act on terror which impacts the entire region from Afghanistan to India. Speaking at the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS), ambassador Kumar said, "We in last 3-4 decades, have seen, the same source of terrorism impacting both the countries...if we have peace in Afghanistan, we all stand to benefit from that peace by various cooperative mechanism" The biggest threat to peace and stability in the region is terrorism, he said and added, ''Our region, like most other parts of the world, can have peace, stability, prosperity but the condition is just one, violence stops, terrorism stops, the entire region stands to benefit... it requires a decision we can talk about our issues in an atmosphere free of violence and terrorism.. better sense should prevail" Talking about the need for integration and connectivity in South Asia, Envoy Kumar said, "peace for us empowerment of all the people to enable them to reach full potential, to integrate the region for the socio-economic benefit for all..how fast we have moved in the eastern side with other neighbours" Adding, "fundamentals of foreign policy is to create stakes for neighbours in India's growth" He highlighted India's development assistance to the landlocked South Asian country saying New Delhi has committed 3 billion dollars for Afghanistan development of which 2 billion dollars has already been spent. India has built major highways, parliament building, and Salma dam and contributed 350 projects throughout Afghanistan in all the districts.

If we have peace in Afghanistan, we all stand to benefit: Indian envoy to Kabul 

afghanistan-0

Afghanistan, News on Afghanistan, stories on Afghanistan, articles on Afghanistan, Afghanistan stories at Wion, Afghanistan news, Afghanistan latest news

afghanistan 0