The Pakistani&nbsp;Taliban&nbsp;claimed responsibility Thursday for a&nbsp;deadly&nbsp;suicide&nbsp;blast&nbsp;at a&nbsp;luxury&nbsp;hotel&nbsp;hosting the Chinese ambassador in the southwest of the country, as officials raised the death toll to five.&nbsp;

Beijing said it strongly condemned the attack, although the&nbsp;Taliban&nbsp;said&nbsp;Pakistan&nbsp;security officials were the target of the&nbsp;blast.&nbsp;

The bomber detonated the explosives late Wednesday while inside a vehicle in the car park of the Serena&nbsp;hotel&nbsp;-- part of a five-star chain popular with diplomats and aid agencies -- in the city of Quetta, capital of Balochistan province, police and the interior ministry said.

Pakistan&nbsp;is fighting several low-level insurgencies in the impoverished province, waged by Islamist, separatist and sectarian groups.

"The suicide bomber hit the security officials exactly as it was planned," the spokesperson for Tehreek-e-Taliban&nbsp;Pakistan&nbsp;(TTP) said in a statement.

Also Read |<a href="'Pakistan helped the Taliban, played on both sides in Afghanistan': US senator">&nbsp;'Pakistan helped the Taliban, played on both sides in Afghanistan': US senator</a>

The country's interior minister confirmed a suicide bomber had carried out the attack, as he pinned the blame on a "foreign hand".&nbsp;

"Our agencies will fight the efforts which are being made in the neighbouring country to reorganise the TTP," said interior minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed.

Pakistan&nbsp;frequently accuses India of using insurgent groups, including in Afghanistan, as proxy forces to wage an ongoing shadow war between the arch-rivals.

Describing the&nbsp;blast&nbsp;as a "terrorist attack", China's foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in Beijing that the Chinese delegation was not present when the bomb detonated.

Gu Wenliang, agriculture commissioner at China's embassy in&nbsp;Pakistan, told the Chinese newspaper Global Times that the bomb had detonated 10 minutes before their expected return.

"I was walking through the car park when I heard a sudden loud sound and the earth shook under my feet," said Khuda Baksh, a guard at the&nbsp;hotel.

"Everyone was running for their lives before I lost consciousness," he told.

For years the TTP unleashed&nbsp;deadly&nbsp;attacks on urban centres across&nbsp;Pakistan&nbsp;from their bases along the Afghan border, where they provided shelter to an array of global jihadist groups including Al Qaeda.&nbsp;

But a massive military offensive launched in 2014 largely destroyed the group's command and control structure, dramatically reducing insurgent violence throughout&nbsp;Pakistan.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Thursday for a deadly suicide blast at a luxury hotel hosting the Chinese ambassador in the southwest of the country, as officials raised the death toll to five.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Thursday for a deadly suicide blast at a luxury hotel hosting the Chinese ambassador in the southwest of the country, as officials raised the death toll to five. Beijing said it strongly condemned the attack, although the Taliban said Pakistan security officials were the target of the blast. The bomber detonated the explosives late Wednesday while inside a vehicle in the car park of the Serena hotel -- part of a five-star chain popular with diplomats and aid agencies -- in the city of Quetta, capital of Balochistan province, police and the interior ministry said. Pakistan is fighting several low-level insurgencies in the impoverished province, waged by Islamist, separatist and sectarian groups. "The suicide bomber hit the security officials exactly as it was planned," the spokesperson for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) said in a statement. Also Read | 'Pakistan helped the Taliban, played on both sides in Afghanistan': US senator The country's interior minister confirmed a suicide bomber had carried out the attack, as he pinned the blame on a "foreign hand". "Our agencies will fight the efforts which are being made in the neighbouring country to reorganise the TTP," said interior minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. Pakistan frequently accuses India of using insurgent groups, including in Afghanistan, as proxy forces to wage an ongoing shadow war between the arch-rivals. Describing the blast as a "terrorist attack", China's foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in Beijing that the Chinese delegation was not present when the bomb detonated. Gu Wenliang, agriculture commissioner at China's embassy in Pakistan, told the Chinese newspaper Global Times that the bomb had detonated 10 minutes before their expected return. "I was walking through the car park when I heard a sudden loud sound and the earth shook under my feet," said Khuda Baksh, a guard at the hotel. "Everyone was running for their lives before I lost consciousness," he told. For years the TTP unleashed deadly attacks on urban centres across Pakistan from their bases along the Afghan border, where they provided shelter to an array of global jihadist groups including Al Qaeda. But a massive military offensive launched in 2014 largely destroyed the group's command and control structure, dramatically reducing insurgent violence throughout Pakistan.

Pakistan Taliban claim deadly blast at luxury hotel

A Washington-backed Afghan peace conference in Turkey has been postponed over non-participation by the Taliban, three sources told Reuters.

The meeting was scheduled for April 24 to fast-track an agreement between the Taliban insurgents and the Afghan government in light of the announcement by Washington that foreign troops would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11.

"The Istanbul meeting is not happening on the given date because the Taliban refused to attend," a senior Afghan government official told Reuters.

The postponement was confirmed by two other sources, including one official whose country is involved in the planning process. There was no immediate revised date.

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price did not confirm the postponement but said broader diplomatic efforts will continue: "We've always been clear, Istanbul was not a replacement for Doha".

An Afghan government spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said earlier on Tuesday that he could not confirm if the conference had been postponed.

"The United Nations, along with the co-conveners, Qatar, Turkey, we're continuing to engage with representatives of both the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban on ways to strengthen and add impetus to the intra-Afghan negotiations," Dujarric told reporters.

The U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, was in Doha last week to discuss with Afghan parties "the best way the international community can support them in making progress on their negotiations toward a just and durable political settlement," Dujarric said.

"Our focus will continue to be on progress in intra-Afghan negotiations, which is a critical part of the way forward."

A Washington-backed Afghan peace conference in Turkey has been postponed over non-participation by the Taliban, three sources told Reuters. The meeting was scheduled for April 24 to fast-track an agreement between the Taliban insurgents and the Afghan government in light of the announcement by Washington that foreign troops would leave Afghanistan by Sept.

A Washington-backed Afghan peace conference in Turkey has been postponed over non-participation by the Taliban, three sources told Reuters. The meeting was scheduled for April 24 to fast-track an agreement between the Taliban insurgents and the Afghan government in light of the announcement by Washington that foreign troops would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11. "The Istanbul meeting is not happening on the given date because the Taliban refused to attend," a senior Afghan government official told Reuters. The postponement was confirmed by two other sources, including one official whose country is involved in the planning process. There was no immediate revised date. U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price did not confirm the postponement but said broader diplomatic efforts will continue: "We've always been clear, Istanbul was not a replacement for Doha". An Afghan government spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said earlier on Tuesday that he could not confirm if the conference had been postponed. "The United Nations, along with the co-conveners, Qatar, Turkey, we're continuing to engage with representatives of both the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban on ways to strengthen and add impetus to the intra-Afghan negotiations," Dujarric told reporters. The U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, was in Doha last week to discuss with Afghan parties "the best way the international community can support them in making progress on their negotiations toward a just and durable political settlement," Dujarric said. "Our focus will continue to be on progress in intra-Afghan negotiations, which is a critical part of the way forward."

Afghan peace conference in Turkey postponed over Taliban no-show

Pakistan on Monday urged the Taliban to remain engaged in the Afghan peace process after the armed group said it would now shun summits about Afghanistan until all foreign forces leave.&nbsp;

The decision was taken after the United States said last week it would withdraw all troops by September 11 this year, later than a May 1 deadline set out by the previous administration.&nbsp;

"They take their own decisions but we will do whatever we can to convince them that it is in their national interest to remain engaged," Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said of the Taliban in an interview with Reuters in Abu Dhabi.&nbsp;

The refusal has thrown the peace process into disarray with Turkey scheduled for Saturday to host a summit that diplomats had hoped could create new momentum towards a political settlement between the Taliban and Afghan government.&nbsp;

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 when they were ousted by US-led forces, but they still control wide areas.&nbsp;

Qureshi said withdrawal delays were always a possibility due to logistics but that the Taliban had largely succeeded in their objective for foreign troops to withdraw and so should show flexibility towards the new September 11 deadline.&nbsp;

"The troops will be out and a date has been given and the process starts on the 1st of May and goes on until the 11th of September so there is a definite time frame," Qureshi said.&nbsp;

Sources have told Reuters, Pakistan was putting pressure on the militants to come back to the table.&nbsp;

Qureshi said he believed the Taliban would benefit from staying involved but said, he had no contact with the group.&nbsp;

Pakistan, which helped facilitate US-Taliban negotiations in Doha that resulted in the initial May 1 withdrawal deal, wields considerable influence with the Taliban.&nbsp;

The insurgents have sanctuaries in Pakistan, whose main military-run intelligence service gives them support, according to US and Afghan officials. Pakistan denies the allegation.&nbsp;

Qureshi said he feared violence could escalate if the peace process remains deadlocked, plunging Afghanistan into civil war and leading to an exodus of Afghans. &nbsp;

Pakistan on Monday urged the Taliban to remain engaged in the Afghan peace process after the armed group said it would now shun summits about Afghanistan until all foreign forces leave.

Pakistan on Monday urged the Taliban to remain engaged in the Afghan peace process after the armed group said it would now shun summits about Afghanistan until all foreign forces leave. The decision was taken after the United States said last week it would withdraw all troops by September 11 this year, later than a May 1 deadline set out by the previous administration. "They take their own decisions but we will do whatever we can to convince them that it is in their national interest to remain engaged," Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said of the Taliban in an interview with Reuters in Abu Dhabi. The refusal has thrown the peace process into disarray with Turkey scheduled for Saturday to host a summit that diplomats had hoped could create new momentum towards a political settlement between the Taliban and Afghan government. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 when they were ousted by US-led forces, but they still control wide areas. Qureshi said withdrawal delays were always a possibility due to logistics but that the Taliban had largely succeeded in their objective for foreign troops to withdraw and so should show flexibility towards the new September 11 deadline. "The troops will be out and a date has been given and the process starts on the 1st of May and goes on until the 11th of September so there is a definite time frame," Qureshi said. Sources have told Reuters, Pakistan was putting pressure on the militants to come back to the table. Qureshi said he believed the Taliban would benefit from staying involved but said, he had no contact with the group. Pakistan, which helped facilitate US-Taliban negotiations in Doha that resulted in the initial May 1 withdrawal deal, wields considerable influence with the Taliban. The insurgents have sanctuaries in Pakistan, whose main military-run intelligence service gives them support, according to US and Afghan officials. Pakistan denies the allegation. Qureshi said he feared violence could escalate if the peace process remains deadlocked, plunging Afghanistan into civil war and leading to an exodus of Afghans.

Pakistan urges Taliban to stay engaged in Afghan peace process 

No one can offer guarantees about Afghanistan`s future after U.S. troops leave, a top White House official said on Sunday, even as he stressed the United States would stay focused on terrorist threats emanating from the country.

President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that the United States will withdraw its remaining 2,500 troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks that triggered America`s longest war.

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was asked on the Fox News Sunday program about the risk of a repeat of what happened in Iraq, where Islamic State militants seized territory after U.S. troops withdrew in 2011.

That led then-President Barack Obama to send troops back into Iraq.

Sullivan said Biden had no intention of sending American forces back to Afghanistan, but he added: "I can`t make any guarantees about what will happen inside the country. No one can."

"All the United States could do is provide the Afghan security forces, the Afghan government and the Afghan people resources and capabilities, training and equipping their forces, providing assistance to their government. We have done that and now it is time for American troops to come home and the Afghan people to step up to defend their own country."

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected what he said were "false analogies" with the war in Vietnam as well as any suggestion his government was at risk of folding under Taliban pressure after U.S. troops leave. Afghan security forces were capable of defending the country, he said.

"The Afghan defense and security forces have been carrying over 90% of the operations in the last two years," Ghani said in an interview with CNN.

Former President Donald Trump said in a statement that leaving Afghanistan was "a wonderful and positive thing to do," but called for a more rapid departure. Trump had set a May 1 deadline to withdraw.

CIA Director William Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that America`s ability to collect intelligence and act against extremist threats in Afghanistan will diminish after the departure of U.S. troops.

A United Nations report in January said there were as many as 500 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and that the Taliban maintained a close relationship with the Islamist extremist group. The Taliban denies al Qaeda has a presence in Afghanistan.

Announcing his decision to withdraw troops, Biden said the United States would monitor the threat, reorganize counterterrorism capabilities and keep substantial assets in the region to respond to threats to the United States emerging from Afghanistan.

"He has no intention of taking our eye off the ball," Sullivan said of the president.

"We have the capacity, from repositioning our capabilities over the horizon, to continue to suppress the terrorist threat in Afghanistan."

No one can offer guarantees about Afghanistan`s future after U.S. troops leave, a top White House official said on Sunday, even as he stressed the United States would stay focused on terrorist threats emanating from the country.

No one can offer guarantees about Afghanistan`s future after U.S. troops leave, a top White House official said on Sunday, even as he stressed the United States would stay focused on terrorist threats emanating from the country. President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that the United States will withdraw its remaining 2,500 troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks that triggered America`s longest war. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was asked on the Fox News Sunday program about the risk of a repeat of what happened in Iraq, where Islamic State militants seized territory after U.S. troops withdrew in 2011. That led then-President Barack Obama to send troops back into Iraq. Sullivan said Biden had no intention of sending American forces back to Afghanistan, but he added: "I can`t make any guarantees about what will happen inside the country. No one can." "All the United States could do is provide the Afghan security forces, the Afghan government and the Afghan people resources and capabilities, training and equipping their forces, providing assistance to their government. We have done that and now it is time for American troops to come home and the Afghan people to step up to defend their own country." Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected what he said were "false analogies" with the war in Vietnam as well as any suggestion his government was at risk of folding under Taliban pressure after U.S. troops leave. Afghan security forces were capable of defending the country, he said. "The Afghan defense and security forces have been carrying over 90% of the operations in the last two years," Ghani said in an interview with CNN. Former President Donald Trump said in a statement that leaving Afghanistan was "a wonderful and positive thing to do," but called for a more rapid departure. Trump had set a May 1 deadline to withdraw. CIA Director William Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that America`s ability to collect intelligence and act against extremist threats in Afghanistan will diminish after the departure of U.S. troops. A United Nations report in January said there were as many as 500 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and that the Taliban maintained a close relationship with the Islamist extremist group. The Taliban denies al Qaeda has a presence in Afghanistan. Announcing his decision to withdraw troops, Biden said the United States would monitor the threat, reorganize counterterrorism capabilities and keep substantial assets in the region to respond to threats to the United States emerging from Afghanistan. "He has no intention of taking our eye off the ball," Sullivan said of the president. "We have the capacity, from repositioning our capabilities over the horizon, to continue to suppress the terrorist threat in Afghanistan."

White House: No guarantees about Afghanistan's future post-pullout

Two hundred schools, 1000 scholarships, 65000 student exchanges, two dams and one sprawling parliament house. This is what India has given Afghanistan in broad terms. Indian assistance to Afghanistan is spread across sectors like Education, economy, power and most importantly, democracy.

Both countries have had ties since pre-historic times. The ties are as old as the Indus valley civilisation. For the western world, Afghanistan is a strategic goal, but for India, it is about helping an old friend.

For two decades, foreign troops have lumbered in Afghanistan. There was status quo. The civilian government had a godfather.

But once the western troops leave, who takes charge? Who is India betting on? New Delhi has excellent ties with the civilian government. It will be hoping that good situation prevails beyond September 11.

But the Taliban has other plans. They don't see themselves as stakeholders in Afghanistan. They believe that they are government-in-waiting.

This definitely isn't good news for India or for the world. India's Foreign Minister S Jaishankar talked about this on Friday. He said Afghanistan's future should not be a return to the past.

He was talking about the time when the Taliban ruled the country.

Here's what that Afghanistan looked like,

<ul>
	<li>No school for girls</li>
	<li>Ruthless punishment for blasphemy.</li>
	<li>Zero room for dissent.</li>
	<li>Zero tolerance for cultural diversity.</li>
</ul>

And a rejection of modern Science and Engineering.

It was basically a throwback to the dark ages. Dealing with such a regime would be impossible.

We say this because ofo three specific reasons

1. Taliban's not-so-covert links with terrorism.

India does not need another terror launchpad in the region. This was the case before 9/11. The Taliban have promised to not fund terror groups but looking at recent uptick in violence, that's hard to believe.

2. A growing Pakistani shadow

It is no secret that Islamabad funds and trains Taliban fighters. They were more than happy to walk terrorists over to Pakistan in 1999.

This was after the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814. We all know the story.

The bottom line is this. India cannot afford to have a Pak proxy in Kabul.

3. Risk to India's economic interests

New Delhi has way too much to lose. It has invested more than 3 billion dollars in Afghanistan.

That's 400 projects, in all 34 provinces. These projects include dams, schools, hospitals, clinics and more. Some of these installations have been attacked by Taliban proxies. The US presence was like insurance for Indian interests. With that gone, these mega-projects are vulnerable to attacks.

So what are India's options here?

History has some clues. Before 9/11, Afghanistan was the Wild West. The US never bothered to check the Taliban's rise. It was India, Iran and Russia that kept the resistance alive.

Now is the time to revive that axis. Russia is keen on a larger role. So is Iran. Both countries have warned Taliban against cosying up to terrorists.

India should try and revive the great game. The game, not of competition, but co-operation India has enough diplomatic leverage with both Russia and Iran. It must exercise this leverage. If India cannot be the sole player in Afghanistan, it must aim to be&nbsp;the most influential one.

But this might put New Delhi at odds with Washington. Both Iran and Russia are sworn enemies of the US. Moreover, Washington has a history of dumping regional allies. Just look at the Kurds in Syria.

Joe Biden says he will hold the Taliban to their word. But without his troops in Afghanistan, how powerful is Biden? India cannot bank on a power thousands of miles away.

It can be sure of one thing though. If the Taliban takes over after America withdraws, Joe Biden will not have the high ground to criticise a Russia-Iran-India axis.

In addition to all this, there is a new player on the block in the form of China. India can keep China at bay by disarming Beijing's biggest weapon. Its chequebook. India must keep investing in Afghanistan. If the Afghan economy tanks, China will swoop in. Only self-reliance can lead to stability. It's the same for security.

India should deploy military contractors to train Afghan security forces. Make them capable of defending the civilian government. So aid must continue. So must intelligence sharing and training exercises.

This means India can check the three boxes of a perfect partnership. Shared history, economic ties and military support.

India is Afghanistan's best bet. New Delhi has always called for an Afghan-led and Afghan-controlled peace. It has never put a caveat on investments. But this isn't a one-way show. Afghanistan is India's key to Central Asia.

Unlike other stakeholders. New Delhi does not want to play the great game. It wants to play it on Afghanistan's behalf.

(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

Two hundred schools, 1000 scholarships, 65000 student exchanges, two dams and one sprawling parliament house. This is what India has given Afghanistan in broad terms.

Two hundred schools, 1000 scholarships, 65000 student exchanges, two dams and one sprawling parliament house. This is what India has given Afghanistan in broad terms. Indian assistance to Afghanistan is spread across sectors like Education, economy, power and most importantly, democracy. Both countries have had ties since pre-historic times. The ties are as old as the Indus valley civilisation. For the western world, Afghanistan is a strategic goal, but for India, it is about helping an old friend. For two decades, foreign troops have lumbered in Afghanistan. There was status quo. The civilian government had a godfather. But once the western troops leave, who takes charge? Who is India betting on? New Delhi has excellent ties with the civilian government. It will be hoping that good situation prevails beyond September 11. But the Taliban has other plans. They don't see themselves as stakeholders in Afghanistan. They believe that they are government-in-waiting. This definitely isn't good news for India or for the world. India's Foreign Minister S Jaishankar talked about this on Friday. He said Afghanistan's future should not be a return to the past. He was talking about the time when the Taliban ruled the country. Here's what that Afghanistan looked like, No school for girls Ruthless punishment for blasphemy. Zero room for dissent. Zero tolerance for cultural diversity. And a rejection of modern Science and Engineering. It was basically a throwback to the dark ages. Dealing with such a regime would be impossible. We say this because ofo three specific reasons 1. Taliban's not-so-covert links with terrorism. India does not need another terror launchpad in the region. This was the case before 9/11. The Taliban have promised to not fund terror groups but looking at recent uptick in violence, that's hard to believe. 2. A growing Pakistani shadow It is no secret that Islamabad funds and trains Taliban fighters. They were more than happy to walk terrorists over to Pakistan in 1999. This was after the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814. We all know the story. The bottom line is this. India cannot afford to have a Pak proxy in Kabul. 3. Risk to India's economic interests New Delhi has way too much to lose. It has invested more than 3 billion dollars in Afghanistan. That's 400 projects, in all 34 provinces. These projects include dams, schools, hospitals, clinics and more. Some of these installations have been attacked by Taliban proxies. The US presence was like insurance for Indian interests. With that gone, these mega-projects are vulnerable to attacks. So what are India's options here? History has some clues. Before 9/11, Afghanistan was the Wild West. The US never bothered to check the Taliban's rise. It was India, Iran and Russia that kept the resistance alive. Now is the time to revive that axis. Russia is keen on a larger role. So is Iran. Both countries have warned Taliban against cosying up to terrorists. India should try and revive the great game. The game, not of competition, but co-operation India has enough diplomatic leverage with both Russia and Iran. It must exercise this leverage. If India cannot be the sole player in Afghanistan, it must aim to be the most influential one. But this might put New Delhi at odds with Washington. Both Iran and Russia are sworn enemies of the US. Moreover, Washington has a history of dumping regional allies. Just look at the Kurds in Syria. Joe Biden says he will hold the Taliban to their word. But without his troops in Afghanistan, how powerful is Biden? India cannot bank on a power thousands of miles away. It can be sure of one thing though. If the Taliban takes over after America withdraws, Joe Biden will not have the high ground to criticise a Russia-Iran-India axis. In addition to all this, there is a new player on the block in the form of China. India can keep China at bay by disarming Beijing's biggest weapon. Its chequebook. India must keep investing in Afghanistan. If the Afghan economy tanks, China will swoop in. Only self-reliance can lead to stability. It's the same for security. India should deploy military contractors to train Afghan security forces. Make them capable of defending the civilian government. So aid must continue. So must intelligence sharing and training exercises. This means India can check the three boxes of a perfect partnership. Shared history, economic ties and military support. India is Afghanistan's best bet. New Delhi has always called for an Afghan-led and Afghan-controlled peace. It has never put a caveat on investments. But this isn't a one-way show. Afghanistan is India's key to Central Asia. Unlike other stakeholders. New Delhi does not want to play the great game. It wants to play it on Afghanistan's behalf. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: India is Afghanistan's best bet

Before the complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, there might be an increase in number of soldiers to ensure safe and orderly drawdown, the Pentagon has said.&nbsp;

"It is not out of the realm the possibility that for a short period of time, there will have to be some additional enabling capabilities added to Afghanistan, to help effect a safe, orderly, and deliberately planned drawdown of everybody by the president's deadline, early September," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters at a news conference on Friday.&nbsp;

However, Kirby did not elaborate on the nature of the increase in US troops. "I can't speak today with exactly what that would look like, how many, when they would be going in. But as we transitioned out of Iraq, of course, it's logical to assume that you may need some logistics help, maybe some engineering help," he said.&nbsp;

"You may have to add some force protection capabilities, temporarily, just to make sure that the drawdown goes in a safe, orderly, and effective way. Again, we'll know more as we get closer, but that would not be out of the realm of possibility," Kirby said.&nbsp;

Responding to a question, Kirby said that the Department of Defence is still working out what the future bilateral security relationship is going to be with Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"We're going to transition to a bilateral relationship, a military relationship that's more akin to the kinds of relationships we have with other countries," he said.&nbsp;

"It will not include a US military footprint on the ground in Afghanistan with the exception of what's going to be required to support the diplomatic mission there. All that's still being worked out. So, I can't speak with specificity today about what contract support the Afghan security forces are going to need going forward," he said.&nbsp;

The United States, he said, will maintain counterterrorism capabilities to continue to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the US.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Before the complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, there might be an increase in number of soldiers to ensure safe and orderly drawdown, the Pentagon has said.

Before the complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, there might be an increase in number of soldiers to ensure safe and orderly drawdown, the Pentagon has said. "It is not out of the realm the possibility that for a short period of time, there will have to be some additional enabling capabilities added to Afghanistan, to help effect a safe, orderly, and deliberately planned drawdown of everybody by the president's deadline, early September," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters at a news conference on Friday. However, Kirby did not elaborate on the nature of the increase in US troops. "I can't speak today with exactly what that would look like, how many, when they would be going in. But as we transitioned out of Iraq, of course, it's logical to assume that you may need some logistics help, maybe some engineering help," he said. "You may have to add some force protection capabilities, temporarily, just to make sure that the drawdown goes in a safe, orderly, and effective way. Again, we'll know more as we get closer, but that would not be out of the realm of possibility," Kirby said. Responding to a question, Kirby said that the Department of Defence is still working out what the future bilateral security relationship is going to be with Afghanistan. "We're going to transition to a bilateral relationship, a military relationship that's more akin to the kinds of relationships we have with other countries," he said. "It will not include a US military footprint on the ground in Afghanistan with the exception of what's going to be required to support the diplomatic mission there. All that's still being worked out. So, I can't speak with specificity today about what contract support the Afghan security forces are going to need going forward," he said. The United States, he said, will maintain counterterrorism capabilities to continue to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the US. (With inputs from agencies)

Before withdrawal, US soldiers’ number may rise in Afghanistan: Pentagon  

We cannot discuss future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan. It is a country that drives the conflict in Afghanistan. It has always supported Taliban and its proxies.

Pakistan's support to the Taliban is no secret.

According to one claim, the ISI's proxy war has killed more than 124,000 people in Afghanistan. Islamabad, or more accurately, Rawalpindi's influence with the Taliban is the reason why Pakistan has a seat at the table when future of Afghanistan is discussed.

It's the reason why Afghanistan and India are wary of Pakistan's intentions. Without naming Pakistan, India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said foreign fighters need to leave Afghanistan. The National Security Advisor of Afghanistan agreed.&nbsp;

He said that blame would fall squarely on one party for any escalation in violence.

Kabul has sent a warning to Islamabad saying that if it attempts escalation through the proxies, there will be a fierce pushback.

India shares similar worries. EAM was quite vocal about New Delhi's concerns over Pakistan. He said any solution must be backed up by all neighbours and not just a single party that likes to talk with force.

Supporting terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries has also had an effect on Pakistan. The terror-mongers and those who want to provide them safe havens gained importance in Pakistan's decision-making machinery. Ending support to terrorism is in the interest of Pakistan itself. 
&nbsp;

We cannot discuss future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan. It is a country that drives the conflict in Afghanistan. It has always supported Taliban and its proxies.

We cannot discuss future of Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan. It is a country that drives the conflict in Afghanistan. It has always supported Taliban and its proxies. Pakistan's support to the Taliban is no secret. According to one claim, the ISI's proxy war has killed more than 124,000 people in Afghanistan. Islamabad, or more accurately, Rawalpindi's influence with the Taliban is the reason why Pakistan has a seat at the table when future of Afghanistan is discussed. It's the reason why Afghanistan and India are wary of Pakistan's intentions. Without naming Pakistan, India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said foreign fighters need to leave Afghanistan. The National Security Advisor of Afghanistan agreed. He said that blame would fall squarely on one party for any escalation in violence. Kabul has sent a warning to Islamabad saying that if it attempts escalation through the proxies, there will be a fierce pushback. India shares similar worries. EAM was quite vocal about New Delhi's concerns over Pakistan. He said any solution must be backed up by all neighbours and not just a single party that likes to talk with force. Supporting terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries has also had an effect on Pakistan. The terror-mongers and those who want to provide them safe havens gained importance in Pakistan's decision-making machinery. Ending support to terrorism is in the interest of Pakistan itself.

Pakistan: The country that influences conflict in Afghanistan

What will a Taliban takeover mean for India-Afghanistan ties? What can India do to protect its investments from being targeted? WION's Palki Sharma decodes New Delhi's options in Afghanistan.

Gravitas: How should India engage with the Taliban

The Afghanistan government believes that it can hold its ground without the help of foreign forces.&nbsp;

But the question is what about the Taliban?

Is it prepared to participate in a democratic process?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-is-afghanistan-ready-for-americas-exit-378068/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Would it agree to share power in the republic of Afghanistan? Or does it still insist on leading an Islamic Emirate?

We asked Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif about this.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-indian-nsas-speak-in-the-backdrop-of-bidens-announcement-of-troop-withdrawal-377984">Afghan, Indian NSAs speak in the backdrop of Biden's announcement of troop withdrawal</a>

He mentioned of the threat of violence. Because the risk of an escalation is real.

The Taliban has promised fresh attacks If the foreign forces don't meet the deadline to withdraw.&nbsp;

Is the Taliban just waiting for the Americans to leave before it makes its first moves?

Afghanistan feels that would be a mistake.

Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib said that there has been "no change in the Taliban".

The world saw a Taliban regime more than 20 years ago and it's a different world now.

Is it also a different Taliban? Is it more in tune with the times?

Iran does not believe this as Zarif said the Taliban wants to take Afghanistan back to the 90s.

Has the Taliban not changed?

India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar was guarded in his response.

He did say very clearly that Afghanistan has certainly changed.

And that any agreement made now should not undo the gains made in the past. 
&nbsp;

The Afghanistan government believes that it can hold its ground without the help of foreign forces. But the question is what about the Taliban? Is it prepared to participate in a democratic process?

The Afghanistan government believes that it can hold its ground without the help of foreign forces. But the question is what about the Taliban? Is it prepared to participate in a democratic process? × Would it agree to share power in the republic of Afghanistan? Or does it still insist on leading an Islamic Emirate? We asked Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif about this. Also read | Afghan, Indian NSAs speak in the backdrop of Biden's announcement of troop withdrawal He mentioned of the threat of violence. Because the risk of an escalation is real. The Taliban has promised fresh attacks If the foreign forces don't meet the deadline to withdraw. Is the Taliban just waiting for the Americans to leave before it makes its first moves? Afghanistan feels that would be a mistake. Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib said that there has been "no change in the Taliban". The world saw a Taliban regime more than 20 years ago and it's a different world now. Is it also a different Taliban? Is it more in tune with the times? Iran does not believe this as Zarif said the Taliban wants to take Afghanistan back to the 90s. Has the Taliban not changed? India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar was guarded in his response. He did say very clearly that Afghanistan has certainly changed. And that any agreement made now should not undo the gains made in the past.

Has Taliban really changed?

India likes to see a transition in Afghanistan that is "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled".&nbsp;

The question is: How will New Delhi enable that?

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-how-should-india-engage-with-the-taliban-378058/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;

The answer to this is: by engaging constructively.

The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib told us this morning he had a conversation with India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/has-taliban-really-changed-378054">Has Taliban really changed?</a>

India's stakes are high and External Affair Minister S Jaishankar shared with us that India is running development projects in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.

However, New Delhi's approach has met with criticism too.

In a conversation at Stanford University this week, former US National Security Adviser HR McMaster spoke about the fears of Pakistan.

He spoke about how Islamabad needs to maintain influence in Afghanistan because it fears a strategic encirclement by India.

Jaishankar said there is an attempt to create a misleading narrative around New Delhi's assistance to Afghanistan.

"Look at our record," Jaishankar said.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

India likes to see a transition in Afghanistan that is "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled". The question is: How will New Delhi enable that? Watch | The answer to this is: by engaging constructively.

India likes to see a transition in Afghanistan that is "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled". The question is: How will New Delhi enable that? Watch | The answer to this is: by engaging constructively. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib told us this morning he had a conversation with India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. Also read | Has Taliban really changed? India's stakes are high and External Affair Minister S Jaishankar shared with us that India is running development projects in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. However, New Delhi's approach has met with criticism too. In a conversation at Stanford University this week, former US National Security Adviser HR McMaster spoke about the fears of Pakistan. He spoke about how Islamabad needs to maintain influence in Afghanistan because it fears a strategic encirclement by India. Jaishankar said there is an attempt to create a misleading narrative around New Delhi's assistance to Afghanistan. "Look at our record," Jaishankar said.

Decoding India's role as Afghanistan set to begin a new chapter

Pakistan has played on both sides of the field in Afghanistan, contributing to the Taliban's success, a senior US senator has reminded his colleagues, a day after Washington announced plans to withdraw all troops from the war-torn Asian country by September 11.

Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, said "a crucial factor contributing immensely to the Taliban's success" has been the inability of the US to "eliminate the sanctuary the Taliban was granted in Pakistan."

Referring to a recent study, Reed said the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan and state support from organisations, like Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have been essential to their war effort and the US'' failure to undermine this haven may be Washington's most significant mistake of the war.

"As the (congressionally mandated) Afghan Study Group noted, these sanctuaries are essential to the viability of the insurgency. Additionally, Pakistan's ISI aided and abetted the Taliban while opportunistically cooperating with the United States," Reed said.

A Brookings scholar, Reed said as per the assessment in 2018, Pakistan provided direct military and intelligence aid resulting in the deaths of US soldiers, Afghan security personnel and civilians, plus significant destabilisation of Afghanistan.

"This support of the Taliban runs counter to Pakistani cooperation with the United States, including as they have, allowing the use of airspace and other infrastructure for which the United States provided significant funding," he said.

"As the Afghan Study Group noted, Pakistan has played both sides of the field. These dynamics further play out against the complex environment in Pakistan which has implications for the national security of the United States, its allies and partners," he said, adding that Pakistan is simultaneously fragile and armed with nuclear weapons, making its vulnerability particularly dangerous.

"To add to this toxic mix, Pakistan is in a long-standing battle with its neighbour India which is also armed with nuclear weapons," Reed said.

The Senator said Pakistan and India have long been involved in a battle of power in South Asia.

"While bogged down politically and militarily in daily crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States, over multiple administrations, has been unable to focus the necessary attention on Pakistan. Therefore, these problems have only gotten worse," he said.

The senator said another factor behind the troop pullout from Afghanistan was shaped by the US and its coalition partners inability to develop an Afghan government that could gain the confidence of the people, especially beyond the cities, and provide basic services including security, education, health care, and justice.

During a televised address to the nation on Wednesday, President Biden said that keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year made "little sense" to him.

He said all US troops would be withdrawn from the strife-torn country by September 11 to end America's longest war that has cost trillions of dollars and the lives of over 2,400 American soldiers.

The US and the Taliban signed a landmark deal in Doha on February 29, 2020, to bring lasting peace in war-torn Afghanistan and allow US troops to return home from America's longest war.

Under the US-Taliban pact signed in Doha, Qatar, the US agreed to withdraw all its soldiers from Afghanistan in 14 months.

Since the US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has spent more than USD 1 trillion in fighting and rebuilding in Afghanistan.

About 2,450 US soldiers have been killed and over 20,700 others have been injured in the war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has played on both sides of the field in Afghanistan, contributing to the Taliban's success, a senior US senator has reminded his colleagues, a day after Washington announced plans to withdraw all troops from the war-torn Asian country by September 11.

Pakistan has played on both sides of the field in Afghanistan, contributing to the Taliban's success, a senior US senator has reminded his colleagues, a day after Washington announced plans to withdraw all troops from the war-torn Asian country by September 11. Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, said "a crucial factor contributing immensely to the Taliban's success" has been the inability of the US to "eliminate the sanctuary the Taliban was granted in Pakistan." Referring to a recent study, Reed said the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan and state support from organisations, like Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have been essential to their war effort and the US'' failure to undermine this haven may be Washington's most significant mistake of the war. "As the (congressionally mandated) Afghan Study Group noted, these sanctuaries are essential to the viability of the insurgency. Additionally, Pakistan's ISI aided and abetted the Taliban while opportunistically cooperating with the United States," Reed said. A Brookings scholar, Reed said as per the assessment in 2018, Pakistan provided direct military and intelligence aid resulting in the deaths of US soldiers, Afghan security personnel and civilians, plus significant destabilisation of Afghanistan. "This support of the Taliban runs counter to Pakistani cooperation with the United States, including as they have, allowing the use of airspace and other infrastructure for which the United States provided significant funding," he said. "As the Afghan Study Group noted, Pakistan has played both sides of the field. These dynamics further play out against the complex environment in Pakistan which has implications for the national security of the United States, its allies and partners," he said, adding that Pakistan is simultaneously fragile and armed with nuclear weapons, making its vulnerability particularly dangerous. "To add to this toxic mix, Pakistan is in a long-standing battle with its neighbour India which is also armed with nuclear weapons," Reed said. The Senator said Pakistan and India have long been involved in a battle of power in South Asia. "While bogged down politically and militarily in daily crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States, over multiple administrations, has been unable to focus the necessary attention on Pakistan. Therefore, these problems have only gotten worse," he said. The senator said another factor behind the troop pullout from Afghanistan was shaped by the US and its coalition partners inability to develop an Afghan government that could gain the confidence of the people, especially beyond the cities, and provide basic services including security, education, health care, and justice. During a televised address to the nation on Wednesday, President Biden said that keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year made "little sense" to him. He said all US troops would be withdrawn from the strife-torn country by September 11 to end America's longest war that has cost trillions of dollars and the lives of over 2,400 American soldiers. The US and the Taliban signed a landmark deal in Doha on February 29, 2020, to bring lasting peace in war-torn Afghanistan and allow US troops to return home from America's longest war. Under the US-Taliban pact signed in Doha, Qatar, the US agreed to withdraw all its soldiers from Afghanistan in 14 months. Since the US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has spent more than USD 1 trillion in fighting and rebuilding in Afghanistan. About 2,450 US soldiers have been killed and over 20,700 others have been injured in the war in Afghanistan.

'Pakistan helped the Taliban, played on both sides in Afghanistan': US senator

Against the backdrop of US President Joe Biden's announcement of the withdrawal of American troops, Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and India's NSA Ajit Doval spoke on Friday morning. This is the first-ever high-level engagement between the two sides and comes just two days after the announcement came from Washington.

Mohib, speaking at an event virtually, confirmed the call and said, "I spoke to Ajit Doval this morning about our views and shared what we think should go and happen".

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-troops-in-afghanistan-the-20-year-war-377951/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

India supports "Afghan-led , Afghan-owned, and Afghan controlled" peace process. In the last two decades, since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York, New Delhi had emerged as the country's major development partner.&nbsp;

The Afghan NSA, speaking at the event, slammed Pakistan for its support to the Taliban. Without taking the country by name, he pointed out, "any further push means that there is direct involvement in, by a neighbour which can be very dangerous. Nationalistic forces in Afghanistan are very angry, upset over this."

Warning that If this "limit is passed, then I think, there would be a huge problem for the said neighbour in their country by all Afghans who are there and from within Afghanistan. There could be huge blowback which can be destructive for the neighbour".

In the past, Taliban top leadership like Mullah Baradar have been coming to Pakistan, and not only holding a meeting with foreign minister Qureshi and Pakistani Prime minister Imran Khan but also their fighters in the country. This has irked the Afghan government, which has strongly raised the matter with Islamabad.

On Taliban, he said, "Taliban has no reason to continue violence in Afghanistan, the reason, why they continued, are totally out the picture and its time they make real peace with Afghan govt, become part of the mainstream political society".

"They need to know, they can't take power by force, they can start a civil war but not come to power through that."

He expressed confidence in the capabilities of Afghan National Defense and Security Force (ANDSAF).

He said, "I see it as a time where Afghan take care of the full security situation in our country...Afghanistan doesn't need US combat troops on the ground, what we need is support to ANDSAF, which we have been told will continue."&nbsp;

Since 2014, ANDSAF has been in charge, and since the US Taliban pact of last year, 94 per cent&nbsp;of combat offensive operations have been done by them independently.

Dismissing the parallels in Afghanistan when it comes to the 1990s, Mohib said, "Afghanistan is not what it was, but one thing is for certain, those parallels do not reflect the realities of Afghanistan".

Against the backdrop of US President Joe Biden's announcement of the withdrawal of American troops, Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and India's NSA Ajit Doval spoke on Friday morning.

Against the backdrop of US President Joe Biden's announcement of the withdrawal of American troops, Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and India's NSA Ajit Doval spoke on Friday morning. This is the first-ever high-level engagement between the two sides and comes just two days after the announcement came from Washington. Mohib, speaking at an event virtually, confirmed the call and said, "I spoke to Ajit Doval this morning about our views and shared what we think should go and happen". Watch | India supports "Afghan-led , Afghan-owned, and Afghan controlled" peace process. In the last two decades, since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York, New Delhi had emerged as the country's major development partner. The Afghan NSA, speaking at the event, slammed Pakistan for its support to the Taliban. Without taking the country by name, he pointed out, "any further push means that there is direct involvement in, by a neighbour which can be very dangerous. Nationalistic forces in Afghanistan are very angry, upset over this." Warning that If this "limit is passed, then I think, there would be a huge problem for the said neighbour in their country by all Afghans who are there and from within Afghanistan. There could be huge blowback which can be destructive for the neighbour". In the past, Taliban top leadership like Mullah Baradar have been coming to Pakistan, and not only holding a meeting with foreign minister Qureshi and Pakistani Prime minister Imran Khan but also their fighters in the country. This has irked the Afghan government, which has strongly raised the matter with Islamabad. On Taliban, he said, "Taliban has no reason to continue violence in Afghanistan, the reason, why they continued, are totally out the picture and its time they make real peace with Afghan govt, become part of the mainstream political society". "They need to know, they can't take power by force, they can start a civil war but not come to power through that." He expressed confidence in the capabilities of Afghan National Defense and Security Force (ANDSAF). He said, "I see it as a time where Afghan take care of the full security situation in our country...Afghanistan doesn't need US combat troops on the ground, what we need is support to ANDSAF, which we have been told will continue." Since 2014, ANDSAF has been in charge, and since the US Taliban pact of last year, 94 per cent of combat offensive operations have been done by them independently. Dismissing the parallels in Afghanistan when it comes to the 1990s, Mohib said, "Afghanistan is not what it was, but one thing is for certain, those parallels do not reflect the realities of Afghanistan".

Afghan, Indian NSAs speak in the backdrop of Biden's announcement of troop withdrawal 

Taliban on Thursday accused the US of breaching Doha peace agreement by skipping May 1 as the deadline for full withdrawal of American troops from the country, said Tolo News.

In a statement cited by Tolo News, Taliban warned the US of "consequences" and said that US would be "responsible" for all "countermeasures" taken by "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate".

USA had earlier announced that all troops would be withdrawn by May 1 this year but high-level officials within the US government have been quoted to suggest that the withdrawal will be complete by September 11, the 20th anniversary of 9/11 attacks this year.

The Taliban has reportedly used very strong words in their statement.&nbsp;

“As this agreement was signed in the presence of United Nations and representatives of numerous world countries and organisations, and is currently being breached by America, it is imperative that all countries and organisations that were witnesses to the signing of this agreement exert pressure on America to implement its commitments and withdraw all forces from Afghanistan by the specified date,” said Taliban.

“Now as the agreement is being breached by America, it in principle opens the way for the Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate to take every necessary countermeasure, hence the American side will be held responsible for all future consequences, and not the Islamic Emirate,” read Taliban's statement.

Blinken in Afghanistan

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul and brief them on President Joe Biden’s Wednesday announcement he was ending "the forever war", which began in response to the 2001 September 11 attacks.

"I wanted to demonstrate with my visit the ongoing commitment of the United States to the Islamic Republic and the people of Afghanistan," Blinken said after meeting Ghani.

"The partnership is changing, but the partnership is enduring."

(With inputs from agencies)

Taliban on Thursday accused the US of breaching Doha peace agreement by skipping May 1 as the deadline for full withdrawal of American troops from the country, said Tolo News.

Taliban on Thursday accused the US of breaching Doha peace agreement by skipping May 1 as the deadline for full withdrawal of American troops from the country, said Tolo News. In a statement cited by Tolo News, Taliban warned the US of "consequences" and said that US would be "responsible" for all "countermeasures" taken by "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate". USA had earlier announced that all troops would be withdrawn by May 1 this year but high-level officials within the US government have been quoted to suggest that the withdrawal will be complete by September 11, the 20th anniversary of 9/11 attacks this year. The Taliban has reportedly used very strong words in their statement. “As this agreement was signed in the presence of United Nations and representatives of numerous world countries and organisations, and is currently being breached by America, it is imperative that all countries and organisations that were witnesses to the signing of this agreement exert pressure on America to implement its commitments and withdraw all forces from Afghanistan by the specified date,” said Taliban. “Now as the agreement is being breached by America, it in principle opens the way for the Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate to take every necessary countermeasure, hence the American side will be held responsible for all future consequences, and not the Islamic Emirate,” read Taliban's statement. Blinken in Afghanistan On Thursday, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul and brief them on President Joe Biden’s Wednesday announcement he was ending "the forever war", which began in response to the 2001 September 11 attacks. "I wanted to demonstrate with my visit the ongoing commitment of the United States to the Islamic Republic and the people of Afghanistan," Blinken said after meeting Ghani. "The partnership is changing, but the partnership is enduring." (With inputs from agencies)

Taliban warns US of 'countermeasures': Report

India is concerned about the vacuum that will be created after withdrawal of the US and NATO troops from war-torn Afghanistan, Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat said on Thursday.

He said that the main concern should not create "space for other disruptors" and therefore, see violence continue in Afghanistan.

India wants to see peace and tranquility returning to the region, he added.

"We would be very happy to provide whatever support we can in the development of Afghanistan and making sure peace returns to that nation. People have got tired and are looking at peace," General Rawat said speaking in a virtual discussion at the ongoing Raisina Dialogue 2021.

Asked whether it was Iran and Pakistan that could exploit the situation, the Chief of Defence Staff said there are many nations that would like to step into Afghanistan.

"Many people are looking at the opportunity to exploit the vacuum that is being created. Afghanistan is a nation which is rich in resources," he said.

Noting there are nations "that tend to exploit resources for their own benefit without the benefit going to the community of that nation", he said: "The international community must step in to ensure Afghanistan is for the Afghans."

President Joe Biden announced in Washington on Wednesday that he will withdraw remaining US troops from the "forever war" in Afghanistan. His plan is to pull out all US forces -- numbering 2,500 now -- by this September 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The UN, together with Turkey, and Qatar, announced on Tuesday that a high-level conference aimed at ending decades of conflict in Afghanistan will go ahead beginning on April 24. There would be representatives from both the Afghan government and the Taliban.

India is concerned about the vacuum that will be created after withdrawal of the US and NATO troops from war-torn Afghanistan, Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat said on Thursday.

India is concerned about the vacuum that will be created after withdrawal of the US and NATO troops from war-torn Afghanistan, Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat said on Thursday. He said that the main concern should not create "space for other disruptors" and therefore, see violence continue in Afghanistan. India wants to see peace and tranquility returning to the region, he added. "We would be very happy to provide whatever support we can in the development of Afghanistan and making sure peace returns to that nation. People have got tired and are looking at peace," General Rawat said speaking in a virtual discussion at the ongoing Raisina Dialogue 2021. Asked whether it was Iran and Pakistan that could exploit the situation, the Chief of Defence Staff said there are many nations that would like to step into Afghanistan. "Many people are looking at the opportunity to exploit the vacuum that is being created. Afghanistan is a nation which is rich in resources," he said. Noting there are nations "that tend to exploit resources for their own benefit without the benefit going to the community of that nation", he said: "The international community must step in to ensure Afghanistan is for the Afghans." President Joe Biden announced in Washington on Wednesday that he will withdraw remaining US troops from the "forever war" in Afghanistan. His plan is to pull out all US forces -- numbering 2,500 now -- by this September 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The UN, together with Turkey, and Qatar, announced on Tuesday that a high-level conference aimed at ending decades of conflict in Afghanistan will go ahead beginning on April 24. There would be representatives from both the Afghan government and the Taliban.

India concerned over US troops' forthcoming exit from Afghanistan

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday began an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. His visit comes amid US plans to withdraw all American troops from the country before the 20th anniversary this year of September 11 terror attacks.

The withdrawal plans are going ahead in spite of a deadlock in peace talks with Taliban. This threatens to leave a power vacuum in Afghanistan. Initially aimed at May 1, the withdrawal plans have been postponed by four months.

Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul and brief them on President Joe Biden’s Wednesday announcement he was ending "the forever war", which began in response to the 2001 September 11 attacks.

"I wanted to demonstrate with my visit the ongoing commitment of the United States to the Islamic Republic and the people of Afghanistan," Blinken said after meeting Ghani.

"The partnership is changing, but the partnership is enduring."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-says-time-to-end-us-war-in-afghanistan-with-total-pullout-377585">Biden says 'time to end' US war in Afghanistan with total pullout</a>

The Pentagon has around 2,500 troops in Afghanistan from a high of over 100,000. Thousands more serve as part of a 9,600-strong NATO force, which will withdraw at the same time.

Ever since the US indicated that it wanted to pull out from Afghanistan, there has been marked increase in violence with emboldened Taliban carrying out bombings and assassinations.

"It could cost us losing everything we worked and fought together for in the past 20 years and could risk overall security in Afghanistan," said Metra Mehran, a Kabul-based women's rights activist.

For the US, however, after 20 years and more than 2,400 deaths, enough is enough.

"We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal, expecting a different result," Biden said.

The delayed withdrawal -- even by just over four months -- has angered the Taliban, who have threatened to resume hostilities against US forces.

"If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those who failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on Twitter on Wednesday.

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday began an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. His visit comes amid US plans to withdraw all American troops from the country before the 20th anniversary this year of September 11 terror attacks.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday began an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. His visit comes amid US plans to withdraw all American troops from the country before the 20th anniversary this year of September 11 terror attacks. The withdrawal plans are going ahead in spite of a deadlock in peace talks with Taliban. This threatens to leave a power vacuum in Afghanistan. Initially aimed at May 1, the withdrawal plans have been postponed by four months. Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul and brief them on President Joe Biden’s Wednesday announcement he was ending "the forever war", which began in response to the 2001 September 11 attacks. "I wanted to demonstrate with my visit the ongoing commitment of the United States to the Islamic Republic and the people of Afghanistan," Blinken said after meeting Ghani. "The partnership is changing, but the partnership is enduring." Also Read | Biden says 'time to end' US war in Afghanistan with total pullout The Pentagon has around 2,500 troops in Afghanistan from a high of over 100,000. Thousands more serve as part of a 9,600-strong NATO force, which will withdraw at the same time. Ever since the US indicated that it wanted to pull out from Afghanistan, there has been marked increase in violence with emboldened Taliban carrying out bombings and assassinations. "It could cost us losing everything we worked and fought together for in the past 20 years and could risk overall security in Afghanistan," said Metra Mehran, a Kabul-based women's rights activist. For the US, however, after 20 years and more than 2,400 deaths, enough is enough. "We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal, expecting a different result," Biden said. The delayed withdrawal -- even by just over four months -- has angered the Taliban, who have threatened to resume hostilities against US forces. "If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those who failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on Twitter on Wednesday. (With inputs from agencies)

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Afghanistan on a surprise visit

The Taliban and Afghanistan's government will attend peace talks in Istanbul from April 24 to May 4 meant to jump-start a peace process and sketch out a possible political settlement, host Turkey said on Tuesday. &nbsp;

The 10-day summit includes the United Nations and Qatar as part of a US-backed push to jump-start talks ahead of a May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. &nbsp;

On Monday, the Taliban said it was unwilling, based on timing, to attend talks in Turkey initially scheduled for April 16. &nbsp;

"Participation in the conference and its agenda have been the subject of extensive consultations with the Afghan parties," Turkey's foreign ministry said. &nbsp;

The talks are meant to end the conflict, pave the way to a 'just a durable' political settlement and 'accelerate and complement' ongoing intra-Afghan negotiations in Doha, it said. &nbsp;

It is an "opportunity for all partners to reiterate support for the people of Afghanistan on their path toward inclusive peace, stability, and prosperity," the ministry added in a statement.&nbsp;

Officials worry that violence in the country will surge if an agreement is not reached soon.&nbsp;

The US envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been travelling the region to drum up support for a ceasefire and peace settlement that could include an interim government ahead of the May 1 deadline.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden has said it would be 'hard' to withdraw troops by then, but that it was unlikely they would remain in Afghanistan next year.&nbsp;

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has held a series of calls with counterparts including the United States and some Gulf Arab nations over the past week to invite them to the talks and drum up support. &nbsp;

The Taliban and Afghanistan's government will attend peace talks in Istanbul from April 24 to May 4 meant to jump-start a peace process and sketch out a possible political settlement, host Turkey said on Tuesday.

The Taliban and Afghanistan's government will attend peace talks in Istanbul from April 24 to May 4 meant to jump-start a peace process and sketch out a possible political settlement, host Turkey said on Tuesday. The 10-day summit includes the United Nations and Qatar as part of a US-backed push to jump-start talks ahead of a May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. On Monday, the Taliban said it was unwilling, based on timing, to attend talks in Turkey initially scheduled for April 16. "Participation in the conference and its agenda have been the subject of extensive consultations with the Afghan parties," Turkey's foreign ministry said. The talks are meant to end the conflict, pave the way to a 'just a durable' political settlement and 'accelerate and complement' ongoing intra-Afghan negotiations in Doha, it said. It is an "opportunity for all partners to reiterate support for the people of Afghanistan on their path toward inclusive peace, stability, and prosperity," the ministry added in a statement. Officials worry that violence in the country will surge if an agreement is not reached soon. The US envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been travelling the region to drum up support for a ceasefire and peace settlement that could include an interim government ahead of the May 1 deadline. US President Joe Biden has said it would be 'hard' to withdraw troops by then, but that it was unlikely they would remain in Afghanistan next year. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has held a series of calls with counterparts including the United States and some Gulf Arab nations over the past week to invite them to the talks and drum up support.

Turkey says Taliban, Afghan govt to attend peace talks on April 24 

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday it's "time to end" America's longest war with the unconditional withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan where they have spent two decades in a bloody, largely fruitless battle against the Taliban.

Dubbed the "forever war," the US military onslaught in Afghanistan began in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-to-pull-out-all-us-troops-from-afghanistan-by-september-11-377553/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;

Now, 20 years later -- after almost 2,400 US military and tens of thousands of Afghan deaths -- Biden is naming September 11 as the deadline by which the last US soldiers will have finally departed.

The war is at best at a stalemate.

The internationally backed government in Kabul has only tenuous control in swaths of the country, while the Taliban are growing in strength, with many predicting the insurgency will seek to regain total power once the government's US military umbrella is removed.

In a speech later Wednesday, Biden was to tell Americans that it's time to accept the reality that there's no alternative to a clean break.

"We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal, expecting a different result," he was to say, according to excerpts released ahead of his speech.

"I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats," he said. "I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth."

Biden's decision is not a shock. The war is hugely unpopular among voters and Biden's predecessor Donald Trump had committed to an even earlier exit of May 1.

Biden ally Senator Bernie Sanders called it "brave."

However, there was immediate criticism from some quarters that the United States is abandoning the Afghan government and encouraging jihadist insurgencies.

"Wars don't end when one side abandons the fight," influential Republican Representative Liz Cheney said.

"Withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan by Sept 11 will only embolden the very jihadists who attacked our homeland on that day 20 years ago."

'Recipe' for forever war&nbsp;

Biden was set to say in his speech that Washington will continue to support the Afghan government, only not "militarily."

This will mark a profound shift in clout for the beleaguered government and its US and coalition-trained security forces.

A senior administration official said the US military exit would be completed by September 11.

Biden had earlier considered stationing a residual US force to strike at Al-Qaeda or other international jihadist groups in Afghanistan or making withdrawal contingent on progress on the ground or in slow-moving peace talks.

In the end, he decided to leave only personnel to guard installations like the US embassy in Kabul, a senior official said.

"The president has judged that a conditions-based approach, which has been the approach of the past two decades, is a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the moment had arrived to bring forces back home, and Washington would work out a "coordinated" withdrawal plan with its NATO allies.

"Together, we have achieved the goals that we set out to achieve and now it is time to bring our forces home," Blinken said ahead of talks with NATO partners in Brussels.&nbsp;

German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said Wednesday that NATO would likely join the US in withdrawing its troops by September.&nbsp;

The Times newspaper said Britain would withdraw its roughly 750 troops, citing sources as saying "they would struggle without American support because of a reliance on US bases and infrastructure."

Taliban 'confident'&nbsp;

The Biden official said the withdrawal would begin in May and that the delay was largely logistical, with troops possibly out of Afghanistan well before September 11.

The official warned the Taliban -- who are observing a truce with US but not with Afghan forces -- not to strike coalition forces as they leave, saying that in response to any attack "we will hit back hard."

But a threat assessment report published Tuesday by the director of US national intelligence said the Taliban "is confident it can achieve military victory."&nbsp;

The upheaval raises big questions over the future of attempts to modernize Afghanistan, especially for Afghan women who have benefited from increased rights, like access to education.

The Taliban, who enforce an austere brand of Sunni Islam, banned women from schools, offices, music and most of daily life during their 1996-2001 rule over much of Afghanistan. Two decades later, 40 percent of schoolchildren are girls.

Peace effort in Turkey&nbsp;

Biden's decision came as Turkey said it will host a US-backed peace conference from April 24 to May 4 that would bring together the Afghan government, the Taliban and international partners.

But Mohammad Naeem, spokesman for the Taliban office in Qatar, said the insurgents will not participate in any conference on Afghanistan's future "until all foreign forces completely withdraw."

A decade ago, the United States had about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

The troop figure by the end of Trump's presidency had gone down to 2,500. As of February this year, NATO had around 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. 
&nbsp;

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday it's "time to end" America's longest war with the unconditional withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan where they have spent two decades in a bloody, largely fruitless battle against the Taliban.

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday it's "time to end" America's longest war with the unconditional withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan where they have spent two decades in a bloody, largely fruitless battle against the Taliban. Dubbed the "forever war," the US military onslaught in Afghanistan began in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. Watch | Now, 20 years later -- after almost 2,400 US military and tens of thousands of Afghan deaths -- Biden is naming September 11 as the deadline by which the last US soldiers will have finally departed. The war is at best at a stalemate. The internationally backed government in Kabul has only tenuous control in swaths of the country, while the Taliban are growing in strength, with many predicting the insurgency will seek to regain total power once the government's US military umbrella is removed. In a speech later Wednesday, Biden was to tell Americans that it's time to accept the reality that there's no alternative to a clean break. "We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal, expecting a different result," he was to say, according to excerpts released ahead of his speech. "I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats," he said. "I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth." Biden's decision is not a shock. The war is hugely unpopular among voters and Biden's predecessor Donald Trump had committed to an even earlier exit of May 1. Biden ally Senator Bernie Sanders called it "brave." However, there was immediate criticism from some quarters that the United States is abandoning the Afghan government and encouraging jihadist insurgencies. "Wars don't end when one side abandons the fight," influential Republican Representative Liz Cheney said. "Withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan by Sept 11 will only embolden the very jihadists who attacked our homeland on that day 20 years ago." 'Recipe' for forever war Biden was set to say in his speech that Washington will continue to support the Afghan government, only not "militarily." This will mark a profound shift in clout for the beleaguered government and its US and coalition-trained security forces. A senior administration official said the US military exit would be completed by September 11. Biden had earlier considered stationing a residual US force to strike at Al-Qaeda or other international jihadist groups in Afghanistan or making withdrawal contingent on progress on the ground or in slow-moving peace talks. In the end, he decided to leave only personnel to guard installations like the US embassy in Kabul, a senior official said. "The president has judged that a conditions-based approach, which has been the approach of the past two decades, is a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the moment had arrived to bring forces back home, and Washington would work out a "coordinated" withdrawal plan with its NATO allies. "Together, we have achieved the goals that we set out to achieve and now it is time to bring our forces home," Blinken said ahead of talks with NATO partners in Brussels. German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said Wednesday that NATO would likely join the US in withdrawing its troops by September. The Times newspaper said Britain would withdraw its roughly 750 troops, citing sources as saying "they would struggle without American support because of a reliance on US bases and infrastructure." Taliban 'confident' The Biden official said the withdrawal would begin in May and that the delay was largely logistical, with troops possibly out of Afghanistan well before September 11. The official warned the Taliban -- who are observing a truce with US but not with Afghan forces -- not to strike coalition forces as they leave, saying that in response to any attack "we will hit back hard." But a threat assessment report published Tuesday by the director of US national intelligence said the Taliban "is confident it can achieve military victory." The upheaval raises big questions over the future of attempts to modernize Afghanistan, especially for Afghan women who have benefited from increased rights, like access to education. The Taliban, who enforce an austere brand of Sunni Islam, banned women from schools, offices, music and most of daily life during their 1996-2001 rule over much of Afghanistan. Two decades later, 40 percent of schoolchildren are girls. Peace effort in Turkey Biden's decision came as Turkey said it will host a US-backed peace conference from April 24 to May 4 that would bring together the Afghan government, the Taliban and international partners. But Mohammad Naeem, spokesman for the Taliban office in Qatar, said the insurgents will not participate in any conference on Afghanistan's future "until all foreign forces completely withdraw." A decade ago, the United States had about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. The troop figure by the end of Trump's presidency had gone down to 2,500. As of February this year, NATO had around 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Biden says 'time to end' US war in Afghanistan with total pullout

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday said that the moment has arrived to bring the foreign troops home, adding that Washington would engage with NATO allies on a "coordinated" pull-out.&nbsp;

"Together, we have achieved the goals that we set out to achieve and now it is time to bring our forces home," Blinken was quoted as saying by news agency AFP ahead of talks with NATO nations in Brussels.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/antony-blinken-to-return-to-brussels-for-talks-on-ukraine-afghanistan-377207/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Blinken's comments came on a day when US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden </a>is set to formally announce that all US troops will be pulled out from Afghanistan no later than September 11, a senior official has confirmed.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the US's NATO ally Germany has supported the move of withdrawal by September with its Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer saying: "We always said: we'll go in together, we'll leave together". &nbsp;

A report in The Times claimed that Britain is also planning to pull out its troops from the country around the same time.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/biden-set-to-complete-withdrawal-of-remaining-us-troops-from-afghanistan-before-911-anniversary-377408">Biden set to complete withdrawal of remaining US troops from Afghanistan before 9/11 anniversary</a> 
&nbsp;

It said that UK would pull out about 750 troops, citing sources that without the US, Britain would "struggle" because of "a reliance on US bases and infrastructure."

Meanwhile, Turkey has announced an international peace conference in Afghanistan to reach a solution to end nearly 40 years of violence and chaos that has ravaged the nation.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday said that the moment has arrived to bring the foreign troops home, adding that Washington would engage with NATO allies on a "coordinated" pull-out.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday said that the moment has arrived to bring the foreign troops home, adding that Washington would engage with NATO allies on a "coordinated" pull-out. "Together, we have achieved the goals that we set out to achieve and now it is time to bring our forces home," Blinken was quoted as saying by news agency AFP ahead of talks with NATO nations in Brussels. Watch | Blinken's comments came on a day when US President Joe Biden is set to formally announce that all US troops will be pulled out from Afghanistan no later than September 11, a senior official has confirmed. Meanwhile, the US's NATO ally Germany has supported the move of withdrawal by September with its Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer saying: "We always said: we'll go in together, we'll leave together". A report in The Times claimed that Britain is also planning to pull out its troops from the country around the same time. Also read | Biden set to complete withdrawal of remaining US troops from Afghanistan before 9/11 anniversary It said that UK would pull out about 750 troops, citing sources that without the US, Britain would "struggle" because of "a reliance on US bases and infrastructure." Meanwhile, Turkey has announced an international peace conference in Afghanistan to reach a solution to end nearly 40 years of violence and chaos that has ravaged the nation.

'Time to bring our forces home': US on Afghan pullout

The remaining&nbsp;2,500 US troops in Afghanistan are set to be withdrawn by September 11, 2021 by President Joe Biden. US officials on Tuesday announced the withdrawal is set to take place on the same day on which the US was attacked in 2001&nbsp;by al Qaeda, triggering America’s longest-running war.

Former President Donald Trump had agreed to a May 1 deadline for withdrawal with the Taliban&nbsp;and now many US intelligence officials believe the chances of a peace deal in the country are dim. In addition, the Afghan government could struggle in holding off the insurgency by Taliban if the US withdraws its support.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/antony-blinken-to-return-to-brussels-for-talks-on-ukraine-afghanistan-377207/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Earlier, insurgents in the country had threatened to continue the series of violence in Afghanistan if the May 1 deadline was missed.

The White House official told Reuters that Biden is expected to officially announce the withdrawal on Wednesday. The withdrawal of troops will begin before May 1 and could be finished before the September 11 deadline.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/blinken-to-return-to-brussels-for-talks-on-ukraine-afghanistan-376910" hreflang="en">Blinken to return to Brussels for talks on Ukraine, Afghanistan&nbsp;</a>

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are expected to discuss Afghanistan with NATO allies in Belgium on Wednesday. Biden’s withdrawal confirms the trope in US administration that the military can no longer ensure peace in Afghanistan.

In the intelligence report&nbsp;which was sent to US Congress, the following is stated - “Kabul continues to face setbacks on the battlefield, and the Taliban is confident it can achieve military victory."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/turkey-talks-on-afghanistan-likely-on-april-16-kabul-does-not-see-any-change-in-taliban-375963" hreflang="en">Turkey talks on Afghanistan likely on April 16, Kabul does not see any change in Taliban</a>

A 10-day summit is currently planned to begin starting April 24 in Istanbul to discuss Afghanistan. The Taliban has refused to participate in the discussion, saying that they would begin talking only once foreign forces had left the country.

(With inputs from agencies)

The remaining 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan are set to be withdrawn by September 11, 2021 by President Joe Biden. US officials on Tuesday announced the withdrawal is set to take place on the same day on which the US was attacked in 2001 by al Qaeda, triggering America’s longest-running war.

The remaining 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan are set to be withdrawn by September 11, 2021 by President Joe Biden. US officials on Tuesday announced the withdrawal is set to take place on the same day on which the US was attacked in 2001 by al Qaeda, triggering America’s longest-running war. Former President Donald Trump had agreed to a May 1 deadline for withdrawal with the Taliban and now many US intelligence officials believe the chances of a peace deal in the country are dim. In addition, the Afghan government could struggle in holding off the insurgency by Taliban if the US withdraws its support. Earlier, insurgents in the country had threatened to continue the series of violence in Afghanistan if the May 1 deadline was missed. The White House official told Reuters that Biden is expected to officially announce the withdrawal on Wednesday. The withdrawal of troops will begin before May 1 and could be finished before the September 11 deadline. Also read: Blinken to return to Brussels for talks on Ukraine, Afghanistan US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are expected to discuss Afghanistan with NATO allies in Belgium on Wednesday. Biden’s withdrawal confirms the trope in US administration that the military can no longer ensure peace in Afghanistan. In the intelligence report which was sent to US Congress, the following is stated - “Kabul continues to face setbacks on the battlefield, and the Taliban is confident it can achieve military victory." Also read: Turkey talks on Afghanistan likely on April 16, Kabul does not see any change in Taliban A 10-day summit is currently planned to begin starting April 24 in Istanbul to discuss Afghanistan. The Taliban has refused to participate in the discussion, saying that they would begin talking only once foreign forces had left the country. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden set to complete withdrawal of remaining US troops from Afghanistan before 9/11 anniversary

Istanbul is all set to host the talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. While the date is&nbsp; Friday the 16th of April, no announcement has come so far given anything can happen anytime when it comes to the Afghan peace process. Taliban is eager to cross the 1st of May deadline for withdrawal of American troops. While it is given that the US troops won't be able to withdraw by then, the Taliban is hoping to gain leverage, a kind of moral upper hand.&nbsp;

An Afghan govt source told WION, "they are keen on condition-based withdrawal, not a time-bound withdrawal". A condition, on the Taliban to reduce violence, something that continues to remain high.

But what did Doha gain from hosting the talks on Afghan Peace Process? The lucrative geopolitics of hosting Afghan peace talks mean, getting international prestige and certain trade-offs.&nbsp;

Earlier this year, Qatar was able to normalise ties with four Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt--at the famous Al Ula summit.&nbsp;The four Arab states had cut ties with the oil-rich state of Qatar way back in 2017. The outcome in practical terms was the end of a three and half-year-old blockade against Qatar, and reopening of land and sea routes.

Qatar, last year, was a busy place. It not only hosted the signing of the Taliban-US peace pact, but also in September hosted the start of intra-Afghan talks between the Afghan govt and Taliban. America's reduced role in Afghanistan, which can pave way for its troops to leave, is Washington's priority, and while that still hasn't happened, Qatar was able to bring the various factions together.&nbsp;And this helped Qatar normalise ties with its neighbours in the long term.

Now, it's Turkey that is set to host such talks. Turkey, which has been having tiff of some kind with both Russia and the US, will be able to get back some lost ground.

And with hosting such talks, moral leadership and economics are not far behind. In fact, hosting big-ticket talks amid the economic downturn is something that can be politically fruitful.&nbsp;&nbsp;The US, under its new proposal to the Afghan president, suggested&nbsp;talks in Turkey between the Afghan government and the Taliban and later six-country talks under United Nations umbrella.&nbsp;

Interestingly, it was not only Turkey which has been keen to host Afghan peace talks. Uzbekistan and Indonesia have been in the fray as well.&nbsp;

Istanbul is all set to host the talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. While the date is Friday the 16th of April, no announcement has come so far given anything can happen anytime when it comes to the Afghan peace process.

Istanbul is all set to host the talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. While the date is Friday the 16th of April, no announcement has come so far given anything can happen anytime when it comes to the Afghan peace process. Taliban is eager to cross the 1st of May deadline for withdrawal of American troops. While it is given that the US troops won't be able to withdraw by then, the Taliban is hoping to gain leverage, a kind of moral upper hand. An Afghan govt source told WION, "they are keen on condition-based withdrawal, not a time-bound withdrawal". A condition, on the Taliban to reduce violence, something that continues to remain high. But what did Doha gain from hosting the talks on Afghan Peace Process? The lucrative geopolitics of hosting Afghan peace talks mean, getting international prestige and certain trade-offs. Earlier this year, Qatar was able to normalise ties with four Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt--at the famous Al Ula summit. The four Arab states had cut ties with the oil-rich state of Qatar way back in 2017. The outcome in practical terms was the end of a three and half-year-old blockade against Qatar, and reopening of land and sea routes. Qatar, last year, was a busy place. It not only hosted the signing of the Taliban-US peace pact, but also in September hosted the start of intra-Afghan talks between the Afghan govt and Taliban. America's reduced role in Afghanistan, which can pave way for its troops to leave, is Washington's priority, and while that still hasn't happened, Qatar was able to bring the various factions together. And this helped Qatar normalise ties with its neighbours in the long term. Now, it's Turkey that is set to host such talks. Turkey, which has been having tiff of some kind with both Russia and the US, will be able to get back some lost ground. And with hosting such talks, moral leadership and economics are not far behind. In fact, hosting big-ticket talks amid the economic downturn is something that can be politically fruitful. The US, under its new proposal to the Afghan president, suggested talks in Turkey between the Afghan government and the Taliban and later six-country talks under United Nations umbrella. Interestingly, it was not only Turkey which has been keen to host Afghan peace talks. Uzbekistan and Indonesia have been in the fray as well.

The lucrative "geo-politics" of hosting Afghan peace talks: What will Doha, Istanbul get?

Afghanistan intelligence agency chief Ahmad Zia Saraj said on Sunday that Taliban attacks have increased by 24 per cent since the signing of the US-Taliban peace deal in February last year. Saraj added that the terrorist group has launched 20,600 attacks since last March.

Saraj was addressing the country's Parliamentary committee on internal security. He said that the Taliban had not made any changes in their ideology and that the Turkey conference will not have the expected results, TOLO news reported.&nbsp;

Siraj said that more than 4,500 Taliban and Daesh members were arrested between March 2020 to March 2021. Out of these, 221 were involved in targeted attacks and bombings.&nbsp;

"Our evaluation based on our information is that the Taliban has not changed, and the Turkey conference might be a conference like the one in Moscow in which some will attend and will return," Saraj said, as quoted by TOLO news.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has said he has clear plan for peace in the country but pointed out that the process should not be hasty.&nbsp;

"Our proposal for the transition from an imposed war to a just and permanent peace is very clear," Ghani said, referring to his proposed plan for peace.&nbsp;

"I will not go into details ... any proposals that come from outside, we have the capacity to proposed more inclusive and principled plans."

In February last year, the Taliban had committed to reducing violence as part of a peace agreement negotiated by the US in Doha. In addition to the mutual release of prisoners, the agreement was expected to launch the intra-Afghan talks and pave the way for ending the almost two-decade-long confrontation between Kabul and the Taliban.

(With ANI inputs) 
&nbsp;

Afghanistan intelligence agency chief Ahmad Zia Saraj said on Sunday that Taliban attacks have increased by 24 per cent since the signing of the US-Taliban peace deal in February last year.

Afghanistan intelligence agency chief Ahmad Zia Saraj said on Sunday that Taliban attacks have increased by 24 per cent since the signing of the US-Taliban peace deal in February last year. Saraj added that the terrorist group has launched 20,600 attacks since last March. Saraj was addressing the country's Parliamentary committee on internal security. He said that the Taliban had not made any changes in their ideology and that the Turkey conference will not have the expected results, TOLO news reported. Siraj said that more than 4,500 Taliban and Daesh members were arrested between March 2020 to March 2021. Out of these, 221 were involved in targeted attacks and bombings. "Our evaluation based on our information is that the Taliban has not changed, and the Turkey conference might be a conference like the one in Moscow in which some will attend and will return," Saraj said, as quoted by TOLO news. Meanwhile, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has said he has clear plan for peace in the country but pointed out that the process should not be hasty. "Our proposal for the transition from an imposed war to a just and permanent peace is very clear," Ghani said, referring to his proposed plan for peace. "I will not go into details ... any proposals that come from outside, we have the capacity to proposed more inclusive and principled plans." In February last year, the Taliban had committed to reducing violence as part of a peace agreement negotiated by the US in Doha. In addition to the mutual release of prisoners, the agreement was expected to launch the intra-Afghan talks and pave the way for ending the almost two-decade-long confrontation between Kabul and the Taliban. (With ANI inputs)

Taliban attacks increased by 24 per cent since peace deal

Ahead of the meeting in Turkey on the Afghan peace process later this month, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has briefed envoys all Kabul-based ambassadors, including Indian envoy to the country Rudrendra Tandon, on his three-stage peace process.

The Turkey meet will see the fresh impetus for the Afghan peace process, under the UN umbrella as proposed by the new Biden administration in the US.

Afghan government sources told WION that the president "has presented his peace plan literally to all international partners and sides".

According to Afghan media reports, President Ghani's proposal includes "preservation of constitution", a transitional government, and holding of presidential elections. The proposal is expected to be formally unveiled at the Turkey meet.

The US has also proposed a regional framework for talks with the involvement of six countries--Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, and the US-- under the United Nations for a "unified approach to supporting peace in Afghanistan".

Last week, at the Heart of Asia meet in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar had called for a "genuine ‘double peace’" in Afghanistan, which is "peace within Afghanistan and peace around Afghanistan" that&nbsp;"requires harmonising the interests of all, both within and around that country."

Last year, India&nbsp;attended both the US-Taliban pact signing and the start of the intra-Afghan talks in Doha.

On the Afghan peace process, India has been engaging with the Afghan government and other stakeholders.

March saw the visit of Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar to India, while last year saw high-level visits by senior Afghan leaders Dr Abdullah Abdullah, Ata Noor and Abdul Rashid Dostum. Earlier this year, India's National Security Adviser&nbsp;Ajit Doval was in Kabul, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra&nbsp;Modi and the Afghan President also held a virtual meet for the inauguration for work on Shahtoot dam that will provide clean drinking water to people of the national capital Kabul.

Ahead of the meeting in Turkey on the Afghan peace process later this month, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has briefed envoys all Kabul-based ambassadors, including Indian envoy to the country Rudrendra Tandon, on his three-stage peace process.

Ahead of the meeting in Turkey on the Afghan peace process later this month, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has briefed envoys all Kabul-based ambassadors, including Indian envoy to the country Rudrendra Tandon, on his three-stage peace process. The Turkey meet will see the fresh impetus for the Afghan peace process, under the UN umbrella as proposed by the new Biden administration in the US. Afghan government sources told WION that the president "has presented his peace plan literally to all international partners and sides". According to Afghan media reports, President Ghani's proposal includes "preservation of constitution", a transitional government, and holding of presidential elections. The proposal is expected to be formally unveiled at the Turkey meet. The US has also proposed a regional framework for talks with the involvement of six countries--Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, and the US-- under the United Nations for a "unified approach to supporting peace in Afghanistan". Last week, at the Heart of Asia meet in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar had called for a "genuine ‘double peace’" in Afghanistan, which is "peace within Afghanistan and peace around Afghanistan" that "requires harmonising the interests of all, both within and around that country." Last year, India attended both the US-Taliban pact signing and the start of the intra-Afghan talks in Doha. On the Afghan peace process, India has been engaging with the Afghan government and other stakeholders. March saw the visit of Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar to India, while last year saw high-level visits by senior Afghan leaders Dr Abdullah Abdullah, Ata Noor and Abdul Rashid Dostum. Earlier this year, India's National Security Adviser Ajit Doval was in Kabul, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Afghan President also held a virtual meet for the inauguration for work on Shahtoot dam that will provide clean drinking water to people of the national capital Kabul.

Ahead of Turkey meet, Afghan President Ghani briefs Indian, other envoys on his peace plan

U.S. diplomats are trying to build on parts of the peace deal made with the Taliban last year, specifically the classified portions that outlined what military actions — on both sides — were supposed to be prohibited under the signed agreement, according to American, Afghan and Taliban officials.

The negotiations, which have been quietly underway for months, have morphed into the Biden administration’s last-ditch diplomatic effort to achieve a reduction in violence, which could enable the United States to still exit the country should broader peace talks fail to yield progress in the coming weeks.

If these discussions and the separate talks between the Afghan government and Taliban falter, the United States will likely find itself with thousands of troops in Afghanistan beyond May 1. That is the deadline by which all U.S. military forces are meant to withdraw from the country under the 2020 agreement with the Taliban and would come at a time when the insurgent group likely will have begun its spring offensive against the beleaguered Afghan security forces.

Both of these conditions would almost certainly set back any progress made in the past months toward a political settlement, despite both the Trump and the Biden administrations’ fervent attempts to end the U.S.’ longest-running war.

“Time is really running out for the Biden administration,” said Asfandyar Mir, an analyst at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. “If there is no breakthrough in the next two to three weeks, Biden will have scored his first major foreign policy failure.”

The proposed agreement specific to two annexes of the 2020 deal, which were deemed classified by the Trump administration, is intended to stave off an insurgent victory on the battlefield during the peace talks by limiting Taliban military operations against Afghan forces, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the negotiations. In return, the United States would push for the release of all Taliban prisoners still imprisoned by the Afghan government and the lifting of United Nations sanctions against the Taliban — two goals outlined in the original deal.

These new negotiations, which exclude representatives from the Afghan government, are being carried out amid a contentious logjam between the Taliban and the Afghans, despite pressure from international and regional actors on both sides to commit to some form of a path forward.

With May 1 just a few weeks away, there is a growing sense of urgency and uncertainty looming over all sides.

The United States currently has around 3,500 troops in the country, alongside thousands of contractors and international forces still on the ground. Withdrawing those forces and all their equipment by May 1 is, at this point, almost logistically impossible, experts and officials said.

The U.S.’ unilateral negotiations with the Taliban have drawn ire from Afghan negotiators, who see the side discussions as a distraction from the broader peace talks. Even if the United States and the Taliban reach a deal to reduce violence, it is not likely to result in a full cease-fire, said one of the Afghan government negotiators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Specifically, the United States is pushing for three months of reduced violence and has been for some time — though U.S. diplomats hope that timeline could be extended.

But in recent months, the Taliban submitted their own proposal, first reported by Tolo News, with requests that were not fully accepted by the U.S. negotiators and included severe restrictions on U.S. air power.

Many of the delays in securing a new deal to reduce violence stem from the original February 2020 agreement.

That deal loosely called for the Taliban to stop suicide attacks and large-scale offensives in exchange for the U.S. forces scaling back drone strikes and raids, among other types of military assaults. But both sides interpreted those terms differently, officials said, and both have accused one another of violating the deal. The Taliban are also supposed to cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, but the U.S. intelligence community has seen little movement toward that goal.

Under the current arrangement, U.S. forces can defend their Afghan allies if they are being attacked, but the Taliban said U.S. airstrikes have been carried out against their fighters who were not attacking Afghan forces.

Digital spreadsheets maintained by the Taliban and viewed by The New York Times detail hundreds of purported U.S. violations. They record in detail the group’s wounded and killed, along with civilian casualties and property damage. However, the Taliban often do not distinguish between offensive operations carried out by Afghan security forces from those by U.S. forces, and several of the events the Times was able to independently verify from June 2020 did not involve U.S. troops.

The new terms for a reduction in violence have been a serious point of contention during the past several months, during meetings frequently held at the Sharq Village and Spa, a luxurious resort in Doha, Qatar.

Meetings between U.S. officials and the Taliban in Doha — including with high-level officials like then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, in December — attempted to scale back Taliban attacks and stop the bloody assassination campaign wreaking havoc across the country but made little headway.

With time running out, the Biden administration is hoping for more success, though these discussions continue to hit roadblocks.

Negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, which began in September, have practically come to a halt as the insurgent group has remained reluctant to discuss any future government or power-sharing deal while the United States remains noncommittal about whether it will withdraw from Afghanistan by May 1.

The Biden administration’s recent push for talks in Turkey could be promising, officials and experts said, but the Taliban have yet to agree to attend.

The insurgent group thinks Biden’s negotiators are manipulating the proposed agreement to reduce violence by asking for “extreme” measures, such as halting the use of roadside bombs and pausing attacks on checkpoints, according to people close to the negotiations.

Taliban negotiators say they believe the U.S.' requests equate to a cease-fire, while U.S. military officials say that if certain parameters are not clearly outlined, then the Taliban will shift their tactics to exploit any loopholes they can find — like they have done in the past.

Some of the more striking episodes happened in the past week when CIA-backed militia forces were accused of killing more than a dozen civilians in a Taliban-controlled village in Khost province in southeastern Afghanistan.

In retaliation, the Taliban authorized their fighters to attack the U.S. military and CIA base there and publicly took responsibility for the rocket attack that followed: a first for the insurgent group since it has mostly stopped, or refused to acknowledge, attacks against U.S. bases and troops, per the terms of the 2020 deal.

Some Taliban officials believe the CIA-backed forces should be disbanded and their operations stopped if the insurgent group agrees to any further reduction in violence, according to people close to the negotiations, but it is unclear if the insurgent group has raised those concerns directly. Regardless, any such request is likely to fall on deaf ears, as the U.S. military and intelligence community views these forces as some of the Afghans’ most effective, despite the litany of human rights abuses leveled against them.

The Khost incident highlights the difficulty of reaching an understanding when it comes to decreasing the intensity of the war, and the need for an international third-party monitoring body, such as the United Nations, in any future cease-fires or agreements to reduce violence, experts said.

It is unlikely the United States and Taliban will reach a new deal before May 1, analysts say, unless U.S. officials are willing to make serious concessions to prevent a violent offensive this spring, one that seems to already have started given the series of large attacks and assassinations by the Taliban in recent days.

Some experts have criticized the U.S.’ narrow focus on a short-term reduction of violence as a distraction from the larger effort of reaching a political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

“I am hard-pressed to see what payoff there’s been for the amount of effort that has been put into trying to get limited violence reduction front-loaded in the peace process,” said Laurel Miller, a former top State Department official who worked on Afghanistan and Pakistan diplomacy under the previous two administrations. “It might be helpful for political optics in covering for an American withdrawal. But what’s going to make this stick afterward if there isn’t a real settlement? Nothing.”

U.S. diplomats are trying to build on parts of the peace deal made with the Taliban last year, specifically the classified portions that outlined what military actions — on both sides — were supposed to be prohibited under the signed agreement, according to American, Afghan and Taliban officials.

U.S. diplomats are trying to build on parts of the peace deal made with the Taliban last year, specifically the classified portions that outlined what military actions — on both sides — were supposed to be prohibited under the signed agreement, according to American, Afghan and Taliban officials. The negotiations, which have been quietly underway for months, have morphed into the Biden administration’s last-ditch diplomatic effort to achieve a reduction in violence, which could enable the United States to still exit the country should broader peace talks fail to yield progress in the coming weeks. If these discussions and the separate talks between the Afghan government and Taliban falter, the United States will likely find itself with thousands of troops in Afghanistan beyond May 1. That is the deadline by which all U.S. military forces are meant to withdraw from the country under the 2020 agreement with the Taliban and would come at a time when the insurgent group likely will have begun its spring offensive against the beleaguered Afghan security forces. Both of these conditions would almost certainly set back any progress made in the past months toward a political settlement, despite both the Trump and the Biden administrations’ fervent attempts to end the U.S.’ longest-running war. “Time is really running out for the Biden administration,” said Asfandyar Mir, an analyst at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. “If there is no breakthrough in the next two to three weeks, Biden will have scored his first major foreign policy failure.” The proposed agreement specific to two annexes of the 2020 deal, which were deemed classified by the Trump administration, is intended to stave off an insurgent victory on the battlefield during the peace talks by limiting Taliban military operations against Afghan forces, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the negotiations. In return, the United States would push for the release of all Taliban prisoners still imprisoned by the Afghan government and the lifting of United Nations sanctions against the Taliban — two goals outlined in the original deal. These new negotiations, which exclude representatives from the Afghan government, are being carried out amid a contentious logjam between the Taliban and the Afghans, despite pressure from international and regional actors on both sides to commit to some form of a path forward. With May 1 just a few weeks away, there is a growing sense of urgency and uncertainty looming over all sides. The United States currently has around 3,500 troops in the country, alongside thousands of contractors and international forces still on the ground. Withdrawing those forces and all their equipment by May 1 is, at this point, almost logistically impossible, experts and officials said. The U.S.’ unilateral negotiations with the Taliban have drawn ire from Afghan negotiators, who see the side discussions as a distraction from the broader peace talks. Even if the United States and the Taliban reach a deal to reduce violence, it is not likely to result in a full cease-fire, said one of the Afghan government negotiators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Specifically, the United States is pushing for three months of reduced violence and has been for some time — though U.S. diplomats hope that timeline could be extended. But in recent months, the Taliban submitted their own proposal, first reported by Tolo News, with requests that were not fully accepted by the U.S. negotiators and included severe restrictions on U.S. air power. Many of the delays in securing a new deal to reduce violence stem from the original February 2020 agreement. That deal loosely called for the Taliban to stop suicide attacks and large-scale offensives in exchange for the U.S. forces scaling back drone strikes and raids, among other types of military assaults. But both sides interpreted those terms differently, officials said, and both have accused one another of violating the deal. The Taliban are also supposed to cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, but the U.S. intelligence community has seen little movement toward that goal. Under the current arrangement, U.S. forces can defend their Afghan allies if they are being attacked, but the Taliban said U.S. airstrikes have been carried out against their fighters who were not attacking Afghan forces. Digital spreadsheets maintained by the Taliban and viewed by The New York Times detail hundreds of purported U.S. violations. They record in detail the group’s wounded and killed, along with civilian casualties and property damage. However, the Taliban often do not distinguish between offensive operations carried out by Afghan security forces from those by U.S. forces, and several of the events the Times was able to independently verify from June 2020 did not involve U.S. troops. The new terms for a reduction in violence have been a serious point of contention during the past several months, during meetings frequently held at the Sharq Village and Spa, a luxurious resort in Doha, Qatar. Meetings between U.S. officials and the Taliban in Doha — including with high-level officials like then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, in December — attempted to scale back Taliban attacks and stop the bloody assassination campaign wreaking havoc across the country but made little headway. With time running out, the Biden administration is hoping for more success, though these discussions continue to hit roadblocks. Negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, which began in September, have practically come to a halt as the insurgent group has remained reluctant to discuss any future government or power-sharing deal while the United States remains noncommittal about whether it will withdraw from Afghanistan by May 1. The Biden administration’s recent push for talks in Turkey could be promising, officials and experts said, but the Taliban have yet to agree to attend. The insurgent group thinks Biden’s negotiators are manipulating the proposed agreement to reduce violence by asking for “extreme” measures, such as halting the use of roadside bombs and pausing attacks on checkpoints, according to people close to the negotiations. Taliban negotiators say they believe the U.S.' requests equate to a cease-fire, while U.S. military officials say that if certain parameters are not clearly outlined, then the Taliban will shift their tactics to exploit any loopholes they can find — like they have done in the past. Some of the more striking episodes happened in the past week when CIA-backed militia forces were accused of killing more than a dozen civilians in a Taliban-controlled village in Khost province in southeastern Afghanistan. In retaliation, the Taliban authorized their fighters to attack the U.S. military and CIA base there and publicly took responsibility for the rocket attack that followed: a first for the insurgent group since it has mostly stopped, or refused to acknowledge, attacks against U.S. bases and troops, per the terms of the 2020 deal. Some Taliban officials believe the CIA-backed forces should be disbanded and their operations stopped if the insurgent group agrees to any further reduction in violence, according to people close to the negotiations, but it is unclear if the insurgent group has raised those concerns directly. Regardless, any such request is likely to fall on deaf ears, as the U.S. military and intelligence community views these forces as some of the Afghans’ most effective, despite the litany of human rights abuses leveled against them. The Khost incident highlights the difficulty of reaching an understanding when it comes to decreasing the intensity of the war, and the need for an international third-party monitoring body, such as the United Nations, in any future cease-fires or agreements to reduce violence, experts said. It is unlikely the United States and Taliban will reach a new deal before May 1, analysts say, unless U.S. officials are willing to make serious concessions to prevent a violent offensive this spring, one that seems to already have started given the series of large attacks and assassinations by the Taliban in recent days. Some experts have criticized the U.S.’ narrow focus on a short-term reduction of violence as a distraction from the larger effort of reaching a political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. “I am hard-pressed to see what payoff there’s been for the amount of effort that has been put into trying to get limited violence reduction front-loaded in the peace process,” said Laurel Miller, a former top State Department official who worked on Afghanistan and Pakistan diplomacy under the previous two administrations. “It might be helpful for political optics in covering for an American withdrawal. But what’s going to make this stick afterward if there isn’t a real settlement? Nothing.”

U.S. looks to build on secret portions of Taliban deal to reduce violence

One security force personnel was killed and four more were wounded in an IED explosion that targeted an army vehicle in Qarabagh district in Kabul on Monday morning, police said in a statement.&nbsp;

The incident took place at around 7 a.m. in Sabz Sang village, TOLO News reported.

"Another mine was seized and defused by the security forces team," the police statement added.

No one has claimed responsibility for the blast year.

On Sunday, three security force members were killed in a car bombing in Kabul`s Paghman district.

According to the police, the explosives-laden car was detonated near a military vehicle.

At least 12 security force members were wounded in the explosion, police said.

Data collected by TOLO News revealed that at least 307 Afghans were killed and 350 others wounded in a series of explosions and targeted attacks in March.

There has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of explosions and targeted attacks in the country in March compared to February.

In February, the casualties were 264, with 278 injuries.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

One security force personnel was killed and four more were wounded in an IED explosion that targeted an army vehicle in Qarabagh district in Kabul on Monday morning, police said in a statement.

One security force personnel was killed and four more were wounded in an IED explosion that targeted an army vehicle in Qarabagh district in Kabul on Monday morning, police said in a statement. The incident took place at around 7 a.m. in Sabz Sang village, TOLO News reported. "Another mine was seized and defused by the security forces team," the police statement added. No one has claimed responsibility for the blast year. On Sunday, three security force members were killed in a car bombing in Kabul`s Paghman district. According to the police, the explosives-laden car was detonated near a military vehicle. At least 12 security force members were wounded in the explosion, police said. Data collected by TOLO News revealed that at least 307 Afghans were killed and 350 others wounded in a series of explosions and targeted attacks in March. There has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of explosions and targeted attacks in the country in March compared to February. In February, the casualties were 264, with 278 injuries. (With inputs from agencies)

Security force member killed, 4 injured in a bomb blast in Afghanistan

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will put forward a three-phase peace roadmap for Afghanistan during a proposed meeting in Turkey, seeking an agreement with the Taliban and a ceasefire before elections, a document shows.

Washington is pushing for a conference to be hosted by Turkey, with UN involvement, this month to finalise a peace deal between the government and the Taliban as a May 1 deadline looms for the withdrawal of all foreign troops.

Ghani’s plan will be presented as a counter to proposals put forward by Washington, rejected by the Afghan government, that envisage immediately drawing up a new legal system for an interim administration to include Taliban representatives.&nbsp;

The document shows Ghani’s ‘Reaching an Endstate’ proposal will include, in the first phase, a consensus on a political settlement and an internationally monitored ceasefire.

The second phase will be holding a presidential election and the establishment of a ‘government of peace’ and implementation arrangements for moving towards the new political system.

The third phase will involve building a ‘constitutional framework, reintegration of refugees and development’ for Afghanistan moving forward.

A senior government official said Ghani has already shared his roadmap with foreign capitals.&nbsp;

A date for the Turkey meeting is yet to be decided, but multiple sources said it could take place in two weeks’ time.

The Afghan government and a number of politicians said they would have to agree on an agenda with the Taliban before the meeting.

In a statement last month, the Taliban threatened to resume hostilities against foreign troops in Afghanistan if they did not meet the May 1 deadline envisaged in an agreement between the insurgents and the Trump administration last year.

US President Joe Biden said this month it would be ‘hard’ to withdraw the last US troops from Afghanistan by May 1 ‘just in terms of tactical reasons’, but he said he did not think they still would be there next year.

A senior government official said the Taliban was willing to extend the May 1 dateline and would not resume attacks against foreign forces in exchange for the release of thousands of their prisoners held by the Kabul authorities.&nbsp;

Mohammad Naeem, a Taliban spokesman in Qatar, said no such offer had been made.

(With inputs from agencies)

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will put forward a three-phase peace roadmap for Afghanistan during a proposed meeting in Turkey, seeking an agreement with the Taliban and a ceasefire before elections, a document shows.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will put forward a three-phase peace roadmap for Afghanistan during a proposed meeting in Turkey, seeking an agreement with the Taliban and a ceasefire before elections, a document shows. Washington is pushing for a conference to be hosted by Turkey, with UN involvement, this month to finalise a peace deal between the government and the Taliban as a May 1 deadline looms for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Ghani’s plan will be presented as a counter to proposals put forward by Washington, rejected by the Afghan government, that envisage immediately drawing up a new legal system for an interim administration to include Taliban representatives. The document shows Ghani’s ‘Reaching an Endstate’ proposal will include, in the first phase, a consensus on a political settlement and an internationally monitored ceasefire. The second phase will be holding a presidential election and the establishment of a ‘government of peace’ and implementation arrangements for moving towards the new political system. The third phase will involve building a ‘constitutional framework, reintegration of refugees and development’ for Afghanistan moving forward. A senior government official said Ghani has already shared his roadmap with foreign capitals. A date for the Turkey meeting is yet to be decided, but multiple sources said it could take place in two weeks’ time. The Afghan government and a number of politicians said they would have to agree on an agenda with the Taliban before the meeting. In a statement last month, the Taliban threatened to resume hostilities against foreign troops in Afghanistan if they did not meet the May 1 deadline envisaged in an agreement between the insurgents and the Trump administration last year. US President Joe Biden said this month it would be ‘hard’ to withdraw the last US troops from Afghanistan by May 1 ‘just in terms of tactical reasons’, but he said he did not think they still would be there next year. A senior government official said the Taliban was willing to extend the May 1 dateline and would not resume attacks against foreign forces in exchange for the release of thousands of their prisoners held by the Kabul authorities. Mohammad Naeem, a Taliban spokesman in Qatar, said no such offer had been made. (With inputs from agencies)

Afghan President proposes peace roadmap in three phases, says document

The 'Peace Cup' Karate competition in Afghanistan urges the Taliban and the Government to lay down arms and pursue peace. Mariam Wardak brings you the story of these defiant Karate fighters.

South Asia Diary: Afghan Karate tournament for peace

The Taliban’s swagger is unmistakable. From the recent bellicose speech of their deputy leader, boasting of “conquests,” to sneering references to the “foreign masters” of the “illegitimate” Kabul government, to the Taliban’s own website tally of “puppets” killed — Afghan soldiers — they are promoting a bold message:

We have already won the war.

And that belief, grounded in military and political reality, is shaping Afghanistan’s volatile present. On the eve of talks in Turkey next month over the country’s future, it is the elephant in the room: the half-acknowledged truth that the Taliban have the upper hand and are thus showing little outward interest in compromise, or of going along with the dominant American idea, power-sharing.

While the Taliban’s current rhetoric is also propaganda, the grim sense of Taliban supremacy is dictating the response of a desperate Afghan government and influencing Afghanistan’s anxious foreign interlocutors. It contributes to the abandonment of dozens of checkpoints and falling morale among the Afghan security forces, already hammered by a “not sustainable” casualty rate of perhaps 3,000 a month, a senior Western diplomat in Kabul said.

The group doesn’t hide its pride at having compelled its principal adversary for 20 years, the United States, to negotiate with the Taliban and, last year, to sign an agreement to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to stop attacking foreign forces and to sever ties with international terrorist groups such as al-Qaida.

The Biden administration has yet to definitively say whether it will meet that deadline, just weeks away.

“No mujahed ever thought that one day we would face such an improved state, or that we will crush the arrogance of the rebellious emperors, and force them to admit their defeat at our hands,” the Taliban’s deputy leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani, said in a recent speech. “Fortunately, today, we and you are experiencing better circumstances.”

Nearly every day, the Taliban’s website features reports of purported defections to its side, though the details are likely exaggerated, just as both the Taliban and the Afghan government exaggerate each other’s casualties. “59 enemy personnel switch sides to Islamic Emirate,” read one recent headline.

Having outlasted the all-powerful Americans, the rest is child’s play, in the Taliban’s view. The game is essentially over.

“They think they have beaten the Americans, so they can beat the other Afghan forces as well, and get control over the country,” said Jawed Kohistani, an Afghan analyst and former security official in Kabul.

The Taliban, who governed most of the country from 1996 to 2001, are not interested in true sharing-power, Kohistani said. “They are planning to restore their Islamic emirate,” he added, “and they will punish all those involved in corruption and land grabbing.”

Antonio Giustozzi, a leading Taliban expert, disputed the idea that the Taliban are necessarily bent on reimposing a similarly hard-line Islamic regime. “As long as they can get to power through a political agreement, between establishing the emirate and democracy, there are options,” he said. “The aim would be to become the dominant power.”

The Taliban know that Afghanistan, an aid-dependent state, 80% of whose expenditures are funded from international donors, cannot afford the isolation of that era, analysts say.

Just as the Taliban have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of social media, online propaganda and a pugnacious English-language website — though they still often ban smartphones in areas they control — so has their language evolved to reflect the current moment.

With the decisive shift in their military fortunes, their words have become assertive and victorious, a posture that would have been impossible a mere three years ago, analysts say.

The corollary to such posturing is the Afghan government’s insistence that it expects a deadly endgame with the insurgency. Government officials rarely claim that &lt;em&gt;they &lt;/em&gt;and not the Taliban are the victors, because they can’t. Evidence of Taliban ascendancy, in the insurgents’ steady offensive in the countryside, their systematic encroachment on cities and their overrunning of military bases, is too prevalent.

U.S. negotiators are pushing ideas of compromise and power-sharing, but government officials are largely resistant to them — in part because any interim government would most likely require Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, to step down. He has steadfastly refused to even consider it.

Instead, the government employs back-to-the-wall language indicating that the bloody struggle will only intensify. Earlier this month, a senior official told reporters inside the intensively guarded presidential palace complex that a compromise, coalition government — recently proposed to both sides by Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. peace envoy — would merely be used by the Taliban as a “Trojan horse” for the seizure of power.

It was “totally unrealistic” to think the insurgents would agree to it, “knowing their psychology,” the official said. “I am not promising a better situation in the future. But we will continue fighting.”

Ghani sounded a largely pessimistic note in remarks to the Aspen Institute in January. “In their eschatology, Afghanistan is the place where the final battle takes place,” he said of the Taliban.

We “hope for the best, but prepare for the worst,” he said.

The Ghani administration’s bleak outlook also reflects the insurgent group’s territorial gains. In December, nearly 200 checkpoints in Kandahar, the Taliban’s historic stronghold, were abandoned by Afghan security forces, according to the U.S. government’s Afghanistan watchdog.

“I think they are 90% right,” said Giustozzi, of the insurgent group’s claims of victory. “Clearly the war has been lost. Clearly things have gone in the wrong direction. Things have worsened under Ghani. The trend is in their favor.”

Some analysts caution that while the Taliban may think they have won, other armed actors in the Afghan equation will make a forced takeover difficult. That was the experience 25 years ago, when the Taliban were forced to battle warlords principally in the north and east, and failed to gain total control over the entire country.

A militia in central Afghanistan led by Abdul Ghani Alipur, a local warlord, has already inflamed hostility with the government in recent months. And longtime power brokers in the country’s west and north have rallied fighters to defend against the Taliban, if necessary.

Meanwhile, the Taliban rely on fear to keep local populations in rural areas quiescent. An effective tool is the insurgents’ hidden network of ad hoc underground prisons where torture and punishment are meted out to those suspected of working for, or with, the government.

But the Taliban are also viewed by some as being less corrupt than Afghan officials. The group’s judges adjudicate civil and property disputes, perhaps more efficiently than the government’s faltering institutions.

In some areas under Taliban control, they have permitted schools for girls to continue operating, Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, pointed out in a recent paper — though, he notes, this may be driven more by political imperative than a softening of ideology.

Elsewhere, the Taliban’s increasingly confident messaging has penetrated deep into its rank-and-file, in large part because events have borne it out.

People said that it is not possible to fire on U.S. forces,” said Muslim Mohabat, a former Taliban fighter from Watapor District in Kunar province. “They would say the barrel of the rifle would bend if you open fire on them, but we attacked them, and nothing happened.”

“Then we kept attacking them and forced them to leave the valley,” said Mohabat, who fought in some of the most violent battles of the war with the United States.

In the insurgents’ view, their advances will inexorably lead to the end of the Kabul government.

“On the battlefield there is a sense that, ‘We’re stronger than ever,’ ’’ said Ashley Jackson, a Taliban expert at the Overseas Development Institute. “Power-sharing and democracy, these are anathema to their political culture.”

The Taliban’s swagger is unmistakable. From the recent bellicose speech of their deputy leader, boasting of “conquests,” to sneering references to the “foreign masters” of the “illegitimate” Kabul government, to the Taliban’s own website tally of “puppets” killed — Afghan soldiers — they are promoting a bold message: We have already won the war.

The Taliban’s swagger is unmistakable. From the recent bellicose speech of their deputy leader, boasting of “conquests,” to sneering references to the “foreign masters” of the “illegitimate” Kabul government, to the Taliban’s own website tally of “puppets” killed — Afghan soldiers — they are promoting a bold message: We have already won the war. And that belief, grounded in military and political reality, is shaping Afghanistan’s volatile present. On the eve of talks in Turkey next month over the country’s future, it is the elephant in the room: the half-acknowledged truth that the Taliban have the upper hand and are thus showing little outward interest in compromise, or of going along with the dominant American idea, power-sharing. While the Taliban’s current rhetoric is also propaganda, the grim sense of Taliban supremacy is dictating the response of a desperate Afghan government and influencing Afghanistan’s anxious foreign interlocutors. It contributes to the abandonment of dozens of checkpoints and falling morale among the Afghan security forces, already hammered by a “not sustainable” casualty rate of perhaps 3,000 a month, a senior Western diplomat in Kabul said. The group doesn’t hide its pride at having compelled its principal adversary for 20 years, the United States, to negotiate with the Taliban and, last year, to sign an agreement to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to stop attacking foreign forces and to sever ties with international terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. The Biden administration has yet to definitively say whether it will meet that deadline, just weeks away. “No mujahed ever thought that one day we would face such an improved state, or that we will crush the arrogance of the rebellious emperors, and force them to admit their defeat at our hands,” the Taliban’s deputy leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani, said in a recent speech. “Fortunately, today, we and you are experiencing better circumstances.” Nearly every day, the Taliban’s website features reports of purported defections to its side, though the details are likely exaggerated, just as both the Taliban and the Afghan government exaggerate each other’s casualties. “59 enemy personnel switch sides to Islamic Emirate,” read one recent headline. Having outlasted the all-powerful Americans, the rest is child’s play, in the Taliban’s view. The game is essentially over. “They think they have beaten the Americans, so they can beat the other Afghan forces as well, and get control over the country,” said Jawed Kohistani, an Afghan analyst and former security official in Kabul. The Taliban, who governed most of the country from 1996 to 2001, are not interested in true sharing-power, Kohistani said. “They are planning to restore their Islamic emirate,” he added, “and they will punish all those involved in corruption and land grabbing.” Antonio Giustozzi, a leading Taliban expert, disputed the idea that the Taliban are necessarily bent on reimposing a similarly hard-line Islamic regime. “As long as they can get to power through a political agreement, between establishing the emirate and democracy, there are options,” he said. “The aim would be to become the dominant power.” The Taliban know that Afghanistan, an aid-dependent state, 80% of whose expenditures are funded from international donors, cannot afford the isolation of that era, analysts say. Just as the Taliban have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of social media, online propaganda and a pugnacious English-language website — though they still often ban smartphones in areas they control — so has their language evolved to reflect the current moment. With the decisive shift in their military fortunes, their words have become assertive and victorious, a posture that would have been impossible a mere three years ago, analysts say. The corollary to such posturing is the Afghan government’s insistence that it expects a deadly endgame with the insurgency. Government officials rarely claim that they and not the Taliban are the victors, because they can’t. Evidence of Taliban ascendancy, in the insurgents’ steady offensive in the countryside, their systematic encroachment on cities and their overrunning of military bases, is too prevalent. U.S. negotiators are pushing ideas of compromise and power-sharing, but government officials are largely resistant to them — in part because any interim government would most likely require Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, to step down. He has steadfastly refused to even consider it. Instead, the government employs back-to-the-wall language indicating that the bloody struggle will only intensify. Earlier this month, a senior official told reporters inside the intensively guarded presidential palace complex that a compromise, coalition government — recently proposed to both sides by Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. peace envoy — would merely be used by the Taliban as a “Trojan horse” for the seizure of power. It was “totally unrealistic” to think the insurgents would agree to it, “knowing their psychology,” the official said. “I am not promising a better situation in the future. But we will continue fighting.” Ghani sounded a largely pessimistic note in remarks to the Aspen Institute in January. “In their eschatology, Afghanistan is the place where the final battle takes place,” he said of the Taliban. We “hope for the best, but prepare for the worst,” he said. The Ghani administration’s bleak outlook also reflects the insurgent group’s territorial gains. In December, nearly 200 checkpoints in Kandahar, the Taliban’s historic stronghold, were abandoned by Afghan security forces, according to the U.S. government’s Afghanistan watchdog. “I think they are 90% right,” said Giustozzi, of the insurgent group’s claims of victory. “Clearly the war has been lost. Clearly things have gone in the wrong direction. Things have worsened under Ghani. The trend is in their favor.” Some analysts caution that while the Taliban may think they have won, other armed actors in the Afghan equation will make a forced takeover difficult. That was the experience 25 years ago, when the Taliban were forced to battle warlords principally in the north and east, and failed to gain total control over the entire country. A militia in central Afghanistan led by Abdul Ghani Alipur, a local warlord, has already inflamed hostility with the government in recent months. And longtime power brokers in the country’s west and north have rallied fighters to defend against the Taliban, if necessary. Meanwhile, the Taliban rely on fear to keep local populations in rural areas quiescent. An effective tool is the insurgents’ hidden network of ad hoc underground prisons where torture and punishment are meted out to those suspected of working for, or with, the government. But the Taliban are also viewed by some as being less corrupt than Afghan officials. The group’s judges adjudicate civil and property disputes, perhaps more efficiently than the government’s faltering institutions. In some areas under Taliban control, they have permitted schools for girls to continue operating, Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, pointed out in a recent paper — though, he notes, this may be driven more by political imperative than a softening of ideology. Elsewhere, the Taliban’s increasingly confident messaging has penetrated deep into its rank-and-file, in large part because events have borne it out. People said that it is not possible to fire on U.S. forces,” said Muslim Mohabat, a former Taliban fighter from Watapor District in Kunar province. “They would say the barrel of the rifle would bend if you open fire on them, but we attacked them, and nothing happened.” “Then we kept attacking them and forced them to leave the valley,” said Mohabat, who fought in some of the most violent battles of the war with the United States. In the insurgents’ view, their advances will inexorably lead to the end of the Kabul government. “On the battlefield there is a sense that, ‘We’re stronger than ever,’ ’’ said Ashley Jackson, a Taliban expert at the Overseas Development Institute. “Power-sharing and democracy, these are anathema to their political culture.”

The Taliban think they have already won, peace deal or not

At least 10 police personnel including Sangin district police chief Abdul Mohammad Sarwari were killed in a Taliban attack in Lashkargah city on Saturday, Tolo News reported. &nbsp;

The three security force members, including the police chief, were killed and two more were wounded, Tolo News reported, quoting Zaman Hamdard, spokesman for the Helmand police chief.&nbsp;

A total of 15 Taliban were killed in the attack and seven got wounded, the spokesman told the reporters.&nbsp;

Earlier on Thursday night, a girl was killed in a clash between security forces and the Taliban in Chaharbolak district in the northern province of Balkh.&nbsp;

According to TOLO News data, 270 civilians and security force members were killed and 173 more were wounded in various security incidents across the country in February.&nbsp;

It further revealed that 166 security incidents, including magnetic IED blasts, roadside bomb blasts, targeted attacks, and Taliban offensives, occurred in Afghanistan in February.&nbsp;

However, in January, TOLO News findings indicated that 271 people were killed, and 347 others were wounded in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;

At least 10 police personnel including Sangin district police chief Abdul Mohammad Sarwari were killed in a Taliban attack in Lashkargah city on Saturday, Tolo News reported.

At least 10 police personnel including Sangin district police chief Abdul Mohammad Sarwari were killed in a Taliban attack in Lashkargah city on Saturday, Tolo News reported. The three security force members, including the police chief, were killed and two more were wounded, Tolo News reported, quoting Zaman Hamdard, spokesman for the Helmand police chief. A total of 15 Taliban were killed in the attack and seven got wounded, the spokesman told the reporters. Earlier on Thursday night, a girl was killed in a clash between security forces and the Taliban in Chaharbolak district in the northern province of Balkh. According to TOLO News data, 270 civilians and security force members were killed and 173 more were wounded in various security incidents across the country in February. It further revealed that 166 security incidents, including magnetic IED blasts, roadside bomb blasts, targeted attacks, and Taliban offensives, occurred in Afghanistan in February. However, in January, TOLO News findings indicated that 271 people were killed, and 347 others were wounded in Afghanistan. (With inputs from agencies)

10 police personnel killed in Taliban attack in Afghanistan 

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there.

U.S. intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for al-Qaida to rebuild its strength within the country, according to U.S. officials.

The classified assessment, first prepared last year for the Trump administration but not previously disclosed, is the latest in a series of grim predictions of Afghanistan’s future that intelligence analysts have delivered throughout the two-decade-long war.

But the intelligence has landed in a changed political environment. While former President Donald Trump pushed for a withdrawal of all forces even before the terms of the peace deal required it, Biden has been more cautious, saying Thursday that he does not view May 1 as a deadline he must meet, although he also said he “could not picture” troops being in the country next year.

The decision looms as one of the most critical of Biden’s young presidency. He long argued while vice president for a minimal presence in Afghanistan but has been said to have privately described as haunting the possibility of allowing the country to descend into collapse.

Some senior Biden administration officials have expressed skepticism of any intelligence prediction of a resurgence of a weakened al-Qaida or of the Islamic State group. Taliban commanders remain opposed to the Islamic State in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida, which has little current presence in the country, could regroup instead in any number of other lawless regions around the world.

Also left unanswered by the intelligence warning is the question of whether Afghanistan could really prosper if U.S. troops remain indefinitely. Their presence would most likely prevent a collapse of the nation’s own security forces and allow the government in Kabul, the Afghan capital, to retain control of its major cities, but the Taliban are still likely to gradually expand their power in other parts of the country, including curbing the rights of women.

A Taliban spokesperson said Friday that the group was committed to last year’s peace agreement “and wants the American side to also remain firmly committed.” If troops are not withdrawn by May 1, the spokesperson promised, the Taliban would “continue its jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces.”

Biden administration officials insisted no final decision had been made. Nevertheless, with the deadline looming, administration officials are jockeying to influence Biden and his top national security officials. While Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not signaled what course of action he prefers, some Pentagon officials who believe U.S. forces should stay longer have pointed to the intelligence assessment predicting a Taliban takeover of the country.

Some military commanders and administration officials have argued that any set date for withdrawing the approximately 3,500 U.S. troops who remain, whether it is May 1 or at the end of the year, will doom the mission. The only way to preserve hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, they said, is to keep the small U.S. presence there long enough to force a lasting deal between the Taliban and Afghan government.

These officials have used the intelligence assessment to make the point that a withdrawal this year will lead to a fall of the current government, a sharp erosion of women’s rights and the return of international terrorist groups. A rush to the exit, some officials said, will only drag the United States back into Afghanistan soon after leaving — much as was the case in Iraq in 2014, three years after the Obama administration pulled troops out of that conflict.

The White House has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan, and more are to come. On Thursday, the president said he was waiting for briefings from Austin, who met recently with Afghan officials, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who conferred this week with NATO allies, for their bottom-line advice on what he should do.

For many Biden administration officials, the issue that has resonated the most clearly is the threat that a Taliban takeover could pose to Afghan women. While some former intelligence officials predict the Taliban will initially take care not to roll back women’s rights altogether — at least in major cities — if they take over the entire country, it will be difficult to guarantee protections for women, such as education for girls and access to health care.

“Any agreement must preserve their gains if Afghanistan wants to ensure the international community’s continued political and financial support,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council this week. “We will not give an inch on this point.”

The Biden administration is making a final effort before May 1 to show progress in slow-moving negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Doha, Qatar. The Taliban, according to U.S. officials, are stalling.

The administration is pushing the two sides to participate in a peace conference in Turkey to demonstrate progress. Simultaneously, the American and Taliban negotiators continue to try to cement a 90-day reduction in violence, but so far, both sides have hesitated to agree.

The classified intelligence assessment of the Taliban largely taking control assumes that the Afghan government and the Taliban fail to reach a political agreement and that a civil war would erupt after the U.S. exit.

Administration officials warned that making any intelligence estimate is challenging, that predictions about the future are always imprecise and that various factors influence the analysis.

For example, intelligence estimates depend on whether international funding for the Afghan government remains in place. The more money the United States and its allies provide Afghanistan, the longer the government in Kabul should be able to retain control of some of the country. But some officials said that history shows that once U.S. troops are withdrawn, Congress moves quickly to cut financial support for partner forces.

There is also a debate in Washington about the seriousness of the threat of a return of terrorist groups. For now, the number of Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan is very small, a senior U.S. official said.

Some senior lawmakers with access to the classified assessments said that it was not certain that if the United States withdrew that al-Qaida could rebuild a base in Afghanistan from which to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States.

“What is that threat really going to be?” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said this week during a virtual conference on Afghanistan. “This isn’t the 1990s when al-Qaida set up camps, and they had the Taliban, and no one was paying attention to them.”

Smith said keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan actually increased the risk to Americans there, incurred greater financial costs and handed a propaganda victory and recruiting tool to the U.S.’ enemies.

Some counterterrorism officials believe that al-Qaida would prefer to reestablish its headquarters in Afghanistan, should U.S. troops withdraw. But other officials said al-Qaida’s leadership might be just as likely to look to Africa or the Middle East.

While U.S. intelligence officials have been mostly focused on the threat of al-Qaida, senior military officials have also raised the prospect of a growth in the power of the Afghanistan arm of the Islamic State.

But in recent years, the Taliban have been at odds with the Islamic State. The two groups have fought, and the Taliban have for the most part pushed back Islamic State forces.

“I can’t imagine a scenario where ISIS and the Taliban would strategically cooperate or collaborate in Afghanistan,” said Lisa Maddox, a former CIA analyst. “The Taliban is an ideological organization, and that ideology is Afghan-centric and not aligned with ISIS’ overarching goals.”

The intelligence estimate predicted that the Taliban would relatively swiftly expand their control over Afghanistan, suggesting that the Afghan security forces remain fragile despite years of training by the U.S. military and billions of dollars in U.S. funding.

Offensives last year in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two areas in the country’s south where the Taliban have long held sway, demonstrated that police and local forces are unable to hold ground, prompting elite commando forces and regular army troops to take their place — a tactic that is likely unsustainable in the long run.

Afghan security forces still rely heavily on U.S. air support to hold territory, which U.S. military leaders acknowledged this week. It is unclear whether that U.S. air power would continue if U.S. forces left Afghanistan, perhaps launched from bases in the Persian Gulf, although the Pentagon has drawn up such options for the White House.

“The capabilities that the U.S. provides for the Afghans to be able to combat the Taliban and other threats that reside in Afghanistan are critical to their success,” Gen. Richard D. Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, told the Senate on Thursday.

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there.

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there. U.S. intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for al-Qaida to rebuild its strength within the country, according to U.S. officials. The classified assessment, first prepared last year for the Trump administration but not previously disclosed, is the latest in a series of grim predictions of Afghanistan’s future that intelligence analysts have delivered throughout the two-decade-long war. But the intelligence has landed in a changed political environment. While former President Donald Trump pushed for a withdrawal of all forces even before the terms of the peace deal required it, Biden has been more cautious, saying Thursday that he does not view May 1 as a deadline he must meet, although he also said he “could not picture” troops being in the country next year. The decision looms as one of the most critical of Biden’s young presidency. He long argued while vice president for a minimal presence in Afghanistan but has been said to have privately described as haunting the possibility of allowing the country to descend into collapse. Some senior Biden administration officials have expressed skepticism of any intelligence prediction of a resurgence of a weakened al-Qaida or of the Islamic State group. Taliban commanders remain opposed to the Islamic State in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida, which has little current presence in the country, could regroup instead in any number of other lawless regions around the world. Also left unanswered by the intelligence warning is the question of whether Afghanistan could really prosper if U.S. troops remain indefinitely. Their presence would most likely prevent a collapse of the nation’s own security forces and allow the government in Kabul, the Afghan capital, to retain control of its major cities, but the Taliban are still likely to gradually expand their power in other parts of the country, including curbing the rights of women. A Taliban spokesperson said Friday that the group was committed to last year’s peace agreement “and wants the American side to also remain firmly committed.” If troops are not withdrawn by May 1, the spokesperson promised, the Taliban would “continue its jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces.” Biden administration officials insisted no final decision had been made. Nevertheless, with the deadline looming, administration officials are jockeying to influence Biden and his top national security officials. While Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not signaled what course of action he prefers, some Pentagon officials who believe U.S. forces should stay longer have pointed to the intelligence assessment predicting a Taliban takeover of the country. Some military commanders and administration officials have argued that any set date for withdrawing the approximately 3,500 U.S. troops who remain, whether it is May 1 or at the end of the year, will doom the mission. The only way to preserve hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, they said, is to keep the small U.S. presence there long enough to force a lasting deal between the Taliban and Afghan government. These officials have used the intelligence assessment to make the point that a withdrawal this year will lead to a fall of the current government, a sharp erosion of women’s rights and the return of international terrorist groups. A rush to the exit, some officials said, will only drag the United States back into Afghanistan soon after leaving — much as was the case in Iraq in 2014, three years after the Obama administration pulled troops out of that conflict. The White House has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan, and more are to come. On Thursday, the president said he was waiting for briefings from Austin, who met recently with Afghan officials, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who conferred this week with NATO allies, for their bottom-line advice on what he should do. For many Biden administration officials, the issue that has resonated the most clearly is the threat that a Taliban takeover could pose to Afghan women. While some former intelligence officials predict the Taliban will initially take care not to roll back women’s rights altogether — at least in major cities — if they take over the entire country, it will be difficult to guarantee protections for women, such as education for girls and access to health care. “Any agreement must preserve their gains if Afghanistan wants to ensure the international community’s continued political and financial support,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council this week. “We will not give an inch on this point.” The Biden administration is making a final effort before May 1 to show progress in slow-moving negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Doha, Qatar. The Taliban, according to U.S. officials, are stalling. The administration is pushing the two sides to participate in a peace conference in Turkey to demonstrate progress. Simultaneously, the American and Taliban negotiators continue to try to cement a 90-day reduction in violence, but so far, both sides have hesitated to agree. The classified intelligence assessment of the Taliban largely taking control assumes that the Afghan government and the Taliban fail to reach a political agreement and that a civil war would erupt after the U.S. exit. Administration officials warned that making any intelligence estimate is challenging, that predictions about the future are always imprecise and that various factors influence the analysis. For example, intelligence estimates depend on whether international funding for the Afghan government remains in place. The more money the United States and its allies provide Afghanistan, the longer the government in Kabul should be able to retain control of some of the country. But some officials said that history shows that once U.S. troops are withdrawn, Congress moves quickly to cut financial support for partner forces. There is also a debate in Washington about the seriousness of the threat of a return of terrorist groups. For now, the number of Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan is very small, a senior U.S. official said. Some senior lawmakers with access to the classified assessments said that it was not certain that if the United States withdrew that al-Qaida could rebuild a base in Afghanistan from which to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States. “What is that threat really going to be?” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said this week during a virtual conference on Afghanistan. “This isn’t the 1990s when al-Qaida set up camps, and they had the Taliban, and no one was paying attention to them.” Smith said keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan actually increased the risk to Americans there, incurred greater financial costs and handed a propaganda victory and recruiting tool to the U.S.’ enemies. Some counterterrorism officials believe that al-Qaida would prefer to reestablish its headquarters in Afghanistan, should U.S. troops withdraw. But other officials said al-Qaida’s leadership might be just as likely to look to Africa or the Middle East. While U.S. intelligence officials have been mostly focused on the threat of al-Qaida, senior military officials have also raised the prospect of a growth in the power of the Afghanistan arm of the Islamic State. But in recent years, the Taliban have been at odds with the Islamic State. The two groups have fought, and the Taliban have for the most part pushed back Islamic State forces. “I can’t imagine a scenario where ISIS and the Taliban would strategically cooperate or collaborate in Afghanistan,” said Lisa Maddox, a former CIA analyst. “The Taliban is an ideological organization, and that ideology is Afghan-centric and not aligned with ISIS’ overarching goals.” The intelligence estimate predicted that the Taliban would relatively swiftly expand their control over Afghanistan, suggesting that the Afghan security forces remain fragile despite years of training by the U.S. military and billions of dollars in U.S. funding. Offensives last year in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two areas in the country’s south where the Taliban have long held sway, demonstrated that police and local forces are unable to hold ground, prompting elite commando forces and regular army troops to take their place — a tactic that is likely unsustainable in the long run. Afghan security forces still rely heavily on U.S. air support to hold territory, which U.S. military leaders acknowledged this week. It is unclear whether that U.S. air power would continue if U.S. forces left Afghanistan, perhaps launched from bases in the Persian Gulf, although the Pentagon has drawn up such options for the White House. “The capabilities that the U.S. provides for the Afghans to be able to combat the Taliban and other threats that reside in Afghanistan are critical to their success,” Gen. Richard D. Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, told the Senate on Thursday.

Officials try to sway Biden using intelligence on potential for Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

A few days after US President Joe Biden hinted that all of the US troops might not be withdrawn by the deadline of May 01, the Taliban has issued a warning, threatening retaliation.

On Friday, the Taliban threatened that it will resume targeting foreign troops in Afghanistan if the US fails to meet the May 01 deadline to withdraw all troops.

Taliban warned the US that it will be "compelled to... continue its Jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces to liberate its country" if the US does not make good of its word.

Last week, the US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> announced that he is "in the process of making that decision now as to when they'll leave", but also said that it is difficult to meet the May 01 deadline, as per the deal agreed upon between Taliban and the former US President Donald Trump.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-says-us-troops-withdrawal-tough-by-may-1-taliban-warns-of-consequences-371196">Biden says US troops withdrawal 'tough' by May 1; Taliban warns of 'consequences'</a>

"The fact is that that was not a very solidly negotiated deal that the president, the former president worked out," Biden said, blaming Trump.

"The failure to have an orderly transition from the Trump presidency to my presidency, which usually takes place from election day to the time he's sworn in, has cost me time and consequences. That's one of the issues we're talking about now, in terms of Afghanistan."

This was not well received by the Taliban, who had even back then warned of consequences.

"The Americans should end their occupation in accordance with the Doha deal and fully withdraw their forces from Afghanistan by May 1," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP. "If they don't do it, be it for any reason and pretexts, then they will be responsible for the consequences."

Taliban has assured that it is committed to the agreement, calling it the "most sensible and shortest path" to end 20 years of ongoing Afghanistan-America conflict.

The group also warned that the responsibility of its prolongation "will be on the shoulders of those who committed this violation."

A few days after US President Joe Biden hinted that all of the US troops might not be withdrawn by the deadline of May 01, the Taliban has issued a warning, threatening retaliation.

A few days after US President Joe Biden hinted that all of the US troops might not be withdrawn by the deadline of May 01, the Taliban has issued a warning, threatening retaliation. On Friday, the Taliban threatened that it will resume targeting foreign troops in Afghanistan if the US fails to meet the May 01 deadline to withdraw all troops. Taliban warned the US that it will be "compelled to... continue its Jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces to liberate its country" if the US does not make good of its word. Last week, the US President Joe Biden announced that he is "in the process of making that decision now as to when they'll leave", but also said that it is difficult to meet the May 01 deadline, as per the deal agreed upon between Taliban and the former US President Donald Trump. Also read | Biden says US troops withdrawal 'tough' by May 1; Taliban warns of 'consequences' "The fact is that that was not a very solidly negotiated deal that the president, the former president worked out," Biden said, blaming Trump. "The failure to have an orderly transition from the Trump presidency to my presidency, which usually takes place from election day to the time he's sworn in, has cost me time and consequences. That's one of the issues we're talking about now, in terms of Afghanistan." This was not well received by the Taliban, who had even back then warned of consequences. "The Americans should end their occupation in accordance with the Doha deal and fully withdraw their forces from Afghanistan by May 1," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP. "If they don't do it, be it for any reason and pretexts, then they will be responsible for the consequences." Taliban has assured that it is committed to the agreement, calling it the "most sensible and shortest path" to end 20 years of ongoing Afghanistan-America conflict. The group also warned that the responsibility of its prolongation "will be on the shoulders of those who committed this violation."

Taliban threatens resuming attacks on foreign troops if Biden fails to meet May 01 deadline

The Afghan Foreign Minister&nbsp;Mohammad Haneef Atmar, who is on a three-day New Delhi visit, has described India's role as "critical" when it comes to the Afghan peace process.

Speaking exclusively to WION Principal Diplomatic Correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Atmar said, "India's role is critical to regional and international consensus."

Lauding India's initiative on Chabahar port, Atmar said it "is going to be a key enabler of regional connectivity". India has provided four cranes for the Chabahar port to Iran this year and sees the port as key to its connectivity to Afghanistan, Central Asia and beyond.

He also spoke on US proposal for Afghan peace talks under UN umbrella, cross border terror issue, and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's proposal for elections.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Exclusive?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Exclusive</a> | "I hope that recent efforts made by Pakistan in support of Afghan peace process will lead to result and that would end terrorism," <a href="https://twitter.com/MHaneefAtmar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MHaneefAtmar</a>, Afghan foreign minister, speaks to WION's <a href="https://twitter.com/sidhant?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sidhant</a>. <a href="https://t.co/2s6zfQo9Z7">pic.twitter.com/2s6zfQo9Z7</a>
— WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1374592744610430982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Here is the full interview:

WION: How do you see New Delhi's role in Afghan peace process?

Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: New Delhi has a critical role in bringing regional and our international partners together. India's role is critical to regional and international consensus.

WION: How do you see issue of cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan? Will Pakistan change its policy?

 
Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: We have been working with Pakistan and with all our regional partners. We have demonstrated quite seriously and provided the evidence that terrorism in the region is the common enemy. Terrorism will effect everybody . It's common enemy to all. It's strong a basis for us all to work together. I hope that recent efforts made by Pakistan in support of Afghan peace process will lead to result and that would end terrorism.

 
WION: There were reports of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani perhaps giving proposal for election if Taliban agrees. Can you share details?

Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: President has already made his intention publicly stated. He said that if Taliban agreed to political settlement, which is consistent with Afghan aspirations and, if Taliban agree to holding election, the president will be willing to hold early presidential election for inclusivity. Free and fair election is a means of allowing the Afghan people to determine their future.

WION: How do you see proposal by America when it comes to UN-led initiative for peace process, in which India has also been named? Is it a welcoming thing in Kabul?

Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: We support all regional and international initiatives in support of the Afghan peace process. Especially if these initiatives remain faithful to a key principle that has been universally agreed that Afghan peace process and outcome of process is &nbsp;acceptable to Afghan people.

WION: How do you see Chabahar Project connecting India to Afghanistan and wider Central Asian region?

Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: Chabahar is going to be key enabler of regional connectivity. We believe India has invested with good intention. We are hoping investment in railways, particularly connecting Chabahar to &nbsp;Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Central Asia, and it will be the next step to make that regional connectivity real.

The Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar, who is on a three-day New Delhi visit, has described India's role as "critical" when it comes to the Afghan peace process.

The Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar, who is on a three-day New Delhi visit, has described India's role as "critical" when it comes to the Afghan peace process. Speaking exclusively to WION Principal Diplomatic Correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Atmar said, "India's role is critical to regional and international consensus." Lauding India's initiative on Chabahar port, Atmar said it "is going to be a key enabler of regional connectivity". India has provided four cranes for the Chabahar port to Iran this year and sees the port as key to its connectivity to Afghanistan, Central Asia and beyond. He also spoke on US proposal for Afghan peace talks under UN umbrella, cross border terror issue, and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's proposal for elections. #Exclusive | "I hope that recent efforts made by Pakistan in support of Afghan peace process will lead to result and that would end terrorism," @MHaneefAtmar, Afghan foreign minister, speaks to WION's @sidhant. pic.twitter.com/2s6zfQo9Z7 — WION (@WIONews) March 24, 2021 × Here is the full interview: WION: How do you see New Delhi's role in Afghan peace process? Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: New Delhi has a critical role in bringing regional and our international partners together. India's role is critical to regional and international consensus. WION: How do you see issue of cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan? Will Pakistan change its policy? Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: We have been working with Pakistan and with all our regional partners. We have demonstrated quite seriously and provided the evidence that terrorism in the region is the common enemy. Terrorism will effect everybody . It's common enemy to all. It's strong a basis for us all to work together. I hope that recent efforts made by Pakistan in support of Afghan peace process will lead to result and that would end terrorism. WION: There were reports of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani perhaps giving proposal for election if Taliban agrees. Can you share details? Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: President has already made his intention publicly stated. He said that if Taliban agreed to political settlement, which is consistent with Afghan aspirations and, if Taliban agree to holding election, the president will be willing to hold early presidential election for inclusivity. Free and fair election is a means of allowing the Afghan people to determine their future. WION: How do you see proposal by America when it comes to UN-led initiative for peace process, in which India has also been named? Is it a welcoming thing in Kabul? Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: We support all regional and international initiatives in support of the Afghan peace process. Especially if these initiatives remain faithful to a key principle that has been universally agreed that Afghan peace process and outcome of process is acceptable to Afghan people. WION: How do you see Chabahar Project connecting India to Afghanistan and wider Central Asian region? Afghan FM Mohammad Haneef Atmar: Chabahar is going to be key enabler of regional connectivity. We believe India has invested with good intention. We are hoping investment in railways, particularly connecting Chabahar to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Central Asia, and it will be the next step to make that regional connectivity real.

WION Exclusive: Afghan foreign minister says India has a critical role to play in peace process

taliban

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